underWater desert Blogging

Power Grid 2.0

Here is a good article about updating the power grid in the US. 

This is something I've been thinking about for a while.  One of the problems when we finally & slowly switch over to a more eco-friendly method of electricity generation is that the power grid will have to substantially change from a few precise nodes in a system to many dispersed nodes in the system.  It is going to have to be decentralized.  Another thing that likely will have to change also is how power is stored and delivered.  Hopefully some solid state power cells can be developed.  The exciting thing is that if that were to happen then much of the world that is in the sunbelt will be able to develop power and charge solid-state devices.  If the transportation networks can support it then places that currently have little natural resources except for sun, wind or waves will be able to develop electricity for the north which has less sunlight but is able to pay for their energy in a way that the sunbelt is not.  However, this is unlikely to happen for a long time due to the lack of effective tech-transfer, despite such provisions being written into every major environmental treaty. 

OK off to my day.

~ # ~

My Show is Back!

Piling it On.

Consider me another addition!  From Ben Smith: 

Wired's Thomas Goetz emails to make a great point about Obama's big FightTheSmears.com rollout today:

By putting their own website out there front-and-center, and then getting everybody to link to it (starting with all the media covering the launch of the site), the result will be to drive fightthesmears.com towards the top of a Google search on, say, "obama muslim" or "michelle obama whitey." Ideally, if enough of the pro-Obama network links to fightthesmears.com, it'll drive the sites that peddle in the rumor-mongering, which are now the first results on said searches, off the top of the results list. Ideal long term result: any curious low-information voter who eventually bothers to google these pesky rumors will immediately be led to the debunking rather than the rumor.

My take: Did the Obama campaign create fightthesmears.com to game Google? If so, they're even more net-savvy than folks give them credit for.

Indeed, Obama already had a protype of this page connected to his Fact Check site, and even bought Google ads linking it. But this wave of publicity will probably push the new site to the top of Google to stay.

~ # ~

Parenting, Gender Roles and My Wedding

As I clicked the category for this posting it occurred to me that for much of the first two years of this blog all I wrote about was categorized as "living" but that for the past three years or so that has decrescendoed to almost a non-existent situation.  Maybe I have spent much more time looking outward and not so much time looking inward, or maybe I have become a bit reticent to write about "me" as I embark on something akin to being a professional.

Nevertheless, the NY Times Magazine has a great piece on shared parenting that has gotten me thinking.  First a few quotes:

The most recent figures from the University of Wisconsin’s National Survey of Families and Households show that the average wife does 31 hours of housework a week while the average husband does 14 — a ratio of slightly more than two to one.
...

The lopsided ratio holds true however you construct and deconstruct a family. “Working class, middle class, upper class, it stays at two to one,” says Sampson Lee Blair, an associate professor of sociology at the University at Buffalo who studies the division of labor in families.

“And the most sadly comic data is from my own research,” he adds, which show that in married couples “where she has a job and he doesn’t, and where you would anticipate a complete reversal, even then you find the wife doing the majority of the housework.”
...

There is one pocket of American parenting in which equality is the norm or, at least, the mutually-agreed-upon goal. Same-sex couples cannot default to gender when deciding who does what at home. How these parents make their decisions, therefore, sheds some light on why married men and women act the way they do. They are the exceptions that both prove and challenge the rules.

“Heterosexual couples can learn from gay couples about sharing housework and child care,” says Esther D. Rothblum, a professor in the women’s studies department of San Diego State University whose comparative study of the relationships of 342 couples — lesbian, gay, heterosexual — was published in the journal Developmental Psychology in January. “They are good role models.”

There are a ton of other good nuggets of wisdom in the piece.  But here is the money quote: 

Sure, some of their tasks would fall along traditional gender lines. The point, they say, is not to spit at tradition for the heck of it but rather to think things through instead of defaulting to gender.

I think that for whatever reason that is almost exactly my world-view.  As my wedding is beginning its slow march towards reality I have been thinking a lot about gender roles, about tradition and about what the word "partner" really means to me. 

The sad news is that I have few very few answers to any of these solutions.  But I know that I am less tied to traditional views than many.  That does not mean that I eschew traditional gender roles.  At times, for whatever reason, they can be a handy resource.  When in a hurry Highlands cleans better and faster than I do (although my mother ensured that I would not be inadequate at housework, a value which many years of menial jobs reinforced).  I know things like turn on the car heater when your vehicle is overheating. 

Yet, the thing about these is when they become forced resentment brews.  I like the notion that is teased out in the article that what is important is expectations.  When those diverge and inevitably are not met resentment, frustration and anger build.  What is important?  Communicating what someone's expectations are to one's partner.  Many of the stories in the article are a bit kooky.  I do not foresee making color coded charts, but the themes of communicating expectations and embracing those that vary slightly from your own resonate very much with me.

~ # ~

Obama on the Judiciary

This is very lucid.  Obama wrote it after Roberts' nomination.

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party.  They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda.  In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda.  The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era. I think this perspective misreads the American people.

From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon.  They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent.  They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs.  They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings.   A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession.  Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee).  While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt.  That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle. 

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning.  But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense.  Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.

Best Political Team Gets Giddy

Rude Pundit has one of the funniest TV pundit exchanges that I have ever (not) seen where Borger invokes the "Money Shot."  Be Aware!  It is pretty graphic.  As is everything he does.... Video here, although the video is pretty low:

The other funny exchange I could hear, but not see as the signal was scrambled.  It took some waiting and searching on YouTube, but I found it today.  Anderson Cooper tells Donna Brazille he wants to be her boo....  Which had very funny undertones since AC is both pretty and gay. Video here:

~ # ~

HRC Showing Some Class, still a bit late

I have been question what her game is for weeks now.  I have been questioning why the DNC elites don't shut her down.  I have been questioning why there isn't droves and droves of supers to him after the election in a show of party unity.  Some of this has begun.  But why now?  What has changed between yesterday and today that HRC only now is "suspending" her campaign.  Further, suspending?  Come on.  Drop out, if something catastrophic were to happen (knocking furiously on wood) then she could still be elected at the convention. 

Have seen a million reasons why the Clinton/Obama ticket will not happen.  Not the least of which is that Bill likely doesn't want the RNC looking too deeply into his sketchy financial dealings over the past few years.  Another theory is that if she really believes that he can't win better for her not to be running mate so as to position for 2012 and "I told you so."  Were he to win, then she would be in the same position whether Veep, Cabinet or Senator.  Jimmy Carter has talked about getting all of the downsides of each rather than all of the upsides of each.  Despite the dystopian overtones, I understand his argument.  I think she gets into a revamped Cabinet.  Along with Edwards, Gore (I hope), and Biden - each in their functional areas of expertise.  That would be a liberal's wet dream cabinet.  Who does that leave?  MY BOY, RICHARDSON, Sebillius, Webb and a few others. 

This is the email that HRC sent to supporters:

Dear XXX,

I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.

I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.

When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.

I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.

I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.

I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.

In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.

I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

~ # ~

The Real Deal

(Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty.) 

Andrew Sullivan has some phenomenal reactions about Barack's seeming win up today.  The first is a story that choked me up told by one of Andrew's readers: 

My grandfather, 86 years old and a veteran of WWII, just gave me a call. He was calling all of his grandchildren to let them know what an important night this was in the history of our country.

Grandpa drove a truck for over 50 years, and he told the story of how he drove with a team of drivers, 2 white (including him), and 4 black. When they stopped at the truck stops, the black drivers had to use seperate restrooms and showers, and had to eat in a small room in the back of the kitchen. Grandpa and his co-driver would eat in the back with the rest of the team, and while they didn't speak of it at the time, they knew it was wrong yet felt powerless to change it, and believed that it would never change.

Tonight, he told me, we have come full-circle. Many people, especially the younger generation who supported Obama, will never fully realize the historical import of what happened tonight. But he wanted his grandchildren to know this story that he had never told us, and it was the second time in my 33 years that I have heard my grandpa cry.

The other is Andrew's reaction to Barack's speech he gave last night (you), this morning (me): 

If I needed reassurance that this man is the most formidable force in American politics today, his speech tonight confirmed it. It was shrewd - with an artful positioning on Iraq. It was graceful - with respect for McCain's service and Clinton's tenacity. It was brutal - in turning around McCain's Iraq visit meme to domestic economic woes. It was patriotic - in its evocation of Gettysburg and the Second World War. It was outer-directed: not for Obama the recourse to self-satisfied identity politics of the kind used by the Clintons because they often have nothing else. It was moving. I thought I even saw some suggestions of tears as he remembered his grandmother. It was also rhetorically more powerful than McCain - not by a small amount but by a mile. Put McCain's speech against Obama's - and this was a wipe-out. Not a victory. A wipe-out. Rhetorically, they are simply not in the same league. And if the contrast tonight between McCain and Obama holds for the rest of the campaign, McCain is facing a defeat of historic proportions.

One more thing: with McCain's and Clinton's speeches, you could not forget the politics of it. With Obama, you forgot about that at times. You actually lifted your eyes a little and believed a little and hoped a little.

Yes, he can. And anyone who under-estimates that will regret it.

I awoke at five this morning and timed it perfectly as he was about to take the stage when I got the TV sorted.  CNN had audio but no visual as the signal was scrambled.  Luckily for me BBC carried the entire thing, except for a vital moment during his wind up at the end where the signal died and I cursed to all hell the Somali desert winds that were impeding my political joy. 

On a related note, the NY Times had this grand photo of the Obamas watching Hillary's speech.  I think the frustration on Michelle's face and the stoicism on Barack's face are more telling than any words I can write.  As I thought more about it I became more and more irate at HRC's intransigence and utter lack of class.  This night was all about her for her, and a third about her for Obama.  It is over.  She needs to face it and the DNC elites need to ensure that she faces it.  I am frustrated at the apparent spinelessness of the party supremos.  Why are they so scared of Bill's wrath? 

Although I couldn't see her comment, I heard Donna Brazille (a superdelegate and CNN commentator) say something akin to, "well, I didn't support him because he didn't need me to put him over the top."  That is utter crap.  You are a middle aged black woman.  Don't tell me he doesn't need your support!  The DNC could learn a lot from the discipline of the RNC.  I told Big_Head today when I called because of happiness that the DNC can be maddening with its uber-hippy notions of flaunting of discipline.  Sometimes that is fantastic, but this isn't one of them.  And, by the way, if I hear one more time that HRC is doing this for her supporters I'm going to stab 48 pencils into the eye of the first person I see.

In any event, the man I came late to support is now the first candidate of color from a major American party.  Hooray!

Oh, the photo: 

Now back to my real life.

~ # ~

AFRICOM and WAPO

I have been fascinated to watch how AFRICOM develops.  Washington Post has a very interesting article the other day about how AFRICOM has been received on the continent.  The gist of the article contains two interrelated theorems: (1) that Bush's rhetorical fascination with terrorism has pigeon-holed his foreign policy measures that have little to do with terrorism; (2) that African leaders and American policy makers are like Somali Pirates and French Sailors passing each other quietly in the night with little understanding of the other.

I think the quote that sums up the article is:

Under Africom, one command will consolidate military responsibility for all of Africa, excluding Egypt. Although it encompasses the volatile Horn of Africa and the U.S. Navy's forward operating base in Djibouti and will take over training tasks on the continent, it has no other dedicated troop components. "There are very few scenarios which would create a U.S. military intervention" in Africa, said one Africom officer who was not authorized to speak on the record. "Arguably, there are no scenarios."

With its headquarters on the continent, liaison groups of 20 to 30 military personnel established in key countries and U.S. units brought in to help with development and relief tasks, the command was envisioned as an example to Africans of how their own armed forces and civilians could work together for the good of their nations.

The trouble was, no one consulted the Africans. "Very little was really known by the majority of people or countries in Africa who were supposed to know before such a move was made," said retired Kenyan army Lt. Gen. Daniel Opande. Worry swept the continent that the United States planned major new military installations in Africa.

"If you know the politics of Africa," said Opande, who has headed U.N. peacekeeping forces in Sierra Leone and Liberia, "you know there are certain very powerful countries who said, no, we are not interested in having a headquarters here." South Africa and Nigeria were among them, and their resistance helped persuade others.

Over the past seven years, the administration has more than tripled U.S. assistance to Africa, to about $9 billion annually, nearly half of which is spent on prevention and treatment for HIV-AIDS. U.S. military training for African forces has steadily expanded, and U.S. troops have undertaken humanitarian missions in several countries -- digging wells, building schools and providing medical care. Africom's budget request for 2009 is about $400 million.

But despite the promise of new development and security partnerships, many Africans concluded that Africom was primarily an extension of U.S. counterterrorism policy, intended to keep an eye on Africa's large Muslim population.

"I think everyone thought it would be widely greeted as something positive," the Africom officer said. "But you suddenly have wide publics that have no idea what we're talking about. . . . It was seen as a massive infusion of military might onto a continent that was quite proud of having removed foreign powers from its soil."

The United States "equates terrorism with Islam," senior Kenyan diplomat Bethuel Kiplagat said, and few African governments wanted to be seen as inviting U.S. surveillance on their own people.

Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations African affairs subcommittee, thought Africom was "something that would show real respect for Africa." But there was no question, Feingold said, that the concept had "a neocolonialist feel to it."

~ # ~