Thank you, George W. Bush

On Feb. 7 I'm going with a friend to see Will Ferrell's one man Broadway show, You're Welcome America, where he plays our 43rd president.

George W. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001. I was 18 years old, and politically aware and interested but not ideologically developed. The vote I cast for Al Gore remains my proudest. Before Bush took the oath of office, I had a conversation with my high school girlfriend's father. He'd voted for Bush, and I told him that after Bush was through the country would be worse off economically and socially. He disagreed.

On this, the last night of the Bush presidency, I want to take a look back at his time in office.

9/11

Just in case the above anecdote makes me seem like a know it all, indulge me one more. After 9/11, my friend and I were sitting in his dorm room watching ex- presidents and dignitaries file into the National Cathedral for a mass marking the tragic event. Gore was on screen and I remarked, "Man, I voted for him, but I'm really glad that he's not president right now. We need Bush in there." He agreed.

Bush's bravado and cowboy style comforted a nation that had its sense of invincibility rocked. He was a man who would punish those responsible and restore order to our world. Check out this SNL clip, where Ferrell plays the president just after 9/11. The cheers and hoots are remarkable and almost startling.



We craved this kind of call- out, we wanted revenge. Seven years later, this clip is more sad than funny. If you'd told the members of SNL's studio audience that night that bin Laden would be on the run and releasing tapes in 2009 I don't think they'd have believed you. I certainly wouldn't have.

But Bush was his best in those early days, even if he didn't actually accomplish anything. I'd argue the two best moments of his presidency came in late 2001:

Here, Bush is confident and well spoken, even eloquent. He's not giving prepared remarks, but reacting to the emotion of the moment and words of workers at Ground Zero.



I don't like George W. Bush, and I hate the New York Yankees. But this was pretty cool--



The Aftermath

Bush executed the War on Terror in a reckless way that was often politically motivated. The Senate's vote for use of force against Iraq was held right before the '02 midterms, which turned it into a political issue.

Dick Cheney executed his "unitary executive" theory, which gave the president new power at the expense of civil liberties and international law. Neo- Cons executed their Iraq- as- Petri dish experiment for American hegemony in the 21st century unfettered, at the expense of American servicemen and women, uncounted civilians and America's alliances.

And the president wasn't curious enough or interested enough or competent enough to stop them.

Iraq

The Iraq War was, as John Kerry famously put it, the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. But with improved security in the country it has become Bush's best chance at lasting achievement, and the only thing that could rescue his name from historians' bottom tier of presidents, where he now seems destined to be remembered. A stable democracy in the heart of the Middle East, and the dismantling of an abhorrent dictator is a potential game changer for our world.

But it was sold under false pretenses and done on the cheap. And when it wasn't working, Bush didn't react. The failures in Iraq can fill books. And so it can never be a source of pride for Bush. But it does have potential.

The Economy

For much of Bush's eight years in office, before the economy collapsed in on itself, the country seemed to be doing quite well economically. Unemployment was stable near historic lows, the stock market routinely broke records, and home ownership was at its highest level ever. However, polls routinely showed that Americans didn't feel good about the economy. People didn't feel good about it because it wasn't working for them. Inequality skyrocketed during the Bush years, to levels that surpassed even the "Roarin' 20s."

Through tax cuts and loop holes corporate earnings and income for the wealthiest individuals were unprecedented. Yet the benefits failed to trickle down to the rest of us. And when inflated housing numbers popped they brought the DOW down too, and Bush's signature economic accomplishments were undone while he still lived in the White House.

The Administration

In Paul Krugman's 2007 book The Conscience of a Liberal the economist distinguishes the Republican party of Eisenhower, Nixon and Bush 41 from that of George W. Bush. Bush 43 emanated from what Krugman calls"movement conservatism," and one of its main tenets is patronage based on loyalty rather than expertise.

That became evident as figures drifted from the administration to companies they were supposed to be regulating and back. It was clear after the utter incompetence of horse breeder turned FEMA director, Michael Brown who still enjoyed George Bush's loyalty even as people suffered through the federal government's incompetence.



Conclusion

Bush's presidency might be best understood through the lens of what's known as the Peter Principle. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain.

George Bush rose to a level for which he was simply incompetent.

However, his presidency is not so much a personal failure, I think, as it is a failure of ideology and a corrupt politics. George Bush's disposition and personal character and story made him somewhat of a blank canvas on which movement conservatives could project their vision of government. For eight years we endured that vision.

Now, thanks to that experience, eroding racism and a shift in demographics movement conservatives have turned the Republican party into a mostly regional force. When the party returns to national prominence, we can expect it to look very different.

So perhaps Bush's legacy is that he made today possible. He helped elect the most progressive government since the 1930s. And I firmly believe our country will be better off for it. What's more, he put the country in a place where it was finally ready move past, not so much its racial divisions, but the cultural roils that defined the baby boom generation. Now that our first post- Boomer is in the White House we can close the book on George W. Bush's presidency and that tumultuous age.

So, thank you, George W. Bush.

Gore on "Clean" Coal, Drilling, Nuclear

Is this some sort of hilarious joke?

I wanted to ignore John McCain's nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice President out of reverence for last night's speech. But the move deserves at least 10 quick observations:

1. There are 3 types of vice president, and before Al Gore there was only 1. Gore was a trusted adviser, in the room when many key decisions were made. His opinion mattered. Dick Cheney ran the country. Before 1992, vice presidents had two functions: don't embarrass the administration and don't get in the way. Joe Biden is a pick in the Gore mold, Sarah Palin is a pick in the Charles Curtis mold.


2. For those of you familiar with sports and gambling: The over/ under on the number of words John McCain ever says to Sarah Palin in his entire life: 95


3. It was a political move, and that's OK, we understand that. But what is inexcusable, is that yesterday John McCain chose a woman whose experience outside of 2 years as governor was as mayor of an Alaskan village of 9,000. Yesterday also happened to be Sen. McCain's 72nd birthday.


4. Say what you will-- Sarah Palin is not a bad looking lady.


5. The idea that women will vote for John McCain because he put a woman on the ballot is deeply offensive.


6. The notion that Sarah Palin can be compared to Hillary Clinton is insulting.


7. I guarantee those glasses are fake.


8. The GOP wanted a woman, but they also wanted someone who would satisfy the right-wing (pro-life, "unsure" about global warming). So, it's no wonder they had to search so far, wide and weird to find someone to fit the bill.


9. Barack Obama has shown faith in Americans' ability to see beyond ploys, and willingness to choose optimism in the face of doubt. Meanwhile, John McCain has made the exact opposite wager.


10. The number one criterion in choosing a VP, by definition, is whether or not the individual can be an effective president if necessary. Barack Obama's case for superior judgment was made a whole lot easier yesterday.

Back with the Assault Paperback

My last final (ever) is behind me, so I'm back to the blog. The book that inspired the site is coming out on paperback: The Assault on Reason.

To launch the paperback, Al Gore wrote a message and had a chat on Amazon.com.

I've dedicated my book, The Assault on Reason, to my father, Senator Albert Gore Sr., the bravest politician I've ever known. In the 1970 mid-term elections, President Richard Nixon relied on a campaign of fear to consolidate his power... my father was accused of being unpatriotic because he was steadfast in his opposition to the War--and as he was labeled an atheist because he dared to oppose a constitutional amendment to foster government-sponsored prayer in the public schools. The 1970 campaign is now regarded by political historians as a watershed, marking a sharp decline in the tone of our national discourse--a decline that has only worsened in recent years as fear has become a more powerful political tool than trust, public consumption of entertainment has dramatically surpassed that of serious news, and blind faith has proven more potent than truth.

Amazon.com: You have a chapter on the importance of checks and balances in government (in a sense, that's what the whole book is about), and we're seeing the effect that active oversight from Congress is having right now. For most of your eight years in office, you and Bill Clinton had to work with a Republican Congress. I'm sure that at times (say, 1998) that had its frustrations, but do you think it was valuable to have that balance, or did it prevent you from doing what you came into office to do?

Gore: Checks and balances are vital to the functioning of our system of government. Of course it can have its frustrations, but the Founders intended that we have a system whereby no one branch has too much control over the others. Ultimately, it is up to voters to decide the control of Congress and the White House and then for elected officials to work to serve the public interest and to try to implement policies that serve the country. These are core values that are at the heart of who we are as a nation.

Amazon.com: I wanted to ask about the Office of the Vice President. I think it's safe to say that the last two vice presidents, you and Dick Cheney, have been the most powerful and influential in our history. Why do you think that is?

Gore: I think the answer is very different in the two administrations, but in a world that is truly globalized, with a broader information ecology, with challenges ranging from a more complex system of international issues ranging from the climate crisis to asymmetric attacks, it is not a surprise that a President might choose to draw upon more advice from the office of the vice president than in the past. This is a trend that I would expect to continue under future presidents, as the range of the demands on the presidency will not diminish over time.

Growing Gobama Buzz

In his latest column for Time Magazine, old SAM Online favorite, Joe Klien, touches on what he admits is a very unlikely scenario.

That would be Barack Obama being unable to gain the support of working- class whites, and the emergence of a ticket led by Al Gore, with Obama (and his 1900 delegates) on the back end.

This would only happen if the Democrats were deadlocked, and neither Obama or Hillary Clinton were able to get the necessary 2025 delegates for the nomination.

As Klien notes- "Chances are, no one will hand [the nomination] to [Gore]. The Democratic Party would have to be monumentally desperate come June."

But also- "A prominent fund raiser told me, 'Gore-Obama is the ticket a lot of people wanted in the first place.'"

If only...

Recently, Florida Congressman and uncommitted superdelegate Tim Mahoney told a local paper that if he headed to August's Denver Democratic National Convention without a nominee, things could get interesting: "If [that happens], don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket."

Someone, like Al Gore.

Mahoney suggested that Democrats could get behind either a Gore/ Clinton or Gore/ Obama ticket. From Gore's point of view, a Gore/ Obama scenario is far more likely as he doesn't get along with the Clintons well anymore, and seems to have more in common with Obama.

Okay, so this probably (definitely) isn't going to happen. But, it raises a good opportunity to talk about the person most qualified to be the next president-- the man that combines Hillary's experience (only not fabricated) and Obama's judgment (only more specific).

Gore is always the smartest person in the room, and he knows it-- and that's always been his biggest problem. Back in 2000, when he rolled his eyes every time George Bush attempted to answer a question, it was the genuine reaction of a guy a foot smarter than his opponent.

A couple of days ago, I posted the speech Barack Obama gave a week before the authorization to invade Iraq. Now, it's time to rehash Gore's. Their conclusions are identical, but the speeches, like the men themselves, are very different.

Where Obama's is short and to the point, Gore's is long and methodical. Obama's is soaring and inspiring, and almost poetic in its delivery. Gore is scientific as he breaks down, point by point, why the war is the wrong decision. It's like a law review article in his precision, perhaps one drafted by Holmes.

Quick reminder: the speech was given on Sept. 23, 2002. At the time President Bush's approval ratings were in the upper 60s, and Al Gore had yet to publicly criticize any move by the president since their divisive 2000 election.

It's long, so here's the link to the transcript, and below are some key excepts.

Contrasting the first Gulf War (which he vigorously supported) with the present proposed action:

... Fifth, President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 to push for a vote at the beginning of the new Congress in January of 1991. President George W. Bush, by contrast, is pushing for a vote in this Congress immediately before the election. Rather than making efforts to dispel concern at home an abroad about the role of politics in the timing of his policy, the President is publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a "no" vote - even as the Republican National Committee runs pre-packaged advertising based on the same theme -- in keeping with the political strategy clearly described in a White House aide's misplaced computer disk, which advised Republican operatives that their principal game plan for success in the election a few weeks away was to "focus on the war." Vice President Cheney, meanwhile indignantly described suggestions of political motivation "reprehensible." The following week he took his discussion of war strategy to the Rush Limbaugh show.

On preemptive war:

By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network - much as we manage to squander in one year's time the largest budget surpluses in history and convert them into massive fiscal deficits. He has compounded this by asserting a new doctrine - of preemption.

Iraq after invasion:

... Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.

... When Secretary Rumsfield was asked recently about what our responsibility for restabilizing Iraq would be in an aftermath of an invasion, he said, "that's for the Iraqis to come together and decide."

Concluding:

... What this doctrine does is to destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.

I believe that we can effectively defend ourselves abroad and at home without dimming our principles. Indeed, I believe that our success in defending ourselves depends precisely on not giving up what we stand for.

The Gore-acle Says...

The man many waited to join the '08 Democratic field may be on the verge of endorsing Barack Obama.

Al Gore, who words inspired this site, had vowed to stay on the sidelines throughout the primaries. And perhaps after the former Veep's honest dismissals of a possible third run for the White House, we should take him at his word. But the NY Daily News reports that he's considering coming out for Obama.

It's no secret that Gore and Hillary have been at odds since the 90s, and that the division deepened after the 2000 campaign. But Gore also is keenly aware of his new role of elder statesman, and may prefer to stay above the fray.

The News quotes two anonymous sources:

"The level of animus between them is unbelievable," a well-placed Hillary partisan confided.

A prominent Democratic strategist with close ties to both camps echoes: "The Clintons and the Gores can't stand each other."

The Gore endorsement would be a huge get for the Obama camp-- he's the "ultimate prize among uncommitted Superdelegates."

Picture of the Day 12/7

Nobel laureate Al Gore forgoes the traditional motorcade and takes public transportation to go pick up his Peace Prize.

After Oslo, it's off to London, home of Guinness World Records, where he'll pick up his award for "World's Largest Left Hand."

Picture of the Day 11/27

President George W. Bush welcomed the American winners of the 2007 Nobel Prizes at the White House, yesterday. Among them was former Vice President Al Gore, who split the peace prize for his work on global warming. The two former rivals met privately in the Oval Office before the rest of the delegation arrived. For Gore it was his first time in the Oval Office since he left the Vice Presidency in 2000.

When a White House reporter asked Gore if he missed the White House, Gore responded, "When you leave this beat, I'll ask you the same question."

Gore won the popular vote over President Bush, but lost the electoral college by 537 votes in Florida after the Supreme Court stopped the recounts there.

Recap: The Gore-acle on 30 Rock

As I mentioned last month, Al Gore taped an episode of 30 Rock, and it aired tonight as part of NBC's "Green Week."

Gore had a pretty minor role, but that show is hilarious and I'm doing my part to keep it on the air. So, check it out online here for free. I'll post my favorite quote from the episode below, and feel free to post your own in the comment section. Or you can just send them to me during my weekly 30 Rock fan club chat on mindgrapes.net... ok that's not real, but if anyone wants to start it let me know.

(my future ex-wife)Liz Lemon: Jack you have to fire Greenzo!
Jack Donaghy (reading over focus group test results): Are you crazy? They love him in every demographic: colored people, broads, fairies, commies. Gosh, we gotta update these forms.

If Al Gore won the 2000 elections?

Here's a little message circa May 2006 from President Gore.

Could you imagine?

Exaltation Without Nomination

Al Gore has won the Nobel Prize for Peace, and his Fred Thompson-like candidacy is supposed to now gain steam. Not that Gore has been a shameless exploiter of his position, like the former senator and actor was before finally throwing his hat in the ring. Gore has consistently rejected all notions that he'd run for the Democratic nomination, and tries to assure all that he'll stay a public statesman and raise issues he cares about.

However much Gore would like to convince the world (or maybe even himself) that he's done with national politics, there is a vibrant movement that wants to adopt Gore as a candidate for president. Msnbc.com has an interesting piece about die hard Goridians (yes, as in Floridians) who want to convince the liberal lion to run. They believe he's a new man and has the resume to challenge Senators Clinton, Obama and Biden, yet has the executive experience to thwart anything the Republicans throw his way.

It's great to see citizens motivated by an individual as such. Al Gore does bring a fresh sense of liberalism that isn't as calculating as Senator Clinton's, yet as drenched in ideal naivete as Senator Obama's. The former is as Charles Krauthammer perfectly describes: We can stand a Clinton presidency because she stands for nothing. The latter, the danger of executive inexperience, coupled with pie-in-the-sky dreams, can lead to a Carter-like term; a harsh realization of what it takes to lead creates inertia, then malaise. Gore can strive beyond that, and guide the nation into a new international system that calls for innovative domestic policies.

No doubt, Gore falls in that unfortunate group of presidential candidates who were more than qualified to win, but due to outside factors, basically politics, came just short. From New York Governor Al Smith to Senator John Kerry, there will always be shining examples of the should haves. Gore's painful 2000 loss is the stuff nightmares are made of: To be on the cusp of victory, then suddenly finding oneself as far back as Dennis Kucinich.

Still, if Gore wants to run, it has to be his decision. A committee cannot compel him to change his mind because it wants to. We're electing a king for four years, and this king is going to have to serve thousands of pancakes in Iowa, kiss even more babies in New Hampshire, and go hunting with union reps in Michigan before being crowned. It's considered the humbling of vain individuals who believe enough in themselves to lead the most powerful and wealthiest nation the world has yet known.

A Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding, Gore's going to have to buck up and play. Yet, to get into the game now only shows him to be using the same prize awarded to men like Gandhi and Reverend King for political purposes. Gore should remain on the sideline, and await a Clinton win. Then, as the Clinton team prepares its cabinet, just remember where you heard it first: Al Gore will head the Environmental Protection Agency.

Congrats Al

Al Gore, whose words inspired this site, won the Nobel Peace Prize today, it was announced in Oslo, Norway. Gore splits the award with the UN Intergovernmental panel on climate change.

According to the NY Times, Gore's citation states that he is "probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted." And the UN Panel, a network of some 2,000 scientists, has produced two scientific reports that have “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”

Gore said that he plans to donate his half of the $1.5M prize to Alliance for Climate Protection.

This will no doubt make the calls for a Gore presidential run grow, but I still don't think it's happening. James Carville says there's a 25% chance he'll run (as Carville anticipates Jeb Bush entering the Republican race). Gore will endorse at some point, and he'll either go with Obama (he was always butting heads with Hillary in the Clinton White House) or Hillary (in exchange for a high level cabinet position). That's my take at least.

**UPDATE**
For the record, I don't think Jeb will run. He's waiting for the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton presidency and will challenge her in 2012, setting up another Bush/Clinton match-up and signaling the coming apocalypse.

What's on my Mindgrapes

According to Radar Magazine (and when are they ever wrong?) two of my favorite things are coming together, because Al Gore (one of my favorite pols) has taped an episode of 30 Rock (one of my favorite shows). No word on the plot or when it will air, but it's a good bet Gore will square off with Jack Donaghy, the right-wing NBC exec played by Alec Baldwin. 30 Rock's second season starts Thursday at 8:30 on NBC, and it's hilarious. Currently, it's passing The Office as my favorite comedy on television. If you haven't seen it yet, you can watch the first season (for free) here. And, no, I don't have a life (but I do have a blog).

My man Al brings one home for a worthy cause...

I didn't watch the Emmy's last night, law school supplies as much self- congratulation as I can take, but I understand that my boy Al Gore won an award for creative achievement in interactive television for Current TV, his youth- oriented television channel.

Current TV is only available in 40 million homes, so chances are that most are oblivious to its existence, let alone its mission. Gore designed the channel to merge the television and internet mediums- combining the interactivity of the net with the streaming nature of TV. Current's content is user- based and youth focused, the idea is to make television an interactive, thought provoking experience, in contrast to its current MO: sit, stare at and be dulled by flickering images. Think youtube, but streamlined.

The aim of Current TV is nothing short of the salvation of democracy: to extract the corporate influence from news, combat the celeb/reality culture, and provoke fresh thought and debate in society. It's the principle that inspired this blog, as you can tell by reading SAM's mission to your right.

The priorities and discourse in our country are staggeringly out of whack. And television, by its very nature and also its content, is a driving force in our culture's downturn.

Gore and his partners have seen the power and value of the internet: it is the largest possible town hall, where citizens can communicate directly and instantaneously. The idea starts with transparency-- encourage citizen-debate about problems facing the nation, and understand that the more voices are heard about the decisions that face the country, the better off we'll all be. Encourage debate and dissent, because the best decision will emerge from consensus.

It's all very Thomas Jefferson.

So Al now has an Oscar and an Emmy, and may soon be walking away with an even larger piece of hardware on Oct. 8: The Nobel Peace Prize, for which he is also nominated. Of course, people will ask about intent for the White House, but the attention should be less on the horse- race of the election and sexiness of the presidency, and more about the issues for which Gore is a voice: transparency in democracy and climate change.

That said, I'll still put up this political cartoon about Al running, because I think it's funny.

Live Earth and Al Gore Day at SAM Online

Al Gore is my man. What got me on his bandwagon wasn't his fight against global warming, either. There's a chapter in Take It Back, a great book by James Carville and Paul Begala, where the authors describe what an Al Gore presidency would have been like. The man is a bonafied expert on a variety of topics (for instance, as VP he wrote the definitive paper on airport security), and the once popular portrayal of Gore is a gross exaggeration (including his phantom claim that he "invented the internet). Carville and Begala aren't Gore guys, remember, they are Clinton guys-- there's a significant difference. I didn't bring Take it Back with me to England, so I can't quote from it, but it's worth reading- especially that chapter.

My affinity for Gore has grown because of his tireless efforts for the environment, and because he was the first public voice I know of to question the Iraq invasion. Throughout his career Gore has proven to be right far more often than not, and I think he would make the best president in 2009.

However, I have come to the sad realization that Gore is probably done with politics. I hoped his denials were a savvy ploy, an attempt to wait out the hype of other candidates before making a dramatic entrance some time in the fall (right after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, for which he is nominated). But it really seems like that's just not going to happen.

Gore told Larry King the other night, "I'm involved in a different kind of campaign, not for myself not as a candidate, but to change people's minds about the most dangerous crisis we've ever faced, and the greatest set of opportunities we've ever confronted to solve this climate crisis."

On the Today Show, Meredith Vieira asked Gore why he wouldn't run knowing how much of an impact the president could have on the climate crisis. He responded that those in power must have the support of the people to make it work. And that's where he sees his role.

Then Al gave his most telling quote:

"I've kind of fallen out of love with politics. ...Whatever experience and talents I've gained over the years -- I think it may well be that the highest and best use of that is to try to bring enough awareness of the solutions to the climate crisis and enough of a sense of urgency that we come together across party lines on behalf of our children."

I'm just finishing up Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason. It's a must read. For those who think that the jury is still out on man's contribution to Global Warming, check out the "Quote of the Day" post below.

Happy Al Gore Day.

Quote of the Day

"... the vast majority of the most respected environmental scientists from all over the world have sounded a clear and urgent alarm... In essence, [they] are telling the people of every nation that global warming caused by human activities has become a serious threat to our common future and must be confronted... In spite of the clear evidence available all around us, there are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it's no wonder, because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation pushed by the administration and lavishly funded by polluters...

Wealthy right-wing ideologues have joined with the most cynical and irresponsible companies in the oil, coal, and mining industries to contribute large sums of money to finance pseudoscientific front groups that specialize in sowing confusion in the public's mind about global warming. They issue one misleading 'report' after another, pretending that there is significant disagreement in the legitimate scientific community in areas where there is actually a broad-based consensus...

In early 2007, just as the new international scientific report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was being released, one of these front groups financed by ExxonMobil offered $10,000 for each pseudostudy or paper disputing the findings of the scientific community...

In the case of the global climate crisis, Bush has publicly demeaned scientists in his own administration who author official reports that underscore the extreme danger facing the US and the world. Instead, he has preferred a self interested and deeply flawed analysis financed by the largest oil company on the planet, ExxonMobil...

The Royal Society- the UK's equivalent of the National Academy of Sciences- formally renewed its request that ExxonMobil stop disseminating to the public 'very misleading' and ‘inaccurate’ information that is ‘not consistent’ with what is accepted in the scientific community about the climate crisis. The Royal Society also called upon ExxonMobil to stop paying millions of dollars per year to organizations that ‘misrepresented the science of climate change...'

Another organization of scientists, the US- based Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), prepared a lengthy report in 2006 showing that 'ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.'

'ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,' said Alden Meyer, UCS director of strategy and policy. 'A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as big tobacco did for over 40 years.'"

Live- Earth Day

The Live Earth concerts are tomorrow, to raise awareness about climate change, and help reach a political and social tipping point on the climate crisis.

The concerts were organized by Al Gore and Kevin Wall, and have acts on all 7 continents (yes, that includes Antarctica where the performance of an all- scientist rock band will be broadcast via satellite).

The set list is impressive to say the least: John Mayer, Akon, Kelly Clarkson, The Police, Dave Matthews Band, Fall Out Boy, AFI, Kanye West, Melissa Ethridge, Bon Jovi, Ludacris, Taking Back Sunday, Keith Urban, KT Tunstall, Alicia Keyes, Roger Waters, and the Smashing Pumpkins... and that's just in the US. There will also be performances in London, Johannesburg, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, Shanghai, Sydney, and Hamburg.

The NBC family of networks is broadcasting the shows live all day, culminating in the US show from 8-11pm on NBC, with limited commercial interruption.

Daily Quote

"It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they did. In spite of the dangers they confronted, they faithfully protected our freedoms. It is up to us to do the same."

- Al Gore The Assault on Reason page 25