"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Midnight Meme Of The Day!
>
by Noah So that inbred twit Mike Huckabee says CNN pays people to hate Trump. Have any of you readers out there received your check? I haven't been paid a dime to hate Trump. I come by it naturally because my parents raised me right. I do it out of the goodness of my heart. Not only that but I haven't watched CNN for 15 years, since they were so in the tank for Bush in 2004 and so gung-ho about the Iraq war. I mean, Wolf Blitzer? C'mon! That guy's got major turd factor. There are other things to consider, too. For instance, if all the people who hate Trump were paid to do so by CNN, CNN would have gone bankrupt many, many moons ago. Poor Mike Huckabee. He can't do the math. That's what happens when you think your lord will provide all the answers. So, I'm left with this: Who at CNN should get my invoice? Or, do we all band together an initiate a class action suit for back wages? Plus interest! PS. Mike Huckabee, I also hate you and your whole deviant, devil-worshiping family for free. In fact, I consider hating all Huckabees and Trumps, and expressing my hate publicly, a community service.
Elizabeth Warren's Issues page from her campaign website. Do you see anything about Medicare for All, or even about health care?
by Thomas Neuburger
Does presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren support Medicare for All? I mean this as an actual question. I don't know the answer — or I think I know and I'm not sure — and I'd appreciate it if someone pinned her down on this. In the meantime I've been seeing articles like this one from Jacobin, "Elizabeth Warren Has a Plan for Everything — Except Health Care," which suggest that she may not.
Tackling the Opioid Crisis Head On: Every day, 130 Americans die from an opioid overdose. This is a public health crisis – and we need to start treating it like one. That's why Congressman Elijah Cummings and I are rolling out the CARE Act, a comprehensive plan that invests $100 billion over the next ten years in states and communities that are on the frontlines of the epidemic - to provide prevention, treatment, and recovery services for those who need it most.
An important proposal to be sure, but it's not a health care plan. The website appears to have no stated comprehensive health care proposal at all.
Her campaign appearances are not more clarifying. As Jacobin writer Tim Higginbotham observes:
Warren had several opportunities in the [March 18 CNN] town hall to address the health care crisis. Instead, she avoided the topic almost entirely. Even when discussing issues directly related to health care like repealing the Hyde Amendment and improving access to hearing aides, she neglected to propose a comprehensive policy solution. ...
[This] continues a disturbing trend with the Warren campaign ... you’ll hear the usual platitudes (“health care is a human right;” “everyone deserves access to care”), but you won’t hear her endorse a specific policy.
The March 18 CNN Town Hall is an excellent example of Higginbotham's observation. Below is Warren's complete response to a Medicare for All question. Note first that the questioner starts by worrying that the Medicare for All bill, which Warren cosponsors and presumably supports, would eliminate private insurance plans. Then noe that the question is succinct — "Can you explain how Medicare for All would be better for workers than simply improving the Affordable Care Act?"
I don't see an answer to that question in her answer (emphasis mine throughout):
QUESTION: Senator Warren, thank you so much for being here this evening and your tireless advocacy for universal health care. As a supporter of universal health care and an advocate for organized labor, I do worry about the current bills' elimination of private health insurance...
WARREN: Oh, yeah.
QUESTION: ... that would eliminate the private health employer-based plans that so many unions have advocated for. Can you explain how Medicare for All would be better for workers than simply improving the Affordable Care Act?
WARREN: OK, so it's a good question. Let's start with our statement that we should make every time we start to talk about changes in our health care, and that is health care is a basic human right and we fight for basic human rights.
(APPLAUSE)
And then let's put these in order, because I appreciate that your question starts with the Affordable Care Act. Let's all remember when we're talking about what's possible, let's start where we are and the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Right now, Democrats are trying to figure out how to expand health care coverage at the lowest possible cost so everybody is covered.
To interrupt for a moment: This is not an accurate statement of what Medicare for All is about. Medicare for All is instead an implementation of what she said earlier in this exchange, that "health care is a basic human right." Finding the lowest-cost solution among a suite of solutions is a neoliberal approach, not an FDR-style social insurance approach. But to continue:
WARREN: Republicans right this minute are out there trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They've got a lawsuit pending down in Texas where they're trying to roll it back. What they couldn't do with a vote, they're trying to do with the courts. HHS every day is doing what they can to undermine the Affordable Care Act.
So when we're talking about health care in America right now, the first thing we need to be talking about is defend the Affordable Care Act, protection under the Affordable Care Act.
(APPLAUSE)
Then part two. Let's make the improvements that are what I think of as low-hanging fruit. For example, let's bring down the cost of prescription drugs all across this country.
(APPLAUSE)
We got lots of ways we can do that. We can import drugs from Canada where the safety standards are the same. That would cut costs dramatically. We can negotiate the prices under Medicare. That would cut costs dramatically.
And I've got a proposal to help bring down the cost on generic drugs, which could be about 90 percent of all prescriptions. So let's get those costs down.
And then you know what you're going to hear from a consumer advocate, and that is we need to hold insurance companies accountable. And that means no tricking and trapping people on those insurance contracts.
(APPLAUSE)
And then when we talk about Medicare for all, there are a lot of different pathways. What we're all looking for is the lowest cost way to make sure everybody gets covered. And some folks are talking about let's start lowering the age, maybe bring it down to 60, 55, 50. That helps cover people who are most at risk and can be helpful, for example, to the labor's plans.
Some people say, do it the other way. Let's bring it up from — everybody under 30 gets covered by Medicare. Others say let employees be able to buy into the Medicare plans. Others say let's let employees buy into the Medicare plans.
For me, what's key is we get everybody at the table on this, that labor is at the table, that people who have to buy on their own, everybody comes to the table together. And we figure out how to do Medicare for All in a way that makes sure that we're going to get 100 percent coverage in this country at the lowest possible cost for everyone. That's our job.
Does "everyone at the table" include the health insurance companies? Note, by the way, that of this list of options, none receives her endorsement; they are presented merely as possibilities. What would a President Warren actually do? We still don't know.
About this exchange, Higginbotham says: "Taking this answer at face value, it seems Warren sees herself pursuing an incremental approach that expands public coverage while preserving the private insurance industry should she be elected president. This would likely surprise many of her supporters, who might view her cosponsorship of Sanders’s Medicare for All bill as an endorsement of single-payer health care."
Apparently, Jake Tapper didn't see an answer in her answer either, so he follows up by re-asking the question:
TAPPER: If I could just follow up a little on Jay's question, so you
are a co-sponsor of Senator Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill, and I
understand there are a lot of different paths to universal coverage,
but his bill that you've co-sponsored would essentially eliminate
private insurance. Is that something you could support?
WARREN:
He's got a runway for that. I think we get everybody together. And
that's what it is, we'll decide. I've also co-sponsored other bills,
including expanding Medicaid as another approach that we use. But
what's really important to me about this is we never lose sight of what
the center is, because the center is about making sure that every single
person in this country gets the coverage they need and that it's at a
price that they can afford. We start with our values, we'll get to the
right place.
(APPLAUSE)
TAPPER: So, theoretically, though, there could be a role for private insurance companies under President Warren?
WARREN:
There could. Or there could be a temporary role. Even Bernie's plan
has a runway before it gets there, because it's — look, it's a big and
complex system, and we've got to make sure that we land this in a way
that doesn't do any harm. Everybody has got to stay covered. It's
critical.
Quite simply, I don't hear in any of those words the support for Medicare for All that's widely assumed to be her position.
What is Elizabeth Warren's actual plan for addressing the health care crisis in America? Is it anything like the Sanders and Jayapal proposals, or is she shielding with words and options her actual preference, which sounds suspiciously like a free-market-with-regulation plan?
If the latter, she should say so, because currently it looks like she's obfuscating, a dangerous approach for someone with her otherwise progressive credibility. I think it's time Elizabeth Warren announced her actual position.
War with Syria — What Is It Good For? We May Soon Find Out
>
Yemen civilian deaths amid Saudi Arabia-led war rise as U.S. Senate approves arms deal with Saudis (source). The Houthis are predominately Shia-led. Saudi Arabia, Sunni-led, with major U.S. support, is killing them.
by Gaius Publius
Two data points to keep in mind as you contemplate the next Middle East escalation — or rather, as you contemplate the effects of the escalation while others contemplate the escalation itself. You and your preferences are not a factor in their contemplation; they will wage war when and as they choose.
First this, from Pentagon chief James Mattis at the end of February 2018 via Newsweek (h/t Twitter friend Boris Dirnbach):
Now Mattis Admits There Was No Evidence Assad Used Poison Gas on His People
This assertion flies in the face of the White House (NSC) Memorandum which was rapidly produced and declassified to justify an American Tomahawk missile strike against the Shayrat airbase in Syria.
Mattis offered no temporal qualifications, which means that both the 2017 event in Khan Sheikhoun and the 2013 tragedy in Ghouta are unsolved cases in the eyes of the Defense Department and Defense Intelligence Agency.
Regular readers of our reports were alerted to this deception as early as last April. Among the many pieces presenting contrary evidence was this one.
Trump's getting awful advice from the foreign-policy swamp
On Sunday I got a call from Mike Doherty. The current state senator and former U.S. Army officer was livid about President Trump's about-face on Syria.
"In the 2016 campaign, his major promise was ending these stupid foreign wars," said the Warren County Republican. "If he breaks that promise with his base, I think he's finished."
As of early last week, Trump sounded like he was sticking to his promise to pull U.S troops out of Syria. On Tuesday, he met with his generals in what was supposed to be a private meeting on the issue.
On Wednesday, leaks from that meeting were widely reported in the press. The reports said his call for a rapid withdrawal of troops from Syria "faced unanimous opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon, the State Department and the intelligence community."
There are two points made above. One, Trump's about-face reportedly occurred as a result of "unanimous opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon, the State Department and the intelligence community."
And two, note the other point made by Mike Doherty, the New Jersey state senator quoted above: "In the 2016 campaign, his major promise was ending these stupid foreign
wars," said the Warren County Republican. "If he breaks that promise
with his base, I think he's finished."
In other words, in one Republican's opinion (a man who, by the way, was "the first prominent politician in New Jersey to back Trump" according to the same article), Trump breaking his stop-stupid-wars campaign pledge will hurt him with his base. (I'm less certain of that than Doherty is, but we'll see. There are certainly other such rumblings on the right.)
Finally, the proposed escalation in Syria could put us in direct, armed conflict with the Russians. From former Green Beret Pat Lang as quoted in the article:
I got an assessment of just how dangerous when I talked with another former Army officer with whom I like to discuss current events.
"This time it could easily get out of hand," said Pat Lang, a former Vietnam Green Beret who later spent a couple decades in the Mideast. (See this debunking of the co-called "white helmets" on his site.)
Back in 2013 the war was mainly between the Syrian government and the rebels. Now Russia is a major supporter of the Syrian government.
"The Russians have made it very clear that if we attack Syria again that they're going to fight our attack," Lang said. "There will be a war between the United States and Russia over Syria."
Russian U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said on Monday that Moscow has warned the United States of "grave repercussions" if it carries out an attack against Syrian government forces over reports of a deadly chemical weapons attack.
If no one backs down, U.S. and Russian troops and pilots could start killing each other in Syria.
About the Self-Styled, PR-Created White Helmets...
The nicely named "white helmets" (could they hope for a better brand?) are suspected of lying-with-an-agenda by many of those not in favor of this war. This means, of course, they're praised on corporate-owned cable news.
More critically, Rick Sterling writes this, from a longer piece at Robert Parry's Consortium News (emphasis added):
Not only do they only operate in rebel-controlled areas but they are a source of propaganda about the war, indeed their very existence is an element in the larger propaganda campaign to rally international support for a “regime change” war in Syria. The “White Helmets” brand was conceived and directed by a New York-based marketing company named “The Syria Campaign,” which itself was “incubated” by a larger politically oriented marketing company called Purpose.
Along with managing the online and social media promotion of the White Helmets, the Syria Campaign has parallel efforts in support of “regime change” in Syria. One of these efforts has been to criticize United Nations and humanitarian relief organizations that supply aid to displaced persons living in areas protected by the Syrian government.
If that's true, it's damning, both for them and those who, for their own reasons and interests, promote them. Which means they're praised on corporate-owned cable news.
Conclusions
From all this we can conclude:
• Defense Secretary James Mattis, knowing the evidence for the Trump's 2017 Tomahawk missile strike was ginned up, still wants war with Syria.
• The entire foreign policy and military establishment also wants war — the Joint Chiefs, the State Department and the nation's security services, presumably the CIA, DIA and FBI among them.
• We will indeed end up fighting Russians if Trump keeps his word and the Russians keep theirs.
• That fact seems to stop no one on our side.
In other words:
• The world just got less safe.
• The bipartisan DC establishment pretty much wants it that way.
Questions
Will Democrats — or enough of them — join with Trump to make the war "bipartisan"? Remember, Clinton was the hawk in the Obama administration. Reports she wanted a wider Syria war are not hard to find.
At what point will our widening war come home, a war against Shia Islam, fought, among other reasons, to fulfill the desires of Israel and Saudi Arabia? In other words, when will Americans, us and our elites, reap what we sow?
And finally, will Rachel Maddow weep tears of joy at the thought of a shooting conflict with Russia, or will she suddenly fly above the fray, waving careful flags of high-minded caution, after lighting the fires that caused it? ("That is not it at all," I hear her say, "that is not what I meant, at all.")
Stay tuned. The American people may not favor this war — though I can't see the unwashed (those of us with non-political lives) being much opposed. Yet should it come home, they'll surely pay most of the price — and no doubt be thanked for their service after their deaths by those in the safe seats at corporate-owned cable news.
New NBC News/Marist polls of registered voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin caused a stir when they were released yesterday. Mark Murray reported that Señor Trumpanzee's job approval ratings in the 3 key Midwestern states are in the mid-30s. "In addition, Democrats enjoy double-digit leads in Michigan and Pennsylvania on the question of which party voters prefer to control Congress after the 2018 midterms, and they hold an 8-point advantage in Wisconsin. In all three states, more than six in 10 voters say Trump’s conduct as president has embarrassed them, compared to just a quarter who have said it’s made them proud."
In Michigan, 36 percent of voters approve of Trump’s job performance (including 19 percent who strongly approve), while 55 percent disapprove (including 40 percent who strongly do). In Pennsylvania, 35 percent give the president’s job a thumbs up (17 percent strongly), versus 54 percent who disapprove (41 percent strongly). And in Wisconsin, 34 percent of voters approve of Trump (17 percent strongly), compared with 56 percent who disapprove (42 percent strongly).
...Ahead of next year’s midterm elections, the polls show that 48 percent of Michigan voters prefer a Democratic-controlled Congress, versus 35 percent who prefer a Republican-controlled one. In Pennsylvania, Democrats hold a 10-point advantage on congressional preference, 47 percent to 37 percent. And in Wisconsin, they have an 8-point edge, 46 percent to 38 percent.
The DCCC midterm strategy is basically to back conservative candidates in districts where Hillary beat Trump, by itself a very backward-looking strategy that is sure to guarantee the Republicans control of the House. So, for example, the DCCC declared early on that they would not be contesting any seats in Wisconsin, where Trump beat Hillary 1,405,284 (47.22%) to 1,382,536 (46.45%)-- a total Trump margin of 22,748 votes. Luckily for Democrats interested in winning back the House-- and for Democrats eager to see a big statewide turnout to help Senator Tammy Baldwin keep her Senate seat-- candidates are ignoring the DCCC in almost all the Wisconsin congressional district held by a Republican. The DCCC has managed to frighten off Democrats from challenging Sean Duffy (WI-07) and Mike Gallagher (WI-08), both potentially vulnerable Republicans in swing districts. Meanwhile the Wisconsin grassroots are forcing the DCCC's hand in WI-01, where this year's biggest electoral phenomenon, Randy Bryce, is challenging Paul Ryan, and in WI-06, where two Democrats-- Dan Kohl and Scott Olmer-- are waging a serious battle to take on radical right extremist Glenn Grothman. There are also two Democrats-- Ramon Garcia and Shawn Rundblade-- vying for the nomination to oppose Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05). The DCCC can't comprehend Wisconsin. The state doesn't fit their one-dimensional cookie cutter model. Neither Clinton nor Trump won the primaries there.
On primary day, Bernie + Clinton took 1,000,065 votes while Cruz + Trumpanzee took 917,499 votes. But the DCCC decided to raise the white flag over Wisconsin and just not even contest the state at all. Great thinking from the organization that has do-nothing but lose and lose and lose-- dozen and dozens of seats-- in the last decade. And now they're whining because Democrats won't want to fund them any longer. You'd be better off stuffing your dollars down a sewer than contributing to the DCCC.
And compounding the problem-- bigly!-- Paul Ryan at the helm of Congress
In WI-01 Trump beat Clinton by nearly 10 points, a catastrophe but it never dawned on the geniuses at the DCCC to try to figure out that Hillary was the exact wrong candidate for the district. The voters there didn't like Trump at all but they judged him as the lesser of the two evils for their own and their families' aspirations. The one thing they knew they did not want was the status quo that Clinton represented. Now they're horrified by Trump. But look at the comparisons between how Trump did in the WI-01 counties and how Bernie did:
[Too much of Milwaukee and Waukesha counties are not in the district for their county numbers to be meaningful to this WI-01 comparison.] This comparison isn't about how Bernie would have won, but about how the DCCC is guilty of political malpractice by deciding to give up on WI-01 based on how badly Hillary did there. It is beyond their comprehension how terrible a candidate she was for districts like WI-01 and how what Bernie-- as well as Randy Bryce-- are offering exactly what WI-01 voters are looking for. Imagine if Bernie winds up in southeast Wisconsin campaigning for Randy Bryce. Really... close your eyes and imagine it. Go ahead. It's Paul Ryan's worst nightmare-- as well as something the DCCC couldn't possibly comprehend. They'd probably want to send Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, Ben Ray Lujan and Joe Crowley there instead. Among registered voters in Wiscosnin, the poll showed that 57% have an unfavorable view of the GOP (33% have a favorable view), while "only" 49% have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party (39% favorable). 46% of voters say they want a Congress controlled by Democrats and only 38% say they would prefer a Congress controlled by the GOP. The Wisconsin voters were also asked if they have favorable of unfavorable impressions of the following politicians:
Obviously all Democrats in Wisconsin have a 34% unfavorable rating. That's the hardcore Republican Party base reacting exactly how Fox News and Hate Talk Radio have taught them to react. Now look at this rather stunning survey that the DCCC ought to take a look at as well:
That's a separate poll by PPP just of voters in WI-01, taken a few days after Ryan got House Republicans to vote to replace Obamacare with TrumpCare. It indicated that-- regardless of what the DCCC does-- Ryan will have a very tough time being reelected in 2018. The fact that Randy Bryce is proving to be one of the most effective-- if not iconic-- congressional candidates in any district anywhere in the country, never dawned on the DCCC when they made their 2018 calculations. Nor apparently did it dawn on CNN when they decided to give Paul Ryan what amounts to an infomercial tonight, while calling it a "town hall." People want a debate on real issues between Bryce and Ryan, not a series of pre-screened questions in front of a pre-screened audience, which is what Jake Tapper has agreed to. Please help Randy pay to run TV ads on the CNN Paul Ryan infomercial that CNN has banned him from. How? By tapping on the Stop Paul Ryan ActBlue thermometer on the right. Let me show you two more little charts, both showing twitter activity on the whole issue of fairness and CNN in regard to the favoritism they are showing towards Paul Ryan tonight. The first (on the bottom) was from Thursday and the second (the top one) was yesterday. You'll have to click on the images to be able to see the widespread enthusiasm for CNN to offer their viewers something worth watching instead of a canned Paul Ryan-Jake Tapper lovefest:
How Badly Will Trump's Stroll Through The Garden Of Racism Hurt GOP Candidates In 2018?
>
Yesterday we noted that Randy Bryce is calling on Paul Ryan to lead the House in censuring Trump for his pro-Nazi, pro-KKK remarks. Up top is the video and yesterday 3 of Congress' most serious progressives, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) announced a resolution of censure in the House against Señor Trumpanzee for his remarks at Trumpanzee Tower Tuesday re-asserting earlier comments that "both sides" were to blame for the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia and excusing the behavior of participants in the 'Unite the Right' rally. Pramila, in announcing the resolution, noted that "not even a week has passed since the tragedy in Charlottesville. But on Tuesday, the president poured salt on the nation’s wounds by defending those who marched with white supremacists. In an unscripted press conference, we saw the real and unfiltered Donald Trump-- the logical endpoint for a man who has consistently trafficked in racism throughout his career. The American people expect their leaders to condemn white supremacy in unambiguous terms. President Trump not only failed at condemning white supremacists and neo-Nazis, he stood up for them-- for that he must be censured. The president’s conduct is un-American and it must stop." The resolution censuring and condemning Trump is set to be introduced on Friday, August 18, when the House is next in pro forma session. This is it:
RESOLUTION
Censuring and condemning President Donald Trump.
Whereas on August 11, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, a gathering of white supremacists, including neo-Nazis, Klu Klux Klan (KKK) members, and other alt-Right, white nationalist groups, marched through the streets with torches as part of a coordinated ‘Unite the Right’ rally spewing racism, anti-Semitism, bigotry and hatred; Whereas on August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, a car driven by James Alex Fields, Jr. rammed into a crowd of counter-protestors, killing Heather Heyer and injuring 20 others; Whereas President Donald Trump’s immediate public comments rebuked “many sides” for the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, and failed to specifically condemn the ‘Unite the Right’ rally or cite the white supremacist, neo-Nazi gathering as responsible for actions of domestic terrorism; Whereas on August 15, 2017 President Donald Trump held a press conference at Trump Tower where he re-asserted that “both sides” were to blame for the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, and attempted to create a moral equivalency between white supremacist, KKK, neo-Nazi groups and those counter-protesting the ‘Unite the Right’ rally; Whereas President Donald Trump has surrounded himself with, and cultivated the influence of, senior advisors and spokespeople who have long histories of promoting white nationalist, alt-Right, racist and anti-Semitic principles and policies within the country; Whereas President Donald Trump has provided tacit encouragement and little to no denunciation of white supremacist groups and individuals who promote their bigoted, nationalist ideology and policies; Whereas President Donald Trump has failed to provide adequate condemnation and assure the American people of his resolve to opposing domestic terrorism: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) does hereby censure and condemn President Donald Trump for his inadequate response to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017, his failure to immediately and specifically name and condemn the white supremacist groups responsible for actions of domestic terrorism, for re-asserting that “both sides” were to blame and excusing the violent behavior of participants in the ‘Unite the Right’ rally, and for employing people with ties to white supremacist movements in the White House, such as Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka; and (2) does hereby urge President Donald Trump to fire any and all White House advisors who have urged him to cater to the alt-Right movement in the United States.
I don't expect many-- if any-- Republicans to go along with this. I bet that not one musters the political courage to vote for it. In fact, it's hard it imagine Ryan and McCarthy even allowing it to come to the floor for a vote. Ryan's own statement, for the sake of concerned Wisconsin voters, who have been catching on to him as an enabler of Trump, was that "We must be clear. White supremacy is repulsive. This bigotry is counter to all this country stands for. There can be no moral ambiguity." And he unambiguously refused to name Trump or his regime. Ryan appointed Steve Stivers (R-OH) to chair the NRCC whose task is to minimize the GOP's 2018 midterm losses. Trump's stroll into the court of public opinion holding hands with the Nazis and KKK probably won't help that effort and Stivers, clearly frustrated, blurted out "I don't understand what's so hard about this. White supremacists and Neo-Nazis are evil and shouldn't be defended." He forgot to mention Trump. Texas Republican Will Hurd is one of the most vulnerable Republicans in Congress. Hillary won his south Texas 71% Hispanic district last year 49.8% to 46.4%. Unless the DCCC screws it up by nominating another Blue Dog who residents have already shown they do not want, Hurd will lose next year. He urged someone unnamed to "Apologize. Racism, bigotry, anti-Semitism, of any form is unacceptable. And the leader of the free world should be unambiguous about that." Well... "leader of the free world" might be a clue-- could be Angela Merkel-- but many-- too many-- Trump supporters don't have the bandwidth to put something that abstract together. There's been a lot of chatter that Ohio Governor John Kasich is planning a primary challenge to Trump in 2020 if he hasn't been removed from office by then. He made a nice meme for his Twitter followers:
Little Marco (R-FL) is also eager to figure out how he can worm out from under his pledge to not run for president again until after serving a full 6 year Senate term. He's starting to get antsy about running against Trump too. He found himself in a tweet storm yesterday, which I can't get a screen shot of because he blocked me: "The organizers of events which inspired & led to #charlottesvilleterroristattack are 100% to blame for a number of reasons. They are adherents of an evil ideology which argues certain people are inferior because of race, ethnicity or nation of origin. … These groups today use SAME symbols & same arguments of #Nazi & #KKK, groups responsible for some of worst crimes against humanity ever. Mr. President, you can't allow #WhiteSupremacists to share only part of blame. They support idea which cost nation & world so much pain. The #WhiteSupremacy groups will see being assigned only 50% of blame as a win. We cannot allow this old evil to be resurrected." Little Marco has certainly gone further than most of the Republicans in the Senate. But as Politico’s Kyle Cheney and Rachael Bade reported, the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees the Department of Justice’s handling of domestic terrorism, has no immediate plans to schedule an investigation into the domestic terrorism in Charlottesville, despite calls from Democrats that just such an investigation is essential. And Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has no interest in a Charlottesville hearing either. Maybe another one on Hillary's e-mails? "GOP sources suggested it might be too early to tell whether Congress should get involved. And some question what tangible action Congress could take to help the situation, aside from calling public attention to the issue through hearings." Barbara Lee (D-CA) had some ideas on that Wednesday morning: "We cannot address the dangerous spread of white supremacy in America without first assessing its influence on our nation's highest office," she explained to her constituents in Oakland and Berkley. "Yesterday afternoon, Donald Trump defended the white supremacists who descended upon Charlottesville this past weekend while insisting there was blame 'on both sides.' As disturbing as his comments are, they should come as no surprise. As long as Trump has senior advisors with ties to white nationalist groups, he will never fully condemn racism and bigotry. That's why I wrote a letter to Trump yesterday calling for the removal of three prominent White House aides who are involved with the alt-right: Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Sebastian Gorka. It's time to root out white nationalism at the White House... By placing these three men in his administration, Trump has elevated hate and discrimination to the highest levels of our government. He has signaled to white supremacists that they are no longer a fringe group-- they now have advocates advising the president with their agenda in mind. We have already seen a manifestation of that agenda, from the Muslim ban and a ban on transgender Americans in the military, to raids on immigrant communities and attempts to perpetuate the era of mass incarceration and roll back voting rights. These policies are a result of the far-right extremist ideology held by Trump's top advisors."
John Harwood summed up the predicament the country finds itself in with an essay he penned for CNBC, Trump has a very clear attitude about morality: He doesn't believe in it. "Trump," he wrote, "combines indifference to conventional notions of morality or propriety with disbelief that others would be motivated by them" and noted that the more Trumpanzee "reveals his character, the more he isolates himself from the American mainstream." He was contemptuous of the business leaders who stormed for the exits of his corporate advisory committees and wound up shutting down both committees when it was clear no one would be left except for an embarrassed handful of Nazi and KKK sympathizers.
As president, Trump has emphasized power over morality. Seeking passage of health-care legislation-- which violated his explicit campaign promises-- Trump chided a reluctant GOP senator with a veiled threat. ...When Pope Francis called emphasizing walls over bridge-building "not Christian," Trump ascribed it to political manipulation. The pope, he said, was a "pawn" of Mexico. Trump touted duplicity in business as a leadership credential, boasting that he once took advantage of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in a real estate deal. "I screwed him," he said. "That's what we should be doing." Though Trump cast that talent as an asset for the nation, a Fortune magazine review of his business career found this first principle: "He always comes first." The president's fellow Republicans learned that to their chagrin in 2016, and reached common conclusions about his character. "A con man," said. Sen. Marco Rubio. "Utterly amoral," said Sen. Ted Cruz. "Dishonesty is Trump's hallmark," declared Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee. "He's playing the American people for suckers." Increasing numbers of Americans have reached that conclusion. In a Quinnipiac University poll this month, 62 percent called the president not honest, up from 52 percent last November. Moreover, 63 percent said Trump does not share their values. That undercuts his ability to lead average Americans, lawmakers, business executives or foreign leaders toward common goals. "In a president, character is everything," Republican commentator Peggy Noonan has written. "You can't buy courage and decency. You can't rent a strong moral sense. A president must bring those things with him."
Paul Ryan too. I hope CNN will pay attention to NARAL's message above. No one wants a CNN infomercial from Paul Ryan. Everyone wants a real, honest-to-goodness debate between him and Randy Bryce. Ryan has ducked accountability long enough and hidden behind the Speakers chair. CNN shouldn't be an enabler. He may not be as crude and senile as Trump, but he's the same kind of putrid, unspeakable garbage that needs to be driven out of this country's political sphere-- and soon. And that starts by exposing him as an empty suit, something Randy Bryce should get an opportunity to do on national television. It's up to CNN.
Smug GOP Congressman, Adam Kinzinger, Stokes The Flames Of Hatred During Colorado Springs Terrorism
>
It wasn't Fox, but CNN thant invited Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) to come on the air and denounce Planned Parenthood while Robert Dear was still inside a Colorado Planned Parenthood facility-- that has been targeted by right-wing extremists many times-- shooting people. Maybe Kinzinger, who had been rumored earlier this year to be having an affair with disgraced GOP ex-congressman and best-bud Aaron Schock, should learn to shut his pretty face. CNN didn't mention that it was patently false, self-serving political statements by anti-Choice extremists like Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Trumpf that are "controversial," but that Planned Parenthood is! The idiot anchor went so far as to claim-- with Kinzinger agreeing-- that "we don't know if Planned Parenthood was targeted" while the murderer was still inside the Planned Parenthood clinic shooting people! Kinzinger:
best buds
If we find out he was not targeting Planned Parenthood, I would fully expect an apology from the Planned Parenthood director for saying that. But regardless, if somebody is targeting Planned Parenthood, it's not indicative of what folks that are opposed to some of the practices that Planned Parenthood commits, how we feel. We saw these barbaric videos and that was something that many of us had a legitimate concern about. That doesn't mean we're going to take guns and walk into Planned Parenthood clinics. Obviously this is a person who has a mental health issue that's to some level psychotic and crazy and if he's targeting Planned Parenthood-- and, again, we don't know-- if he is, he has taken a legitimate disagreement with a practice and turned it into an evil response which is to go and shoot people. But again, we don't know that answer yet.
Kinzinger doesn't know if the gunman inside the Planned Parenthood clinic shooting people is targeting Planned Parenthood but he's already diagnosed the right-wing, anti-choice terrorist to be "crazy" and "psychotic." If the anchor wasn't brain-dead she might have asked him if the suicide bombers from Arab countries, who, do after all, have grievances are also psychotic and if being crazy excuses them from being called "terrorists."
Obama's statement was quite a bit different from Kinzinger's:
The last thing Americans should have to do, over the holidays or any day, is comfort the families of people killed by gun violence-- people who woke up in the morning and bid their loved ones goodbye with no idea it would be for the last time. And yet, two days after Thanksgiving, that’s what we are forced to do again. We don’t yet know what this particular gunman’s so-called motive was for shooting twelve people, or for terrorizing an entire community, when he opened fire with an assault weapon and took hostages at a Planned Parenthood center in Colorado. What we do know is that he killed a cop in the line of duty, along with two of the citizens that police officer was trying to protect. We know that law enforcement saved lives, as so many of them do every day, all across America. And we know that more Americans and their families had fear forced upon them. This is not normal. We can’t let it become normal. If we truly care about this-- if we’re going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience-- then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough. May God bless Officer Garrett Swasey and the Americans he tried to save-- and may He grant the rest of us the courage to do the same thing.
Kinzinger's north-central Illinois district, the sixteenth, would be competitive if Nancy Pelosi didn't keep appointing conservative incompetents-- Rahm Emanuel, Chris Van Hollen, Steve Israel and Steve Israel sock puppet Ben Ray Luján to chair the DCCC. Although part of the population base of the district, Rockford, was gerrymandered into IL-17 to give that district a Democratic edge, IL-16 is still winnable. In fact, in 2008, Obama did win it. The DCCC didn't recruit a candidate in 2008 and GOP incumbent Don Manzullo beat Bob Abboud 60.9- 36.1%, even though Obama beat McCain there. In 2012 the DCCC once again didn't recruit a candidate. This time Obama lost to Romney but won in Winnebago, Putnam and DeKalb counties, while Kinzinger, who had narrowly beaten conservaDem Deborah Halverson 2 years earlier (57-43%) triumphed over Wanda Rohl 61.9- 38.1%, Kinzinger spending $1,972,830 to Rohl's $31,837. In 2014 the DCCC ignored the district again and Kinzinger was reelected against Randall Olsen 70.6-29.4%. Kinzinger spent $1,377,467 to Olsen's $11,506. You don't win, if you don't try and you never win if you allow the party to atrophy and fade away, as Van Hollen and Israel have both done. This cycle there is, once again, no DCCC recruit running against Kinzinger-- and not even an independent Democrat, just a teabagger, Colin McGroarty, challenging him from the far right. Kinzinger is Jeb Bush's Illinois co-chair.
Yes, innocent until proven guilty, but we already know they're both murderers
Alan Grayson issued a statement this morning that sounded nothing like Kinzinger's:
Yesterday, a homegrown terrorist attacked us on our own soil. He was not a Syrian refugee, and he was not a Muslim. We don’t know yet whether or not he attacked Planned Parenthood because he was anti-choice, or for some other reason. But either way, today we are reminded of the continuing struggle to insure one of the most sacred rights-- the right to control our own bodies. Earlier this year, I got a taste of what Planned Parenthood staff, volunteers, and patients face every day when dozens of anti-Planned Parenthood protesters came to demonstrate outside my office. And a few months later, when I attended a fundraiser for our local Planned Parenthood, protesters took pictures of one of my staff and put it up online as an intimidation tactic. Neither method worked.
I was talking with one of the Blue America candidates this morning, former marine and LAPD police officer, Lou Vince-- running in CA-25 against anti-Choice/pro-NRA extremist Steve Knight in northern L.A. and eastern Ventura counties. He told me that "the horrendous act of terrorism committed in Colorado against the Planned Parenthood clinic illustrates why this election is so critical. We must stand up for a woman's right to choose and her right to control her own body, a right that Republicans like Steve Knight want to take away. Secondly, we must stand up to the NRA and stop putting up with their woefully misguided lobbying efforts that ultimately contribute to so much violence. As a cop, I know a thing or two about guns and enough is enough, we need sensible gun control reforms. Unfortunately, these things will never happen with Steve Knight in Congress. It's time for him to go." I agree. We need fewer Kinzingers and fewer Knights and more level headed men and women like Lou Vince and Alan Grayson.
UPDATE From Iowa Congressional candidate in northeast Iowa, Pat Murphy, put out a statement today too. "The recent news from Colorado Springs deeply saddens me. Yesterday, three victims were killed and nine injured when a gunman opened fire at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Attacks like these are extremely troubling and a heartbreaking reminder of how important it is to continue the fight for women's access to health care. We must stand with Planned Parenthood and show a united front against acts of violence and hatred like those of yesterday." In reading that, it's important to recall that when Pat was Speaker of the Iowa state House, he led the successful fight to protect women's right to choice while expanding state family planning services and stem cell research so more life saving procedures could be done for medical research in his state. One of the reasons we originally endorsed Pat was because, while he was Speaker he led the successful battle to take gun rights away from individuals who were convicted of domestic abuse."
Questions Remain: CNN Saw an ISIS flag at London's Gay Pride Parade and Wondered Where the Outrage Was
>
"[T]he only bad mimicry I could see was CNN's impression of a reputable news organization."
-- Paul Coombs, creator of the London Pride dildo flag
by Noah
CNN wonders where the outrage is? I've got your outrage right here, CNN. I'm outraged that you exist, and I have been for over 20 years! Yeesh, and some people think that FOX is the only cable news outlet that sees things that are not there, jumps the shark, and reports on them.
Sure, FOX is the master of such things. What can you say about a "news" outlet that uses The Onion as a source?
Or uses the Duck Dynasty guy and Rudy Giuliani as experts on foreign policy? Not to mention using Nevada welfare rancher Cliven Bundy as its race relations correspondent?
But last Saturday CNN, reporting from London, spent over seven minutes reporting on and showing what they said was an ISIS flag being carried in the city's Gay Pride parade. The only thing was, the flag was not an ISIS flag but a black flag covered in depictions of dildos and butt plugs. And I still have some questions about the incident.
By COREY CHARLTON for MailOnline
CNN has mistaken a flag displaying sex toy symbols for that of terrorist organisation Islamic State in a report it aired on London's Gay Pride parade.
In an 'exclusive' report which ran on Saturday, a CNN correspondent went on air to claim she was the only one to notice an ISIS jihad flag being waved among gay pride crowds.
But to the broadcaster's embarrassment, the satirical flag was adorned not with Arabic lettering, but symbols of sex toys.
The report cut live to correspondent Lucy Pawle, who told viewers: 'This man dressed in black and white was waving what appears to be very bad mimicry, but a very clear attempt to mimic, what is the ISIS flag - the black and white flag with the distinctive lettering.'
She continues: 'If you look at the flag closely, it's clearly not Arabic, in fact it looks like it could be goobledegook, but it's very distinctive - the ISIS flag.'
Pawle then states that she appears to be 'the only person' to notice the extremist flag being waved on London's Regent St.
'I seem to be the only person who had spotted this, and nobody seems to be raising any questions or pointing it out, so I immediately went to an events organiser who said he didn't know anything about it.
'I also spoke to the police nearby, who weren't aware either.'
Eagle-eyed viewers were quick to castigate both the journalist and the broadcaster for being fooled.
Immediately following the gaffe, her Twitter page was inundated with viewers' pointing out the mistake.
I created the Isis dildo flag at London Pride to start a dialogue, not get a laugh
Paul Coombs
Guardian caption: "Paul Coombs knew his 'Dildosis' flag might inspire a little controversy at London Pride. He never expected that it would go viral. Photograph: Paul Coombs"
I spent the morning of London’s Pride parade hand-stitching dildos onto a flag.
I’d been using the sex-toy motif in my work before I made a flag of Isis out of them and brought it to the march. Previously, I’ve attached dildos onto postcards from each country where homosexuality is still illegal to point out that the laws of these places regards its gay residents as mere sex objects.
The decision to make the flag was a simple one: a sense of outrage at Isis’s brutal advance across North Africa, Libya, Syria and Iraq. Medieval ideologies and barbarism were being spread and recorded through that most modern of expressions, social media, with that flag ever-present. It has become a potent symbol of brutality, fear and sexual oppression. If I wanted to try and stimulate a dialogue about the ridiculousness of this ideology, the flag was key.
It was important that I didn’t try to replicate the writing on the flag, because the words and their subject – Islam – are not the target. But if I showed as little respect to this flag as Isis shows to the religion and people they claim to represent so that when people saw it they would think, “dildos”? Would that be a crazy idea?
The Pride festival is a pure celebration of the finest aspects of humanity: of tolerance, togetherness, acceptance and liberation, the polar opposite of what Isis stands for. If there was anywhere where my flag had a voice, it was there. And I had an invitation to march in the parade with a friend involved with “Alien Sex Club”, an art project exploring the HIV syndemic by John Walter.
We agreed we would gauge reaction to the flag from fellow marchers before we hit the main streets and the crowds, but the reaction was so good humored and understanding that any worries were dissipated in minutes. The tragedies in Tunisia, Kuwait and Lyon made the case for protesting against these murderers even stronger; defiance is the best form of remembrance. The flag was so clearly made of dildos that I never thought it could be mistaken for an actual Isis flag.
But 1.5 miles (2.4km) into the march, a gust of wind suddenly snapped the flagpole in two. I was wrestling with it when three or four police officers calmly appeared beside me.
Three policemen held out the flag and inspected it, grinning, acknowledging immediately that these were definitely dildos and butt plugs. They explained that they were getting reports that a man was carrying an Isis flag through the streets, a misconception that could easily put me in danger. They asked if I would keep the flag concealed. So I put it away.
Several hours passed before I noticed spreading news that CNN reported on the flag as though it was an actual Isis banner, not a piece of cloth covered in sex toys. #DildoIsis quickly started trending online. People made tribute dildo flags. But how could a report so hysterical and so clearly false possibly get onto the air, discussed by a terrorism expert? CNN correspondent Lucy Pawle described my flag as a “very bad mimicry” but the only bad mimicry I could see was CNN’s impression of a reputable news organization. What does this say about every other report that they broadcast? And why have they not mentioned it since? They seem to think that if nobody says anything about it then it can’t have really happened.
But oh, it did. On a message board someone posted: “Whenever I see the Isis flag anywhere, all I can see is dildos!” Mission accomplished.
BUT SOME QUESTIONS REMAIN
Was CNN just trying to outdo FOX or beat FOX at its own game? What does this say about the mindset at CNN that can equate the Gay Pride movement with ISIS and see a world where gays and terrorists are working together to take over the world? Especially since ISIS is known to kidnap gay people and toss them off of buildings.
In what universe would this CNN reportage make sense? No matter to the folks at CNN. They ran with it, even bringing in their terrorism expert, Peter Bergen, for commentary. The best satirists in the world would have trouble topping this one.
How did CNN's London reporter, Lucy Pawle, not see the dildo- and butt-plug-covered flag for exactly what it was?
This story inspires me to ask: Isn't the dildo one of the top two national symbols of England anyway? Second only to an empty case of Watneys Beer?
Note that part of the story where Pawle, explaining to the CNN audience that she seemed to be "the only person" to notice the extremist flag that wasn't there, managed to toot her own fool horn, saying,
[N]obody seems be raising any questions or pointing it out, so I immediately went to an events organizer who said he didn't know anything about it. I spoke to the police nearby, who weren't aware either.
Damn! You go, girl! What are they paying you? Good thing CNN was on the case!
Was CNN just trying to outdo FOX or beat FOX at its own game? What does this say about the mindset at CNN that can equate the Gay Pride movement with ISIS and see a world where gays and terrorists are working together to take over the world, especially, since ISIS is known to kidnap gay people and toss them off of buildings
In what universe would this CNN reportage make sense? No matter to the folks at CNN. They ran with it, even bringing in their terrorism expert, Peter Bergen, for commentary. The best satirists in the world would have trouble topping this one.
How did CNN's London reporter, Lucy Pawle, not see the dildo and butt plug covered flag for exactly what it was?
This story inspires me to ask: Isn't the dildo one of the top two national symbols of England anyway? Second only to an empty case of Watneys Beer?
Explaining to the CNN audience that she seemed to be "the only person" to notice the extremist flag that wasn't there, Pawle managed to toot her own fool horn by saying --
[N]obody seems be raising any questions or pointing it out, so I immediately went to an events organizer who said he didn't know anything about it. I spoke to the police nearby, who weren't aware either.
Damn, you go, girl! What are they paying you? Good thing CNN was on the case!
But from what I know of England, through working at a couple of English music companies, I would think that every English woman has at least some familiarity with dildos, if only out of necessity. I expect that England even has a Museum of Royal Dildos, or something over in their Parliament building. I hear the "Dildos of the Upper Classes" display at the House of Lords is very comprehensive, as is the "England: 1000 Years of Dildos and Butt Plugs" exhibit.
You know how much the English love tradition. They celebrate their queens so much that I believe I even once heard something about a dildo called the Victoria Specia, "available in a numbered LTD edition."
Did someone have to explain to Lucy Pawle what a dildo is? Was she just auditioning to replace Sarah Palin at FOX, or get a gig on Fox and Friends? Was her mission just to make Wolf Blitzer look intelligent by comparison?
Final thought on this: We now know that Rafael "Ted" Cruz and Mike Huckabee don't watch CNN. For if they did, they would be railing for weeks to come against the merging of Gay Pride activists with ISIS on Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest, smashing CNN's coverage of ISIS teaming up with gay activists to dust.
In the end, CNN needs to learn that there is only one FOX News and that, try as they might, they are just a pale, feeble imitation.
CNN: We're Burning Through the Earth's Carbon Budget
>
North America, in a world without glaciers (click to enlarge)
by Gaius Publius
While Fast Track and TPP sort themselves out in the Senate — another vote on which could come soon — I want to pass on some climate news from CNN.
As you may know, I believe we have very little time to address the challenge of climate change. Michael Mann puts the most likely date for crossing +2°C global warming in the 2030s, which means it becomes inevitable sooner than that, in the 2020s, just around the corner. We're already at +1°C warming, with another half degree in the pipeline, guaranteed. We've crossed 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 for the first time since before humans walked the earth, and we're increasing net carbon emissions at more than 2 ppm per year, at a rate that's accelerating.
We have to stop now. Period. Or maybe Stop Now™ — because it needs to be a "thing." As in, "How is Stop Now™ not a thing?"
Look at it this way. There's a pot of water on a burning stove and it's scalding hot. Every minute that passes, you turn the heat higher. If you want the water to return to room temperature, it's not enough to walk away. You have to turn off the heat. Today's concentrations of 400 ppm will cause major changes in the climate of the earth to play out over the next century and beyond. It's not enough to stabilize emissions. We have to stop — bring emissions to zero, and soon.
Here's a recent headline that sends chills down your spine if you're a climate-news junkie — and makes just about zero sense if you're any other normal person:
Translation: There's now an even more ridiculous amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — 400 parts carbon dioxide (CO2) for every million parts of something else atmospheric. That's warming the planet. And it's our fault since we're burning fossil fuels and clearing forests.
But that's definitely a mouthful.
Mind-numblingly arcane numbers such as "400 ppm" will determine what life looks like in the future of our planet. How many people will be killed by heatwaves? How many species — not just polar bears, but amphibians, proteas and pikas — will go extinct? What percentage of the world's coral reefs will be lost? How many low-lying island nations will have to be abandoned as the seas swallow them up? Which regions will be newly exposed to malaria and other tropical diseases?
All of these things will be heavily influenced, if not determined, by these goofy little numbers, including the amount of carbon dioxide that's measured in the atmosphere.
Below, you'll find a brief backgrounder on three numbers, including one "ppm" measure, that are central to the climate change discussion. These numbers aren't widely famous — at least yet. I hope that changes, because these odd numbers should be a rallying cry and a goalpost for ensuring that we act fast enough to blunt climate change.
These numbers will determine what the world looks like for us and future generations.
The least we can do is get to know them.
The three numbers are important. They are:
2 degrees
Any amount of global warming is somewhat dangerous, but 2 degrees Celsius of warming (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is when things start to get Earth-changingly bad. Water is expected to become much more scarce. A significant percentage of the world's plants and animals will be at risk for extinction. Coral reefs will be heavily bleached if not gone. Some island nations could be underwater, or saltwater intrusion from rising seas could make them uninhabitable.
One climate change activist told me 2 degrees -- and not crossing it -- is pretty much the only thing the world agrees about when it comes to climate change. The number was first proposed by an economist in the 1970s, and it since has become the subject of near international consensus. World leaders will meet in Paris in December to try to hammer out an international agreement, essentially, on how to keep us below the 2-degree mark.
The number is measured as the temperature increase since the Industrial Revolution began about 150 years ago. We've already helped warm the atmosphere by 0.85 degrees since then. ...
Here the writer is way too conservative. There's a strong argument that "2 degrees" is too much, that where we're headed with our inevitable 1½ degrees is also too much, and the recooling has to start now (something that's entirely possible, by the way, since if we stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere, natural processes will take it back out).
Also, later in this section the author says that the "2 degree" point will hit in the 2050s. That's the ultra-conservative IPCC talking, and they're likely wrong, since every speed predictor so far has been wrong to the slow side.
Still, for CNN, this is a huge start. The other two numbers they want you to note are:
450 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere likely would push the
world past 2 degrees of warming. And, you'll recall, that's the danger
zone. We don't want to be this close.
And:
1,000 gigatonnes
[T]here's one more number you need to know
in order to understand how urgent climate change actually is: 1,000
gigatonnes. That's how much carbon we can pump into the atmosphere -- in
total -- and still hope to stop short of 2 degrees of warming,
according to the world's leading climate science group.
The trouble? We've already burned through more than half of that budget....
A gigatonne (or gigaton, if you use non-metric units; almost the same size) is a billion tons. So 1,000 gigatons is a trillion tons, and you're going to be hearing about "the trillionth" ton as the climate debate reheats, as it soon will.
I'll have a longer explainer on this later, or you can look back at this piece. Your bottom line:
We're at 400 ppm CO2 now. We'll be at 450 ppm in less than 25 years under "business as usual." That's the outer-limit number that can keep the planet habitable for "civilized" (settled, agricultural) man. We have to stop now.
We're guaranteed the consequences of +1½°C global warming now, most of which we haven't seen yet. When +2°C is inevitable, it will be too late. That will most likely occur in the early 2020s.
We have "some" carbon budget — about 250 gigatons of carbon can still be emitted — says the IPCC, under the guidance of (understandably) conservative scientists, and also governmental overseers who are watching out for the interests of the carbon industry and their profits — think Saudi Arabia, China, India, and yes, the Exxon-controlled U.S. The IPCC arrives at that "budget" by adding up the total carbon already emitted, subtracting that from a thousand tons (1,0000 gigatons), and then taking into account the effect of non-carbon greenhouse gases as well. (I'll go through the numbers at another time. It's not rocket science.)
But the statement "there's some remaining budget" comes with a huge caveat — it assumes that stopping at +2°C is safe, and gives only a 66% chance that the plan will work. Guess how much carbon budget there is, if you want a 90% chance of success?
So the first news: CNN has discovered global warming. That's actually huge, since maybe they'll stop "teaching the phony controversy" by giving screen time to bought-and-paid denier scientists.
The second news: It's still not too late, so long as we stop emissions.
The third news: It really is too late if we don't stop very very soon.
For a hint at how to stop "very very soon," click here. Something to ponder while we wait for TPP voting to resume in the Senate.
