News Feeds

New marine national monuments will protect some of the ocean's most ecologically-rich areas.

Some question intelligence experience of Clinton White House chief of staff.

EDMONTON — Polar bears in the western Arctic are finding it increasingly difficult to find food during the critical spring period, a recent study suggests. Seth Cherry, a PhD candidate working with University of Alberta scientist Andrew Derocher, came to the conclusion after comparing blood samples taken from polar bears in 1985-86 and comparing them to samples taken two decades later when sea ice cover was near or at record lows.

With the possible exception of the ice that covers Greenland, the West Antarctic ice shelf is the most important body of water in the world. If it thaws, the results will be disastrous for millions, raising sea levels and flooding coastal cities such as London, New York, Tokyo and Calcutta. So it is understandable that scientists are alarmed as to why one particular section of it - Pine Island Glacier - is melting so much faster than the rest.

The Irish Times, January 5, 2009 Monday - CLIMATE CHANGE:A renewed commitment to lowering worldwide CO2 emissions means every individual and every country will need to review their responsibilities towards global warming, writes Frank McDonald THE COUNTDOWN to Copenhagen is under way - in just 11 months' time, more than 180 countries are expected to reach agreement on how to tackle global warming at the 15th UN Climate Change Conference.

China’s recent explosive growth in generation of electricity has reversed, and emissions of carbon dioxide are presumably dropping, too.

GAZA (Reuters) - Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip killed more than 30 Palestinian civilians on Tuesday, medical officials said, and international efforts to secure a ceasefire focused on an Israeli demand to prevent Hamas from rearming.

Image credit: Autoblog Green Upgrade Makes EV Viable for 95% of All Journeys So a DIY car powered on walnut shells is not your thing - what about an electric car? While UK electric vehicle retailer NICE may have been hit by the financial crisis, and while the Norwegian electric car manufacturer THINK! ...

The new US Congress, with Democratic majorities in both chambers, is set to open even as two Senate seats remain unfilled.

President-Elect Barack Obama will be huddling today with lead members of his economic team and his chief-of-staff to lay out plans for the nation's economic recovery and to prioritize budget items, according to a press release issued last night by his transition team. Meeting attendees will include, in addition to COS Rahm Emmanuel, his proposed economic designees: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, OMB Director Peter Orszag, Council of Economic Advisors Director Christian Romer and National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers.

According to transition spokesperson Jen Psaki, the economic team intends to "review the medium-term budget outlook and discuss their commitment to crafting a budget for 2010 that puts us on a path to bring down the deficit as the economy recovers. "

Additionally, both Obama's economic team and that of Vice President-Elect Joe Biden plan to "identify budget reforms necessary to restore fiscal discipline, take on major fiscal challenges like reigning in health care costs, and scour the budget line by line, looking for waste and inefficiencies to eliminate," Psaki said.

Sounds like that could be one looong meeting, given its goals.

This is important news, for a number of reasons.

First, a word about Difi, Rockefeller and Panetta.

1. Difi drives us nuts, and anyone who reads the blog knows it. She's the Dem we're always having to beat up in order to get her to do the right thing (though Max Baucus comes a close second). So, I readily acknowledge your, my, first impulse to be "who cares what Difi says?" The problem is that America cares. To us, Diane Feinstein is a pain in the butt. To my mother - aka Middle America - she's a smart person, who is an expert on the issue, who has a D after her name, and who thinks the guy may not be qualified. She also has power and can screw with Obama mightily, now and in the future. Our dislike for Difi is irrelevant to this equation.

2. Then there's Rockefeller. Totally worthless human being and an absolute joke as the outgoing Intelligence chair. But to America at large, he's the outgoing chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a Democrat. What he says matters to ma and pa in the sticks, even if the rest of us think he's a joke. And when he questions Obama's nominee in such a critical area, it matters to the public at large.

3. Panetta. Interesting choice. Opposed torture, not wedded to the national security special interests. I acknowledge all of that, and applaud it. But because he's an unusual choice, even an unconventional one, I'd argue that you need to handle this nomination very carefully, so as to avoid any possible hiccups (Democrats per se need to tread carefully in the area of national security because we've spent so many years letting Republicans pummel us with it).

Now for why I think this story matters. As Joe and I have written before, experienced politicians in Washington - like Feinstein and Rockefeller - don't go public with criticism of a fellow Democrat unless private avenues for expressing their concerns are exhausted, and proved fruitless. That means that Feinstein and Rockefeller likely have other, larger concerns, with the Obama transition, than what we're seeing here. I.e., the frustration was already there, and only just came to a head now.

Second, Feinstein is the incoming chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. She wasn't notified of Obama's choice. That's rather unheard of. She has to oversee the CIA director's nomination hearing. You absolutely positively want her on board. You don't just spring the nomination on her in the press. Again, the fact that she's ticked off, going public, and expressing disapproval of the choice is a big big deal. As is Rockefeller's public criticism, as the outgoing chair of the Senate Intell Committtee and all the gravitas that entails.

But it's more than that. Feinstein's and Rockefeller's public criticism gives an opening to Republicans to try to defeat this nomination. You can debate the merits of whether Feinstein and Rockefeller are to blame for going public, or whether Obama is to blame for provoking them, but the public criticism of the nominee by the top two Senate Democratic experts on intelligence matters gives cover to any Republican, Democrat or Independent interested in defeating this nomination.

Adding to the problem, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, who also sits on the Intell panel, says that he wasn't just notified of the pick, he was consulted on the choice. That's an even greater slight to Feinstein, since it's not as though the transition was giving no one a heads up.

Then there's the issue of Panetta's experience, which both Feinstein and Rockefeller express concerns about. Panetta is being asked to lead the CIA. Usually you pick someone to head an agency who is an expert in that field. Yes, it's often better in life to choose someone for a job who is smart, a quick learner, a good manager, and who can learn the details later. But for the heads of government agencies, you tend to choose someone with experience in that field. The choice of Panetta has already raised some eyebrows. That's all the more reason you make sure you have your ducks in a row, that you've "sold" Panetta to your most important friends, such as in the incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, before making the choice final and then going public. The pick of Panetta is not a slam dunk, and shouldn't be treated as one.

Along those lines, this part of the Times story is evidence of the problem Obama faces with this choice:Lee H. Hamilton, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, of which Mr. Panetta was a member, said Mr. Panetta’s good relationship with Mr. Obama could translate into influence within the broader intelligence community.

Mr. Hamilton said Mr. Panetta could make up for a lack of direct intelligence experience by picking a strong group of aides at the agency.It's never good when even your defenders are saying publicly that your choice as CIA director doesn't have experience in intelligence matters.

Josh Marshall thinks that maybe Obama intentionally cut Feinstein out of this decision. But to what end? It's one thing to ignore people who are of no consequence (and even that can come back to haunt you), but quite another to take on the incoming chair of a major Senate committee - the very committee, like it or not, that you need in order to get your nominee confirmed. There's an old adage about taking on the king: If you're gonna shoot him, you better kill him. (Works for grizzly bears too.) Difi can screw mightily with Obama over this nomination, and for years to come as chair of a committee on an issue where Democrats are traditionally weak. Regardless of whether you or I like her, I just don't see the logic in ticking her off while not taking her out.

All of this strikes me as part of a larger pattern that weaves its way from the campaign through the transition. It's about "political autarky," as I've called it. It's the belief that you can, and should, do everything yourself - and that your traditional friends and allies are not only irrelevant, but should actively be shunned. I wrote this last month about the strategy:Obama's people seem to have a predisposition towards going it alone. Given a choice between using someone else's wheel that's already out there, and reinventing one themselves, they tend to go for the latter. In real terms, this means that Obama's campaign decided early on not to embrace the Netroots. They would simply create their own blogs and online grassroots at BarackObama.com. And while this worked, famously, to a degree, there came a point in the campaign where the Obama team and the blogosphere both realized they needed to work together in order to win.At some point in politics, you need friends. Even people you don't particularly like. Team Obama has so far shown no reticence in wooing Republicans (Rick Warren and $300bn in tax cuts come to mind). At some point they're going to need to start wooing Democrats as well.

The Milky Way has 50% more mass and is travelling 120,000km per hour faster than once thought, a study shows.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

An Open Letter to the 111th Congress

Dear Congress,

Let's get this out of the way right now: I think you're gonna suck balls.

I base my opinion on your performance during the previous administration, and I see no reason to change my mind just because y'all have a bunch of new members and America has a new president.

It's all so predictable. With virtually no exceptions, Republican members will continue insisting that the policies of shitting on the little guy are the only ones that they'll support, and Democratic members will continue to give these idiots serious thought and consideration in the futile hope that we can all just get along. In essence, you'll continue governing as if we are a "center-right" nation, which we most assuredly are not.

You'll continue to act quickly on things that should be acted on slowly, and you'll act slowly on things that should be acted on quickly. You'll insult our intelligence, waste our money (or, rather, waste our grandchildren's money since you spent ours and our kids' long ago), give plenty of face time to the rich and powerful, and collapse at the mere hint of a filibuster threat.

I know you want me to believe you'll do things differently, but that's like Lucy promising Charlie Brown that she won't pull the football away---for real this time. Uh huh. George Bush may be the worst president ever, but at least he was right when he stammered, "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me...can't get fooled again."

I know I'm being a tad negative, but can you blame me? You authorized the Iraq war, legalized warrantless wiretapping to make Bush's illegal wiretapping retroactively legal (that was a neat backflip), agreed that habeas corpus was disposable, wasted floor time condemning MoveOn.org for exercising its freedom of speech, took impeachment off the table, failed to notice the collapsing economy, and wouldn’t even allow the government to use its power to negotiate lower drug prices. You failed us and failed us and failed us. Collectively you're a bunch of irresponsible opportunistic whiny ether-sniffing assface sissypants bedwetters until such time that you prove through your deeds that you're not.

I'll close on a happy note in the interest of bipartisanship: nice shoes.

Hugs,

Billy

Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]