Political MoJo

Global warming tied to forest fires

| Thu Jul. 6, 2006 2:56 PM EDT

A government-supported study hits the internets today connecting global warming to the increase, in recent years, in the number of large western wildfires.

AP reports:

Beginning about 1987, there was a change from infrequent fires averaging about one week in duration to more frequent ones that often burned five weeks or more, [researchers] reported. The length of the wildfire season was extended by 78 days.

The researchers said the changes appear to be linked to annual spring and summer temperatures, with many more wildfires burning in hotter years than in cooler years.

They also found a connection between early arrivals of the spring snowmelt in the mountainous regions and the incidence of large forest fires. An earlier snowmelt, they said, can lead to an earlier and longer dry season, which provides greater opportunities for large fires.

Says one researcher, "The increase in large wildfires appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate warming," while another calls the findings "one of the first big indicators of climate change impacts in the continental United States."

As the AP story notes, researchers say part of the increase is likely a function of natural fluctuations, but evidence also links it to the effects of human-induced climate warming. The report appears today in the journal Science.

While we're on the subject, check out Mother Jones' recent special issue on global warming.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Good news for whales (for a change)

| Thu Jul. 6, 2006 2:14 PM EDT

We've been pretty short on good oceans-related news of late, but here's an exception! On Monday a district judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the use of high-intensity sonar by the U.S. Navy during its war games now taking place off Hawaii. She gave the Navy and the Natural Resources Defense Council until July 12 to meet and discuss a possible settlement ahead of a July 18 hearing. (NRDC and other organizations filed suit asking for the restraining order last week.)


As we've reported in the past, Navy sonar has been directly implicated in mass strandings and deaths of whales, dolphins, and other marine species.

(Note: Before anyone asks, these here marine mammals are not really wearing ear muffs; the image has been photoshopped.)

The decision comes three days after the Pentagon saw fit to declare the Navy exempt from the Marine Mammals Protection Act, which requires that steps be taken to avoid harm to marine mammals.

In her ruling, District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper wrote that environmentalists had submitted "considerable convincing scientific evidence that the Navy's use of...sonar can kill, injure and disturb many species, including marine mammals."

A bad day for gay marriage

| Thu Jul. 6, 2006 1:57 PM EDT

Yesterday was a big (bad) day for the cause of gay marriage rights. Georgia's top court reinstated the state's constitutional ban on same. New York's highest court decided that same-sex marriage is not permitted under state law. And a conservative group, American Family Association of Michigan, sued to stop Michigan State University from offering health insurance to the partners of gay and lesbian workers. The group hopes to establish a precedent blocking domestic partner benefits at other state universities.

What do they do, sell the stuff on Ebay?

| Thu Jul. 6, 2006 3:06 AM EDT

It's always fun, the annual roundup of gift-giving to U.S. officials from foreign dignitaries; under current ethics rules, presents worth more than $305 are considered property of the U.S. government while those less than that are the recipient's to keep, though exactly what you'd do with "a 16-inch bronze statuette of an Arab man helping a woman from a bath, mounted on a black-slate base, valued at $300" is not entirely clear (you'd have to ask former CIA head George Tenet, who got the artwork from an unnamed foreign official). Hillary Clinton turned a Versace wallet she was given in India over to the State Department, whose rummage sales must be something to see. Donald Rumsfeld, meanwhile, didn't get to keep the $380 aromatherapy gift set he got from the Jordanian royals around Christmas '04. Pity that.

Oceans getting more acidic, threatening corals

| Wed Jul. 5, 2006 8:31 PM EDT

In news of ocean degradation unrelated to Rep. Richard Pombo, a new report finds that all this CO2 we're putting in the atmosphere is making the world's oceans more acidic, threatening to destroy coral reefs and "creatures that underpin the sea's food web." One climate scientist calls the trend "the single most profound environmental change I've learned about in my entire career."(Washington Post)

For more on the sorry state of our oceans, see Mother Jones' recent cover story here. Learn what you can do to turn the tide here. And find out more about coral reefs here and here.

Will Bush flip-flop on immigration?

| Wed Jul. 5, 2006 8:01 PM EDT

Joe Klein is going to be terribly disappointed. Here he is writing in May about the split between the White House and the Congressional GOP over immigration policy. The column ran under the headline, "Bush Is Smart on the Border--and the G.O.P. Isn't"

George W. Bush's position on immigration has been consistent and honorable, even when he was clawing his way toward the Republican nomination in 2000, facing conservative audiences who inevitably asked hostile questions about the Mexicans coming across the border. ... He stood by his principles again last week in his prime-time speech, promising to make a greater effort to protect the border while refusing to cave to conservative pressure against a pathway toward citizenship for the 12 million illegals already here. ...[I]t is never easy going against your party's base. ...

[T]he strongest feelings against immigrants tend to come from the places—red-state rural counties—where immigrants don't exist: 59% of voters in counties where immigrants make up less than 5% of the population believe that all illegals should be deported. That constituency is as ancient as the Republic, perennially exploited by unscrupulous politicians who are willing to play to their racial fears—the Democrats for a century after the Civil War, the Republicans ever since.

Today comes word that Bush is signalling, as the New York Times puts it, "a new willingness to negotiate with House Republicans in an effort to revise the stalled [immigration] legislation before Election Day.

Republicans both inside and outside the White House say Mr. Bush, who has long insisted on comprehensive reform, is now open to a so-called enforcement-first approach that would put new border security programs in place before creating a guest worker program or path to citizenship for people living in the United States illegally. ...

Polls show the public is deeply troubled by the problem of illegal immigration, and Mr. Bush, who has made the issue his domestic policy initiative, is eager for a victory on Capitol Hill. But a carefully constructed White House strategy to prod the House and Senate into compromise collapsed last month when skittish House Republicans opted for field hearings instead. ...

One major question is whether Mr. Bush would give up on a path to citizenship for some of the estimated 11 million to 12 million people living here illegally. He has said repeatedly that it is impractical to deport those who have lived in the United States for a long time and built lives here; the Senate bill permits some longtime illegal residents to become eligible for citizenship if they learned English and paid taxes and a fine. ...

Whether Mr. Bush would accept that is not clear. Aides to Mr. Bush, including Karl Rove, the White House chief political strategist, and Tony Snow, the press secretary, say he remains adamant that any bill must address the status of the immigrants who are here illegally.

But one Republican close to the White House, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, predicted that Mr. Bush would ultimately abandon the idea of a path to citizenship.

And if he does, immigration reform will die this year, and it'll be much harder to make a case for Bush's "consistency and honor" on the issue.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Hillary Clinton: No-mentum for an Independent Lieberman run

| Wed Jul. 5, 2006 7:08 PM EDT

Sen. Clinton, as reported by AP:

I've known Joe Lieberman for more than 30 years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for reelection and hope that he is our party's nominee.

But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary. Ibelieve in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters.

The Lamont folks are loving it, of course.

Back from Iraq, vets face homelessness

| Wed Jul. 5, 2006 6:44 PM EDT

From AP, via the Seattle Times, a now familiar story: hundreds of soldiers back from putting their lives on the line in Iraq have sunk into a life of homelessness.

There are from 200,000 to 300,000 homeless vets in the United States, 10 percent from 1991 Gulf War or the current one, 40 percent from Vietnam. Veterans are overrepresented in the homeless population. (Forty percent of homeless men are veterans, although veterans comprise only 34 percent of the general adult male population.) The AP report notes some are suffering residual stress that makes it tough for them to adjust to civilian life; some have a hard time navigating government-assistance programs; others just can't afford a place to live.

Contrary to what we might think, though, homelessness is not clearly related to combat experience--at least according to studies cited by the National Coalition for the Homeless. Research in fact shows that homeless veterans appear less likely to have served in combat than housed veterans; also, veterans at greatest risk of homelessness are those who served during the late Vietnam and post-Vietnam era; and homeless veterans are more likely to be white, better educated, and previously or currently married than homeless nonveterans.

For the most part, homeless veterans are prey to the same larger trends that afflict the general homeless population: lack of affordable housing, declining job opportunities, and stagnating wages.

North Korea Launches a Dud

| Wed Jul. 5, 2006 4:41 PM EDT

As the headlines are all telling us today, North Korea test-fired a bunch of missiles this morning. And the country's much-rumored and much-hyped long-range missile was, as far as we know, a dud, plopping into the Sea of Japan with barely a whimper. The rest were short-range missiles that have been tested before and pose no threat to the United States. So Kim Jong-Il isn't the all-powerful adversary with the ability to incinerate Los Angeles and Seattle after all.

A few points to note. Obviously North Korea's done a bad thing here, and no one should be happy about anyone firing missiles anywhere anywhere, but all things considered, this seems to augur well. North Korea has now fumbled away one of its few bargaining chips. And the United States can no longer overinflate the threat of North Korea and still be taken seriously. So perhaps this means the two sides can now go back to the negotiating table and try to work out their differences like grown-ups.

The botched test also lays bare the foolishness of various suggestions a few weeks back that we should launch a "pre-emptive" strike against North Korea, which was always a ridiculous proposition. (As Jim Henley put it, William Perry and Ashton Carter were basically envisioning a country "so crazy it might nuke the United States without provocation but so sane it won't retaliate with provocation ") And finally, Philip Coyle of the Center for Defense Information notes the fact that the U.S. military is, at present, apparently unable to tell whether North Korea fired six or ten missiles or what. That hardly bodes well for missile defense advocates, no? Hard to stop incoming rockets if you can't even figure out how many have been launched…

Editorial pages toe the administration line on Iraq

| Wed Jul. 5, 2006 4:15 PM EDT

Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor & Publisher, has a strong column out today noting that one month after pundits and editorialists, following the approved administration line, declared that the situation in Iraq was on the upswing, the death toll continues to mount.

One more thing remains stupefying and typical: the refusal of newspaper editorial pages to protest above a whisper or support any kind of plan for withdrawal (slow, speedy or in-between). When the history of this war is written, this editorial lethargy will receive just as much condemnation as the faulty reporting on WMD before the war, I believe. ...

Newspaper reporters in Iraq have provided honest, probing and tough-minded coverage of the occupation, despite the danger and others restrictions that hinder their work. But editorial writers and pundits back home have displayed only a fraction of the reporters' courage. Instead they offer feeble faith in staying the course. When the Democrats finally forced the first real debate on withdrawal in Congress last month, few newspapers bothered to comment editorially -- one way or the other. In a few months we will have been in Iraq as long as we were in World War II.

Worth a read. Meanwhile David Corn, writing at TomPaine.com, swats down the ridiculous (and self-interested) conservative line that the New York Times has "declared war" on the Bush administration. As if! "Only someone who didn't read the newspapers could believe it has."