Al Gore

So remember when Tom Friedman was running around spilling all that ink about how young Millennials aren't as involved as their parents were back in the 60's? There was a huge response from the youth community noting that many of today's climate activists - and other activists - are taking a more pragmatic approach to their activism.

It was around that same time that fellow Boomer Al Gore, lamented the fact that young people weren't chaining themselves to bulldozers to stop the construction of more carbon-spewing, coal-fired power plants.

Well, apparently we do that too. From It's Getting Hot in Here:

Yesterday, Earth First and Rising Tide blockaded a gas-fired power plant construction site in Palm Beach County, Florida near “the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge which sits 1000 ft from the power plant site.”

27 people were arrested putting their bodies on the line with over 200 people rallying in support. The action stopped construction on the site for six hours.

A whole 6 hours. Not really that effective as a tactic. I wonder if Friedman will cover it?

Crossposted at OpenLeft

Yesterday, Chris wrote a post that looked at a recently published paper on heuristics and politics, which he described as a "new approach toward how voters make decisions". The paper described a few psychological phenomena, and came to the conclusion that people do not make rational decisions in politics, but rather rationalize their rather irrational political decisions.  Chris then went on to discuss how he thought the study related to the behavior of supporters of various candidates, including Gore supporters:

At first blush, this strikes as something I once called Creeping Dear Leader Syndrome online, to describe a phenomenon where people back a candidate and then either change their issue positions to match the candidate, or use contorted, hermeneutical reading of candidate positions to turn those positions into something they are not. It something you see in the comments of blog posts on the 2008 Democratic nomination campaign all the time. Even though it is not an "issue position," exactly, one of the most gratuitous examples is how Gore supporters seems to be able to consistently read Gore's statements that he has no intention of running as actually meaning that he is, after all, certain to run. People invent narratives and facts surrounding the candidates they support, in order to convince themselves that their beliefs and their chosen candidate's beliefs are identical. Unless I am mistaken, in political science circles this is a phenomenon known as "projection."

Well, Chris was wrong on multiple points in this post, and so I thought I'd address a few of those mistakes, including his mischaracterization of why Gore supporters believe that the former Vice President will run.

I’m still reading that book that is scaring the bejeeses outa me (pardon the pun) and feeling some serious hopelessness when it comes to the counter culture being created by the right wing to recruit the young folk. But then - Al Gore happened.

The interesting thing that I saw this week was an awesome comparable – Live Earth. A concert extravaganza, web tastic, with a holographic Al? The only thing that could make it better is Pauly Shore saying

“And when where not saving the environment, we're thinkin' of you, naked, thigh deep in tofu.”

First of all, Mike and I have decided that our "quick hit" or "daily digest" pieces are now going to be called "Around the Tubes". I'll try and tag the older digest pieces when I find them, but for now, here's what I've been looking at in the series of tubes this morning:

• Kid Oakland has a really nice post up at both MyDD and Daily Kos that uses a conversation with a young elected official and a young activist that helped get him elected to talk about the Millennial Generation. There's also a few really good conversations in the DKos comments. Though Kid Oakland isn't really much of a kid, he consistently writes great pieces on both Millennials and politics in general, so I've placed his blog on the blogroll.
• Forex News takes a look at the practice of Redlining student loans that I pointed to the other day. The article gets someone from the loan industry to say in plain language what they are doing, and why:
  

  He said default rates are used along with other data about a school, including anticipated income after graduation and dropout rates, to help set rates that protect the interests of the lender.

  Dean used the example of a student attending an Ivy League college as opposed to another at a small trade school.

  The industry would view the Ivy League student as clearly "on the path to success," while the other student presents greater risk, he said.

  "Should both of those students get the same rate?" Dean asked.

  No, you're right, we subsidize student loans in this nation to benefit mainly the upper class and the upwardly mobile, which is how it should be. Those plebes should stick to playing video games, or whatever it is those poor fools do, and leave the learning to those who can really use it!

• For some strange reason that Chris Dodd guy (you know, the one whose running for President) wants to do something about the cost and efficiency of student loans. This is from a press release he put out last week:
  

  "As the average student leaves a four-year institution with $20,000 in debt, it is essential that we do all we can to ensure that students are securing their loans on the best terms possible," said Dodd Campaign Spokesperson Christy Setzer. "By requiring banks to compete for the right to make or own government-guaranteed student loans, students can be assured they are get the best rates on loans while the program provides significant savings to taxpayers as government subsidies are driven down by market competition."

  Dodd, who will be unveiling details of his plan in the coming weeks, announced that under his plan the government would force student lenders who participate in the Federal Family Education Loan program to compete for the right to make or own federal student loans through a government-run auction. As a result, an additional $20 billion will be available to be directed back to student aid and other federal education programs.

  Last week Dodd announced he would introduce legislation that would require private lenders to provide more accurate and timely information to customers about interest rates, terms and conditions of their loans in order to ensure students better understand their debts and obligations.

  Dodd has also put forward a National Service Plan, which includes a video from a live video chat he did. I guess Senator Dodd hasn't gotten the memo that young people don't vote, and they really should be ignored.

  Senator Dodd will officially announce his National Service Plan via a live video feed on Saturday at 5pm.

• Meanwhile, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions approved a package of legislation to renew the Higher Education Act that would basically transfer about $18-billion dollars of profit from the college loan industry to students. At least that's theoretically what it would do, though I still think direct loans from the government would be a much better use of our resources.
• TechPresident sends a memo to the non-Obama campaigns: There's This Thing Called "Facebook". Apparently that little John Edwards FaceBook app that Mike higlighted the other day was actually created by techPresident's Fred Stutzman, who is going to open source the app for any campaign to use and abuse.
• Apparently Michael Moore's new movie Sicko paints a pretty unflattering picture of Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton, who apparently gets the most money from the health care industry of any Senator, now that Rick Santorum has been sent packing. I know those 30 second ads are expensive, but are you fucking kidding me? Can we get a real leader for President, please?
• Barack Obama still doesn't get "blogging" or the "netroots". Uh, Barack, you have a blog. Does that make you a blogger? Next.
• But, some people still would love to see a Gore-Obama ticket (From Young Turks via Tennessee Guerrilla Women.
  
  I personally would prefer a Gore-Dodd ticket, but it would be nice to get all the cultists Obamiacs on Gore's side, so there's that.

And for those of you who don't remember the brilliant, rambling, incoherent rant in a bottle that is Senetor Ted "grumpy grandpa" Stevens (R-Alaska and R for Retarded) here's grumpy grandpa's explanation for why we should charge companies a fee to use the interwebs.

He's right, the internet is not a truck you can dump your stuff into. The quote about his staff sending him internets that take all night to arrive is so funny, I would swear it was a Jon Stewart skit. It's sad when our elected officials provide more hilarious caricatures of stupid and inept politicians than our best comedians can ever hope to.

In an era where news has to be entertaining, comedy is the king of real news, as the Daily Show and the Colbert Report have repeatedly shown. That's why I feel that both of these pieces are powerful:

Do you stay up at night dreaming of a real leader in the White House? Well, try dialing 1-900-RUN-GORE, for only $3.95/minute!

And have you ever wondered what the world would look like if Gore had become President the first time he won the election? Family Guy takes a look:

I find it very encouraging that Democrats seem to have embraced comedy, since it seems like one of the only ways to get real news to the American Public using TV . I find it hilarious that Republicans want to get it, but just can't.

I really must have been paying too little attention to national politics over the past few months, because this totally slipped my attention.
West Virginia Blue (via a MyDD diary) noted that an absolutely horrendous and potentially disastrous energy bill was introduced in the Senate last week in January, and one of it's sponsors was Mr "Audacity of Hope", Barack Obama. The New York Times has a good rundown of the issue (emphasis added):

Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry, lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big government purchases for the next 25 years.
...
Among the proposed inducements winding through House and Senate committees: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants, each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the Air Force to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of coal-based jet fuel.
...
But coal-to-liquid fuels produce almost twice the volume of greenhouse gases as ordinary diesel. In addition to the carbon dioxide emitted while using the fuel, the production process creates almost a ton of carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel.
...
“At best, you’re going to tread water on the carbon issue, and you’re probably going to do worse,” said Howard Herzog, a principal research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a co-author of “The Future of Coal,” a voluminous study published in March by M.I.T. “It goes against the whole grain of reducing carbon.”

Why would Obama make such a brazen anti-environmentalist move, one that flies in the face of the cries for action on carbon emissions from the American Public and the World? Obama's excuse is that it is for energy independence, after all, if you don't support pushing us further towards environmental catastrophe then the terrorists have already won. Of course the real reason is the same reason that made me decide that I wouldn't go anywhere near politics as a young man: Obama's state is full of coal, and the powerful people who have given him the millions of dollars to run for Senate and the Presidency want payback.

My big question is do Democratic voters care enough about the Global Warming issue to make it a wedge issue for the election? Are people so lulled to sleep by Obama's pillow talk that they fail to understand how morally repugnant his actions are?

Here's what a real leader has to say on the issue :

This Grist blog post is also right: Barack Obama is not serious about Global Warming, as is this post by Stoller.

For the last year or so I have been telling anyone who would listen that Al Gore will become the next President of the United States. I have numerous reasons for believing he'll be a sure thing when he makes the jump, but the biggest reason why Gore will win is the combination of his mastery of the media environment and his past campaign experiences.

While all of the other candidates are jockeying for position within the political community, Gore is not-so-quietly building his cultural cachet he will need to actually win. Those of us who are consumed with politics 24/7 always seem to forget that the other 75% of people don't pay much attention to politics when there isn't an immanent election, and yet it is that other 75% that a candidate needs to win over in order to win (even in a primary). And while most candidates would find it tough, if not impossible, to reach out far beyond the political sphere, Gore doesn't have such troubles. An Academy Award winning blockbuster documentary, a book tour, and the largest concert in human history (which will happen this summer) have a way of raising ones profile. And while some people still believe that Gore is perceived as the boring-bot that he seemed to be during the 200 election cycle, I think that he now appears to be... Presidential.

I also believe that he can effectively mobilize the younger voters of the nation, espescially when he picks Obama as his Vice Presidential candidate. Take a look at him on the Daily Show (over at Crooks and Liars), where he was promoting his new book, and tell me that Gore doesn't hold the most promise for turning our nation, and possibly the world, around:

He also had a great interview session with Larry King, who I usually cannot stand, where he, among other things, skewered all of the other candidates (though in pretty subtle ways). I have only found an edited version of the interview, but you can still get the picture:

The question that I have is pretty simple: how can I get a job on the Gore campaign? How do you send in an application for a job that doesn't exist yet?

Got an update on the Al Gore Live Aid/8 concert clone I blogged about earlier this week. It’s called Live Earth, and it will be a Live 8 clone because its being produced by the same guy.

You can get a listing of the artists involved after the jump. First, a couple thoughts.

1. It is very cool that each concert they hold will be designed to be as (environmentally) sustainable as possible, and will showcase technology and best practices for living sustainablly.
2. A giant concert series is, in and of itself, not at all a sustainable (political) model.
3. The concert series is part of the Save Our Selves coalition, which claims that it will provide corporations, governments, and people with solutions to prevent further climate change. That could be good, but is too vague to reliably judge.
4. All proceeds from the concerts will go to establish a fund to fight climate change. That is very cool and could actually provide the seed money for something that is politically sustainable.

I’m still on the fence, but one leg just got thrown over to Gore’s side. I really hope he can pull this off and make a lasting impact.

There are only two democratic politicians out there today that can qualify for Rock Star status - Barack Obama, and Al Gore. Both of them had their rock star moments this week.

Barack's moment came yesterday when he officially announced his candidacy for President. It was an inspiring speech, particularly in his call for us all to participate in a generational movement to change our country. It was very Howard Dean circa 2004, and I'm sure it resonated hugely with Millennials, so many of whom seem to be lining up (and building grassroots infrastructure) to support him.

Barack's new website, packed with social networking features in a clean interface, seems to back up the rhetoric about an inclusive, bottom-up campaign. It's probably one of the best campaign websites I've seen. After cruising it for about an hour, there was only one fault that I could find: there doesn't seem to be a way for content to filter up from the grassroots and appear before a national community (at least not without direct moderation from the campaign).

It's a subtle thing, and I almost missed it among the cornucopia of ways to participate on the site, but there is a sharp divide between the national campaign and the grassroots that I would expect to have disappeared in any campaign looking to be Dean 2.0.

In any event, the Rock Star politician rocked it out yesterday. And based on recent activity moving FaceBook energy offline or into donations, the youth vote is set to be a powerful part of Barack's base. Hillary and Edwards are going to need to do some spectacular organizing to pull ahead in that demographic.

Al Gore had a more literal rock star moment on Thursday when the Financial Times reported that he plans to organize a series of concerts (modeled on Live Aid) this summer to raise the profile of global warming as the most pressing challenge facing the planet, and inspire people to action.

"Live Aid was about asking people to stump up money, this is about effecting systemic change.

"The aim is not just to drive awareness but to get people to take action."

These actions are likely to include personal pledges to reduce emissions, for instance by using energy efficient equipment or flying less.

I'm sure the concerts are going to be amazing, and it's always awesome to see a someone injecting a political issue into the cultural zeitgeist to bring about change, but I'm not at all confident that these concerts, as currently described, are the best model for affecting longterm, sustained change - or even calling people to action.

Gore is opting for a big PSA broadcast to the world - a huge awareness raising event to inspire people into action. It's great, and it will probably raise awareness a little bit. Probably not all that much considering his documentary is an international sensation likely to win the Oscar. But on the whole, these major events tend to fade pretty rapidly. Does anyone even remember Live 8, the Live Aid clone that took place in 2005? If you do, is it because of the event and its message, or because of Bob Geldof's sense of self-importance?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the "ask" will be better than personal pledges or a reduction in flying (not a realistic target; flying isn't necessarily a luxury item). Maybe his team will think of a great way to link the concerts and encourage small, local actions that are sustainable over time. Maybe he'll partner with more musicians to push his message at their shows year after year. Maybe it will become a yearly event - that might have an impact. We'll see.

On the whole though, it's a shame to see someone who was moving quickly to embrace participatory culture (Current TV) and decentralized organizing (training 1000 people to deliver his power point presentation on global warming) moving back towards a broadcast model whose effectiveness at creating longterm change is doubtful at best.

I don't know, am I off base here? Or does this seem like a good thing that could be a whole lot better?