"And how should we behave during this Apocalypse? We should be unusually kind to one another, certainly. But we should also stop being so serious. Jokes help a lot. And get a dog, if you don't already have one."
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Listening

As acidly as I might characterize Climate Crisis deniers--especially the professional ones, the moral equivalents of decades of cigarette company shills-- I don't think everybody who professes skepticism about global heating is malicious. I know they are basically and tragically wrong, but I still am interested in getting as many of them on board as possible.

So I was interested to see this Chris Mooney piece in the Washington Post with the headline "If Scientists Want to Educate the Public, They Should Start By Listening." Mooney writes that skeptics aren't necessarily uneducated. "For one thing, it's political outlook -- not education -- that seems to motivate one's belief on this subject." He suggests that instead of just talking at these people, scientists listen to them. For on the Climate Crisis as well as two other examples of issues that aren't controversial among scientists but have substantial and seemingly irrational opposition among the public, Mooney writes:

"These three controversies have a single moral, and it's that experts who want Americans to take science into account when they form opinions on contentious issues need to do far more than just "lay out the facts" or "set the record straight." What science says is important, but in controversial areas, it's only the beginning. It's critical that experts and policy makers better understand what motivates public concern in the first place; and in this, they mustn't be deceived by the fact that people often appear, on the surface, to be arguing about scientific facts. Frequently, their underlying rationale is very different."

This article got an angry and typically lengthy rejoinder at Climate Progress. Part of the objection involves not naming the real culprits, which include the corporate media and the disinformation campaign heavily financed by fossil fuel industries and their pr lackeys. While I can understand the frustration--once again, the responsibility is put on the scientists, plus (though they don't say so in this post) climate scientists who do venture into the public typically are met with very organized, very aggressive and practiced deniers who spurt out spurious charges and bogus information so fast and so relentlessly that there is never enough time to properly answer them.

Those deniers aren't sincerely interested in either listening or really in being listened to. But there are some whose opposition, while not really based on questioning the science, have reasons stemming from their lives and sincere attitudes. Apart from those whose reasons are ideologies so strong and automatic that their minds can't be changed, there is probably a subset--admittedly very small (since deniers are a small percentage of the public to begin with), but there are some who are troubled but open enough to profit from dialogue. As long as it is dialogue.

Here's how I put it in my comment on this Climate Progress post:

"We’re once again into a both/and rather than either/or situation about the Mooney piece. Yes, for various reasons the media has misreported on the climate crisis. Yes, corporate power is probably part of why. Yes, science education and communication are weaker than they should be. And very much yes, a highly funded disinformation campaign has provided reasons to doubt climate change for people who are predisposed to want to doubt climate change.

There are other factors that Mooney doesn’t discuss, like the immense psychological barriers to accepting the logical conclusions, the consequences of the climate crisis, like the end of the civilization they know, one way or another. Like the political fact that there has never been a crisis quite like this: a crisis (until recently) of the future that’s invisible or easy to ignore in the present, governed by such apparently unfamiliar concepts as lag time, tipping points and cumulative impact.

But what Mooney does discuss is valid: for repeat deniers not on fossil fuel payrolls, it isn’t all about feeding them information. It is also about listening to them. About understanding where they are coming from, in their lives. Listening allows information to be translated and applied directly to their concerns. It permits analogies and metaphors, specifically meaningful to them. It means taking their real life consequences and concerns into consideration in designing the methods of addressing the causes and effects of climate change. It means allowing everyone in the community to talk about this, without fear of being demonized, and to work it out for itself.

Frankly it is unlikely that scientists or politicians can do this. They need a more neutral but creative third party. The most successful dialogues I know of came after a small theatre company’s piece on climate change, in which they employed comedy that went after everybody’s pretensions. There must be other ways to overcome the mutual not listening of today’s debates. There is very likely a significant subset of skeptics and deniers who must be listened to before they can themselves hear.

Will this convince everyone? Not likely. Will it build support to pass climate crisis legislation? Maybe not, and maybe it’s not necessary because as the polls show there is plenty of support for doing…something. Maybe the extreme rhetoric we’re hearing is sound and fury signifying nothing, which will become apparent in November. But this environment is toxic in more ways that one. We face hard times ahead. We need a wider understanding."


That theatre company--called Human Nature--was on my mind because I attended an award ceremony honoring them over the weekend. They are from the nearby and ironically named town of Petrolia, California. Despite the name (and the fact that it was the first place in the state where oil was discovered, though there wasn't much), it is in a rural-to-wilderness area of the Lost Coast, the Mattole valley. There were a lot of people at that ceremony from that community, which has supported Human Nature for a generation.

True, many of these are ex-hippie back-to-the-landers, not your typical denier profile. And true: Human Nature started doing theatre about local environmental issues, like salmon in the rivers. But they did make fun of the pretensions of both sides, and they still do. Still, I think it's remarkable that the community is so much behind them, when the show they've been doing for the past four years (as well as the new one) is about the worldwide phenomenon of the Climate Crisis.

And it's also true that the dialogues that followed their shows often happened on college campuses. But people with doubts did show up (as did climate scientists) and they did talk, and their views were honored. And sometimes, that's how it has to begin.

As I mentioned at the end of my comment, we're facing tough times as the Climate Crisis effects become more obvious and need a lot of attention. I worry about that. On the one hand, we have a country so apparently divided, with really extreme, really barbarous views being openly advocated--with a lot of hostility expressed in very violent terms towards people of color, of poorer circumstances as well as contrary political views. And there's the Supreme Court arming their "revolution." Along with government being vilified, and too broke and broken down by years of being bled for profit, that it's ability on any level to address an emergency is pitifully diminished. All that tends to suggest these communities can't survive a crisis--that they'll get the violence, selfishness and panic our Social Darwinist apocalyptic mythologies assume.

On the other hand, there's Rebecca Solnit's book, documenting the positive ways people respond and help each other in a crisis. And there's the hope that once people are listened to, they can themselves listen. And the people trying to talk to them can speak to their concerns, at least enough to convince everyone of basic good will.

What the efficacy of dialogue can be on the current efforts to get a climate bill through Congress is an open question, and I have my doubts. That seems to have it's own momentum, and it may be more important that it is an extremely hot summer so far in Washington, as well as elsewhere in the world. And that whatever temporary stall there was in the statistics has ended, and this year we're clearly again in record-breaking global heating.

Speaking of heat, the first stories on Senator Robert Byrd said he'd been hospitalized for heat exhaustion and dehydration. That was quickly forgotten when the eulogies started, but maybe it shouldn't. Lots of unnamed older people are doubtless dying in the DC heat, and elsewhere. Denying this and related effects is murderous, and eventually suicidal.

Climategate

Remember Climategate, the scandal involving stolen emails exposing supposedly rigged data that discredited climate scientists and their entire generation-old conclusion that the globe is warming dangerously? That was red meat to the hungry stupid media?

Anyone who took a second look at it could see that there was nothing there, certainly nothing that discredited any important overall findings. And now the whole house of cards has tumbled.

The Times of London, the paper that "broke the story," this week retracted the key elements of the story.

Then the U.S. climate scientist most consistently and virilently vilified by the fossil fools was completely (and unanimously) exonerated by an investigative committee of faculty at his university, Penn State.

Maybe the credibility problem of the fossil fools and the deep pockets that finance their relentless lies will finally penetrate the members of the media that still care about accuracy, not to mention the planet, however few or otherwise silenced they may now be.

One Good, Two Bad

Keeping our daily non-climate news bites at three, namely, one good story: After looking like the congressional agreement on Wall St. and financial reform was a case of premature congratulations, things look to be back on track: the House passed it, and the Senate is looking like it will.

Now for the ever-present bad news...The prospects for wildlife in the Gulf took a turn for the worse. Not completely unexpected really, but mournfully bad. And also not the only bad news there, but why belabor it.

And finally, while the House managed to pass the extension to unemployment benefits, the Senate--even with a last ditch effort that almost worked--did not, before leaving for vacation. Enjoy your weekend, bloodsuckers.

So It Goes

"Writing was a spiritual exercise for my father, the only thing he really believed in. He wanted to get things right but never thought that his writing was going to have much effect on the course of things."

Mark Vonnegut

The Dreaming Up Daily Quote

“I have seen so much death and never understood before that so much of the terror of death is terror of dying without having given. Without even finding what one had to give.”
Michael Ventura
The Zoo Where You're Fed to God

Purpose

For ten years, between 1984 and 1994, Jeremy Brett played Sherlock Holmes in a series of 41 stories for Granada TV in the UK. His performances earned him the reputation as the definitive screen Holmes for his time, perhaps for all time. Any starring role in a long-running television series tends to absorb the life of the actor, as well as define these actors for their careers, and beyond. Often as well, these roles change the personalities of the actors, sometimes thoroughly and permanently. Jeremy Brett exemplifies all of these possibilities, except perhaps for one. The role of Sherlock Holmes did not change his subsequent career, for he had none. A year after he completed the Holmes series, Jeremy Brett was dead.

In the Granada episodes, now available in restored condition on DVD, Brett created a more intense and mercurial Holmes, his sudden stillness exploding in quick motion and flamboyant gestures. Brett was a close student of the Arthur Conan Doyle stories and felt his interpretation was accurate, but it also reflected his own personality, as such long-running roles often do. But in his case, it's difficult to find the line between character and actor.

Biographical sketches as well as DVD commentaries and interviews emphasize how deeply Brett delved into the stories and the character, and how relentless were his efforts to use the TV medium and make the best possible films to serve them. It became his obsession.

In contrast to other Holmes incarnations on film which eventually invented new stories for the Holmes character (including the classic Basil Rathbone movies, and certainly the recent Robert Downey feature), the Granada series based its stories closely and exclusively on the original Conan Doyle stories. His first series of stories ended with Holmes apparent death, though popular demand would cause Conan Doyle to revive the character and write many more stories about him. Brett had just finished filming that death of Holmes episode when his own wife died of cancer.

Soon after, due to popular demand, the second Granada series was commissioned, and Brett's identification with Holmes grew even stronger. The qualities that he had already perceived as similar in Holmes and himself became overwhelming--especially that contrast of periods of fierce energy with periods of lassitude-- until Brett was forced to seek treatment for manic depression. (The symptoms apparently became pronounced during the "Return of" series, and he'd begun undergoing treatment just before starting the "Casebook of" final series.) But he kept up his concentration and his exhausting schedule, playing Holmes on screen and on stage. Yet the lithium he took for his illness began to change him physically, as became apparent on screen. The later episodes chronicle these physical changes--such as weight gain, especially in his face, gaunt and spare at first, then puffier, wan and haunting.

Though overwork and his overwrought obsession as well as effects of lithium and the manic depression itself probably contributed to physical deterioration, in the end it was his enlarged heart and scarred heart valves, basically from a childhood bout of rheumatic fever, that led to his death in his early 60s.

I first saw Brett's portrayal of Holmes when the A&E cable network--back when it actually was an Arts and Entertainment network--ran the Granada series late at night (during the period it also ran the UK Lovejoy series.) I was lost in the wilderness of western PA then, and the Holmes series was an oasis. Brett's portrayal was riveting, and inspiring.

Now I'm somewhat obsessed with watching episodes on DVD, particularly the second, Return of Sherlock Holmes series. The clarity of the DVD--much better than the prints of cable--show Brett as even more of a revelation, as well as showcasing the visual splendor of the series. And I ponder the question of whether Brett's obsession was wholly tragic, or perhaps a little to be envied. In various ways, he gave his life to being Sherlock Holmes for millions of people, including me. He'd been a fairly successful stage, TV and film actor for years, but the chance to star in an iconic TV series comes to few. He made the most of it. He made the best of it, at least as his work. He undoubtedly sacrificed something, including probably years of his life.

On the other hand, in pouring himself into Holmes, he also made the best of his own personality, and eventually of his illness. We can speculate that identifying so completely with Holmes exaggerated these tendencies into a true illness, or the opposite, that he turned the illness into something incredibly creative.

In the end, it seems to me that his tragedy is not so bad as more ordinary tragedies, of lives unfulfilled. An excellent, iconic series of 41 televised stories--of intriguing and entertaining but hardly profound popular art-- may not be the greatest accomplishment, but it is a great one. Is it worth a life? I think so--that is: I think I'd take that bargain.

On the Road to Change

President Obama had an eventful week, and a pretty good one politically. But two of the events--his handling of the Afghanistan command situation, and particularly the congressional agreement paving the way for final passage of a financial reform bill--prompted several pundits to step back and look at his accomplishments so far. I've highlighted a few that don't get much attention.

For example, Steve Benen in the Washington Monthly: "And in the larger context, this will add to an impressive list of historic accomplishments spanning President Obama's first 18 months in office, a list that will now include Wall Street reform, health care reform, student loan reform, economic recovery, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, expanded civil rights protections, expanded stem-cell research, new regulation of the credit card industry, new regulation of the tobacco industry, a national service bill, and the most sweeping land-protection act in 15 years, among other things. Taegan Goddard noted this morning, "Not since FDR has a president done so much to transform the country." That's not a hyperbolic observation in the slightest."


But the most impressive was Rachel Maddow ending her MSNBC show on Friday. I'm now going to quote it at length.

She began by describing the accomplishments of an unnamed President: "He signed a bill that gave amnesty to undocumented immigrants. He grew the size of the federal government and the budget, added a whole new cabinet level agency and added tens of thousands of government workers to the federal payroll. He tripled the deficit. He bailed out and expanded social security with a big fat tax increase. He raised corporate taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. He raised taxes on gasoline. He, in fact, signed into law the largest tax increase in history. He supported federal handgun controls. He called for a world without nuclear weapons.

He was Ronald Reagan.

As a conservative saint, as the right-wing rock star, as king of the Republican prom in perpetuity, as a transformative figure for people who call themselves conservative, the facts of Ronald Reagan`s legislative record are awkward. Ronald Reagan`s record has in it a lot of things that would get him kicked out of today`s Republican Party, which is not to say that President Reagan was a secret liberal. He was not. What he was, was complex, but accomplished in his own way."

Rachel then turned to President Obama, took a step back to simply list many of his major accomplishments:

"It turns out that a lot of things that have happened in the less than two years of this administration are the biggest or first or most important in generations... Even before today`s historic Wall Street reform agreement, President Obama, of course, did what politicians have been trying to do for more than 60 years. He passed health reform, which, for the first time, establishes government responsibility for the health care of American citizens.

Consider also the stimulus bill. It didn`t just throw a lasso around our entire economy and yank and yank it back from the brink. It also pumped about $100 billion into the crumbling embarrassment of our national infrastructure and transportation system. It was the largest investment in infrastructure since Ike. For solving our country`s energy problems, something Obama has compared to man walking on the moon, it contained about $60 billion in spending and tax incentives for renewable and clean energy, also a historic investment.

It also included an unheralded but giant investment in science and tech, amping up the budgets at NASA, the National Science Foundation, and an experimental energy research agency that was created under President George W. Bush, but never funded until now.

President Obama also expanded state kids` health insurance to cover another four million kids. He signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act amending the 1964 civil rights act for equal pay for equal work.

He signed a nuclear arms deal with Russia that would reduce both countries` arsenals by a third. He created a new global nonproliferation initiative to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists.

He set forth an international way forward on that radical left-wing proposition of Ronald Reagan, a world without nuclear weapons. Then there are the legislative and policy achievements that don't just build on precedents, but set new ones.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act. It had languished in Congress for years. The Food and Drug Administration permitted for the first time to regulate tobacco. Better late than never, he dismantled the scandal-plagued Minerals Management Service, broke it into three parts so that the folks who collect money from oil leases aren`t the same ones regulating the industry. And now, it will actually investigate the industry that it was busy schtupping and doing drugs with during the last administration.

Obama fired two wartime commanding generals in little over a year. He overhauled the astonishing stupidity of the student loan system in which banks were being subsidized to give loans that were guaranteed by the government anyway, a license to print money. That was ended in the savings put toward actual aid to students.

He canceled a weapons program that was bloated, unnecessary and totally irrelevant to either of our current wars, the F-22. Why even mention the cancellation of a single weapons system? Because that never happens. Weapons systems never get canceled. The F-22 did, which is itself a miracle.

In each of these achievements and in the list of things he has yet to do - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," closing Guantanamo - in each of these things, there is room for liberal disappointment. I sing a bittersweet lullaby to the lost public option when I go to sleep at night.

But presidential legacies are complex. Not even the Reagan administration's legacy is pure as the conservative-driven snow. But Taegan Goddard at "CQ Politics" was right today about nothing this big happening since FDR.

The list of legislative accomplishments of this president in half a term even before energy reform which he`s probably going to get to is, to quote the vice president, "a big freaking deal." Love this administration or hate it, this president is getting a lot done.

The last time any president did this much in office, booze was illegal. If you believe in policy, if you believe in government that addresses problems, cheers."

The wildlife news remains not good--there's been some more environmentalist action accusing BP of burning very endangered sea turtles along with oil. (Here's a way to register your protest.) But there is this good news for a rare animal in captivity: this is a photo of the first Red Panda to be born in 15 years at the National Zoo in DC, and its mother, holding it in her mouth. Also called the firefox, this animal is actually more closely related to raccoons than panda bears. They are native to the Himalayas, and there are fewer than 2500 left alive. Now there's one more, even if in a zoo. Hooray.

Storm Clouds

Update late Saturday from Houston Chronicle: "Tropical Storm Alex strengthened Saturday as it careened toward the Gulf of Mexico with 65-mph winds approaching hurricane status. Officials are keeping a close eye on the first named storm of the season, which looks likely to avoid Houston and to remain at least 400 miles from cleanup efforts of the largest oil spill in U.S. history. A change, however, could force BP to temporarily abandon cleanup efforts in the Gulf, where oil has been gushing since an offshore drilling rig exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers.

Most computer models predict that Alex will head over the Yucatan Peninsula by this morning and weaken as it reaches into Mexico later in the week. A tropical storm warning was issued for Belize's coast and the Yucatan Peninsula's east coast, where rainfall could reach 15 inches.

The storm's presence — and the new hurricane season - is forcing the team overseeing the spill site to make contingency plans. Any system with winds over 46 mph could stop work, and a full evacuation could delay cleanup for two weeks, officials said, adding that it could take about five days to get workers and equipment out of harm's way if the storm threatens. "

Jeff Masters figures the chances of Alex heading for the oil gusher at 10%.

[Early Saturday]
As of now the tropical depression near Honduras has become Tropical Storm Alex, ( as weather guru Jeff Masters predicted.) He cited an historical analysis of 19 similar storms shows that 5 of them hit the Gulf of Mexico.

But warmer waters etc. are making rather than following history. The Houston Chronicle reports: "The probable formation of Tropical Storm Alex in the western Caribbean Sea from such a wave has some meteorologists concerned because it's early for African waves to become so well organized."

The latest storm track doesn't have it heading for the Gulf, nor becoming very intense, though both could change. The HC article notes: "About 60 percent of the named storms during a given year form from African waves. But about 85 percent of the category 3 and stronger hurricanes, the most intense and damaging ones, originate from African waves." And if it tracks to the Gulf, it could arrive there as soon as Sunday.

Strong storms used to appear not much earlier than August, but all bets are off this year--as we hope the federal government realizes. On prepardedness, Gulf oil gusher point man Admiral Thad Allen gave some mixed messages Friday, settling on "We have a very robust hurricane contingency plan." But it would take several days to shut things down and move people away--which in itself would increase the amount of oil gushing. A storm would also threaten the relief wells, and at best would slow down their completion.

A storm would probably also further scatter the oil. Nobody really knows--or could know--whether it would dissipate it or make it a great deal worse. But if such a storm threatens, this would be a good time to make the effort bigger and more visible--with Navy ships and skimmers offered from foreign countries.

While contrary to some interpretations, the oil gusher does not seem to be adversely affecting President Obama's standing, a storm in the Gulf is a necessary opportunity for bold leadership, for fast and appropriately scaled response.

As for ongoing efforts to deal with the continuing and accumulating damage,Climate Progress has published a detailed and reasoned case for why the berms won't work--the solution that Louisiana Governor Jindal has been touting, and that CNN has been covering like not building them is irresponsible and tragic. This case should have been made by the Obama administration weeks ago. Maybe it was, and wasn't reported, but let's face it--they have to find a way to communicate effectively. But there have also been reports that there aren't enough oil skimming ships out there, and that other countries have offered some. I'd like to see some answers on that.

Pass/Fail

Pass (Finally): House and Senate lawmakers reached agreement early Friday on the most far-reaching rewrite of financial rules since the Great Depression.

The final details, including creation of an agency to protect consumers in the financial marketplace and new regulations to reduce risk-taking by large banks and limit their trading of complex derivatives, were hashed out in a marathon 20-hour session that began Thursday morning."

(Think Progress has a handy chart on the details, and TPM provides more analysis. )

But the Fail is a big one--and in the short run, bigger: the Jobs bill which includes unemployment benefits extensions was stopped by GOPer fillibuster, with immediate and devastating effects for millions of people, affecting thousands of state jobs, and threatening any economic recovery.

This happened yesterday. Amazingly, there is almost nothing on the Internet news and blog sites today. (Except for something at Kos and this couple of cogent graphs at Time.) Another Fail.

Updates: So the new financial regulations will "bring new authority over Wall Street" and they won't change Wall Street much. And it's a game-changer. Uh huh.

The Dreaming Up Daily Quote

"The human mind is always wiser than its most atrocious deeds, since it can give them a name."

Alberto Manguel

photo: The aurora australis — the southern lights, as seen from the International Space Station.

The American People

A number of public opinion polls are touting themselves and their results this week, including one from Pew Research. One of their findings--extracted from a long survey about Americans' attitudes about the future and presented on the CNN crawl--should put many other opinions in perspective:

41% of American surveyed expect the Second Coming of Jesus Christ within the next forty years.

This is actually down slightly from 1999, when 44% expected it.

Militaryness

I admit to being (pleasantly) surprised that the media played the Rolling Stone revelations primarily as the failures of General McBeermouth rather than embarrassing comments about the Obama administration. But while President Obama's strong action and the strong statement that accompanied it have ended a crisis and boosted his image as a leader, those comments are eventually going to provide new fodder for the Rabid Right and their insurrectionist hysteria. Until now their insanity was focused on domestic delusions (and climate, or as they would put it, weather.) Those comments provide opportunity to revive the Dem image of being incompetent on military matters. For them it will be another reason this guy should be overthrown.

This business also focused attention on the Afghanistan war. I don't support it, but I support President Obama's plan to bring it to a conclusion by 2011. He didn't start it, but he has to end it. The immense amount of money it costs as well as the attention that should be placed on more important matters, not to mention the morality of it all, means to me that it must be ended on schedule, if not sooner.

Only the Rabid Right would now think that's a radical position. But then they can't be too happy either about the most effective TV ads now running that promote clean energy--a brilliant series sponsored by VoteVets.org.

Oil Apocalypse

The tragedy in the Gulf is an apocalypse for its non-human life. One response is simply to make sure it is seared into the hearts and minds of responsible humans, to increase the possibility that it not be repeated. So if we can find the news, we must attend. An AP story says that dolphins, sharks and other sea creatures are showing up closer to shore, apparently fleeing oiled waters farther out, like animals fleeing a forest fire. If these shallow waters become too crowded, fish could die from lack of oxygen.

The number of animals known dead--including more than 40 dolphins and other mammals--are likely a small fraction of the actual casualties. But the prospects of entire species are crossing from speculative fears to deep concern. Among them are the Gulf's sperm whales. Several species of sea turtles are vulnerable, and there is this as yet unconfirmed report based on an NPR interview that BP crews are refusing to remove sea turtles from oiled waters before the oil is burned. The most vulnerable turtle species is disproportionately showing up among dead turtles. (This report is also diaried at Daily Kos.) If this report is true, the response may include charges of violations of the Endangered Species Act. These are ancient species of turtles that in their native habitat live long lives.

A Sobering Father's Day Quote

“We have no idea what sort of world our children will inherit, but we can no longer delude ourselves into supposing that it must resemble our own in reassuring ways.”

Tony Judt

Know Hope

Remember that unpopular health care bill? As parts of it start to go into effect, suddenly it's not so unpopular anymore. Now more Americans approve than disapprove. Think about that in connection with the next battle for clean energy, and don't miss Andrew Sullivan's eloquent appraisal of President Obama's achievements. It's called Getting Shit Done, and it ends: "And that's why Obama's incrementalism, his refusal to pose as a presidential magician, and his resistance to taking the bait of the fetid right (he's president - not a cable news host) seems to me to show not weakness, but a lethal and patient strength. And a resilient ambition. Know hope."

The self-destructive insanity from the Rabid Right GOP continues, with Rep. Joe Barton apologizing to BP for the President getting the $20 billion fund for Gulf gusher victims. But the left is suddenly not much better, from the virtual civil war being waged at Kos and more generally in the left blogosphere, and among the media pundits of whatever persuasion, whose self-fulfilling prophesies, which I've placed in this perspective here before, were exposed in a larger forum: Newsweek. For example, "In the postgame show, the pundits judged Obama’s success by how well or poorly he fulfilled the expectations that pundits like themselves had set earlier."

(Photos are from President Obama's appearance before the American Nurses Association yesterday--the Nurses were big supporters of healthcare reform. And thanks to blackwaterdog at Kos for links.)

Tough Repeat

Congratulations to the Los Angeles Lakers who repeat as NBA champions in a tough seventh game over the Boston Celtics. There's more at American Dash.

Pony Up

"Under pressure from President Barack Obama, BP agreed today to set aside $20 billion in a spill recovery escrow account to compensate Gulf Coast fishermen and others who have lost wages and work because of the massive spill from a BP deep-water well.

The company also said it will suspend its quarterly dividend payments to shareholders for the rest of this year and will divert some of that cash to the escrow account, which would be managed by an independent administrator and be funded over three and a half years.

BP also agreed to set aside $100 million to compensate oil industry workers whose jobs disappear because of the government's moratorium on deep-water drilling and a delay of exploration in shallower depths while regulators develop new safety regulations. " ---Houston Chronicle

Congress dithered and couldn't get this done. BP evaded, pouring its money into PR and planning bonuses and stock dividends. President Obama got what no one else got close to accomplishing. And as he promised in his Oval Office speech, the fund will not be administered by BP, or the government, but a special third party administrator. It could even be considered a "mind-boggling accomplishment." The President emphasized that the $20 billion is a floor, not a ceiling on what BP will pay to (as they're now saying in their TV ads) make this right. Oddly if predictably, Rabid Right GOPers are upset.

Only If We Seize the Moment

In his first Oval Office address to the nation, President Obama called the Gulf oil gusher "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced" but pledged "We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy."

He briefly described clean-up efforts and pledged full committment to restoration and recovery. He said that a way of life in the Gulf is threatened.
"I refuse to let that happen. Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party."

But he cautioned that nothing will solve all the problems associated with the gusher immediately. As a disaster it is less like an earthquake and more like an epidemic--something that lasts a long time, and has diffuse and unpredictable outcomes.

He talked about broader environmental restoration in the Gulf area, in a way that early reports and commentaries seemed to miss. He mentioned the history of environmental degradation in the area, even before this catastrophe. And he announced a comprehensive effort to change that, with the help and expertise of the people of the region: Earlier, I asked Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, who is also a former governor of Mississippi and a son of the Gulf Coast, to develop a long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan as soon as possible. The plan will be designed by states, local communities, tribes, fishermen, businesses, conservationists and other Gulf residents. And BP will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region."

He talked about how to prevent such disasters in the future. He zeroed in on the failed policy of deregulation, and vowed to make government oversight work again, specifically in the agency that allowed Big Oil a free pass: "And so Secretary Salazar and I are bringing in new leadership at the agency -- Michael Bromwich, who was a tough federal prosecutor and Inspector General. And his charge over the next few months is to build an organization that acts as the oil industry’s watchdog -- not its partner."

But there will always be risks of such disasters as long as oil consumption in America requires dangerous deep-water drilling, as well as sending billions overseas for oil. So to prevent these catastrophes, the ultimate answer is an end to fossil fuel dependence, and a domestic clean energy economy: "We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny."

"As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs -– but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment."

The rest of his address outlined the coming fight for this new American clean energy economy, which involves everyone, but which will first of all be played out in the U.S. Congress. "When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill –- a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses."


He spoke about other ideas proposed in the Senate (where this legislation doesn't have the votes to overcome the promised GOPer fillibuster.) "All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet."

"It’s a faith in the future that sustains us as a people. It is that same faith that sustains our neighbors in the Gulf right now."

In what will turn out to be his most prophetic words, President Obama said that: "The oil spill is not the last crisis America will face. This nation has known hard times before and we will surely know them again. What sees us through -– what has always seen us through –- is our strength, our resilience, and our unyielding faith that something better awaits us if we summon the courage to reach for it."


Here's a fairly objective account in the first hours after the speech. The first media and blogosphere comments on the address were either harshly critical (for several reasons, often contradictory ones) or with measured approval. In Peter Baker's mixed analysis for the NY Times, he wrote: "In his first use of the trappings of the office, Mr. Obama seemed at ease and filled the screen, as political professionals put it... Mr. Obama came across as confident and presidential..."

Baker noted a fact that surprised me a little--that at 18 minutes, President Obama's address was comparatively long for an Oval Office address. Much of the criticism of the speech concerned what he didn't say, that it wasn't specific and detailed enough, which would have made it a 30 minute speech at least. In terms of my expectations, President Obama hit the major points I believed were necessary, and he made strong, succinct statements in doing so. I also would have preferred him to be more descriptive, both of what the conditions now are and what's to be done. But some calculation about its length evidently was made in the White House.

We'll see over the next few days what the national reaction is, and of course, it will take a long time before its historical significance can be judged. Maybe it will take on political significance, but at least for now it does seem that realizing President Obama's fondest hope--for national unity in pursuit of a rational energy and climate policy to save the future--is not immediately apparent.

The Week Ahead

President Obama returns to the Gulf Monday, for meetings and observations in several states, staying overnight in Florida and returning to Washington Tuesday evening, where he will give his first Oval Office address to the nation of his presidency at 8 pm. That gives instant pundits way too much time to advise him on what he must say. But since I'm on record here advising that he make such an address, let me state the obvious. He needs to talk about four things: (1)what the government is doing and will do to stop the oil gusher, (2) what the government is doing and will do to deal with the effects of the oil and chemicals (preventing further damage as much as possible to the Gulf, the wetlands and beaches, as well as compensation and restoration); (3) what the government is doing and will do to prevent such disasters in the future by real federal scrutiny and enforcement, and (4) how this catastrophe relates to the need for getting serious about transitioning to a clean energy economy and efforts to address the Climate Crisis, specifically in the climate and energy legislation now in Congress. That's a tall order for the rumored length of fifteen minutes, so I hope he speaks at greater length.

Meanwhile, next week may see the first storm of the hurricane season, now developing (and designated 92L.). Jeff Masters of Wunder Blog doesn't expect it to become a full hurricane nor get close to the Gulf, but it is unusually early, in waters that are unusually warm: "However, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) underneath 92L are an extremely high 28 - 30°C, which is warmer than the temperatures reached during the peak of hurricane season last year, in August - September. In fact, with summer not even here, and three more months of heating remaining until we reach peak SSTs in the Atlantic, ocean temperatures across the entire Caribbean and waters between Africa and the Lesser Antilles are about the same as they were during the peak week for water temperatures in 2009 (mid-September.)"

Another story that began last week and is likely to continue this week involves Alvin Greene, the complete unknown who won the Democratic primary for U. S. Senator in South Carolina, despite being an accused felon and without having done any noticeable campaigning. Questions of who sponsored his candidacy and whether he is a GOPer plant are likely to get more pointed, but the most interesting question so far is: why didn't anybody notice this guy before he won? One convincing answer is that nobody was being paid by a newspaper or a news network to watch that campaign. The major South Carolina newspaper has specifically cut back its on the ground political campaign reporting, and this (notes Walter Shapiro) is a general trend. The lack of actual reporting is also why there is so much opinion and punditry, because it's apparently only cost effective to guess, and otherwise bloviate. Bloggers don't seem to be picking up the slack either. It seems that there's no substitute for paid reporters and experienced editors who report, not because it makes them feel good, but because it's their job.

Emerson for the Day

"There is then creative reading as well as creative writing. When the mind is braced by labor and invention, the page of whatever book we read becomes luminous with manifold allusion."

Emerson

"The American Scholar"

Climate Crisis News

There was talk of the climate bill including the suspension of enforcement efforts by the EPA to regulate heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act. The Obama administration came out against the change, and the Senate turned away a GOPer attempt to gut the EPA's current enforcement powers.

Contra interpretations of recent polls, a Stanford study funded by the National Science Foundation found that three-quarters of Americans surveyed believe that global warming is real and the result of industrial heat-trapping gases. The slight dip since 2007 (from more than 80%) came from a particular segment of the population that tends to change its mind on the topic based on the weather. A cold winter with snowstorms made them temporary skeptics. Since it's been a hot spring, they're apt to change back.

Meanwhile a Yale study says that support for action to address the Climate Crisis is growing in the U.S. This support has grown since January, reflecting perhaps not only the hot spring but the catastrophe in the Gulf.

On the connection between the Gulf and global heating, Bill McKibben contributed a rare Kos diary saying that the media are missing it: "One has something to do with peak oil. BP has gone to all this trouble for a well that taps into what they now think may be 100 million barrels of oil. And that's... five days supply for the U.S? Does that give you any sense of the precariousness of the arrangements under-girding our economy right at the moment?"

"The questions that the Gulf spill raises, in other words, go well beyond: How big an idiot is Tony Hayward? What will happen to the tourist economy of the Gulf? How cool is James Cameron's minisub? The questions are more like: How out of balance with the natural world are we? And what would it require to get back in balance?"

The Kids From Kalamazoo Meet the President

When I was fourteen I shook hands with President Kennedy, about 48 hours after he was inaugurated. It's a moment that's always been with me. President Obama spoke at the graduation of a high school in Kalamazoo, Michigan, but before the speech he paid a surprise visit to the graduating seniors. This one minute video caught that moment. It was a great moment for them, and maybe vicariously for you.

The Gulf

The gulf between what BP says and what it does has grown more obvious, if not larger. It may always have been as big as the Gulf of Mexico.

The situation has gone way beyond links to news stories.

There is something called "The Beauty Strip," such as the strip of trees on the side of the highway that masks the clearcuts, concrete buildings and toxic waste dumps on the other side. BP tried that philosophy on the ocean, but using toxic chemical disperants to drive the oil below the surface where it couldn't be readily seen.

But there are cameras and they can go underwater, and the underwater death camps perpetrated by BP with the apparent connivance of the Bush era Interior Dept. are on view.

I expect that BP's various forms of lying--either lying directly to the federal government, or lying by means of PR to the public, or lying to its employees and those affected on land--bought top execs and stockholders the time they needed to move their money out of the company. But those not smart enough to intuit what was coming have lost out, because the company's paper is now worth half of what it had been, and some form of bankruptcy is coming.

President Obama continues to be hammered, irrationally as usual but also partly because of the White House. He should have addressed the nation by now, and taken some large action, even if it was symbolic rather than the serious action the federal government is taking, without credit. They really should have figured out by now that the only way open to them to communicate directly via TV is by getting that hour of prime-time, with the President in the Oval Office, talking directly to the nation.

But I must say that my overwhelming emotion right now is grief. There is so much death and dying out there in the Gulf, it's almost inconceivable. Yes, there are lives and livelihoods being tested among the people, but they're alive and they can move and adapt. Not so those thousands of creatures out there. The only appropriate response is keening, long and loud.

Ripples of Hope: RFK in Capetown June 6, 1966

June 6 is an important date in the history of Robert F. Kennedy, for two reasons. I will emphasize the first: June 6, 1966.

Partly for his support of independence movements in Africa as U.S. Attorney-General, and partly because of President John F. Kennedy’s opposition to South Africa’s racist policies, Robert F. Kennedy—then junior Senator from New York—was invited to speak at the annual Day of Affirmation held by the National Union of South African Students, an organization dedicated to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Kennedy’s acceptance set off a domestic firestorm in the U.S. William Loeb, publisher of the right-wing newspaper, the Manchester Union Leader in New Hampshire, wrote:

“Bobby Kennedy is the most vicious and most dangerous leader in the United States today. It would make no more sense to us for South Africa to admit Bobby Kennedy...than it would to take a viper into one’s bed.”

Loeb’s editorial reminds us that right wing vituperation is not new. It also reminds me of something Robert Kennedy said on another occasion: “What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.”

Lyndon Johnson’s White House also opposed the trip. LBJ considered RFK a dangerous political rival. Though the white South African government granted RFK a visa, no government ministers would greet him. The government especially disapproved of the organization he would address, and two weeks before he arrived, the head of NUSAS was banned from political and social activity for five years. Visas to 40 U.S. print and TV reporters requesting to cover the event were denied.

RFK and his entourage landed in Johannesburg, South Africa on June 4, 1966. A loud, demonstrative crowd was at the airport, part of it protesting his presence, part of it welcoming him.

During his several days in South Africa, RFK met with or spoke to a number of groups, and he was typically forthright. He met with white businessmen in Pretoria, who justified apartheid and authoritarian rule because they were “beleaguered” by the majority black population. RFK wondered who was more beleaguered—the businessmen smoking cigars and sipping brandy after dinner, or the now-banned Ian Robertson, head of NUSAS, or the famed writer Alan Paton, whose passport was revoked because of his opposition to apartheid, or Albert Lutili, then president of the African National Congress and winner of the 1960 Nobel Peace Prize, who was confined to the immediate vicinity of his rural home.

(During his trip, RFK met with each of them: Robertson, Paton and Lutili.)

He spoke to a group of white university students, and asked them why blacks weren’t allowed to vote or to worship in their churches. “What the hell would you do if you found out that God is black?”

Before an audience of 10,000 at the University of Natal, RFK observed, “Maybe there is a black man outside this room who is brighter than anyone in this room. The chances are that there are many.”

At another university he faced a questioner who claimed that blacks were too barbarous to be given political power. RFK responded:

“It was not the black man in Africa who invented and used poison gas and the atomic bomb, who sent six million men and women and children to the gas ovens, and used their bodies as fertilizer.”

RFK went to Soweto, the black township, and spoke several times, standing atop his car, on the steps of a church, in a school playground. In another city, he stopped to be greeted by a group of Africans, and sang “We Shall Overcome” with them.

His popularity, particularly with young South Africans—of all races—increased daily on his visit. His presence energized and encouraged the anti-apartheid movement. Once he left, the South African government would not permit him to return. He was called a Communist, as he also was by some in the U.S.

But the highlight of the trip was the address he was invited to give, which some believe is his greatest speech. He spoke to a young audience of some 15,000 on the Day of Affirmation: June 6, 1966.

He began by talking about a country:

"settled by the Dutch in the mid-seventeenth century, then taken over by the British, and at last independent; a land in which the native inhabitants were at first subdued, but relations with whom remain a problem to this day; a land which defined itself on a hostile frontier; a land which has tamed rich natural resources through the energetic application of modern technology; a land which once the importer of slaves, and now must struggle to wipe out the last traces of that former bondage."

And then employing the humorous but meaningful irony so characteristic of JFK and RFK (and their speechwriters), he said:

"I refer, of course, to the United States of America."

But this was not simply a rhetorical ploy, for this was a description of South African as well as American history. Throughout the first part of his speech, he continued to describe the American ideals of racial equality, and the difficulties America historically had in living up to them. In explaining those ideals, his audience naturally applied them to their own country.

For example, he spoke about freedom of speech, but also “the power to be heard, to share in the decisions of government which shape men’s lives....
Therefore, the essential humanity of man can be protected and preserved only where government must answer -- not just to the wealthy, not just to those of a particular religion, not just to those of a particular race, but to all of the people."

He related the struggle of African Americans in America to other prejudices, felt by immigrants including his own ancestors:

"Even as my father grew up in Boston, Massachusetts, signs told him: "No Irish Need Apply." Two generations later President Kennedy became the first Irish Catholic, and the first Catholic, to head the nation; but how many men of ability had, before 1961, been denied the opportunity to contribute to the nation's progress because they were Catholic or because they were of Irish extraction? How many sons of Italian or Jewish or Polish parents slumbered in the slums -- untaught, unlearned, their potential lost forever to our nation and to the human race? Even today, what price will we pay before we have assured full opportunity to millions of Negro Americans? "

He praised Martin Luther King, and the goal of non-violent social change. He talked about historical and contemporary evils, and issued a call to conscience:

"These are different evils, but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfections of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, the defectiveness of our sensibility toward the sufferings of our fellows; they mark the limit of our ability to use knowledge for the well-being of our fellow human beings throughout the world. And therefore they call upon common qualities of conscience and indignation, a shared determination to wipe away the unnecessary sufferings of our fellow human beings at home and around the world."


He then made this directly relevant to his audience, the youth of South Africa:

"It is these qualities which make of our youth today the only true international community. More than this, I think that we could agree on what kind of a world we would all want to build. It would be a world of independent nations, moving toward international community, each of which protected and respected the basic human freedoms. It would be a world which demanded of each government that it accept its responsibility to insure social justice. It would be a world of constantly accelerating economic progress -- not material welfare as an end in/of itself, but as a means to liberate the capacity of every human being to pursue his talents and to pursue his hopes. It would, in short, be a world that we would all be proud to have built."

He sharpened the message:

"Our answer is the world's hope: It is to rely on youth. The cruelties and the obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. It cannot be moved by those who cling to a present which is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger which comes with even the most peaceful progress.

This world demands the qualities of youth; not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the life of ease..."

But by having talked so much about America, he also blunted the criticism that he was urging another country to realize ideals that his own people had not fully met. The rest of his speech instead was about making common cause with everyone working for social and political justice. It was about how to create change:

"Few will have the greatness to bend history, but each of us can work to change a small portion of the events, and then the total -- all of these acts -- will be written in the history of this generation."

After noting the examples of the Peace Corps and the Resistance to the Nazis in Europe, he said this, the most-quoted part of the speech:

"It is from numberless diverse acts of courage such as these that the belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

But there was more. In a few words he defined the true Kennedy legacy, the necessary fusion of ideals and realism to create a better future:

"The second danger is that of expediency: of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course, if we must act effectively, we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done. But if there was one thing that President Kennedy stood for that touched the most profound feeling of young people around the world, it was the belief that idealism, high aspirations, and deep convictions are not incompatible with the most practical and efficient of programs -- that there is no basic inconsistency between ideals and realistic possibilities, no separation between the deepest desires of heart and of mind and the rational application of human effort to human problems.

It is not realistic or hardheaded to solve problems and take action unguided by ultimate moral aims and values, although we all know some who claim that it is so. In my judgment, it is thoughtless folly. For it ignores the realities of human faith and of passion and of belief -- forces ultimately more powerful than all of the calculations of our economists or of our generals. Of course to adhere to standards, to idealism, to vision in the face of immediate dangers takes great courage and takes self-confidence. But we also know that only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly.

It is this new idealism which is also, I believe, the common heritage of a generation which has learned that while efficiency can lead to the camps at Auschwitz, or the streets of Budapest, only the ideals of humanity and love can climb the hills of the Acropolis. "

Rising to the challenge, in July 1966 the National Union of South African Students came out explicitly against apartheid.

This was June 6, 1966. Two years later to the day, Robert F. Kennedy died from wounds inflicted by an assasin’s bullet two days before. He had just won the California primary for the U.S. presidency in 1968. He would be going to the Democratic convention in Chicago with the most votes, but not yet enough to assure the nomination. Looking tired and a little haunted, he ended his victory speech with the exhortation, “Now on to Chicago, and let’s win there,” flashing a peace sign and the Kennedy smile.

But before this exhortation, his last public words that night of June 4, 1966 were these: “We are a great country, an unselfish country and a compassionate country. And I intend to make that my basis for running."

[A version of this was on the rescued list at Daily Kos.]