What Global Heating Looks--and Feels-- Like

Still don’t believe in climate change? Then you’re either deep in denial or delirious from the heat," wrote Pulitzer Prize columnist Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post on Tuesday. "As I write this, the nation’s capital and its suburbs are in post-apocalypse mode. About one-fourth of all households have no electricity, the legacy of an unprecedented assault by violent thunderstorms Friday night. Things are improving: At the height of the power outage, nearly half the region was dark. The line of storms, which killed at least 18 people as it raced from the Midwest to the sea, culminated a punishing day when the official temperature here reached 104 degrees, a record for June."  And so on, adding stats from climatologists, and noting that if GOPers weren't such foes of solar power, they might well have had air conditioning today from rooftop solar collectors.

I happened to learn of this column from a flash through the new MSNBC show, "The Cycle," which features four cohosts, including a resident winger, a young woman in scholarly glasses, who said she was not terribly impressed with what a political columnist had to say about climate--she'd preferred a real climatologist.

Like nearly all of them haven't been heard on the subject.  Well, okay--how about this, also from Tuesday?

"But since at least 1988, climate scientists have warned that climate change would bring, in general, increased heat waves, more droughts, more sudden downpours, more widespread wildfires and worsening storms. In the United States, those extremes are happening here and now.

So far this year, more than 2.1 million acres have burned in wildfires, more than 113 million people in the U.S. were in areas under extreme heat advisories last Friday, two-thirds of the country is experiencing drought, and earlier in June, deluges flooded Minnesota and Florida.

"This is what global warming looks like at the regional or personal level," said Jonathan Overpeck, professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences at the University of Arizona. "The extra heat increases the odds of worse heat waves, droughts, storms and wildfire. This is certainly what I and many other climate scientists have been warning about."

Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in fire-charred Colorado, said these are the very record-breaking conditions he has said would happen, but many people wouldn't listen. So it's I told-you-so time, he said.

As recently as March, a special report an extreme events and disasters by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned of "unprecedented extreme weather and climate events." Its lead author, Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution and Stanford University, said Monday, "It's really dramatic how many of the patterns that we've talked about as the expression of the extremes are hitting the U.S. right now."

"What we're seeing really is a window into what global warming really looks like," said Princeton University geosciences and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer. "It looks like heat. It looks like fires. It looks like this kind of environmental disasters."

(Photo: one in a series of the Washington storms by Joel Holland.)

I learned from someone in the DC area a bit more about what "post-apocalyptic mode" looks like as well.  It's children and old people trapped in houses with no air conditioning or even refrigeration, or by now, even much food, since the contents of refrigerators in areas still without power have long since spoiled.  It's seniors and the disabled totally dependent on the Meals on Wheels deliverers huffing up 14 floors of stairs because of no power for the elevator.

 All of this in triple digit heat that gets down to 90 at night.  23 known deaths so far are attributed to the heat and storms in the DC area.  Thanks in part to denialists, preparation and response was in many cases valiant, but inadequate--and that's likely true across the country.

And this heat is widespread across the East Coast, Mid-Atlantic, South, Midwest and far West.  And the patterns look like they will continue through the month and well into next.

I remember that summer of 1988 when I got an inkling of what global heating would feel like.  But nearly a quarter century later we are still hearing well-paid, mediagenic and otherwise respectable deniers acting as if the scientific evidence isn't overwhelming, and the human costs of denial aren't obvious outside the studio door.  We're firmly in the political clutches of the paid and paid-off deniers with political and economic power, who are trying to increase and solidify that power for the foreseeable future, which, if they continue in this and even increase their stranglehold, may not actually be very long.

In a recent interview Kim Stanley Robinson, author of the vivid Science in the Capital trilogy, allows that people are tired of reading about the Climate Crisis, including him.  Because so far nothing changes.  At best, it's the moment before smoking "suddenly" slipped into being really unacceptable, and one municipality after another banned it from public places, which was actually after decades of battle and well-paid denial.  

What is supposed to overwhelm the denial and cauterize the denialists is feeling the reality of the Climate Crisis.  In the U.S. this summer may well test that theory, but a lot of innocent people will pay the price for those well-paid and paid off in our political and media capitals.

Independence Day?  Not yet.  And make no mistake: the science news of the day has nothing to do with God particles.  It's what the real world is doing to us thanks to what we have done, and it's about what we're not doing about it.       

Baseball Very Very Good

They gave a taste of this last year: the Pittsburgh Pirates went on an exciting winning streak just before the All-Star break, when they were above .500 for the first time in years, but collapsed after the teams returned.  This year they are again in first place at July 4th, with another impressive winning streak, but somehow this feels like it may be different.

It seems less freakish, for one thing.  There is solid pitching and pretty dependable hitters, especially Andrew McCutchen (pictured) who leads the National League in batting with a .360 average.  In any case, the Pirates have been rocking the excellent Pittsburgh ballpark.

The San Francisco Giants are also suddenly in first place, after a series in which they shut out the LA Dodgers completely, and won a home series with the Pirates' main division rival, the Cinncy Reds.  But they're now on a torturous road trip, in which Tim Lincecum wilted in the DC heat.  Earlier in the week, first place Washington's best pitcher had to leave the game with dehydration.  Baseball is not the only sport affected, though with temperatures this dangerously high, more events should have been cancelled.  It's another adjustment to global heating that will be eventually made, though probably after the danger becomes all too obvious.

Apart from that, baseball is a ritualized refuge from current madness, and with my teams doing this well, it's fun again.

Of Roberts' Ruling and the New Order

Two things happened last week that bode well for the U.S. economy and the chances for the less than wealthy to make a little economic progress.  First was the Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.  Had it been wounded or destroyed, the economic turmoil would have been immediate, injecting uncertainty (especially in the healthcare sector) into a fragile recovery.  Keeping it on track will benefit the economy--not to mention most Americans-- in the long run in a variety of ways.  The second event (in time) was the European Union deal that makes major economic turmoil in Europe less likely, at least in the short term.  Such turmoil would have immediately stifled U.S. growth and could have nudged the economy back into official recession.

There's been a lot of noise in Washington about the ACA ruling.  Predictably much of it is scandalously inaccurate, both in terms of the ruling and the facts of the law.  Predictably much of it is nervous and inflated political guessing.  A number of polls taken since the ruling on Thursday have concluded various things, but perhaps the most salient number is that almost half of respondents in one poll hadn't even heard of the ruling at all.

And all too predictably, some of the noise was scary.  The ruling upheld the law by a final 5-4 vote, with Chief Justice Roberts casting the deciding vote for the majority.  This fact sent the Rabid Right into fits, and Roberts--an erstwhile reliable ally--was castigated in the usual extreme terms as a traitor to the cause.

Then a CBS report, summarized here, made news first of all because it broke the Supreme's usual leakproof silence, indicating that high level clerks or actual Justices did the leaking (my money is on a "conservative" Justice or two, or at least a clerk acting on direct instructions from a Justice.)  It also made news for its assertion that Roberts initially sided with the conservatives in nullifying the law, but made a late switch.

The initial reaction to the article was divided between those expressing skepticism on this point, and general agreement with the implications: that the "conservatives" on this Court are indeed political before they are constitutional judges.  So this decision, as beneficial as it is, may well be the exception that proves the rule.

Though one of the CBS report's points has been questioned in terms of the sequence of the various opinions being written, it suggests that Anthony Kennedy (previously believed to be a swing vote) is strongly ideological, and that he and the other "conservatives" were so upset with Roberts' decision that they ignored his legal points in their opinions--that they essentially dissed him.  In other words, they acted exactly as the ideological Rabid Right are acting now. 

Congressional Republicans are busily misinterpreting the basis for Roberts' decision, and then lying about it.  All of this is further evidence that as the GOP becomes the apparatus of the Rabid Right, it is ceasing to be a political party in the American sense, and more like the Communist Party in the Soviet bloc--striving for one party rule in the Soviet sense: insisting on ideological purity internally, and seeking to dominate and deny rights and legitimacy to any external group.  The pattern of the GOP moving in that direction is pretty clear.  

So it isn't just that the Court is engaged in partisan politics over interpretation of the law, which is already a failing.  And it isn't even that they are ideological, which further distorts their judgments and renders the R5 injudicious and dangerous.  It is that their ideology is as dogmatic as if revealed by their God, in aid of a political party bent on as totalitarian a New Order as the U.S. has ever seen.   If indeed the ACA ruling was the exception that proves the rule (which recent history as well as a lot of evidence from within the opinions convinces me is likely) maybe even because there are a few shreds of integrity left, or if Roberts' example injects some sobriety about the Court's real responsibilities, will be known only by future decisions.  Meanwhile, this election becomes in part a referendum on the future of American democracy. 
 

Campaign Rhythms

Presidential politics continues: Romney, whose reputation as a liar grows internationally (Michael Cohen writes in the Guardian: "But Romney is doing something very different and far more pernicious. Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney,")
is caught in a pretty serious lie about his past--with implications that have something damning for everybody, left, center and far right.  Meanwhile the Obama campaign braces itself for the upcoming unemployment report and also the figures on political contributions for June, which may show the Romney campaign raking in a bunch more.

But except for the swing states where political messaging is already unavoidable, many if not most people aren't paying a lot of attention to the day to day (not to mention the hour to hour, minute to minute, tweet to tweet.)  A lot of people already know who they are voting for in November, and so they can save a lot of time by ignoring the campaign (which is why polls that measure interest in the campaign tell very little.)

President Obama is enjoying an unpredicted bump in the polls, especially in some swing states.  But the really big anti-Obama advertising effort in those states has not yet begun.  We'll see how effective the endlessly repeated Big Lies can be.

Meanwhile many won't be paying much attention until the real show starts at the conventions later in the summer and then in the debates in the fall.  It's probably true that campaigns can be won and lost in the spring, if a candidate is defined.  But that's learnable only after the votes are in.  As is everything else.  Bill Clinton went from unloved third place to a contender at his convention, and then to favorite in the debates.  On the other hand, John Kerry had a good convention and won all three debates against G.W. Bush, but didn't win the large majority required if a Democrat is permitted to win.  So nobody really knows.  But one thing is certain: it's barely July. 

Happy birthday, Martha.  (And Grace Ann, Bruce D., my other bday twins known and unknown.)  As you can see I'm the same old guy, just older and, of course, bluer.

The Dreaming Up Daily Quote

“The more realistic life may be, the more it needs the stimulus of the imagination.”
Wallace Stevens

The Dreaming Up Daily Quote

MSNBC Lean Forward - Chris Hayes from Joe Gabriel on Vimeo.

"Climate change is the biggest governing challenge we face. It's the biggest governing challenge I think we've ever faced. One way or another, we're going to have to dramatically reduce the amount of carbon we're putting in the atmosphere and the scale and scope of that undertaking is every bit as transformational as the industrial revolution or the transition to the digital age. And you can think about that as terrifying, or you can think about it as thrilling."

Chris Hayes
text of his MSNBC Lean Forward promo

A Rising Tide Drowns All Cities

The tremendous rain and flooding in Florida, the fires scorching across Colorado, all just...weather.  Although more Americans are making the connection to the Climate Crisis, there's still room for denial.

But sea level rise...That's a little different.  There are other ways to account for it, of course, but rising sea levels was probably the first predicted effect of the Climate Crisis that got lodged in the public memory.

So now it's not just the kind of weather the Climate Crisis models have predicted.  It's rising sea levels--and one place where they are rising much faster that the global average is the East Coast of the United States.

That's "are rising," according to a new study.  Sure, another new study, but this one is a little different:

   "Computer models long have projected higher levels along parts of the East Coast because of changes in ocean currents from global warming, but this is the first study to show that's already happened."

Of course it's a modest rise, and only one of many predicted global heating effects being observed and reported.  But models show that levels affecting  New York City, Boston and Washington, D.C.  will rise twice as much as elsewhere on the East Coast.

Here's the thing about sea levels rising that maybe everybody doesn't get (I certainly didn't fully appreciate it.)  A sea level rise of five feet does not mean that five feet of beach are going to get washed away.  It means that the sea is going to come into land and flood areas that are less than five feet above sea level, potentially for miles and miles inland, depending on how high the land gets--and even then the sea could tumble through low-lying valleys to form new rivers and lakes. 

That means that stuff that's five feet above current sea level will be totally underwater.  But engineers suggest that a sea level rise of only eight inches could cause millions of dollars of damage in New York.

Current models of how high the rises will be are imprecise, and usually conservative.  Some of the latest suggest 3-5 feet for parts of the East and West Coasts of the US by the end of the century.  Along the West Coast now, beach erosion (caused by a number of factors) is so severe that some communities are wondering whether to just relocate.   But--to use an ironic metaphor--that's probably just the tip of the iceberg.

In an interview Kim Stanley Robinson suggests that if global heating continues and the major ice sheets slide into the sea, sea levels could rise by 30 or 40 feet in a few hundred years.  (He sets his new novel--cleverly called 2312--three hundred years in the future, and posits a 30 foot rise, which transforms New York City into Venice.)   If methane under the ice is released, the planet is cooked, and if all the ice melts, the total rise could be 270 feet.   That's enough to put the state of Florida underwater.

The National Mall in Washington, D.C. is about ten feet above sea level.  The Central Valley of California, far from the coast, could be flooded by a 35 foot rise, creating an inland sea (which it was long ago.) 

It's even likely that with a significant sea level rise, most if not all of the world's beaches would be gone.  There would be no beach to walk on, for a million years or more.

The ramifications are huge, but maybe that one thing is enough to contemplate for now.   

The Message of Stonehenge

Stonehenge has tantalized and mystified generations.  These monumental stones were not only arrayed in some incomprehensible pattern--the stones came from many different locations, some of them very far away.  What was its purpose?

A ten year archaeological investigation has resulted in a conclusion: Stonehenge was "a monument to unify the peoples of Britain after a long period of conflict and regional differences."

When Stonehenge was built,” said Professor Mike Parker Pearson of the University of Sheffield, “there was a growing island-wide culture – the same styles of houses, pottery and other material forms were used from Orkney to the south coast. This was very different to the regionalism of previous centuries. Stonehenge itself was a massive undertaking, requiring the labour of thousands to move stones from as far away as west Wales, shaping them and erecting them. Just the work itself, requiring everyone literally to pull together, would have been an act of unification.”

This all happened some 5,000 years ago., at about the midpoint (so far) in the history of human civilization.

The people who built Stonehenge selected a site of particular importance--because like monuments thousands of miles away (in the U.S. for instance) it does align with solar and lunar events. Professor Parker Pearson said: “When we stumbled across this extraordinary natural arrangement of the sun’s path being marked in the land, we realized that prehistoric people selected this place to build Stonehenge because of its pre-ordained significance. This might explain why there are eight monuments in the Stonehenge area with solstitial alignments, a number unmatched anywhere else. Perhaps they saw this place as the centre of the world.”

The particulars of this history are so far lost to us.  Only so much can be inferred from surviving evidence.  In a way it is as mythical as the United Federation of Planets posited in the Star Trek future: another instance of peoples coming together after a self-destructive time. 

But it is the kind of myth we need.  We can guess that within us there is the possibility of coming together to solve our common problems.  It is worth something to suggest that even on this scale, humans have done so before.  That they may have done so by affirming the natural, the cosmic rightness of it, is perhaps the most heartening of all.

[The bottom photo is an official White House photo of President Obama with Nichelle Nichols, who not only played Uhura on Star Trek, but successfully recruited minority astronauts for NASA.  The photo was taken some months ago but posted recently by Nichelle.]

Judging the Court

In a decision announced Monday, the Supreme Court followed the law on federal responsibility for immigration, supporting a lower court ruling that most of the Arizona law is unconstitutional.  But the Court continued to undermine the very basis of representative democracy by its partisan and ideological doubling down on the Citizens United decision by denying Montana its historic right to regulate political contributions in state elections.

Just how wildly Rabid Right the majority of this Court is can be seen in the amazement of the reaction to their brave decision to forbid mandatory life sentences for children.  And yet Samuel Alito made a spectacle of himself in his angry dissent delivered from the bench.  Of course children should automatically be thrown into prison for life!  Rachel's take on the day's decision gets it right.

When Ruth Bader Ginsberg uttered her cryptic forecast of this week's decisions, she noted that dissents can be important in shaping later policy.  Presumably she wasn' talking about Alito or especially Scalia's demented rant on the Arizona decision.  But absent the Affordable Care Act decision, she may well have meant Justice Breyer's dissent on the Montana decision.  It does not display dazzling reasoning or appreciation for the nuances of the Constitution.  It merely points out that Montana cited actual historical evidence of big money donations leading to years of corruption in the state, whereas the Supreme 5 decided in Citizens United that this was so impossible that corporations must be permitted to spend as much as they wish.  That evidence was the very reason this law was passed--in 1912.  Again, Rachel points out the flaws in their argument that money is "speech."  Everybody has speech, not everybody has that kind of money.   A high school debater making this Court's argument would be laughed off the stage.

 Coupled with the decision last week to limit the "speech" of labor unions, it's a clear ideological and partisan power grab.  The Supremes, beginning with their entirely partisan Bush v. Gore decision that resulted in the Rabid Right almost solid 5 vote majority, are providing one of the major tools to create a one party system, GOPer rule forever: the mountains of cash from those who have it, overwhelmingly corporations supporting those who will vote and advocate the way the corporations want them to, and the billionaires who can throw around the equivalent of many lifetimes of income for most Americans on their pet causes and power grabs. 

The other half is restricting the right to vote. We'll see what contortions the Court 5 go into to help that along.  The partisan intent of those efforts were obvious even before some yahoo GOPer legislator in PA said it out loud.

In my lifetime, there have been worries about the political leanings of various justices, and while they had their points of view, most turned out to be judicious, justifying their opinions with legal argument.  But the wolf finally came. The ideological bent of this Court is so obvious that most legal experts polled agreed that the Affordable Care Act is Constitutional and should be upheld, but a majority also agreed that this Court was not likely to do so.  The judges have been judged as ideological and partisan hacks.

It matters a great deal to a great many people if they destroy health care reform on Thursday.  But even if they don't, it doesn't much matter to their long game.  They can even lose to an incumbent Democratic President, knowing that they can outspend anybody, and keep the bad demographics from voting just enough to never lose the White House again.   And it will take a lot for them to lose Congress and state legislatures, even with the very low approval ratings and the extreme measures they've pushed through.  They're establishing a feudal state in Michigan, and it's not a national scandal, it's not even a blip.

Demography may be destiny in the long run politically, but this Court may well have those 5 votes for a long time, too.  It's going to make the very difficult future unnecessarily more painful for all but a very few.

The Great Dithering: The Climate

The UN international sustainability conference held in Rio--twenty years after a similar meeting seemed to aim world efforts at addressing the Climate Crisis--has ended with nearly unanimous negative reviews.  The Executive Director of Greenpeace called the final report "the longest suicide note in history."

No real international or national commitments, no enforcement, nothing but platitudes--the Great Dithering.  The NY Times reporters suggest that non-governmental action and pledges to act were perhaps the only positive outcome.  None of this is new.  And that's the problem.

I try to take into account the natural sense of things ending, or not changing fast enough to avert catastrophe, that seems to come with age, especially as one's abilities to do anything about it have an expiration date that is fast approaching or probably has long since passed.  I take note of the efforts of young activists, and their point of view.  And while I am saddened by persistent but useless, unfair and counterproductive tarring of an entire Baby Boom generation, I know that the torch has passed and I wish the younger generations well.  But it seems increasingly likely that those being born now are going to be engaged in Civilization: the Reboot during their lifetimes.

For while political decisionmakers (including constituencies) dither, the climate keeps on its catastrophic path coming ever close to the point of no return.  Even if there is a sudden enormous change at the last minute--though another summer of devastating wildfires, heatwaves and storms doesn't seem to be turning the trick--it may be too late.  Right now I have to look for optimism to those who say that humanity could recover in a couple of hundred years, and that's mostly if we figure out how to live somewhere in space.  I console myself with the thought that in a thousand years, if humanity doesn't make the same mistake of deifying predatory capitalism as the god and measure of all things, it might be ready to take another step towards the fulfilment of its promise.  

The Great Dithering: The Economy

Paul Krugman has issued yet another warning about the U.S. and indeed the global economy, only this one is less about what we should do (and could easily do) to jumpstart growth than about the consequences of not doing that, which could be quickly severe in the extreme--not 1937, when FDR listened to the austerity hawks and lessened federal stimulus which reignited the Depression, but 1931, and a series of indecisions that led to the global economic collapse of the Great Depression.

The occasion for this is the Fed's decision last week to do the absolute minimum that prevents people from saying they did nothing (to paraphrase Krugman) when it could have done more to get the economy moving.  His conclusion:  

Why won’t the Fed act? My guess is that it’s intimidated by those Congressional Republicans, that’s it’s afraid to do anything that might be seen as providing political aid to President Obama, that is, anything that might help the economy. Maybe there’s some other explanation, but the fact is that the Fed, like the European Central Bank, like the U.S. Congress, like the government of Germany, has decided that avoiding economic disaster is somebody else’s responsibility.
      

None of this should be happening. As in 1931, Western nations have the resources they need to avoid catastrophe, and indeed to restore prosperity — and we have the added advantage of knowing much more than our great-grandparents did about how depressions happen and how to end them. But knowledge and resources do no good if those who possess them refuse to use them.

And that’s what seems to be happening. The fundamentals of the world economy aren’t, in themselves, all that scary; it’s the almost universal abdication of responsibility that fills me, and many other economists, with a growing sense of dread."

He's So Bain

Three stories in major U.S. newspapers over the past several days have examined Mitt Romney's experience running Bain Capital and they are all damning.

First was the Washington Post, which found that while Romney loudly laments the loss of American jobs to overseas and pledges to reverse the trend, he pretty much started it:

"During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission."

The New York Times chimed in with an analysis of Bain's operations which showed that at least seven of the companies Bain took over failed, but that Bain still made money from them:

Mr. Romney’s experience at Bain is at the heart of his case for the presidency. He has repeatedly promoted his years working in the “real economy,” arguing that his success turning around troubled companies and helping to start new ones, producing jobs in the process, has prepared him to revive the country’s economy. He has fended off attacks about job losses at companies Bain owned, saying, “Sometimes investments don’t work and you’re not successful.” But an examination of what happened when companies Bain controlled wound up in bankruptcy highlights just how different Bain and other private equity firms are from typical denizens of the real economy, from mom-and-pop stores to bootstrapping entrepreneurial ventures.
      

Bain structured deals so that it was difficult for the firm and its executives to ever really lose, even if practically everyone else involved with the company that Bain owned did, including its employees, creditors and even, at times, investors in Bain’s funds."

The Boston Globe focused on one of Romney's big deals, which heavily involved him with junk bond king and felon Michael Milkin:

 "What transpired would become not just one of the most profitable leveraged buyouts of the era, but also one of the most revealing stories of Romney’s Bain Capital career. It showed how he pivoted from being a relatively cautious investor to risking his reputation for a big payoff. It is one that Romney has rarely, if ever, mentioned in his two bids for the presidency, perhaps because the Houston-based department store chain that Bain assembled later went into bankruptcy."

But what distinguishes this deal from the nearly 100 others that Romney did over a 15-year period was his close work with Milken’s firm, Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. At the time of the deal, it was widely known that Milken and his company were under federal investigation, yet Romney decided to go ahead with the deal because Drexel had a unique ability to sell high-risk, high-yield debt instruments, known as “junk bonds.”

 Romney, meanwhile, once referred to the deal as emanating from “the glorious days of Drexel Burnham,” saying, “it was fun while it lasted,” in a little-noticed interview with American Banker magazine."

(An additional irony for me when I linked to Boston.com for this story were the interpolated ads after the opening graph: the first was a solicitation to contribute to the Romney campaign, the second was an enticement to invest to get:  9.42% Annual Yield. 2 Year Term $1,000 Minimum. Not FDIC Insured.  [Emphasis added, of course.])

Rightists will snivel that these are libral lamestream media publications to invalidate the stories, but I'm afraid that isn't really enough.  The facts asserted will have to be challenged, such as mistakes or even deliberate misuse of Securities and Exchange Comission data--which wingers are intimately familiar with, since they--and the Romney campaign--regularly lie about quantifiable facts, let alone interpretations.   They've already attempted such with the Post story.  As of Sunday they have two more to deal with.

Planet of the Apes?

An AP story begins:

The more we study animals, the less special we seem.

Baboons can distinguish between written words and gibberish. Monkeys seem to be able to do multiplication. Apes can delay instant gratification longer than a human child can. They plan ahead. They make war and peace. They show empathy. They share.

"It's not a question of whether they think — it's how they think," says Duke University scientist Brian Hare. Now scientists wonder if apes are capable of thinking about what other apes are thinking.

"The evidence that animals are more intelligent and more social than we thought seems to grow each year, especially when it comes to primates," the piece continues.  Monkeys have amazing memories.  Apes may be setting goals and working towards them. But it's not just primates:

Dolphins, whose brains are 25 percent heavier than humans, recognize themselves in a mirror. So do elephants. A study in June finds that black bears can do primitive counting, something even pigeons have done, by putting two dots before five, or 10 before 20 in one experiment.

Even dogs and cats are getting more scientific respect. There's more evidence in a recent booklength collection of research. Still more research suggests that crows and even bees recognize individual people. Little birdbrains remember where scores of food caches are, even under snow cover.  Why all of a sudden are we figuring this out, as primate species particularly are on the brink of extinction?  Prejudice operates among scientists just like everywhere else, and if the conventional wisdom is that animals cannot have uniquely human abilities, then anybody who goes looking for them--or even sees them and reports them--risks being laughed out of their careers.  Primatologist Frans de Waal, a pioneer in this area, has suggested that scientists haven't seen such evidence because they simply weren't looking for it.

But now that it's okay, there's much more research money available for these studies, and so there is much more evidence.  Apart from the ethical implications of how these animals are treated by scientists and other humans using them for entertainment, there is of course the profound ethical implication of causing their extinction. 

We aren't so incredibly different and special.  But we do have the power to destroy and maybe the power to save.  At least it is our moral duty to try to save the world from the Climate Crisis and the other destructions we're wreaking on the life of this planet.  It's great that scientists are looking at other animals and finally asking, what are they thinking?  But we need a good look in the mirror, and ask on behalf of these animals, what are we thinking?

A Longer View

These days, the days events support the feeling that we are spiraling down rapidly into madness and a new Dark Age.  The medium term view--when people my age look back several decades--provides some solace, but not much.  Back in the 60s we sang a song with the refrain "when will they ever learn?" and it seems just about everyday we get the answer, "Probably never, or at least, not yet."  For example, the GOPer madness of a Clinton impeachment repeated on a smaller scale (so far) with the GOPer House committee's contempt citation against Attorney General Eric Holder.  Rachel Maddow argued persuasively that this is yet another scary example of GOPer Rabid Right madness (fixating on guns), while I doubt I'm alone is seeing the racist component: in a time when a new GOP racist treatment of President Obama arises somewhere nearly every day, GOPers try to take down the first black Attorney General of the first black President.  

But maybe there is some solace in the longer view.  At least that's according to Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, who makes the case that over the centuries, violence of all kind has decreased.  I wouldn't entertain what he says without pairing it with psychologist James Hillman's views in his book, The Terrible Love of War, which looks at the archetypal needs that war addresses, but there is some common ground: I think both would agree that institutionalizing  non-lethal ways of addressing those needs is both possible and desirable--or frankly, necessary.

It seems to me that Pinker very ably sums up his thesis in the first two answers, the first two paragraphs of his interview with The European:   

    
The European: Your current book addresses the question of violence. What is the focus of your argument?
Pinker: That violence has declined over the course of history on multiple scales of magnitude and time. Homicide, war, genocide, rape, corporal and capital punishments, and the harsh treatment of children and animals have all become less frequent. It’s not that human nature has changed during these transitions. But human nature is a complex system with many parts. Some tempt us towards violence – exploitation, dominance, revenge – and others can inhibit us from being violent – self-control, empathy, moral norms and reason. My goal was to identify the historical forces that have increasingly favored “the better angels of our nature,” as Abraham Lincoln called them.

The European: What historical forces can be causally linked to a decline in violence?
Pinker: A major one is the rise of effective government, which helped to pacify society, just as Thomas Hobbes had predicted in his theory of the “Leviathan.” Governments removed the incentives for exploitative violence on one side, and thereby reduced the temptation for pre-emptive attack and for violent retaliation on the other. Another force was the expansion of trade and commerce, which made it cheaper to buy things than to steal them, and meant that other people were worth more alive than dead. A third was the rise of cosmopolitan forces like literacy and travel, which expanded people’s circle of empathy. At the same time, reason and free speech were enhanced, which encouraged people to become cleverer to treat violence as a problem to be solved."

The GOPer threat to effective government is a clear and present danger, and this suggests what one result might well be if they succeed.  Two other trends seem likely to continue as long as civilization does: trade and commerce, literacy and travel (if you include storytelling by any form in the "literacy" category.)  Reason and free speech are always threatened, and today the internal threat is coming from the overthrow of consciousness by the raging unconscious of way too many Americans. 

The point here--which actually comports with my medium term view--is that positive trends that are supported by institutions and partly through them by culture can make a difference in what aspects of human nature are emphasized more often and with greater, wider effect.  And therein lies the hope of the future: through individuals certainly, their consciousness of themselves and their commitments to the kind of person they want to be and the kind of society they want to support.  By also through the norms supported by the important institutions of the time, over time, beyond the medium term of one individual life into the long term. 

Viva!

Cristina Saralegui is the "Latina Oprah."  The post linked suggests that Romney needs to win the vast majority of white voters to make up for the groups he is badly losing.  

Also in election news...
It's easy to get impatient with all the fundraising emails, especially the manipulative ones.  But one I got today provides some perspective: one billionaire, Sheldon Adelson (formerly Newt's notorious Vegas backer) says he may pour as much as $100 million into the campaign against President Obama.  That's what the Obama campaign raises over several months from small donors, and Adled is but one billionaire bankrolling Romney.   Adelson is worth $20 billion, so the Obama campaign estimates that even if he does part with $100 million, that's the equivalent for him of a $40 contribution by a middle class family.

That's what this country is up against this year.  A candidate who lies virtually every time he opens his mouth, running a deceptive and otherwise ugly and unhinged campaign, with the capacity to blanket the electorate with deceptive, ugly and unhinged ads--and pay for the on-the-ground organizing that the Romney campaign and the GOP don't even bother trying to produce.

It's crossed the mind of E.J. Dionne among others that some superrich people may see that they need to be willing to spend for Dems if anything like a level playing field is to occur.  He concludes: "It’s preposterous that our system has handed over so much power to those with large fortunes that the only way to get matters under control is to have one group of rich people check the power of another group of rich people. Maybe the absurdity of it all will finally force the Supreme Court and Congress to bring us back to something more reasonable. It’s called democracy. "

The Dreaming Up Daily Quote

"Night gives us permission to hope, to wish, to dream, to be whomever we wish."

Christopher Dewdney
Acquainted with the Night
photo: Milky Way Lake Superior by  Shawn Malone

Missing Links

Time to clean up bookmarked links that for one reason or another I didn't blog about:

A persuasive piece on getting rid of the filibuster at Boston.com.

Fellow boomers take note: how psychedelic drugs can help face death.  (Or you can just keep drinking a lot of coffee.)

Also for boomers as well as others: an interview with Harold Reingold on his book about Internet literacies.

An intriguing poll finding: "independent" voters want President Obama to keep pressure on the big banks. 

A sharp look into today's higher education, with particular interest to fellow English majors in American Scholar.  

The possible--and sadly believable--truth about the fate of Amelia Earhart.

Some expert opinion that today's total polarization is not only politically and socially damaging but also psychologically.

Possibly the strangest political story of a typically insanely strange week: the Romney campaign is criticized as being financed by foreign money--by John McCain.

Plus two stories I probably will write about, though probably on another blog:

The Justice Department is investigating the cable television industry, and it's about time.

Movie theaters are still getting away with dimly projecting the images on their screens--one of the main reasons I seldom go to movies anymore.  At last I find I'm not the only one who notices. Roger Ebert for one.

Finally a link to the most brilliant essay I've read this year on several topics, which I do hope to write about soon. (Ignore the pedestrian beginning.) (Note: the top illustration is from this article in The Baffler.)

Ominous

A little story with an ominous warning: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at a speaking engagement warns of the "sharp disagreement rate" on the Court going up in the big decisions to be announced in the next few weeks, including the Affordable Care Act decision.

If that isn't a hint, could this be?  She spoke of the value of dissenting opinions in influencing future legislative changes.

To Rebuild America

President Obama outlined his vision for America's economic future in Ohio on Thursday. 

"This election is about our economic future. .. [T]his election presents a choice between two fundamentally different visions of how to create strong, sustained growth; how to pay down our long-term debt; and most of all, how to generate good, middle-class jobs so people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead. 
Now, this isn’t some abstract debate. This is not another trivial Washington argument. I have said that this is the defining issue of our time -- and I mean it. I said that this is a make-or-break moment for America’s middle class -- and I believe it. The decisions we make in the next few years on everything from debt and taxes to energy and education will have an enormous impact on this country and on the country we pass on to our children."

"The problems we’re facing right now have been more than a decade in the making.. . Both parties have laid out their policies on the table for all to see. What’s holding us back is a stalemate in Washington between two fundamentally different views of which direction America should take.
And this election is your chance to break that stalemate."

First President Obama outlined how we got to where we are.  The Bush administration claimed that its policies of huge tax cuts, especially to the rich, and less regulation would bring prosperity to all.  It didn't.  It did bring prosperity to some: the already rich. "Over the last few decades, the income of the top 1 percent grew by more than 275 percent -- to an average of $1.3 million a year. Big financial institutions, corporations saw their profits soar. But prosperity never trickled down to the middle class. From 2001 to 2008, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. The typical family saw their incomes fall."

"For a while, credit cards and home equity loans papered over the reality of this new economy -- people borrowed money to keep up. But the growth that took place during this time period turned out to be a house of cards. And in the fall of 2008, it all came tumbling down -- with a financial crisis that plunged the world into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Here in America, families’ wealth declined at a rate nearly seven times faster than when the market crashed in 1929. Millions of homes were foreclosed. Our deficit soared. And nine million of our citizens lost their jobs -- 9 million hardworking Americans who had met their responsibilities, but were forced to pay for the irresponsibility of others. "

"Throughout history, it has typically taken countries up to 10 years to recover from financial crises of this magnitude. Today, the economies of many European countries still aren’t growing. And their unemployment rate averages around 11 percent.  But here in the United States, Americans showed their grit and showed their determination. We acted fast. Our economy started growing again six months after I took office and it has continued to grow for the last three years.

Our businesses have gone back to basics and created over 4 million jobs in the last 27 months --  more private sector jobs than were created during the entire seven years before this crisis -- in a little over two years."  This includes manufacturing jobs:  "the strongest period of manufacturing job growth since 1995."

"And when my opponent and others were arguing that we should let Detroit go bankrupt, we made a bet on American workers and the ingenuity of American companies -- and today our auto industry is back on top of the world."

But the major effects of the Great Recession are not the only problems.  "But let’s be clear: Not only are we digging out of a hole that is 9 million jobs deep, we’re digging out from an entire decade where 6 million manufacturing jobs left our shores; where costs rose but incomes and wages didn’t; and where the middle class fell further and further behind."

So recovering from the crisis of 2008 has always been the first and most urgent order of business -- but it’s not enough. Our economy won’t be truly healthy until we reverse that much longer and profound erosion of middle-class jobs and middle-class incomes.

So the debate in this election is not about whether we need to grow faster, or whether we need to create more jobs, or whether we need to pay down our debt. Of course the economy isn’t where it needs to be. Of course we have a lot more work to do. Everybody knows that. The debate in this election is about HOW we grow faster, and HOW we create more jobs, and HOW we pay down our debt.   That’s the question facing the American voter. And in this election, you have two very different visions to choose from." [President Obama placed emphasis on those "how"s.]

President Obama used facts and figures from the real world to outline GOP proposals and their impacts.  Romney and the Ryan plan call for not only continuing present tax cuts and low tax rates for the weathiest, but new tax cuts for the wealthy.  They propose cutting $ billion from the federal budget but don't say what they will cut.

  " But here's the problem: The only tax breaks and deductions that get you anywhere close to $5 trillion are those that help middle-class families afford health care and college and retirement and homeownership. Without those tax benefits, tens of millions of middle-class families will end up paying higher taxes. Many of you would end up paying higher taxes to pay for this other tax cut. "

"I believe their approach is wrong. And I’m not alone. I have not seen a single independent analysis that says my opponent’s economic plan would actually reduce the deficit. Not one. Even analysts who may agree with parts of his economic theory don’t believe that his plan would create more jobs in the short term. They don’t claim his plan would help folks looking for work right now.

In fact, just the other week, one economist from Moody’s said the following about Mr. Romney’s plan -- and I'm quoting here -- "On net, all of these policies would do more harm in the short term. If we implemented all of his policies, it would push us deeper into recession and make the recovery slower."

As for the long term, remember that the economic vision of Mr. Romney and his allies in Congress was tested just a few years ago. We tried this. Their policies did not grow the economy. They did not grow the middle class. They did not reduce our debt. Why would we think that they would work better this time?  We can’t afford to jeopardize our future by repeating the mistakes of the past -- not now, not when there’s so much at stake.   

I've got a different vision for America.  I believe that you can’t bring down the debt without a strong and growing economy. And I believe you can’t have a strong and growing economy without a strong and growing middle class. This has to be our North Star -- an economy that’s built not from the top down, but from a growing middle class, that provides ladders of opportunity for folks who aren't yet in the middle class."

But the key to a strong middle class is how America competes in the world economy, as part of a "race to the bottom," a low wage, high pollution economy, or "a race to the top" that requires investment in education for  "the best-educated, best-trained workers in the world; an America with a commitment to research and development that is second to none, especially when it comes to new sources of energy and high-tech manufacturing. "

"I see a future where we pay down our deficit in a way that is balanced -- not by placing the entire burden on the middle class and the poor, but by cutting out programs we can’t afford, and asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute their fair share.  

That’s my vision for America: Education. Energy. Innovation. Infrastructure. And a tax code focused on American job creation and balanced deficit reduction."  

Understand, despite what you hear from my opponent, this has never been a vision about how government creates jobs or has the answers to all our problems. Over the last three years, I’ve cut taxes for the typical working family by $3,600. (Applause.) I’ve cut taxes for small businesses 18 times. (Applause.) I have approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. And I’m implementing over 500 reforms to fix regulations that were costing folks too much for no reason."

"I’ve signed a law that cuts spending and reduces our deficit by $2 trillion. My own deficit plan would strengthen Medicare and Medicaid for the long haul by slowing the growth of health care costs -- not shifting them to seniors and vulnerable families."

So, no, I don’t believe the government is the answer to all our problems... But I do share the belief of our first Republican President, from my home state -- Abraham Lincoln -- that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. 

That’s how we built this country -- together. We constructed railroads and highways, the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. We did those things together. We sent my grandfather’s generation to college on the GI Bill -- together.  We instituted a minimum wage and rules that protected people’s bank deposits -- together.  Together, we touched the surface of the moon, unlocked the mystery of the atom, connected the world through our own science and imagination. We haven’t done these things as Democrats or Republicans. We’ve done them as Americans."

The President outlined specific plans for his second term: for a clean energy economy, investment in science and technology, in community colleges, in infrastructure:

"At a time when we have so much deferred maintenance on our nation’s infrastructure -- schools that are crumbling, roads that are broken, bridges that are buckling -- now is not the time to saddle American businesses with crumbling roads and bridges. Now is the time to rebuild America.  
So my plan would take half the money we’re no longer spending on war -- let’s use it to do some nation-building here at home. Let’s put some folks to work right here at home.

My plan would get rid of pet projects and government boondoggles and bridges to nowhere.   But if we want businesses to come here and to hire here, we have to provide the highways and the runways and the ports and the broadband access, all of which move goods and products and information across the globe."

Throughout his speech President Obama also talked about responsible longterm solutions to the federal deficit.  Part of the solution is responsible tax policy that requires that the wealthiest pay more than the historic very low taxes they now enjoy.

Then he drew the contrasts, between the Romney plan of more tax cuts for the rich versus what he proposes:

  "I don’t believe that tax cut [for the wealthy] is more likely to create jobs than providing loans to new entrepreneurs or tax credits to small business owners who hire veterans. I don’t believe it’s more likely to spur economic growth than investments in clean energy technology and medical research, or in new roads and bridges and runways. I don’t believe that giving someone like Mr. Romney another huge tax cut is worth ending the guarantee of basic security we’ve always provided the elderly, and the sick, and those who are actively looking for work. 

Those things don’t make our economy weak. What makes our economy weak is when fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the goods and services our businesses sell. Businesses don’t have customers if folks are having such a hard time. What drags us all down is an economy in which there’s an ever-widening gap between a few folks who are doing extraordinarily well and a growing number of people who, no matter how hard they work, can barely make ends meet."

President Obama concluded with observations about the campaign and the stakes of this election:

"So, Governor Romney disagrees with my vision. His allies in Congress disagree with my vision. Neither of them will endorse any policy that asks the wealthiest Americans to pay even a nickel more in taxes. It’s the reason we haven’t reached a grand bargain to bring down our deficit... Despite the fact that taxes are lower than they’ve been in decades, they won’t work with us on any plan that would increase taxes on our wealthiest Americans. It’s the reason a jobs bill that would put 1 million people back to work has been voted down time and time again. It’s the biggest source of gridlock in Washington today.

And the only thing that can break the stalemate is you.  You see, in our democracy, this remarkable system of government, you, the people, have the final say. This November is your chance to render a verdict on the debate over how to grow the economy, how to create good jobs, how to pay down our deficit. Your vote will finally determine the path that we take as a nation -- not just tomorrow, but for years to come.   When you strip everything else away, that’s really what this election is about. That’s what is at stake right now. Everything else is just noise. Everything else is just a distraction.   

From now until then, both sides will spend tons of money on TV ads. The other side will spend over a billion dollars on ads that tell you the economy is bad, that it’s all my fault -- that I can’t fix it because I think government is always the answer, or because I didn’t make a lot of money in the private sector and don't understand it, or because I’m in over my head, or because I think everything and everybody is doing just fine.  That’s what the scary voice in the ads will say.   That’s what Mr. Romney will say. That’s what the Republicans in Congress will say.

Well, that may be their plan to win the election, but it’s not a plan to create jobs.  It’s not a plan to grow the economy. It’s not a plan to pay down the debt. And it’s sure not a plan to revive the middle class and secure our future. "

 " At a moment this big -- a moment when so many people are still struggling -- I think you deserve a real debate about the economic plans we’re proposing. Governor Romney and the Republicans who run Congress believe that if you simply take away regulations and cut taxes by trillions of dollars, the market will solve all of our problems on its own. If you agree with that, you should vote for them. And I promise you they will take us in that direction.

I believe we need a plan for better education and training --  and for energy independence, and for new research and innovation; for rebuilding our infrastructure; for a tax code that creates jobs in America and pays down our debt in a way that’s balanced. I have that plan. They don’t.  

And if you agree with me -- if you believe this economy grows best when everybody gets a fair shot, and everybody does their fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules -- then I ask you to stand with me for a second term as President."  

"I will work with anyone of any party who believes that we’re in this together -- who believes that we rise or fall as one nation and as one people."

"This November, you can provide a mandate for the change we need right now. You can move this nation forward. And you can remind the world once again why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth."

Magic By the Bay

It only took 128 years.  On Wednesday evening in San Francisco, Matt Cain pitched the first perfect game in the 128 year history of the Giants, one of the oldest teams in big league baseball.  This perfect game was a thing of beauty that exemplifies this sport at its best.  There have been only nine official perfect games in the National League (they don't count Harvey Haddix's 11 perfect innings in a game he lost in the 12th) and the 22nd in major league history.  That's out of more than 350,000 games played.

Said the ESPN headline: Matt Cain wasn't just perfect Wednesday night. He may have tossed the greatest game in MLB history.

 It happened in the Giant's home park before a large and very responsive crowd.  (I've only seen one game there but the combination of the beauty of the park and the right-there electricity of the crowd in so-called layed back San Francisco was unique.)

Matt Cain has come close to no-hitters before, and he said afterwards that he'd never had better command of his pitches. He struck out 14 of the Houston Astros he faced--his personal high, and tying the most strikeouts in a perfect game with the immortal Sandy Koufax. Watching the game on TV, I don't recall seeing a better moving fastball since the young Doc Gooden.

 But a perfect game--no walks, no errors as well as no hits--is a team accomplishment.  This season the Giants have more team errors than all but one team.  But they made a number of tough plays, including Gregor Blanco's sterling catch in the right-center field "triples alley."  The teamwork starts with the catcher and pitcher, and Buster Posey was as perfect as Cain--every pitch he called worked, and Cain didn't shake off one sign the entire game. 

The Giants also gave Cain a 10-0 lead, which meant he could concentrate on the perfect game.  On the other hand, the Giants' 15 hits meant he was sitting in the dugout for long stretches, which can cool the arm of some pitchers and throw off their rhythm. 

But everything was working--Cain, the hits, the defense, the crowd that was thunderous in the late innings, after Cabrera's catch against the wall and then Blanco's instant classic, and they weren't the only excellent plays in the late innings to preserve the perfect game.  This is what makes it magical.  It can happen any game, but no one can predict which one.  If you're lucky enough to be part of it or just be there, you've been touched by magic.

This great but relatively young ball park has seen some magic before, and some history--World Series wins, the home run record broken and set. This also becomes an immortal night, to lift us out of the ugly slog of politics and"news."  To remind us that once in awhile, people can do something that's perfect.

Whose Bus Are You On?

Earlier this year, President Obama had this moment alone, sitting in the very seat on the very bus where Rosa Park's act of quiet defiance became an iconic moment in the struggle for racial equality in law and in practice.  Looking at this photo we may reflect on how far we've come, but sitting on that bus might prompt someone to realize how the fight is never over, and even some of the same ground must be defended and won again and again. 

In agitating for the practical, equal right to vote, African Americans in the 60s were not only claiming their own rights but affirming and reviving constitutional and societal rights for everyone.  By adding their free participation in the political process, and the economy, they added value to society, and made it easier for others to use their rights. 

A mirror of their fight for voting rights in this generation is resistance to the attempts by GOPer governors and legislators throughout the country to erode and even take away voting rights.  In Florida, the governor has essentially declared war on the federal government, specifically the Justice Department, in announcing his defiance of their order to stop the cynical attempts to deny citizens their right to vote.  Using the plainly cynical excuse of addressing a voting fraud that does not exist, he seeks to seize political power by preventing people who might vote against the GOP from being permitted to cast their votes.

There are principled people in Florida stopping this particular effort, but it is only one among many in that state, and in many other states.  Just as in the Civil Rights era, such efforts are conducted by cynical politicians who feed (and feed on) the ignorance and bigotry of the people who support them. 

Controlling who is eligible to vote is an age-old strategy for the undemocratic seizing and holding of power.  So is demagoguery, which in its way is also an assault on the integrity of elections, especially when it involves pernicious lies.  In this election, involving media paid for by huge amounts of money, those lies will be persistently repeated--and the Romney campaign is extraordinary in the number and size of its lies.

They are not differing approaches to policy, or arguable interpretations of meaning.  They are lies about quantifiable facts.  Romney's campaign is based on insisting that President Obama has vastly increased federal spending, added greatly to the federal deficit, and greatly increased federal government regulation.  None of this is true.  Yet Romney has the money behind him to repeat these lies endlessly, in media packages designed for those who believe television dramas and reality shows are true.  Update: the pattern in Mittdacity.

This attacks the legitimacy of government at its core.  For if there is no incentive in doing something difficult since your opponents will simply lie about it, or in attempting to address real problems because there is no political benefit to doing so, it's not only democracy but government and the functioning of society that is in danger.

Romney's lying is becoming his defining characteristic.  One writer noted, "There no longer exists any doubt that Mitt Romney intends to win the White House by conducting the most dishonest, unscrupulous and reprehensible campaign ever devised."  If he is successful, elections become a sham, as real as reality TV.  The fight for effective rights, for a real representative democracy, and against ignorance and bigotry, is as real and necessary now as it was when Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus.  We must recognize how our different situations today nevertheless constitute the same fight.

 One difference is that on the surface at least the Civil Rights movement was an insurgency that rattled the established practices of a settled society.  Today the fight is to keep rights from being taken away by those who feel the tide of history against them.  But society is also in more peril, more danger from a return to rule by the cynically selfish and the ignorant.  It's this generation's fight.  They are getting on the bus.  What will they do?           

Update 6/12: The lawsuits are flying.  Florida has sued the federal government over its attempts to stop the voter purges, while local election officials condemn the Governor's suit and say they won't resume the purges anyway.  The Justice Department has sued Florida to stop the voter purge.  Meanwhile a Tea Party front group has sued several states to force them to enact similar voting purges.  So whose bus are you on?