Skip to content

Guest Post-Al Gore in Boston

When I heard that Liberal Drinker, incredibly dedicated campaign worker, and survivor of the Purple Tunnel of Doom, Atul Shah, went to Boston to see Al Gore I asked him (through my wife) to write something up about his visit, which he was nice enough to do. Gore was in Boston to talk about climate change. Atul’s report follows:

Before Al Gore’s talk, a very small number of protesters, mostly global warming deniers, were gathered outside holding up signs and handing out propaganda. One sign, held by a man and his son, read “Coldest winter in years. Record lows. Where is your Global Warming now?” One man, probably in his thirties, tried to hand me some “literature” (a.k.a. propaganda); when I asked him if he was a global warming denier, he used the euphemism “truther” to describe himself, saying that he didn’t deny that the planet is warming, but he didn’t accept (what is almost unanimously the consensus of mainstream scientists) that it is caused by human activity.

Inside, it appeared that most of the seats in the Wang theatre were filled – although I did notice some empty seats in the orchestra pit (where I had a second row seat approximately 10 feet away from Mr. Gore’s lectern which was just about directly in front of me). The face value of tickets for these seats was $200 (with other charges, the total was $221), and as I found out after the fact (unfortunately), entitled ticket holders entrance to a pre-talk meet-and-greet reception and photo-op with the man who should have been our 43rd President.

The format of the event was for the former Vice President to give a brief talk, followed by a sit down question and answer session with a reporter from the Boston Globe (I can’t remember her name). The account to follow is off the top of my head, may contain some inaccuracies, and is far from an exhaustive description of all of the issues discussed.

After a brief introduction by a couple of speakers, Mr. Gore came out to a standing ovation and loud cheering and applause. He then spent perhaps 15-20 minutes speaking eloquently, often interrupted by applause, about the many crises we currently face as a nation and world. The key issues he discussed were the environmental, economic, and security threats. He explained how all three were tied to our current carbon-based energy economy. At one point during his talk, he mentioned his belief that the Iraq war was the single biggest foreign policy mistake in our nations history; this obviously drew loud applause. In articulating the goal of switching to a renewable infrastructure (I believe he mentioned a preferred time horizon of ten years), he invoked President Kennedy’s call in 1961 to send a man to the moon and bring him back. Mr. Gore compared the many critics currently dismissing calls for switching to renewables to those in the 1960s who said sending a man to the moon couldn’t be done. In pointing out that within eight years, JFK’s vision was accomplished, he also mentioned that the average age of the scientists working on that mission was 26, meaning that they were just in their late teens when the goal was initially set. The obvious analogy being that we have many young, idealistic citizens ready to take on our current challenges. In one of his more powerful statements regarding how we deal with climate change, he pondered whether future generations would look back on us and ask themselves “what were they thinking?”, or, preferably, “where did they find the moral courage?”, and he called upon everyone to help get the message out about the crisis we face.

The sit down question and answer session lasted a little over an hour and was of a casual conversational format, with both Mr. Gore and the interviewer sitting in a mock living room setting. There was a range topics discussed, including some issues found in “The Assault on Reason” and “An Inconvenient Truth”. When asked if he thought that, having been denied the Presidency, perhaps he has been able to have more impact through his projects since leaving government, Mr. Gore indicated his belief that there is no more powerful office than the U.S. Presidency when it comes to being able to have an impact. Among the topics, there was some discussion of the dismal state of newspapers and print media. While indicating that the days of the newspaper as we know it are numbered, Mr. Gore expressed optimism that a new model for journalism will eventually emerge. As an analogy, he reminded everyone how Napster’s original threat to the recording industry eventually led to the iTunes model where users are willing to pay a reasonable price for legal downloads. Additionally, to put things in perspective and illustrate how quickly society can change and adapt with technology, he mentioned that when he and President Bill Clinton took office in 1993, there were only 50 websites on the internet. Similarly, he referred to a book written by Bill Gates in the 1990s in which the internet wasn’t mentioned even once. At one point when talking about the general problem of an uninformed electorate, Mr. Gore mentioned that the average person now spends eight hours a day in front of a screen of some sort (e.g. computer, TV, etc.) and that the average time spent in front TV every day is some obscene number (was it 4?). He remarked how we humans can’t help but be distracted by the motion on a TV screen – we have been evolutionarily programmed to react to such cues. With some humor, he pointed out that if we played tennis for that many hours every day, our muscles would be well-exercised; he then rhetorically asked what that many hours of watching TV would exercise. Another question asked by the interviewer was in regard to climate change and whether we already may be past the so-called “tipping point”. In responding that it’s not to late to act, he did mentioned that we probably won’t get back to normal in our or our childrens’ lifetimes, but that it could happen within our grandchildrens’ lifetimes.

When asked about his opinion of President Obama’s handling of the economic crisis thus far, he had positive things to say, but also reminded everyone that Obama has only been in office for two months and has a lot on his plate. Regarding the economy, the interviewer asked Mr. Gore his thoughts about the future of capitalism, given the current crisis. His response was that both the Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” were written in 1776, and both have been important to the development of our country. While articulating his view that capitalism has led to much innovation and has generally worked for us, he pointed out that regulation is necessary for its proper functioning. There were a number of other topics touched upon which I can’t think of at the top of my head.

All in all, it was an excellent event – well worth the $221 I spent for my ticket (although I do wish I had known that I could have gone to the meet-and-greet reception). Mr. Gore showed himself to be an extremely knowledgeable, articulate, humorous and intelligent individual who would (and should) have made a great 43rd President. It boggles the mind to think how things would be today if it weren’t for the butterfly ballot!


Filibusters

Here is an interesting graph from ThinkProgress:

It is the number of cloture votes taken in the Senate since the 86th Congress, back in the 50s. It demonstrates conclusively that Harry Reid’s oft repeated statement that it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate, if true, has only recently become true. And it demonstrates, again conclusively, that the current crop of Republicans has accelerated the trend to the point of absurdity.

The Republicans are currently planning on filibustering the nomination of a candidate to head the Office of Legal Counsel because she had the temerity to criticize the spurious legal rationale for torture and other Bush era abuses that everyone agrees deserved that criticism. We can expect that every major Obama initiative will be threatened by a filibuster, meaning that each and every one, in order to pass Harry Reid’s Senate, will be watered down so badly that it will have no chance to succeed.

Reid throws up his hands and insists there’s nothing he can do. But in fact, his Republican colleagues have shown him the way. What did the Democrats do in the face of Republican threats to “go nuclear” when the Republicans were in the minority? They “compromised”, bargaining away their own practical right to filibuster Bush judicial nominees in favor of preserving a theoretical right to do so, so long (as the Clash would say) they weren’t “dumb enough to actually try it”. The compromise was a win-win for Republicans, knowing as they did that the Democrats would never have the nerve to reply in kind should the tables turn.

A prescient blogger (me) said this at the time:

Speaking of the filibuster, the Democrats should take the bull by the horns right now. Since they’re not going to use it, they should offer to make the Republican position explicit: that is, change the Senate rules to make it clear that a judicial nomination cannot be filibustered. Because I can guarantee you, come 2008, the Republicans will filibuster every judicial nomination they don’t like, and they’ll be calling it a constitutionally sancrosanct maneuver. And the Democrats won’t have the nerve to go nuclear. So do it now. The Democrats have managed to turn the filibuster into a tool only the right wing can use. At the very least, take it away from them while they have no choice but to agree. And who knows, putting it to them like that might make them give a thought or two to 2008 and beyond. They’re not looking as good now as they were six months ago, and they no longer can count on the permanent majority they thought they had.

Of course, it really didn’t take much prescience. It was obvious to anyone with a brain.

Here’s hoping, but not expecting, that Obama will invite Reid down to the White House and tell him to start playing some hardball. There are theoretical justifications, as the Republicans argued, for abolishing the filibuster. This once rarely used device was never intended to be an everyday, throwaway procedure. If the Republicans want to keep it, they should have to accept that it is to be rarely used. Otherwise, the Democrats should abolish it using the Republicans’ own rationale. It is a theoretical abomination and, at the moment, a clear and present danger to the survival of the Republic.


It’s that time again

Eyes tired straining at all those numbers in the Republican budget?

Suffering from outrage fatigue caused by corporate bonus babies, zombie banks and zombie Republicans?

Is even Keith Olbermann not enough to replenish your emotional batteries?

Then join us Thursday night, when we will once again Drink Liberally at the Bulkeley House, 111 Bank Street in New London. 6:30 PM sharp, or not so sharp.

Good drinks, good food and good conversation, not necessarily in that order.


There but for the grassroots..

This blog started year ago partly in reaction to George Bush’s attempt to “privatize” (read “destroy”) Social Security after he received a mandate to do so by never mentioning the subject during his 2004 campaign. Luckily, that didn’t work out so well, at least for George, and Social Security escaped his tender ministrations.

There were probably lots of reasons that Bush wanted to divert our money away from the Social Security program, but one, often remarked at the time, was that it would result in a staggering amount of money being dumped into the clutches of the Wall Street gamblers who have so effectively destroyed our economy. Had Bush has his way, they could have destroyed our futures as well as our present.

Josh Marshall note today that what the Bushies could not do with our Social Security money, the could do with the Pension Guaranty Fund, the government fund that is supposed to protect workers with pensions at companies that fail, or otherwise become incapable of fulfilling their obligations.

The Boston Globe reports that just before the markets tanked, the Bush appointee in charge of the Pension Guaranty Fund shifted its investments from low risk bonds to high risk stocks, hedge funds, and real estate and private equity funds. The Fund has lost a sizable percentage of its value, just when it will probably be needed as numerous companies collapse. As the Globe points out, this was an extremely stupid thing to do:

“The truth is, this could be huge,” said Zvi Bodie, a Boston University finance professor who in 2002 advised the agency to rely almost entirely on bonds. “This has the potential to be another several hundred billion dollars. If the auto companies go under, they have huge unfunded liabilities” in pension plans that would be passed on to the agency.

… Bodie, the BU professor who advised the agency, questioned why a government entity that is supposed to be insuring pension funds should be investing in stocks and real estate at all. Bodie once likened the agency’s strategy to a company that insures against hurricane damage and then invests the premiums in beachfront property.

Since he issued that warning, he said, the agency has gone even more aggressively into stocks, which he called “totally crazy.”

The genius behind this investment strategy was Charles E.F. Millard, a Bush appointee who defends his “strategy” by pointing out that in twenty years, it might all look pretty good. That ignores the fact, of course, that we might very well need the non-existent money now.

The fund is yet another governmentally established entity, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that is not entitled to full faith and credit. Nonetheless, the government will be under enormous pressure, this time justifiably so, to rescue it.

It may come as no surprise that in his former life, Millard was a former managing director at Lehman Brothers, where he undoubtedly learned all he had to know about making wise investments. He must have been like a kid in a candy store, drooling at the prospect of giving the money of the American worker away to his friends on Wall Street.

Lest we forget, this is what would have happened to Social Security, the only pension the affected workers may now have, if Bush had gotten his way. And, lest we also forget, it was not the politicians who stopped this raid on our money, it was the grassroots, including Marshall very prominently, who pushed the spineless Democrats into holding firm and not “compromising” with Bush, as so many of them (Lieberman especially) were wont to do.


Sunday Night Entertainment


Reagan Legacy

One of the most irritating things that Democrats do is concede to the far right’s claim that Reagan was a great president. He was half senile even then. He catered to racists, and made war on the environment and the middle class. It’s good to see a little pushback.


Local Boy Wanders through Europe

Audrey Heard sent this link to me a few minutes ago. It has very little to do with politics. It’s written by her grandson, Sam Greenfield, brother of Jay Greenfield, who was an avid volunteer campaign worker in Groton a few years back. Sam is a junior at NYU, but this year he’s studying in Prague. He and two friends saw fit to take the Red Bull Challenge:

The team was Brett Morell, Will Lawton, and myself. Three juniors in college, studying together at New York University in Prague; one might say with stars in our eyes. The week-long challenge pitted 200 teams of three college students each in a rat race from one of five starting points (Rome, Madrid, Budapest, Manchester, or Berlin) to arrive in Paris, France on Halloween.

The challenge part consisted in the fact that the participants were allowed no money, credit cards or cell phones. All they started with was 24 cans of Red Bull, which they proceeded to barter for the wherewithal to make their way across Europe. At various milestones, their supply of Red Bull was replenished.

Since Sam is from Noank, and from a family of mostly good Democrats (I’m not sure about his Dad) it seemed like a good idea to give his piece a plug. There’s some very funny bits. Here’s the last section, at a point just after (this is just before the election) they had obtained some Obama paraphernalia from an American in Geneva, who was working on the Obama campaign. When they got to Lyons they put the Obama stuff to good use.

Random people on the streets, the Red Bull girls, our competition, they all loved the pins. They all loved Obama! A handful of French men and women tried to buy them off of us and we actually sold one for 8 euros. Amazing, as only Brett spoke patchy French, but at least we weren’t considered imperialist villains. And finally, the abilities of American iconography were put to the ultimate test.

We crossed the park from the Lyon checkpoint to the train station and let Obama do the real work. We found a conductor dressed in blues and explained our story. Of course, he loved our pins. Suddenly there were two conductors, three, now four TGV conductors dressed in their blue suits with black trim eagerly listening to the circumstances of our trip.

“Will you help us to Paris, today?” we pleaded.

They spoke in rapid-fire French, and then the dark-haired woman spoke.

“You will wait here for an hour. We will come back,” she instructed with a wink.

And in an hour she returned, grabbed one of the three trays in our possession and guided us out of the waiting lounge and down an escalator. It was on that descent I saw a crowd of nine TGV conductors and controllers talking and pointing. We approached the crowd, and a tall black man stepped towards us.

“Two can travel in front, one in back. Enjoy your trip.”

Quickly I looked over my shoulder, and couldn’t stop myself from smiling at the sight of a Hungarian CYMI team with their faces pressed up against the lounge’s glass window, jaws dropped, glaring in jealousy.

He began walking away in strict fashion, paused, and turned around. He pressed the palms of his hands together and said in broken English.

“We hope for Obama too. Pray for change.”

Red Bull Can You Make It?

Yes we can.


City Headquarters Opening

A few pictures from the Grand Opening of the City Democrats Headquarters Opening. First, by way of a reminder that next month the Town Democrats will be hosting a fundraiser to honor the two Nancys, DeMarinis and Driscoll, here they are with Ted Moukawsher:

While this picture doesn’t reflect it, the turnout was actually pretty good. Dick Blumenthal spoke, as did Nancy Wyman.

Finally, here’s Council Candidate Lisa Luck, with Dick Blumenthal

The City, as opposed to the Town, has been reliably Democratic. The Democrats have swept all the Council seats for several elections now, if I am not mistaken. The Republicans have fielded some strong candidates this year, but my money is on the Democrats to sweep again. Dennis Popp has been an excellent mayor.


Groton City Headquarters Opening

Better late than never. I mean to put this up yesterday.

The Groton Democratic City Committee (as distinct from the Town Committee, for those of you not familiar with the labyrinthine nature of Groton government) will celebrate the opening of their election headquarters (City elections are in May) on Sunday, March 29th from 4 – 6 PM at the Boilermakers Union Hall, 33 Sacred Heart Dr., Groton. Nancy Wyman and Dick Blumenthal will be guest speakers. There will be refreshments and, of course, raffles.


High Moral Dudgeon in the Sports World

Sports writers as a group seem to have a marked capacity for moral outrage. Witness, just as an example, Mike DiMauro’s column in today’s Day, in which he expresses a high degree of outrage about a recruiting violation at UConn, the precise details of which I don’t care to know. This is not unusual for DiMauro. His capacity for outrage is unlimited. Nor, as my introductory sentence points out, is DiMauro unique. In fact, I would venture to say he is fairly typical of that part of the Fourth Estate that covers sports. Steroids, doping, you name it, any form of sports cheating gets them going. Why, Mike Francesca and the Mad Dog even deigned to notice women’s basketball when given the chance to natter on about Nykesha Sales’ free basket. Not only are they able to summon up a high degree of outrage, but they see the world in absolutes, having little interest in shades of gray or in making allowances for human weakness, even when the individual involved is young, and perhaps entitled to a few screw ups.

To those of us more interested in those world events that really matter, this is quite frustrating, since it is a marked contrast to the media’s attitude, including that of most editorialists, toward things like torture and constitution shredding, about which the media reaction is most often a world weary shoulder shrugging, or an insistence on concentrating on superficialities.

Nor, unfortunately, is this skewed sense of moral outrage confined to the press. Barry Bonds is being prosecuted for perjury, as the hapless Roger Clemens may be, because they lied about the relatively trivial question of whether they used steroids. They have drawn the attention of both Congress and the Justice Department, both of which have been aggressively quiescent about the obvious perjury of Alberto Gonzales about an issue far more important to the nation.

Why is it that the media appears able to summon up outrage about the trivial world of sports when it is unable to do so about political events? Is there a qualitative difference between those who choose to cover sports and those that choose to cover reality? Maybe so. I often roll my eyes when reading purple prose like that which drips from DiMauro’s pen (today’s column is typical), but maybe I’ve got it all wrong. After all, the only person in the national media that has expressed the appropriate amount of outrage about the direction in which the Bush folks led this nation was Keith Olbermann, who is a former sportscaster. Maybe the sports minded are more revolted at the idea of cheating than those who choose to cover the more cynical world of politics. After all, a fundamental principle of most sports is an adherence to the rules, with consequences for those that stray. It’s an ethos that leads to outrage when the rules are broken. Maybe we need to draft more sports writers into the political side of things, so the moral outrage they are so capable of expressing can be directed at more appropriate targets.