Martin O'Malley (Gov-MD) gets a bad rap by some in our state for
increasing the sales tax recently, but he obviously gets that a lot
of the state's economy (including our fragile Chesapeake Bay) is
affected in some way by climate change. I for one hope he isn't a
candidate that is booted out early due to those hot-button issues
and then recognized later as a leader on the issue.

Every little bit helps, of course, but piecemeal won't solve this one. I find James Hansen's view most credible, and suspect that only a full-throttle global effort offers anything resembling hope for at least seriously ameliorating the situation and significantly reducing the potential for catastrophic consequences. We are already into the debacle. Question is, How bad will we let it become before we take genuinely meaningful steps in the right direction, and at double-time?

Truly amazing that EPA's Johnson's actions in regards to California's proposed emmission and mileage criterias are not recieving more press. The slimey lying piece of shit has made Gonzalez' stonewalling before Congess seem tame in comparison. He is also thumbing his nose at an order of the Supreme court.

Considering that a number of other states would like to adopt California's proposed standards, the federal government, through the despicable actions of Johnson, is basically telling these states to go screw themselves, that the EPA is willing to throw science out the window, ignore the advice of the EPA's own legal and scientific advisors, and thumb their noses at Congress and the citizens of these states.

The politicization of the EPA is yet one more aspect of Bush's "legacy" that is under-reported and not commonly discussed. Johnson should be fired, but he won't be. And who has seen any of these three posturing cowards vying for the presidency make mention of Johnson's actions?

My question as of 7:30pm this evening is:

Does Patrick Clawson have a soul?

If so, I've got six-fifty and change burning a hole in my pocket, and um, was wondering if anybody knew which DC pawn shops he frequents?

On the Newshour tonight Flyntt Leverett just spoke very directly in laying out the need for direct engagement with Iran, and in challenging the disingenuous Clawson's unstable position that Bush's hard-line policies were lowering any danger posed by Iran's nuclear program; neutering Tehran even. While yet maintaining Iran's a mortal threat, no less.

http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2008/05/27/20080527_iran28.mp3

Clawson views diplomacy as counterproductive because:
"after four years ... of a European effort, if the United States were to come charging in like a rogue elephant, saying that we're in charge here, we're going to take over, it's no surprise that people in London and Paris would feel undercut . . "

Hm. I suggest we invest some time cross-referencing Clawson's public statement with the factual record.

Clawson openly denied Bush's explicit regime change policy, when preconditions for talking to Teheran at all essentially demand a capitulation of Iran's sovereignty.

Clawson also claimed Iran's enriched uranium would touch off an acclerated round of proliferation---at exact moment Bush is supplying enriched uranium to Saudi Arabia.

So George Bush himself is doing the proliferating: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/20/as_us_threatens_iran_over_enriching

If they put up the video feed, check out the look on Leverett's face as he gets a load of what Clawson's delivering clothed in virginal, dulcet-reasonable tones. Would love to know what was running through his mind while the implications registered.

Disappointed but unrsurprised at Judy Woodruff playing the shill to some unsupportable notions about Iran-as-mortal-threat. Not exactly responsible--civil! and calm, but not responsible.

Steve, their piece on what corporations are doing is even better:

http://seastudios.org/ahead.php

The devolution of Judy Woodruff has been sad to witness.