Sad.

"He took risks and said things most of us only think. For it, for taking the risks we all want to and bearing his weaknesses alongside his passion and poise, he is more than respected, he is loved."

Media Biased Toward Fringe Climate Scientists Who Reject Global Consensus

Joe Romm notes over at Think Progress that the media is a bit biased in their climate science reporting.

Then sends us over to John Oliver who recently gave us a more accurate representation of the debate:

#ActOnClimate = Protecting property rights, public health, and bringing more efficiency to energy markets

I was at lunch in the district today (I'm running for State House) and was asked about my thoughts on the new steps to #ActOnClimate by the White House. 

Taking action on climate-disrupting carbon emissions will protect property rights, public health, and bring more efficiency to energy markets as true costs to consumers can lead to better allocation of resources and smarter investments in the energy sector. This is a win for public health and economic productivity.

These clean air safeguards will spur innovation and accelerate the clean energy economy to create good jobs here in Georgia-- protecting the health our children, protecting our property rights from polluters, and protecting our state's long term economic security in a tough global economy. 

Georgia Power’s Plant Scherer is America’s single dirtiest power plant–it dumped over 21 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air we breathe in 2012 alone. 

While my opponent spends his time defending policies that have delivered neither prosperity nor fiscal stability I'm focused on our future.  (If you would like to help elect a progressive in Georgia chip in $5, $25... $250(???) today!) 

Here is President Obama on new steps to #ActOnClimate by reducing carbon pollution from power plants:

I also liked what The Economist Magazine had to say on the new EPA rules: Climate change: In praise of second best | The Economist 

Assuming the plan is carried out (and it will doubtless suffer multiple legal challenges), it would reduce total American carbon emissions by around 5%. That is a lot for one measure, though tiny compared with the overall cuts required to rein in climate change. American power plants have already reduced their emissions by 15% since 2005, so requiring them to cut the same amount over a longer period is not too arduous. The plan will raise electricity prices and kill some jobs, but it will also save lives, most immediately by cutting particulate pollution.

It is far from the best policy. Ideally, Congress would have passed a carbon tax or created a carbon market, putting a price on emissions and letting buyers and sellers decide on the cheapest way to reduce them. Instead, the government is telling a particular sector (electricity providers) how much to cut and when—and then adding layers of complexity by allowing different states different ceilings. As a method of dealing with a problem, this has all the attractions of a blackout in a blizzard.

But it became inevitable once Congress rejected a better approach—cap-and-trade legislation—during Mr Obama’s first term. The current approach is at least better than nothing, the most likely alternative. In climate policy, delay is rarely good. The more carbon is in the atmosphere, the more expensive it is to cut back and the more damage it does in the meantime. Anyway, Mr Obama’s command-and-control approach does not forestall setting up a carbon market later.

The second-best approach is dearer but not dramatically worse than the best would have been. Power plants and electricity consumers would bear the main burden either way. And the plan’s benefits (over $50 billion according to the administration, mostly from improving people’s health) still outweigh its costs (less than $9 billion, mostly from higher prices). One hitch is that the costs are all incurred in America whereas many of the benefits are spread round the world.

In short, the proposal is a net gain as it stands—but the international response could make its benefits bigger. China’s government is mulling over a national cap on carbon emissions, which would mean it is going further than Mr Obama. The regime in Beijing will, and should, impose such a cap in its national self-interest. But China’s leaders like diplomatic cover. If Mr Obama’s new rules help cajole the world’s largest polluter to do more to cut emissions, then second-best would be much better than nothing.

Socrates and the crisis of the universities

Help send this blogger to the Gold Dome in Atlanta.

I've getting last minute pleas for contributions before the midnight deadline by email from campaigns. 

So here is mine... 

I'm not like the other guy running; I spend more time learning about the policy choices we face, and more time in the district listening to citizens concerns about those policy choices. 

If you are fed up with the status quo under the Gold Dome chip in $5, $25, $250...and lets go win an election.

Did I mention I'm endorsed by Howard Dean's crew up in Vermont: Democracy for America?

Contribute a few dollars and lets work to rebuild our Democracy and build power to take on the organized money that is stealing our Government from the people.

Plus Jason Carter needs candidates down ballot that will help get out the Vote for him this November. 

He won't tell any "Whats the Deal" jokes so he needs troops on the ground more than happy to make them for him.  Plus your contribution can help me buy cool organizing tools like this...



Which i'm a little under $2000 short of being able to afford.

So chip in today and help turn Georgia blue.

If a critic of ObamaCare made a coherent argument in the woods... would anyone believe it actually happened?

So I've seen a wave of ObamaCare criticism hit my Facebook feed of late.


Criticism of the Affordable Care Act is 3 miles wide and two inches deep--I spend five minutes with a critic and the nuances and contradictions within their critique appear immediately. While we need to improve aspects of the ACA we are much better off with it in place. 

About 94.5% (yes exactly 94.5%) of the people who crticize the Afforadable Care Act have zero comprehension of the unsustainable health care system we had before the ACA; nor a grasp of the amalgam of history, health economics, sociology, and policy forecasting of health care costs/treatments that require grasping when discussing health care reform. 

If you don't understand the origins of our insurance system, nor basic aspects of the ACA, maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself and pick up a book (I can recommend a few if you need a place to start.)

Good reads, my state house campaign, and a new Populism in America.

Welcome to the weekend!  Brought to you by the labor movement.  Here are a few items that might occupy some of your free time this weekend.  Enjoy! 

Some good reads to start your weekend:

Instead of Austerity and Slogans, Vets Need a Fully Funded and Accountable VA | The Nation 

Gubernatorial Hopeful Jason Carter Vows Candidacy Free of “What’s the Deal” Jokes 

Leaving Homeless Person On The Streets: $31,065. Giving Them Housing: $10,051. | ThinkProgress 

The 6 Principles of the New Populism (and the Establishment’s Nightmare) 

China's Two Problems with the Uyghurs 

Taxes and the Public Purpose « Multiplier Effect

Most Income Inequality: Congressional Districts - Bloomberg Best (and Worst) 

Republican Colonel Blasts GOP For Focusing On Benghazi Instead Of Cheney’s War Crimes

Georgia Looks To Reopen Some Closed Hospitals As ERs : Shots - Health News : NPR

Income Taxes Aren’t Driving Georgians to Change States | Georgia Budget and Policy Institute 

As union membership declines, inequality rises | Economic Policy Institute 

Report says Georgia is No. 40 in senior adult health - Atlanta Business Chronicle

If some of what you read above is depressing its important to remember you can help contribute to the fight to take back our nation from wealth and power.

Action is the important step step to take if you don't want to give up.  Thats why I need your help...

Fight organized money and stand up for working people by chipping in to my State House campaign. Be it $5, $25, or $500 your money will go directly in to a grassroots effort to bring about some of that new reality based-pragmatic populism is that sweeping across the country.

Something for your viewing pleasure...




Need a book? (buying via my link gets this blogger a small %)

If you are looking for a book or two to dive into this weekend here are a few new books sitting on my bedside table at the moment...

Coming Up Short: Working-Class Adulthood in an Age of Uncertainty
 

  The Classical Liberal Constitution




What Should We Be Worried About?: Real Scenarios That Keep Scientists Up at Night

 Lucian Freud: Eyes Wide Open (Icons)


  Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin
 

A Bailout Botched by Centrists

Very good podcast interview over at ProPublica.  Take a listen...



Podcast: A Bailout Botched by Centrists - ProPublica

If former Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has faced his share of criticism for his rocky tenure, Jesse Eisinger says, his new book makes clear that most of it should be borne by his old boss, President Obama.

Following up on his unsparing examination of the book, "Stress Test," last week, Eisinger joins Steve Engelberg in the Storage Closet studio to expand on Obama’s missed opportunities in the wake of the financial crisis.

The State School Superintendent Race here in Georgia is an argument for IRV!

Tonight is the GBP debate. Watch Televised Debates on GPB *TONIGHT*  State School Superintendent Race  - Republicans: (6-7pm) - Democrats: (7-8pm).

With way too many candidates and the need to waste money holding a runoff the State School Superintendent Race is a perfect example of the need for IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) in Georgia

How does Instant Runoff Voting work?



For you Democracy for America fans out there here is Howard Dean making the case for IRV a few years back.



Watch Televised Debates on GPB *TONIGHT*  State School Superintendent Race  - Republicans: (6-7pm) - Democrats: (7-8pm).  But then think about how you'd vote through a rank ordering of your preferences rather than who you think can/should win.

Background to crisis in Ukraine

To put some context for myself to what has been happening lately in the Ukraine I've been picking up some history books.

I highly recommend this book I'm reading at the moment Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin