AMERICA - 44th President of the United States

ELECTION '08 - Someone Else's Closing Comment

"Yes We Did" by Mark Morford, San Francisco Chronicle

Party like it's 2009, 'cuz baby, now the real work begins

This is no time for gloating.

This is no time to get carried away by some sort of rapturous rose-colored ROTFLMAO celebration full of streamers and confetti and blissful weeping in the streets, all wrapped in a big creamy ribbon of stunned disbelief, the overwhelming sense that, oh sweet God in heaven, our wary and battered nation has finally agreed, after all these years and seemingly all at once, to grow the hell up.

Is that not the feeling? That we as a country just did the impossible, just chose to get a little bit serious with ourselves, to actually attempt to right our myriad wrongs and rid the national body of our Republican toxins and oh yes by the way make a huge, shocking jolt of unprecedented history while we're at it? You're damn right it is.

The best news of all: Despite all vicious rumors to the contrary, it turns out that we are not too collectively stupid to know a rare and historic opportunity when we see one, no matter what his middle name. I mean, thank God.

So then, a warning, a caution, a hard-bitten piece of buzz-killin' advice, right here right now, before it's too late and you get all ecstatic and naked and drunk on the sheer WOW-ness of it all:

Put down the kazoo. Hold off on the champagne. Do not get too cozy. Do not let President-elect Obama's stunning victory go to your progressive thoughtful oh-my-God-I-Can't-believe-it's-true liberal head. This is not a time for cocktails and screaming and dancing in the streets (that comes about six paragraphs down. Shhh).

After all, there is much work to be done. There is a staggering pile of damage so deep and so wide it would take a hundred Obamas and three trillion dollars and a forklift the size of Shiva to even make a dent.

That is no joke. Did you notice? Buried beneath the avalanche of Obama stories, this bitter hunk of gristle: Right this minute, the Bush admin is trying like the Devil's own biotoxin to sneak through a whole slew of last-minute rollbacks and deregulations, a final parting gift to Bush's corporate cronies and a parting sucker punch to the country.

It's like the world's worst chef spitting on your food one last time before sending it out, cold and limp and full of as much MSG and rat feces as he can jam in there because, well, why the hell not?

And don't forget something else: The sickly, reclusive billionaires and scabrous Blackwater moms who spent their personal millions forcing their intolerance on California by way of Proposition 8? The kind of dysfunctional, ultrawealthy fanatics who not only pray to a dour and heartwrenching God every single day that Christian militants take over the country so we could, quite literally, stone all the gays to death, but who have the millions to fund their nightmares? They are not exactly going away anytime soon.

And as if this writing, their sad fearmongering and outright dishonesty appears to have succeeded in scaring a sufficient number of the less educated, more easily panicked mid-staters into condemning a variant of love their congested and confused souls simply cannot allow. Marriage equality has been, once again, slapped down. For now.

So please, defy your temptations. Do not, under any circumstances, join with the entire planet right now and enjoy President-elect Obama's dazzling victory, because the world is still in shambles and the nation is in super-duper trouble and... still must have to think... er, resolve the serious financial crisis because blood and banana creme pie and...

...that is, I mean racism and raging turmoil in the... death all around, war raging and puppies... um... pain and suffering in the sunshine shoelace... wait... oh yes, drugs and death and... er... anarchy and foreign policy... sex and tickling Paris Hilton and... and... andandanddddd...

Wait. What? What the hell was I just saying? Did I really just write all that? What the hell is wrong with me?

I am so sorry. I don't know what just happened. Shall we start over? Here, let me splash this water on my face. And then this cold sake. And then this refreshing sense of oh my God would you look at the country right now and can you hear all the horns honking and the children grinning and the massive collective sigh? There now. Ready?

Hell yes, this is a time for screaming. For dancing, crying, celebrating with a rare feeling of renewal. It is a time for feeling it fully. A great thing has been done. A great shift has just transpired. Best news of all: There is no going back.

Forget what I said before. Gloating is allowed, a great joyous I-told-you-so straight in the scowling faces of the racists and the warmongers and those so horribly terrified of the new and the different and the possible. Please feel free to let those rivers of gratitude course through you like molten joy coupled to the train of possibility pulled by the giant hand of hell yes.

Above all, it is a time to exhale, to relax a little, to get the hell on with it. I know I speak for roughly five thousand fellow media lackeys when I say, sweet Lord, I am just so glad this damnable beast of an election is finally over. It's like a combination of the day after Christmas and post-coital orgasm and giving birth. You can only sit in the wobbly afterglow, warm and buzzing and dizzy, insanely grateful you didn't get a stocking full of Satan and Alaskan moosemeat and dirt, or a baby with three tiny heads and a nail gun where his arm should be.

This, I think, is perhaps the most important sentiment of all. Not merely relief, not liberation, not even unadulterated joy.

It's gratitude. Deep and satisfying and good. A sense of profound thanks that, well, we made it through. The hopefulness prevailed. That Obama not only survived and flourished, but appears more determined and assured than ever. What's more, our massive, ungainly democratic system? That hugely flawed beast of burden, gutted by eight solid years of the worst kind of abuse and misprision? It still seems to work. Well, mostly. How astonishing is that?

And now, here we are. What a time it has been. What a time it shall be. There is no turning back. And for that, we can only say, thank you. Thank you, thank you, oh sweet God, thank you.

Now pass me that damn champagne.

ELECTION '08 - Closing Comment, America Wins

America WINS, not just Obama or the Democrats.

I have witnessed a miracle, first with the fact that we could be electing the first woman or black President, second that we DID elect a black President! Yes we CAN!

For a long time, the last 8 years to be precise, I have been worried.... no frightened, on the course our America has been heading.

• The threat to our Constitution posed by the Bush Administration and his supporters. That a President, as Commander and Chief, could pick-and-choose what clauses of our Constitution he can ignore in the name of protecting America.


• The idea that there are Americans out there, that by their actions, do NOT really believe in the INDIVIDUAL'S Constitutionally Protect RIGHT to freedom of religion and religious practice. These people read the Constitution as giving them the right to use the force-of-law (local, state, federal) to IMPOSE their personal religious views and tenets on all Americans. They do NOT behave as they recognize that this is the attitude of the Islamic Fundamentalist that attacked America on 9/11, that they had the religious duty to do so. The prime example is these people using law to force their definition of marriage on the rest of us. (Prop 8 in California, undecided as of this post, is an example)

That is why I say America wins in this election, because there is still hope that we-the-people can stem the cancer effecting our Body Politic.

LITE SIDE - Humor Times 10/30/2008

Sorry, couldn't resiste...

POLITICS - Another Note of Doom For GOP

"Voter Registration Affects Current — and Future — Elections" by Doug Heye, The Hill

Major Garrett highlighted yesterday's much-talked-about Steve Hildebrand memo aimed at increasing Obama voter turnout in Florida.

The memo points out some Florida demographics and notes activities the campaign is engaging in on the grassroots level for the final days — inner-city GOTV, Faith Outreach Programs, attorneys, etc.

That's all fairly standard stuff. What's striking, however, is a sentence tucked in near the end: "There is a lot at stake here — 27 electoral votes, but also the future of building Florida into a majority Democratic state in the years to come." From there, Hildebrand specifically mentions defeating Gov. Charlie Crist (R) and Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) in 2010 and 2012.

Republicans — not just in Florida, but throughout the nation — should take note.

One aspect of the campaign that cannot be overstated is the success the Obama campaign has had in registering new voters. Voter rolls for Democrats have surged, which makes it more difficult for Republicans in tight down-ballot races — and also for GOP candidates in future elections.

An advantage in hard registration numbers raises the bar the opposing party must overcome, especially in congressional races and the state House and state Senate races that will affect the make-up of future congressional districts.

Picking up 20 new voters at a local Wal-Mart, or 15 at the town soccer complex every Saturday, soon adds up to real numbers that can determine important elections. It can also catch the opposing party by surprise.

Regardless of the outcome on Nov. 4, Hildebrand's memo should serve as a reminder of the impact increasing voter registration, one voter at a time, has on current and future elections. It's the very definition of party-building and a concrete example of how local politics, even on the precinct level, can have statewide and national implications.

In the past, the Republican Party did well with voter registration drives. Following the elections, it will need to rededicate itself to that purpose.

...and as the GOP spins in the ol' Porcelain Bowl....

WORLD VIEW - China 10/29/2008

"China's curious hotels" by Tim Johnson, McClatchy News

I travel quite a lot in China, so it doesn’t take much to get me talking about hotels here. There are always curious things.

The last two nights are a case in point. Last night, I stayed at a hotel in Yinchuan, capital of the Ningxia Autonomous Region. It’s a city of about a million people, tiny by Chinese standards.

My assistant made the reservation for the hotel. I didn’t recognize the name, something like Die-suh Business Hotel. To my surprise, it turns out to be a Days Inn Hotel, a well-known brand in the U.S.

Nice hotel. Big flat-screen TV. Free broadband internet. A pot to boil water for a morning coffee. But no heat.

When the plane landed at the airport, the announced temperature was 44 degrees Fahrenheit (8 degrees Celsius).

I got under the covers at that hotel last night, and I didn’t budge till the last possible moment this morning. It was freeezzinng. Brrr.

Presumably, the reason is that the government bars most buildings from turning the heat on until Nov. 15. The receptionist at the hotel said that’s when the hotel would heat its rooms.

Tonight, I am in a little city in Inner Mongolia. The hotel is a simple local hotel. But what happened is rather extraordinary, astounding really, given what would likely happen in my home country. Despite years of experience, I still have occasional glitches in my knowledge of my laptop. For some reason, I couldn’t get it to connect to the internet. Within a few minutes, a woman was up with the correct DNS numbers for the local server. Still no luck.

Within an hour, a crew of technicians was in my room tinkering with the network program on my laptop. They were working in a language foreign to them (English) and doing so with good humor. Soon, they set up a new connection for me.

Can you imagine calling for help with a laptop in most foreign countries? They would scoff. So here I sit, sipping a local Chunshengtai Beer (I kid you not) and surfing the internet from Wuda, Inner Mongolia. And the heat is on!

ECONOMY - Just When You Think It Can't Get Worst

"Consumers Feel the Next Crisis: It’s Credit Cards" by ERIC DASH, New York Times

Excerpt

After years of flooding Americans with credit card offers and sky-high credit lines, lenders are sharply curtailing both, just as an eroding economy squeezes consumers.

The pullback is affecting even creditworthy consumers and threatens an already beleaguered banking industry with another wave of heavy losses after an era in which it reaped near record gains from the business of easy credit that it helped create.

Lenders wrote off an estimated $21 billion in bad credit card loans in the first half of 2008 as more borrowers defaulted on their payments. With companies laying off tens of thousands of workers, the industry stands to lose at least another $55 billion over the next year and a half, analysts say. Currently, the total losses amount to 5.5 percent of credit card debt outstanding, and could surpass the 7.9 percent level reached after the technology bubble burst in 2001.

“If unemployment continues to increase, credit card net charge-offs could exceed historical norms,” Gary L. Crittenden, Citigroup’s chief financial officer, said.

Faced with sobering conditions, companies that issue MasterCard, Visa and other cards are rushing to stanch the bleeding, even as options once easily tapped by borrowers to pay off credit card obligations, like home equity lines or the ability to transfer balances to a new card, dry up.

Big lenders — like American Express, Bank of America, Citigroup and even the retailer Target — have begun tightening standards for applicants and are culling their portfolios of the riskiest customers. Capital One, another big issuer, for example, has aggressively shut down inactive accounts and reduced customer credit lines by 4.5 percent in the second quarter from the previous period, according to regulatory filings.

Lenders are shunning consumers already in debt and cutting credit limits for existing cardholders, especially those who live in areas ravaged by the housing crisis or who work in troubled industries. In some cases, lenders are even reining in credit lines after monitoring cardholders who shop at the same stores as other risky borrowers or who have mortgages from certain companies.

While such changes protect lenders, some can come back to haunt consumers. The result can be a lower credit score, which forces a borrower to pay higher interest rates and makes it harder to obtain loans. A reduced line of credit can also make it harder for consumers to manage their budgets, because lenders have 30 days to notify their customers, and they often wait to do so after taking action.

More in the full 2-page article

POLITICS - Another GOP BIG Lie

The following article is another example of how the GOP lies. The lie that the GOP is really concerned about small business.

The truth is the GOP only cares about big corporate business (aka Wallstreet, public companies) that can buy GOP loyalty. The GOP does not give a damn about the little guy, a business or individual person.

"Why Do Republicans Hate Small Businesses" PRNewswire-USNewswire 10/28/2008

Republican Anti-Small Business History Revealed

In 1953 Congress passed the Small Business Act out of the realization that most Americans worked for small businesses, and that these firms were the heart and soul of our great nation's economy.

During 1984 and 1985 President Ronald Reagan tried to close the Small Business Administration (SBA) and bring an end to all federal programs designed to assist small businesses, including small firms owned by woman, minorities, and veterans.

Senator Carl Levin (D - MI, and other Democratic members of Congress were all that stopped Ronald Regan from achieving his goal.

Again in 1996, Republican members of Congress proposed legislation to close the SBA and bring an end to the federal programs established by the Small Business Act to assist America's 27 million small businesses.

As soon as George W. Bush was elected, one of his first acts as President of the United States was to remove the Administrator of the SBA from the President's Cabinet. Additionally, he cut the SBA's budget more than any other federal agency. Today, the SBA's budget is less than half of what it was during the Reagan Administration.

Since 2003, more than a dozen federal investigations have found fraud, bad policies and a blatant lack of proper oversight in nearly every federal small business program. Several investigations found Bush officials had diverted billions of dollars in federal small business contracts to a "who's who" of corporate giants in the United States and Europe. Thousands of small businesses were forced to close their doors as they unknowingly tried to compete head-to-head with Fortune 1000 firms for even the smallest orders of goods and services.

Every major newspaper in the country has published stories on the Bush Administration's diversion of billions of dollars in federal small business contracts to large businesses. Major networks such as ABC, CBS and CNN have all aired investigative stories on the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.

In an attempt to stop further investigative stories on the issue, in 2006 Bush officials removed all data from the government's Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database that could be used by the media, the public and every federal agency to differentiate large businesses from small businesses.

Bush officials then established a policy, which made it easier for large firms to misrepresent themselves as small businesses by omitting the total number of employees and annual revenue fields from the CCR database.

In 2007, the Bush Administration adopted a policy that will allow Fortune 1000 firms to continue to receive government small business contracts until the year 2012.

In response to hundreds of stories in the media on the diversion of government small business contracts to large businesses, Bush officials launched a public relations campaign to convince the public that the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants was simply a myth. (http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/news_07-30.pdf)

President Bush has also refused to implement a federal law, which was passed over seven years ago, establishing a 5 percent set-aside goal for woman-owned firms.

Bush closed the SBA office that was established to assist veteran-owned firms and disabled veteran-owned firms. They even disbanded the Veteran's Advisory Committee.

Recently, the Bush Administration began to dismantle the federal program to help minority-owned firms by suspending applications for the government's Small Disadvantaged Business Contracting Program.

The American Small Business League (ASBL) has won a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against the Bush Administration. Information received as a result of the legal victories has proven that hundreds of Fortune 1000 firms are the actual recipients of most federal small business contracts. The ASBL estimates that by the time President Bush leaves office, small businesses will have lost more than $800 billion in federal small business contracts to large businesses.

If Senator John McCain is elected President, he will continue the long Republican history of trying to close the SBA and bring an end to economic programs that were established by the Small Business Act to assist America's 27 million small businesses.

ECONOMY - Fox Guarding the Hen House

"But Who Shall Guard The Guardians?" Bill Moyers Journal 10/24/2008

This week on the JOURNAL, Bill Moyers spoke with economist James K. Galbraith about the causes of the economic crisis and how the U.S. might best move forward.

Galbraith advocated expanding government regulation of the economy:

"Here in the United States the capacity to handle the crisis exists. What we need is a government that's willing to use that capacity, that believes in it... Regulation is not a burden on business. When it's done properly, it's a framework which favors the more efficient, the more progressive, the more satisfactory elements of business that are prepared to work within the guidelines set by a larger public purpose."

Nearly two thousand years ago, the Roman satirical poet Juvenal asked “Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes,” which translates to “But who shall guard the guardians?” Juvenal’s immediate topic was Roman licentiousness, but his famous question has come to stand for a more enduring problem: that those entrusted to enforce moral standards are subject to the same human failings as those they regulate.

Juvenal’s point is echoed by libertarians and others skeptical about the ability of government to enact sensible and fair policies. In a CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR column, economist Steven Horwitz wrote:

“In a free market, firms profit by satisfying their customers, investing wisely, and making prudent loans... To call the housing and credit crisis a failure of the free market or the product of unregulated greed is to overlook the myriad government regulations, policies, and political pronouncements that have both reduced the freedom of this market and led self-interested actors to produce disastrous consequences, often unintentionally... Regulations designed with the best of intentions are likely to lead to more crises if they distort incentives and thereby cause individual "greed" to undermine economic growth and harm millions. History is full of examples of politicians adopting short-run solutions without seeing the harmful long-run consequences.”

POLITICS - GOP "Spins" Out of Control

"Bush campaigns for McCain at RNC HQ" by Joe Sudbay, America Blog

Excerpt

George Bush was out on the campaign trail for John McCain today. The Republicans finally found a place where George Bush could show up -- the headquarters of the RNC. But, it's also a dangerous place these days. There's not a lot of love among the Republicans these days and the daggers are flying. Palin is mad at the RNC. The RNC is mad at McCain and Palin. A McCain aide thinks Palin is a "whack job." And, just about everyone, including Republicans, blame George Bush.

WAAAA.... Ain't that just too bad.

MIDDLE EAST - The Syrian Attack Controversy

"We will defend territory against attack, vows Syria" by Ian Black, Martin Chulov in Hilla, and Julian Borger; Guardian UK

Syria yesterday condemned the US for launching "criminal and terrorist aggression" on its soil, while the Iraqi government defended action against foreign jihadis amid warnings it might complicate plans for a controversial security agreement between Baghdad and Washington.

Walid al-Muallem, Syria's foreign minister, used a visit to London to lambaste the US for its "cowboy politics" and hinted that Sunday's raid was designed to halt Syria's gradually improving relations with the EU and Britain. Iran and Russia also condemned the US for aggravating tensions in the region.

Syria reported that US troops, backed by helicopters, launched the attack five miles into its territory, killing eight people, including four children. But at the funerals of the victims, where angry crowds chanted anti-American slogans, an Associated Press photographer said he saw the bodies of seven men.

The US refused to comment publicly, but an official said the raid's target was Abu Ghadiya, a former aide of the Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Ghadiya was a major smuggler of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters into Iraq, the official told Reuters. "He [Abu Ghadiya] is believed to be dead. This undoubtedly will have a debilitating effect on this foreign fighter smuggling network."

If confirmed, it would be the first such US strike inside Syria since the 2003 invasion. Muallem, in the first public comments by the Damascus government, warned that an attack recurred, Syria would defend its territory. "The Americans know that we stand against al-Qaida," he said. "They know full well we are trying to tighten our border with Iraq."

Muallem had been due to hold a press conference with David Miliband, the foreign secretary, but the event was canceled by mutual agreement, apparently because Miliband did not want to be questioned about the raid. Miliband said Britain was concerned about the growth of al-Qaida groups and insurgent networks developing along the Syria-Iraq border. British officials claimed Muallem did not deny the seriousness of the problem and the need for better cooperation with Iraq, but gave no firm commitments. In Baghdad, the Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, appeared to support the US by calling the area of the attack "a staging ground for activities by terrorist organizations hostile to Iraq". He added the US operation "was targeting smugglers who transferred people to Iraq".

The US has steadily been ceding control of the Iraqi armed forces to the Maliki government and has transferred security responsibility for 12 of Iraq's 18 provinces. But the US still controls Iraqi air space and runs military operations where and when it chooses. "This is not something we can control or respond to," an Iraqi defense official said. But Brigadier Fadel al-Sultani, now responsible for security in the Hilla region - which takes in part of the restive Anbar province that stretches towards the Syrian border - said the province was no longer a haven for insurgents using the Iraqi border town of Qaim as a staging point.

"We can say with certainty that al-Qaida are 95% defeated," said Sultani. "They have gone. Five percent are out there and are robust. We retain a strong interest in them, and so do the Americans. They were with us this morning discussing an offensive." A convoy of senior US officers left his headquarters compound in Hilla around noon on Sunday.

The attack in Syria also provoked new concerns about the deal extending the legal basis for US forces in Iraq after a UN mandate expires in December, with a prominent Kurdish politician, Mahmoud Othman, saying Iraq's government had no prior knowledge of the raid.

------------

"Syria 'Gave Green Light For Raid'" by Dominic Waghorn, Sky News

Why did America launch a daylight helicopter attack on Syria provoking worldwide outrage? The plot thickens.

Publicly America is still saying nothing but US officials are making intriguing claims off the record.

Now, a respected Israeli intelligence expert says he has been told the operation was carried out with the knowledge and co-operation of Syrian intelligence.

Ronen Bergman, author of The Secret War with Iran, makes the claim in the Yediot Ahronoth newspaper, based on briefings with two senior American officials, one of whom he says until recently "held a very high ranking in the Pentagon".

Mr Bergman told Sky News the raid happened after America had lobbied Syria intensely to deal with an al Qaeda group conducting activity on the border.

The Syrians were unwilling to be seen publicly bowing to US pressure to tackle the group, he says, but in the end gave the Americans the green light to do so themselves.

He claims the Syrian government told the Americans: "If you want to do this, do it. We are going to give you a corridor and carte blanche. We will not harm your troops."

Mr Bergman maintains Syrian intelligence has been co-operating secretly with its US counterpart for some time in its war with al Qaeda.

There are several unanswered questions about the mysterious raid. In particular why it happened with very little apparent resistance by Syrian forces.

Mobile phone video of the attack shows no air-to-air or ground-to-air defense activity.

This is strange, Mr Bergman points out, given Syrian paranoia about helicopters being used by Israel for espionage purposes.

"The Syrians have invested so much in aerial defenses, especially against choppers and the Americans go in in daylight and nothing is being done."

The Syrian government has slammed the attack as "criminal and terrorist aggression".

It claims there were no al Qaeda operatives in the area.

Other unnamed American officials claim the attack killed a senior al Qaeda commander responsible for funneling foreign fighters into Iraq from Syria.

Independent journalists who reached the attack site yesterday reported claims by local people that the victims of the raid were all innocent civilians.

"He said, She said" controversy. But invokes the question, "Is this another example of Israeli "overkill?"

ENVIRONMENT - "Nero" Fiddled While the World Burns

"CLIMATE CHANGE: Window of Opportunity Closing Rapidly" by Stephen Leahy, IPS News

The global financial crisis has pushed climate change off the front pages despite new evidence that it is happening faster and with stronger impacts than previous projections, a new report warns.

Meanwhile, some political leaders in Europe, Canada and elsewhere are saying that now is not the time to make sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions because the global economy is heading into a recession.

"It is clear that climate change is already having a greater impact than most scientists had anticipated, so it's vital that international mitigation and adaptation responses become swifter and more ambitious," said Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, professor of Climatology and Environmental Sciences at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium.

The new data is so compelling that van Ypersele, the newly elected vice chair of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has urged the European Union to aim for a lower temperature target than the 2 degrees C they adopted in 1996.

That will require emission reductions beyond the 20 percent lower than the 1990 baseline by the year 2020 that the EU has as a target but is struggling to meet.

The new climate data since the 2007 IPCC report includes the astonishingly rapid meltdown of the Arctic sea ice over the last two years. Arctic Ocean water temperatures are 5 degrees C warmer than normal this October, ensuring that winter ice will form later and be thinner, setting the stage for more melting next summer.

Experts are now predicting a summer with no permanent ice in the Arctic in as soon as five years -- for the first time in a million years, according to WWF's new report, "Climate change: faster, stronger, sooner". That is 30 to 60 years in advance of the IPCC projections.

"There's no stopping an ice-free Arctic in the summer," said Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria in Canada.

"We've already passed the tipping point in the Arctic," Weaver, who was not involved in writing the report, told IPS.

The Canadian government, among many others, does not take the risks of climate change seriously, he said. Weaver recently published a book on climate change -- "Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming World" -- to help the public understand the climate crisis and what needs to be done.

While many think the impacts of climate change are far off in the future, the WWF report cites studies reporting that yields of import food crops like wheat, maize and barley have been in decline since 1980, largely due to rising temperatures. That will worsen, especially in South Asia and southern Africa, where there will be sharp declines in yields in local food crops.

Warming oceans have already also increased the number and size of "dead zones" affecting global fisheries. Sea levels are also rising faster as Greenland and Antarctic glaciers melt far faster than predictions, putting coastal communities under greater threat from storm surges and salt-water intrusion into coastal fresh-water aquifers, the report notes.

"It was time to remind policy-makers of the heavy consequences of inaction on climate," said Delia Villagrasa, senior advisor at the WWF European Policy Office in Brussels.

This week's release of the WWF report was also in response to the media's preoccupation with the global financial crisis, Villagrasa told IPS.

The financial crisis is the result of not regulating a risky part of the global marketplace, but climate change is by far the more "risky market", and is in urgent need of regulation she said.

"Shifting to a green economy has many upsides, including economic growth, good jobs and reduced greenhouse gas emissions," she noted.

That view is mirrored by Wednesday's launch of the "Green Economy Initiative" to mobilize the global economy towards investments in clean technologies and "natural" infrastructure, such as forests and soils, as the best bet for real growth.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and leading economists said at the launch in London that there are enormous economic, social and environmental benefits in combating climate change and re-investing in natural infrastructure. These benefits range from new green jobs in clean tech and clean energy businesses up to ones in sustainable agriculture and conservation-based enterprises.

"Transformative ideas need to be discussed and transformative decisions taken," Achim Steiner, UNEP's executive director, said in a statement.

Transformative decisions are particularly needed at the next round of U.N. climate convention negotiations in Poznan, Poland in December, Steiner said.

The climate meetings in Poznan will lay the groundwork for a final global climate deal to be negotiated in Copenhagen in 2009. This new climate treaty will be the successor to the Kyoto Protocol and is likely to be the most important international agreement in human history.

Even though Europe has taken the lead on climate, it is now having trouble reaching agreement amongst its members, largely due to heavy lobbying from the same old suspects -- the oil, coal and heavy industry sectors, said Villagrasa.

"It is astonishing that interests representing one or two percent of the European economy are dictating policy," she said.

Italy, Poland and the Czech Republic, among other coal-powered countries, are fighting European emission reduction targets even though the vast majority of Europe's citizens want strong action on climate, she said.

Without strong European leadership, it is not clear how the global community will reach a new international agreement to reduce emissions at a level and timetable that reflects what the world's best scientists say are needed to stabilize the climate.

Meanwhile, in recent years annual emissions of climate-altering gases have already exceeded the IPCC worst-case scenarios, said Weaver. That means Earth's atmosphere is trapping more of the sun's heat sooner than expected, inevitably accelerating climate impacts.

"Copenhagen is the last chance for humanity to solve this," said Weaver.

ON THE LITE SIDE - Sort Of, Humor Times

Joke of the Week

A college student wrote home:

Dear Dad,

$chool i$ really great. I am making lot$ of friend$ and $tudying very hard. With all my $tuff, I $imply can`t think of anything I need. $o if you would like, you can ju$t $end me a card, a$ I would love to hear from you.

Love,
Your $on

The reply came:

Dear Son,

I kNOw that astroNOmy, ecoNOmics, and oceaNOgraphy are eNOugh to keep even an hoNOr student busy. Do NOt forget that the pursuit of kNOwledge is a NOble task, and you can never study eNOugh.

Love,
Dad

POLITICS - On Voting, Personal Comment

My personal view on voting is very simple. It is not just a Constitutional Right, but an obligation.

We, as citizens of the United States of America cannot really claim true citizenship if we do not exercise our control of government (at all levels) by voting.

Also, voting IS very important. Especially when you consider that in any election your vote includes local and state issues, as well as federal issues. It's the local/state issues that will have a direct impact on how you live.

Yes, I acknowledge that you also have a Right NOT to vote. The question is, are you a good, true citizen if you do not vote? Do you have the ethical right to complain about government if you do not vote? These are questions each voter needs to ask themselves, and answer.

Please VOTE in every election; local, state, or federal.

Note I have just voted in Election '08 since, in California, I'm registered as a Permanent Absentee Voter.

ELECTION '08 - Barack Obama Endorsements

Chicago "Tribune endorsement: Barack Obama for president" CHICAGO TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD

Excerpts

However this election turns out, it will dramatically advance America's slow progress toward equality and inclusion. It took Abraham Lincoln's extraordinary courage in the Civil War to get us here. It took an epic battle to secure women the right to vote. It took the perseverance of the civil rights movement. Now we have an election in which we will choose the first African-American president . . . or the first female vice president.

In recent weeks it has been easy to lose sight of this history in the making. Americans are focused on the greatest threat to the world economic system in 80 years. They feel a personal vulnerability the likes of which they haven't experienced since Sept. 11, 2001. It's a different kind of vulnerability. Unlike Sept. 11, the economic threat hasn't forged a common bond in this nation. It has fed anger, fear and mistrust.

On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.

The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States.

On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign. We wrote that he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that.

Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.

We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.

The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.

This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

The Tribune in its earliest days took up the abolition of slavery and linked itself to a powerful force for that cause--the Republican Party. The Tribune's first great leader, Joseph Medill, was a founder of the GOP. The editorial page has been a proponent of conservative principles. It believes that government has to serve people honestly and efficiently.

The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.

Colin Powell Endorses Obama

POLITICS - GOP's Welfare Queen

"The Welfare Queens of Wall Street" by Kelley Bell-Wenzlaff, Huffington Post

Gather round kiddies, its story time:

Once upon a time, Ronald Reagan rallied Republicans with his tale of the big bad "welfare queen" who cruised around the kingdom in her pumpkin-colored Cadillac stealing all the people's gold. His story was a fabrication of course, but did much to solidify the convictions of the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" crowd. Now we have welfare queens on Wall Street begging for a bail out while spending all our money at the spa. Oh how the tables do turn.

The plight of these poor little rich men started when the wicked witch of Deregulation came to town. George Bush was a believer in the fairy tale of the "ownership society." The premise; capitalism is king, free markets are the Holy Grail, and the big bad monster of government must be completely crushed like a little bug under the cowboy boot of consumerism. Wealth and prosperity will trickle down to those who deserve it, and away from those who don't. (Excuse me for saying so, but I am not overly fond of being "trickled on" by a bunch of Monopoly men.)

What we are talking about here is supply side economics. (I know, I know, economics is a tough subject, and not much fun, but bear with me, and I shall try to provide a little stimulus in the package.) Here's a quick background: Reagan believed spending creates wealth. So the idea is, spend more than you have, and riches will abound. It's kind of like saying instead of saving your money in the bank, just max out your credit cards to say, a trillion dollars or so while waving your magic wand saying "there's no place like home."

But to put it in folksy Sarah Palin slang, "By-golly, that sure didn't work worth a diddly now did it?" (Wink.) Bill Clinton did not believe in such magic, and refused to drink the Kool-aid, so when he took office, he created a plan called "Pay as You Go." Bill balanced his budget, and left us with a nice fat national savings account. (Thanks Bill!) But George Bush did not like Bill. He liked Ron's idea better. So George and his pals in the GOP decided to spend every last dime in that ol' savings account, and then spend more and more and more!

The problem is, George and his buddies did not read the entire memo on Keynesian economics, which basically says deficit spending is O.K. in the short term. In other words; be fiscally responsible, but if your car breaks down, go ahead and use the credit card to fix it, cause keeping the ol' engine running in order to get to work is better than losing your job. They just sort of skipped over that "in the short term" part, and ran with the shop till you drop plan like Brittany Spears on a bender.

The politicians of the GOP were living high on the hog in this fairy tale world and bringing home the bacon big time. Yes sir'ee Jim Bob, it was a grand old party. They could campaign to the home crowd on the ever popular "no new taxes" mantra while lining their districts with endless payouts of pork pulled from your pockets. (Just ask The Welfare Queen of Wasilla: Alaska got the biggest helping of all.) But even that was not enough. These supply-siders, or "voo-doo economists" as Bush Senior once called them, wanted to deregulate everything. No Rules! No oversight! No government! Let the free market take care of itself! Which is exactly what they did. The busy little beavers of the GOP worked their noses to the ground making new laws to unmake old laws, and set the wild markets free.

Once the markets were deregulated, lots and lots of bad (subprime) loans were made, with No Bank Left behind. It pretty much burst everybody's bubble.

Now, the GOP will tell you the poor are to blame (because everybody knows they don't know how to handle money). They will say these "irresponsible" borrowers messed up their whole plan and caused the housing bubble to burst. ("Bad poor people! Bad!")

It's convenient for the GOP to blame the poor, because this is the one group that is least able to fight back, and the group least likely to vote for them anyway. But the numbers don't lie, folks. While the poor did in fact get caught in this web, and did default on a number of loans, the total percentage of those loans is nowhere near big enough to cause a world market collapse. Look around. This mortgage crisis is not restricted to urban low income neighborhoods here at home. (If this was just a problem in the projects, I guarantee it would never have made the front page.) No, we are talking about world market collapse. We are talking about the foreclosure of McMansions, ocean front estates, and banking failures on a global scale. (As if the poor could pull that off.) This crisis did not occur because the poor abused the free market principle of deregulation to rip off Wall Street, this crisis occurred because the greedy ghost of Gordon Gecko is the acting grand wizard behind the curtain of deregulation policies.

The time has come where conservatives can no longer laugh at progressives with snide remarks of seething fiscal and moral superiority. Their "guy" was wrong. Their plan did not work, and their addiction to the fear mongering politics of imperialistic saber rattling for oil has torn their precious little family values plank into a million little pieces.

There is a price to pay for this folly, of that you can be sure. Judgment is coming, and it commeth right soon. We are facing job losses, business failures, a freeze up in the financial markets, and a very long, severe recession. Change is on the way my friends. Ya, you betcha.

No matter what Congress does now, it's too late to stop that. The best they can do is minimize the damage, and I would not put too much hope on that because as anyone in Washington will tell you, if you ask two economists their opinion, you will get six different answers. The good news is, in this case, for the first time in world history, all the economists are in agreement on one thing: we are in some really deep doo-doo.

Here is what the American people need to understand, and what they are never, ever going to hear from a politician: You are going to have to pay for this mess, and it is going to cost each and every one of us dearly. We are in a very, very deep debt. We have two wars going on that we can no longer pay for. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our jobs are going overseas, and our addiction to oil is killing us.

It is time to tighten our belts and circle the wagons. As Nancy Pelosi said in a press conference yesterday, "We have a huge budget deficit which we could get relief from if we end the war in Iraq. We have a huge trade deficit which has an impact on the fiscal budget health of our country which would be greatly relieved if we reduced our dependence on foreign oil and did so soon."

Pelosi took the stage, surrounded by a dozen economists including Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stieglitz, who added, we need a "comprehensive plan, not just based on trickle down economics, not just going to financial markets, but at least some of the money going directly to households and to meet infrastructure needs." He also focused on the development of green technologies as a major component of the solution.

So climb aboard the magic school bus kiddies. We are about to embark on a wild ride, and learn a whole new way of living in the grand ol' U.S. of A.

I know The American People are strong enough to overcome this crisis. But I worry the voters will not be smart enough to remember how it all began. I fear, as we experience the hard hitting blows of inflation, voters will retaliate against whoever is in power at the time, which means that even if we vote for Democrats this year, and bring in a fresh new group of leaders, ready and willing to turn this mess around, the Republicans will have a sweeping victory in 2012. They will approach hungry, hurting voters with that tempting poison apple of trickle down policy, dressed up in the costume of tax relief, and rule the kingdom once again.

What! Trickle-down, supply side, economics doesn't work?!!

Hummm...

Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary:
"trickle"
a : to run or fall in drops : flow in a thin gentle stream
b : to drip with some liquid : emit a liquid in fine streams or drops

Ah, the rich get to drink from a clear, unobstructed, stream by the bucket full; while the rest of us drink from a teacup (one that does NOT get refilled).

POLITICS - Conservatism, Kidnapped and Buried Alive

"It's Official - Conservatism is Dead" by Lar, i-Report

I have to say, I have become very disillusioned by some of the events of this past week. Primarily two things - the racists and ignorant fools that have been shouting out things like "Bomb Obama" at McCain/Palin rallies, and the reaction that true Conservatives have received for committing the crime of actually thinking for themselves.

As far as the racists and ignorant fools and their inflammatory statements, that is self-explanatory to anybody with a brain or a shred of dignity. They look like a wild mob ready to lynch somebody. It's so disturbing; this alone should make Republicans red with shame that these people are even a small portion of their "base". That base is one hell of a collection of humanity, don't you think?

All decent people see the trouble with the nuts at the rallies. But what about the crime of thinking for yourself...

First of all, let's differentiate between Conservatives and Republicans. Conservatism is a political philosophy. Republican is a political party. But somehow they have become one and the same, at least in the conventional wisdom. Just like the financially corrupt and religiously rigid have hijacked the Republican Party, the Republican Party has hijacked the term Conservative.

And now Conservatism is dead - the Republicans killed it. At least in the forum of politics.

"Conservatives" call Christopher Buckley a lefty because he thinks Obama is better than McCain. The "base" sends 12,000 hate-filled emails to Kathleen Parker because she dares to point out the fact - and notice I said fact, not opinion, because it is a FACT - that Sarah Palin is dangerously unqualified to be VP, let alone President.

The Republican Party is now apparently nothing more than an angry mob loath to betray their team under any circumstances. They have no tolerance for disagreement or discourse of ANY kind, even amongst their own. They are nothing more than a rabid cult at this point. It's sad. Actually, it's pathetic.

It's all about the team. It's not about actually governing. It's not about ideas or philosophies. It's about picking a team and sticking to it no matter what, consequences be dammed.

True conservatism has as many honorable and productive ideas as Liberalism. There is much from both philosophies that I agree with and admire. But this cult that calls itself "Conservative" is an unrecognizable joke.

Christopher Buckley, the son of William F. Buckley, one of the founders of modern Conservatism, had to resign from the National Review - a publication his father founded and which Christopher himself is a part owner of - all because the ignorant Limbaugh "Dittoheads" can't accept the fact that he might have a different opinion, that he might actually put COUNTRY FIRST, ahead of his party.

Honestly, to all you Conservatives out there, I don't know how on earth you can tolerate what your party has become. It's shameful.

Oh wait, the true Conservatives can't tolerate it anymore. As illustrated by the plethora of THINKING Conservatives jumping ship and endorsing Obama and speaking their mind about the dishonorable McCain campaign, the insult to America that is Sarah Palin, and the abomination of the last eight years known as GW Bush.

Pretty soon the only people left in the Republican Party will be right-wing Christian fundamentalists, scared racists, and corrupt bankers. Maybe once the Republican Party hits that point, the true Conservatives can splinter off into a REAL party once again, and we can get back to the business of governing.

Real, true bi-partisan government.

Wouldn't that be nice?

POLITICS - More GOP Sleaze Stopped

"Judge: GOP's voter purge a 'violation of federal law'" by Stephen C. Webster, Raw Story

The American Civil Liberties Union is trumpeting a judge's decision in Michigan which brings to a halt the practice of eliminating voters from rolls if their mailing address is found to be invalid.

Recently, the GOP chairman in Macomb County, Michigan, detailed a plan to use a list of foreclosed homes to challenge voters. His pronouncement drew an immediate backlash, with predictions that the plan would "backfire."

It has.

The suit, filed by ACLU national and ACLU of Michigan, along with the Advancement Project, aimed to protect voters whose registration cards were returned to government offices by post as 'undeliverable.' Judge Stephen J. Murphy of the U.S. District Court of Michigan's Eastern District concluded that the program of eliminating these voters from rolls is in violation of federal law.

The voter purge program, better known to elections integrity experts as 'voter caging,' is a long-storied GOP tactic employed against minority, student and low-income voters. In September, the Obama campaign filed a lawsuit in Michigan challenging the illegal tactic.

"You essentially send a first-class letter to a hoursehold where you suspect that that person no longer lives there but where they're still registered to vote," explained Allen Raymond, a convicted GOP elections fraudster who spent time in prison after the discovery of a phone-jamming scheme during the 2002 elections. "That letter comes back. ... Somebody [at the local polling place] then challenges that vote if that person comes in to vote."

"This is a very significant ruling for Michigan voters," said Matthew Lund, the ACLU cooperating attorney and a partner at Pepper Hamilton LLP who argued the case, in a release. "The court recognized – and repeated several times – that the state of Michigan is conducting unlawful voter purges that clearly violate the National Voter Registration Act. Michigan voters who were removed from the voting rolls for no reason other than failure to receive their ID card in the mail will now be allowed to vote in November.”

"More than 1,400 voters in that category have been disqualified so far in 2008," reports the Associated Press. "The judge says it's unclear how many cancellations actually are wrong but it's a violation of federal law. Murphy says those people shouldn't be prevented from voting if they can produce more proof of residency at the polls."

"This program has a very detrimental impact in minority, low-income and student communities across Michigan," claims an ACLU advisory. "These communities tend to be more transient and to live in multi-family housing."

“This is a major victory for Michigan voters and the integrity of our democratic process,” said Meredith Bell-Platts, staff counsel with the ACLU Voting Rights Project, in a release. “Today’s decision brings us one step closer to restoring confidence in a electoral system that has been poisoned by illegal disfranchisement policies. As a result of the judge’s decision, fewer Michigan voters will be illegally purged and wrongly disfranchised – and that’s good for everyone.”

ELECTION '08 - And Obama Would.....

"Obama Details Plan to Aid Victims of Fiscal Crisis" by JACKIE CALMES and JEFF ZELENY, New York Times

Excerpts

In an address here (TOLEDO, Ohio), Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, proposed giving employers a $3,000 tax credit for each new hire to encourage job creation. He said he would seek to allow Americans of all ages to borrow from retirement savings without a tax penalty; to eliminate income taxes on unemployment benefits; and to double, to $50 billion, the government’s loan guarantees for automakers.

Mr. Obama also called on the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to create a mechanism to lend money to cities and states with fiscal problems, and to expand the government guarantees for financial institutions to encourage a return to more normal lending. He also proposed a 90-day moratorium on most home foreclosures; it would require financial institutions that take government help to agree not to act against homeowners who are trying to make payments, even if not the full amounts.

“We need to give people the breathing room they need to get back on their feet,” Mr. Obama told a crowd of more than 3,000 people at the SeaGate Convention Centre in downtown Toledo.

Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, Senator John McCain, will make new proposals for the economy on Tuesday, advisers said. They did not provide any details.

Late Sunday, after Mr. McCain and his team looked at a variety of policy options over the weekend, a campaign spokesman said Mr. McCain, who has been losing ground to Mr. Obama in the polls, would have no new proposals unless events warranted. Mr. McCain has been emphasizing his plan to help people with financial difficulties get more affordable mortgages, with taxpayers picking up the tab.

In his speech on Monday, Mr. Obama said: “I won’t pretend this will be easy. George Bush has dug a deep hole for us. It’s going to take a while for us to dig our way out. We’re going to have to set priorities as never before.”

The package of new proposals was the most detailed and ambitious offered by Mr. Obama since the financial crisis became acute last month, clouding the economic outlook and transforming the presidential campaign.

Despite criticism from the McCain camp that increasing taxes would further endanger the economy, Mr. Obama has “no plans to change” his longstanding proposal to repeal the Bush tax cuts next year for households with an annual income of more than $250,000, said Jason Furman, Mr. Obama’s economic adviser. Under Mr. Obama’s plan, most individuals and families would get a tax cut, and in terms of total dollars, he would cut taxes on lower- and middle-income people more than he would raise them on upper-income people.

McCain advisers on Monday reiterated their argument that the higher taxes, together with Mr. Obama’s plan for expanded health care, would hit small businesses with costs they could ill afford. Many small businesses pay taxes as individuals. But the Obama campaign and independent fact-checking groups argue that relatively few would be affected by the tax increase on upper-income levels.

The most costly of Mr. Obama’s new proposals is the one giving businesses a $3,000 income tax credit for each new full-time employee they hire above their current work force. The proposal, which would be effective for the next two years and is based on a concept that has been used in past downturns, would account for about $40 billion of the new package’s $60 billion price tag.

About $10 billion of the $60 billion would go to eliminating income taxes on unemployment benefits and extending aid to the long-term unemployed by 13 weeks, on top of the existing 26 weeks.

Mr. Obama’s proposal from last week to allow struggling small businesses to apply for loans from the Small Business Administration’s disaster funds would cost more than $5 billion. The expense of covering additional loan guarantees for the auto industry would mean more than $4 billion more.

While not costly to the Treasury, perhaps more controversial is Mr. Obama’s proposal to allow Americans to withdraw without tax penalty 15 percent of their retirement savings, up to $10,000, from their tax-favored Individual Retirement Accounts and 401(k)s. They would still have to pay income taxes on the withdrawal. Current law requires savers younger than 59 ½ to pay taxes and a 10 percent penalty.

ELECTION '08 - More "Good" News

"Democrats Aim for Super Majority in Congress as Economic Crisis Hits Home" by ALEX GREEN and RICK KLEIN, ABC News

Excerpt

Republicans Fight for Political Survival; North Carolina Could Change Fate of GOP

An increasingly hostile national climate for Republicans has shaken up Senate races across the nation, giving Democrats a plausible shot at achieving 60 seats -- a filibuster-proof majority that would embolden policy ambitions in Congress.

The shifting landscape -- driven in large part by economic unease -- leaves Democrats almost certain to dramatically expand their 51-49 majority in the Senate, according to independent analysts and political strategists in both parties.

But whether Democrats can reach the 60-vote threshold depends on the outcome of races like the one in North Carolina, where Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole is seeking a second term in a race that was never supposed to be close.

GOP's Dole Fights for Political Survival

Dole is a party stalwart who represents a historically "red" state.

She served in Ronald Reagan's Cabinet, led the GOP's Senate campaign efforts in 2006, and is married to the longtime Senate Republican leader, former Kansas senator Bob Dole, the GOP's 1996 presidential nominee.

Yet Dole is caught in dangerous political crosscurrents this year. An unpopular war, a battered economy, and a tattered Republican brand leaves North Carolina voters -- like those in states across the nation -- particularly hostile to Republicans this year.

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is pumping get-out-the-vote resources into the Tar Heel State, in its efforts to expand the presidential map. And Democrats are engaging in an aggressive effort to paint Dole as a political insider who has lost touch with her constituents.

"She is going against a headwind," said ABC News political analyst Cokie Roberts.

The case against Dole is similar to that used against many incumbents: That she has let her ties to her home state atrophy.

Dole's Democratic opponent, state Sen. Kay Hagan, has pounced on a recent media report that found Dole having spent as few as 13 days in North Carolina in all of 2006.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is running a provocative series of ads against Dole, meant to portray her as ineffective and out-of-touch. In one, two elderly men sit on a porch, commenting on Dole's "40 years in Washington" and arguing over whether Dole is 93 or 92.

Much more in full 4pg article