According to the EPA, airplanes contribute 12 percent of transportation greenhouse gases, but they disproportionately harm the atmosphere by leaving heat-trapping contrails and cirrus clouds. So California Attorney General Jerry Brown deserves kudos today for petitioning the EPA to start imposing tough limits on plane emissions within six months. Lighter, more fuel efficient jumbo jets are already on the market, and there's no reason why the government shouldn't encourage their use by setting standards.
The move is another green feather in the cap for Brown, who has already sued the Bush Administration to allow the state to regulate tailpipe emissions, the auto industry over damages caused by global warming, and California counties to force them to reduce suburban sprawl and greenhouse gas emissions--using state laws already on the books. In recent polls Brown has topped all other Democrats as the most popular candidate for Governor in 2010. It's harder to think of a bigger public endorsement for backing up green rhetoric with action.
They both opposed Gitmo, the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq; want to legalize medicinal marijuana; and look like elves. On the psycho-political level, they appeal to idealists and the disaffected with simple, consistent speech and action, a feat normally associated with third-party candidates, but which they've achieved within the shark's mouth of mainstream politics. Beyond this, however, they're oil and vinegar, a classic libertarian and a classic liberal, opposites on everything from abortion to gun control, the United Nations to health care. Yet here was Kucinich on Sunday, at the home of Joanna Dennett in Acworth, Ohio, floating the idea of a joint ticket. Is he crazy?
Probably not. Ron Paul has money, the best Internet campaign in America, and growing legions of dedicated, often rabid, supporters (they number some 60,000 on Meetup.com), many of whom have never volunteered for a political campaign or even voted. Given their disdain for the GOP, Kucinich is wise to court them, if not with his platform, then by dint of his conspicuously independent voting record. Many people support Paul less for his policy proscriptions than his courageous votes against the grain of his own party and the "Establishment." Several Paulites have told me that in past elections they voted for Nader.
But alas, Paul is not interested in this marriage of opposites. A GOP contender who is viewed by his party as too liberal gains nothing by locking arms with one. On the other hand, just by proposing the idea Kucinich appears to fellow Democrats as more moderate (Or at least that's the idea; those familiar with how Paul handles race matters might conclude Kucinich has gone off the deep end). Kucinich also appeals to the Internet energy of the Unity08 campaign, which could yet gain steam in future elections. The idea of fringe bipartisanship is just crazy enough to be a hit online, and perhaps even with Paul's techno-publicans.
Chauncey Bailey, unlike most black men whose brains are blown out on the streets of Oakland, could not be ignored. The first targeted killing of a journalist on American soil in more than a decade demanded the obeisance of the mayor, the congresswoman, and the national press to his kente cloth-draped casket in a packed East Oakland chapel. It would have been an exciting story for Paul Cobb, publisher of the African American-owned Oakland Post, if it hadn't been so personal: Bailey was the Post's editor. Only the day before, the paper had received threats from men who may have been linked to Bailey's murder. Standing at the pulpit, Cobb fought back tears to proclaim, "I will continue to walk towards Chauncey and what he stood for. Even if I have to walk it alone."
Last week, I pointed out that a quote attributed to General David Petraeus, along with a photo of Petraeus in uniform, was being used as promotional material on the website of Eric Horner Ministries. Horner espouses a militant, nationalist strain of fundamentalist Christianity in popular country western songs such as "United We'll Stand When Together We Kneel." His use of the Petraeus photo has been called inappropriate by some military law experts, but, so far, Horner has not removed it. He has, however, changed the quote attributed to Petraeus to read: "I appreciate your patriotic performances for our soldiers and their families." (Is this meant to blunt the impression that Petraeus is endorsing a religion? I'm not sure). Whatever Horner's motives, the change either means that he is (or was) misquoting Petraeus, or that the general gave him permission to run the photo and quotes with the changes. I've sent Horner an email asking him to explain. Either way, the response does not inspire confidence.
Chris Rodda, a researcher with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, has uncovered more information about Horner. In this online "praise report," Horner recounts a November 2nd meeting with President Bush that he claims was arranged by Fort Jackson's general. "The General then spoke up and explained to him (Bush) that we came as a ministry to the troops," Horner writes. "The President seemed to get excited about that and thanked us several times. Again, I'm not looking for Glory in what we do, but it was pretty cool to hear those words from the President."
For more of Rodda's findings on Horner and the military, and the changes to his website, see the comments thread here.
Update: The Petraeus quote on Horner's site now shows the word "patriotic" in brackets.
When I read this very well-documented story in the Lone Star Times about the $500 donation to Ron Paul from well-known white supremacist Don Black, I didn't really blame Paul for taking the money. After all, it's hard to screen out every kook in advance. I assumed Paul would immediately return the money (or donate it to a group like the Holocaust Museum), prevent a link on Black's Neo-Nazi website, Stormfront, from connecting to the campaign's donation page, and announce these moves on the official Ron Paul website. I assumed wrong.
Five days after the Lone Star Times story appeared, Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told the paper he was still unsure whether the campaign would return Black's money. "At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black's contribution," he said, "but I will bring the matter to the attention of our campaign director again, and expect some sort of decision to be made in coming days." Would the campaign at least block fundraising links from Stormfront's IP address? Again, Benton said, he'd have to bring up the idea with the campaign director.
Since then, more than two weeks have passed without an update from the Paul campaign, so I sent Benton and email today asking what the campaign manager had decided. Would Paul be returning Black's money and blocking further donations from Stormfront? A few minutes later he wrote back, and this is what he said: