Quote of the Day

Take your pick from the many quotes on religion posted today at Democratic Underground. It looks like a useful link to keep around for the next conservative that argues that this is a Christian nation and the fouding fathers didn’t really support separation of church and state.

Posted in Religion. Tags: . No Comments »

Oscar Win Stimulates Further Speculation of Gore Run

The publicity from last night’s Oscar win has predictably started yet another round of speculation among those who would like to see Gore elected President again. Politco provides a good round up of his recent activity and comments, much of which has already been the subject of posts here and around the blogosphere. They quote Donna Brazile:

“Honestly, this was the inaugural parade we all envisioned,” said Donna Brazile, his former campaign manager. “Gore’s political stock is hot right now. I don’t know if I would cash in now with so many players still on stage. There’s no reason to force him to declare tomorrow. ”

Indeed, Brazile said the former vice president could wait as late as the time states begin requiring delegate slates and statements of candidacy, since he could raise money quickly and much of the campaigns’ budgets are devoted to a long nominating process he would avoid. “This was one of those rare moments, similar to the civil rights movement, when you experience the ground shifting,” she said. “Perhaps it’s not a movement for a presidential run, but a moment for the debate to start for real change on how we live on planet earth.”

Washington Whispers speculated yesterday that Gore could wait to enter the race as he could finance the early stages of a run himself:

If you’re wondering why, despite his denials, Al Gore remains the most talked about nonpresidential candidate, it’s this: His friends think he’s done so well in the private world that he could bankroll the start of his own 2008 bid. “If Al Gore wants to run, he will come with all the means necessary,” says longtime ally Donna Brazile. “Al Gore is someone who can pull it off at half time,” she said. But he’s got competing interests for his wallet: Friends say he also wants to expand his global climate change campaign.

Obama and Decisions of War and Peace

Andrew Sullivan has posted another statement from Barack Obama from 2002 in which he showed he understood the problems of invading Iraq. He also made it clear he would have voted no on the Iraq War Resolution. This is why he stands a chance of beating Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

The question isn’t whether or not someone has apologized for their vote, or now says they will get us out of Iraq. This is a matter of fundamental judgement. At the time of the IWR vote it was clear that invading Iraq was unnecessary and would lead to disaster. Obama realized this while Clinton and Edwards did not. As Obama has said, “The authorization vote is relevant only because it gives an insight into how people think about these problems and suggests the sort of judgment they apply in evaluating a policy decision.”

My main concern is not over how they voted or what they say about their vote now, but whether I trust the candidate to make the right decision over matters of war and peace in the future. Obama comes out far ahead of Clinton and Edwards on this test. In 2004 I supported John Kerry despite disagreeing with his vote because Kerry spoke out before the war warning, as Obama did, that the difficult part would be after Saddam was overthrown should we go to war. Despite his vote, Kerry made it clear before the war began that his vote to authorize force as a last resort did not justify going to war in the absence of evidence that we were threatened by WMD. Unlike Edwards and Clinton, Obama and Kerry were saying this before the war began, and didn’t wait until a majority of voters shared this view. Obama also realized that giving such authorization to Bush would be a bad precedent to set and would be a mistake.

An Inconvenient Truth Wins Oscar for Best Documentary

It was a big night for Al Gore at the Academy Awards. After appearing earlier in the show to tease the audience about making an announcement, Al Gore returned to the stage to accept an Oscar for best documentary. Ellen DeGeneres also referred to Gore at the start of the show, saying “And then, Al Gore is here, America did vote for him, and then — [applause] Very complicated.” (Videos from Think Progress.) In accepting the award, Gore said,

My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis.
It’s not a political issue, it’s a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started with the possible exception of the will to act. That’s a renewable resource. Let’s renew it.

Hollywood Today looks at Gore, and the role of Hollywood in politics:

If this doesn’t seem that impressive, think about the fact that Al Gore had been championing environmental causes, particularly global warming, for much of his thirty-year political career without making much of a dent in mainstream social consciousness. In one year, however, with the help of some Hollywood wizardry, he took an academic slide-show presentation and turned it into an international blockbuster. Dare we say social phenomenon.

This Oscar could be just the beginning of a year full of such honors for Mr. Gore. He was also recently named one of many nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize, for his work on the environment. However, he has a good chance, according to some. “A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference,” said Boerge Brende, a Norwegian member of Parliament who nominated Gore.

Gore has created a whole new career for himself as a media mogul with the help of his celebrity friends. He is leading a revolution in socially responsible media, and as his credibility grows in Hollywood, more and more celebrities are jumping on the bandwagon.

Gore does not seem to be shying away from the camera. His newest endeavor is “Live Earth”, a 24-hour concert on 7/7/07 that will take place across all seven continents, including Antarctica (for the penguins I guess), which will bring over 100 of the world’s biggest musical acts together to raise awareness of global warming. Just in case you missed the movie.

Ever since he has declared himself a “recovering politician” a vast portion of the American public seems to hang on his every word and looks ready to follow him into a twenty-first century environmental battlefield in Toyota Priuses. Would we really be paying this much attention to Al Gore if he weren’t surrounding himself with chiseled Hollywood faces?

Americans these days seem more willing to believe social commentary when it comes from George Clooney or Live Earth spokesperson Cameron Diaz than from the President of the United States.

What does it mean when Al Gore becomes more effective as a celebrity than a statesman? For one, it seems to justify the larger role Hollywood has begun to take in politics. If “Inconvenient Truth” can help fix global warming then who’s going to scoff at Brad and Angelina when they make quixotic statements about ending world hunger. After all, at least people will listen to them.

Update: Oscar Win Stimulates Further Speculation of Gore Run

Acceptance of Science and Reason In Presidential Candidates–John McCain and the Discovery Institute

The differences between the political parties in their views of science has become of increasing significance in recent years. One reason for the failure of Republican government in recent years has been their separation from reality. We saw this in their claims about WMD and ties between Saddam and al Qaeda to justify the Iraq War. We see conservatives opposing the consensus of scientific belief on evolution, cosmology, geology (if it disagrees with their ideas on the age of the earth), and climate change. You cannot devise workable public policy when ideology prevents a rational review of the facts.

John McCain’s talk before the Discovery Institute, the organization responsible for many of those nonsense conservative talking points against evolution, has emphasized the anti-science bias prevalent in the Republican Party. Shelley Batts discusses the relationship between presidential candidates and the company they seek among those hostile to science:

It is of the utmost importance that a president, or future preseident, have rational thinking and reasoning skills as well as a firm grasp over what constitutes scientific evidence in the formulation of theories. A president makes crucial decisions every day which impact the lives of millions of people. The election of a person who demonstrates an inability to assimilate facts and observations in a way that makes sense, but rather defaults to an emotional mythology, would be a grave mistake. Therefore, not only is it beyond reproach for the “intelligent liberal community” to impose a requirement of rationality on a future president, it would be ludicrous to do otherwise. Yes, I believe that influential people who cannot use their power in a coherant, scientifically-supportable way merits contempt.

Whether or not John McCain really believes in intelligent design, who’s to say? I tend to think he doesn’t, and this talk is just another panderfest to the conservative right. The problem is, in a presidential election, guilt-by-association is a very real thing. The reason for this is that there are no accidental appearances; every minute of McCain’s time from now until election day will be carefully planned, weighed, pondered over, and scrutinized by his team for maximum effect. This talk hosted by the DI, while not specifically admitting to agree with intelligent design, was also no accident. And the fact that a DI luncheon was an attractive place to spend his time in his quest to develop his image and become president, reveals that the image that HE wants to mold is very, very far from the image of the president I would elect.

Presidental hopefuls keep a keen eye out for oppertunities to ingratiate themselves with certain factions (McCain, as with any other). McCain had a oppertunity to associate himself with a pro-ID organization or, not to. He chose to do it. I hope it was worth it.

Regardless of whether they know better themselves, the Republican candidates find it necessary to align themselves with those who oppose science. Regardless of where one stands on specific issues, we are increasingly seeing the choice as being one political party which accepts facts over ideology, and therefore is more likely to promote pragmatic solutions to problems, and another which is tied to extremists who are willing to ignore all scientific and other evidence which contradicts their beliefs. As long as the Republican Party remains captive to those who share the views of organizations such as The Discovery Institute they will not be capable of governing.

Obama Pulling In Large Crowds Nationwide; Video of Austin Appearance On Line

I just quoted one candidate for the nomination. If you’d like to hear another, the video of Barack Obama’s speech in Austin from Friday is available on line. The has campaign spread well beyond the traditional living rooms of Iowa and New Hampshire voters at a very early date. AP reports that Obama is building his national reputation in this manner and lining up small donors nation wide. They also report that these appearances are bringing in more people than George Bush when he speaks, as well as more than the other Democratic candidates.

“I think the crowds are indicative of people wanting a fresh face and wanting a leader who can bring America forward,” said Trav Robertson, an experienced South Carolina Democratic campaign operative who attended events for Obama and rival Hillary Rodham Clinton in the past week and hasn’t settled on a candidate to support.

Robertson said both Clinton and Obama brought out packed and excited crowds, although Obama held his event in a larger setting and seemed to bring out more people he hadn’t seen around in politics before.

Richardson Calls For Diplomacy On Iran

With Tom Vilsack out of the race, there might be an opening for Bill Richardson to get some attention from those who believe that an experienced Governor is the best choice, especially one from a red state. It is hard for the second tier candidates to get attention with such big names as Clinton, Obama, and Edwards dominating the news, but Richardson is trying to get more attention for his foreign policy views in an op-ed in today’s Washington Post. Richardson, a former ambassador to the United Nations, calls for diplomacy to handle the risk of Iran’s nuclear program. Here’s a portion:

Saber-rattling is not a good way to get the Iranians to cooperate. But it is a good way to start a new war — a war that would be a disaster for the Middle East, for the United States and for the world. A war that, furthermore, would destroy what little remains of U.S. credibility in the community of nations.

A better approach would be for the United States to engage directly with the Iranians and to lead a global diplomatic offensive to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. We need tough, direct negotiations, not just with Iran but also with our allies, especially Russia, to get them to support us in presenting Iran with credible carrots and sticks.

No nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons, but many have chosen to do so. The Iranians will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names. They will renounce nukes because we convince them that they will be safer and more prosperous if they do that than if they don’t. This feat will take more than threats and insults. It will take skillful American diplomatic leadership.

Addressing a major foreign policy issue which will be faced by the next president seems to be a better way to spend the week than fighting over what a Hollywood fund raiser had to say.

Carter Pushing For Gore To Run

Earlier in the week I wrote about speculation that Al Gore might announce plans to run for President should he be on stage to accept an Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth. While Gore won’t get the backing of the last Democratic president for obvious reasons, he does have the backing of a previous one. Jimmy Carter, in an interview to appear on This Week, expresses his support for Gore:

Carter told ABC News, “If Al should decide to run — which I’m afraid he won’t — I would support Al Gore.”

The former Democratic President asserted Gore could accomplish much more in the White House than he ever could as a private citizen, saying to Stephanopoulos, “His burning issue now is global warming and preventing it.  He can do infinitely more to accomplish that goal as in the incumbent in the White House, than he can making even movies that get — you know, that get Oscars.”

While he has been pushing for him to run, Carter does not believe this is likely to happen:

Despite public pressure from Carter and others, the former President does not believe Gore will make a second bid for the White House saying, “I don’t think he will.  I’ve put so much pressure on Al to run that he’s almost gotten aggravated with me.”

Carter told Stephanopoulos that he had not called Gore “lately” adding, “He almost told me, the last time I talked, ‘Don’t call me anymore.'”

Carter joked that Gore had offered to support him in 2008 and referred to Gore as “my favorite” in the interview, concluding, “I really have not expressed any public approval or endorsement or preference for any of the Democratic candidates except (Gore).”

Psychics Hired to Find Bin Laden and WMD

They haven’t found where Osama bin Laden is hiding. They haven’t found WMD (except in the imagination of right wing bloggers). You can’t say they aren’t trying everything. The Daily Mail reports that declassified papers from the British Ministry of Defense reveal that psychics were hired in the hopes of using them to find bin Laden and WMD:

Newly declassified documents revealed that the MoD conducted an experiment to see if volunteers could ‘see’ objects hidden inside an envelope.

It is claimed the ministry hoped positive results would allow it to use psychics to ‘remotely view’ Bin Laden’s base and also to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

However, after running up a bill of £18,000 of taxpayers’ money, defence chiefs concluded there was ‘little value’ in using psychic powers in the defence of the nation and the research was taken no further.

The study, conducted in 2002, involved blindfolding test subjects and asking them to ‘see’ the contents of sealed brown envelopes containing pictures of objects and public figures.

The MoD tried to recruit 12 ‘known’ psychics who advertised their abilities on the Internet, but when they all refused they were forced to use ‘novice’ volunteers.

Cheney Is As Nutty As The Right Wing Bloggers

Back when George Bush first picked Dick Cheney to be Vice President (or was it Dick Cheney who picked Dick Cheney?) the thought was that this older and more experienced politician would provide the benefits of his experience to the Bush administration. There was one thing about Dick Cheney that wasn’t taken into consideration–the guy is out of touch with reality.

ABC News conducted an interview with Dick Cheney which shows how far gone he is. In 1991 Cheney warned, “For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.” Cheney was asked about this by Jonathan Karl:

Karl: Back in 1991, you talked about how military action in Iraq would be the classic definition of a quagmire. Have you been disturbed to see how right you were? Or people certainly said that you were exactly on target in your analysis back in 1991 of what would happen if the U.S. tried to go in —

Cheney: Well, I stand by what I said in ’91. But look what’s happened since then — we had 9/11. We’ve found ourselves in a situation where what was going on in that part of the globe and the growth and development of the extremists, the al Qaeda types that are prepared to strike the United States demonstrated that we weren’t safe and secure behind our own borders. We weren’t in Iraq when we got hit on 9/11. But we got hit in ’93 at the World Trade Center, in ’96 at Khobar Towers, or ’98 in the East Africa embassy bombings, 2000, the USS Cole. And of course, finally 9/11 right here at home. They continued to hit us because we didn’t respond effectively, because they believed we were weak. They believed if they killed enough Americans, they could change our policy because they did on a number of occasions. That day has passed. That all ended with 9/11.

In Iraq, what we’ve done now is we’ve taken down Saddam Hussein. He’s dead. His sons are dead. His government is gone. There’s a democratically elected government in place. We’ve had three national elections in Iraq with higher turnout that we have in the United States. They’ve got a good constitution. They’ve got a couple hundred thousand men in arms now, trained and equipped to fight the good fight. They’re now fighting alongside Americans in Baghdad and elsewhere. There are — lots of the country that are in pretty good shape. We’ve got to get right in Baghdad. That’s the task at hand. I think we can do it.

Karl: But hasn’t our strategy been failing? Isn’t that why the president has had to come out with a new strategy?

Cheney: A failed strategy? Let’s see, we didn’t fail when we got rid of Saddam. We didn’t fail when we held elections. We didn’t fail when we got a constitution written. Those are all success stories.

Once again Cheney falls back on 9/11, even though there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Acting irrationally was hardly the appropriate response to being attacked. If occupying Iraq would lead to a quagmire, the need to go after al Qaeda provided more reason not to get bogged down there. Cheney has a strange view of success. Getting rid of Saddam was the easy part. Holding elections and writing a constitution are not true success stories unless we have a democratic government which is actually able to govern. Steve Benen also comments on the contradiction between Cheney saying the opposite yet also saying “I stand by what I said in ’91.”

Cheney was also asked about global warming and had his own views:

I think there’s an emerging consensus that we do have global warming. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we’re in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that’s part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it’s caused by man, greenhouse gases, etc.

Cheney has his own views as to what the consensus of scientists is on climate change. Last June the National Academy of Sciences published a review on climate change which was requested by Congress. They found that “recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.” and that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.” More recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a consensus statement stating that global warming is “unequivocal” and that human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.

Someone should explain to Dick Cheney that there is a consensus when scientists agree. The fact that anti-science conservatives disagree does not alter the consensus of the scientific community.

Ultimately Cheney demonstrates why Republican’s have failed so badly at governing. It’s one thing for the right wing bloggers to repeat this type of nonsense, but you’d expect people at the top to have some grasp on reality. Republicans succeed as an opposition party as not being bound by reality gives them unlimited grounds to attack. However government policies which are based on ideas which are counter to reality are doomed to fail.