May 2010 Archives

This week on Huffington Post's Denver page, Michael Bennet posted an article - Close the Revolving Door, which talks about his efforts to reform the Lobbyist ways of Washington. It would seem the readers from Colorado did not take comfort in the Senator's words in light of his recent votes. I have a friendly tip for Senator Bennet's staff, next time your Candidate writes an article, remember to turn off the "Comments" section of his article - which Huffington Post allows diarists to do. The resulting comments in response to Bennet's post can only be summed up as 'devastating' for a candidate trailing his Republican opponents and facing a grassroots backed primary challenge from Andrew Romanoff. Shall we take a peak at why the respondents are so angry? (Crossposted at Square State and Huffington Post)

Senator Bennet: Speaking as one of your constituents, I must say that it is my philosophy that actions speak louder than words (more honestly as well). As others have pointed out in previous letters on this article, your name is conspicuous by being listed as one of those that voted against the Kaufman-Brown SAFE amendment. Would you care to explain your actions? It will determine what actions I will take in November.

.

Appointed never-been-elected Senator Bennet, I would also like to know why you voted no on the cramdown legislation. Will you continue to vote in favor of the banks and against tax payers? Why don't you stop taking contributions from the banks after all banking reform legislation is before you and it would be the right thing to do?

Talk about revolving door. Bennet just voted against downsizing the biggest banks. This guy is one of the greatest recipients of money from financial institutions. How corrupt can you get. He is on his way out come November. Good riddance to this corrupt senator from CO.

"Yeah, I agree with you, Senator Bennet!! The close of "the revolving door" should begin by voting you out in November. With this piece, are you trying to cover up your tracks----voting against the American people and for the banks?? If that's the reason of penning this piece, then I think you haven't succeeded. I used to like you as a senator, but yesterday's vote scuttle it all when I wasn't able to find your name among the "yeahs" to that amendment. I guess it's time for Coloradans to try Romanoff out by sending him to Washington in your place."

and the hits just keep coming... So what specifically did Bennet do that was so wrong? from a press release from the Romanoff campaign:

The battle between Main Street and Wall Street has emerged as a key dividing line in the Colorado Senate race: • Twice, Sen. Bennet voted against a full audit of the Federal Reserve. This morning, Sen. Bennet voted no on the Vitter Amendment (S. Amdt. 3760 to S. Amdt. 3739 to SB 3217) that would require a full audit of the FED. He did the same in April of last year. (S. Amdt. 875 to S.Con.Res.13) Andrew would have voted to fully audit the Federal Reserve. • On May 6th, 2010, Sen. Bennet voted against an amendment that would have imposed leverage and liability limits on bank holding companies and financial companies, to prevent them from becoming too big to fail. (S. Amdt. 3733 to S. Amdt. 3739 to SB 3217) Andrew supported this proposal. • On April 30th, 2009, Sen. Bennet voted against legislation that would have prevented mortgage foreclosures and preserved home values (S. Amdt. 1014 to SB 896). Andrew supported this proposal. Sen. Bennet's no vote was a victory for Wall Street and an insult to families across the country who are struggling to stay in their homes during this weak economic time.

Yikes. This is where raising the 5th highest amount of campaign money from Wall Street changes from being an advantage to a liability. It seems Mr. Bennet's votes certainly have a way of favoring those who have given him the most money. The real question though is why? Bennet had to have known that these votes were going to be fodder for either his primary or general opponent - so why do it? That's the real rub - he HAD to vote these terrible votes because of who is really representing - Wall Street and the banks. They have their Senator, but we have our opportunity to be heard in the Primary. For those who like Senator Bennet and can overlook his votes, consider the fact that in polling done vs his Republican rivals, he trails them by a larger margin than his Primary candidate, Andrew Romanoff. Most importantly, Bennet's poll of positive view vs. negative view is 45 positive vs 45 negative - which is worse than any other candidate running - while Andrew Romanoff's numbers of 46 positive to 34 negative and is better than all three Republicans in the field. If you need anything to know, it's that keeping Bennet past the Primary is the most certainly the best way to turn a Senate seat over to the Republicans - most likely a Tea Party candidate . For me, I agree that it is time to support someone who has pledge to take no Corporate PAC money - Andrew Romanoff. Stop by his fundraising page and toss him a buck or two.

Think about this, what if this Oil spill, as tragic as it is, provides us with the wake up call about how we power our world? My first thought when the spill happened was, what if we had not gotten rid of the electric car of the 1990's (from the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?) and electric cars had grown in usage for the past decade? Would the drilling platform catastrophe still have happened? No one can be sure, but what we can be sure of, is that it will keep happening until we change our cars from gas/oil powered to electric powered. That's why this petition is so important - the Gulf Oil Spill Electric Car Credit. This petition asks for legislation to give a substantial credit for purchasing an electric car, and it has key provisions to put a lot of people to work, immediately - in a midterm election year. But we need to get support for this idea in the US House and Senate. That's where you can help... Here is what the petition says:

To: The US President and US Congress from Americans Concerned about the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill Gulf Oil Spill Electric Car Credit With oil prices expected to exceed $100 per barrel and millions of dollars of catastrophic damage occurring to U.S. coasts, wildlife, and coastal economies, all due to the 2010 Gulf Coast Oil Spill, it is time for a new direction for transportation in America. In response to the Gulf Coast Oil Spill, this petition asks the U.S. Congress and Senate to introduce legislation and for the President to sign into law a bill that will do the following: 1) Increase the electric car tax credit for any American made Electric cars to 70% of the purchase price. 2) Provide a tax credit for consumers equal to the cost of labor to convert their gas engine vehicle to an electric engine vehicle. 3) To require that all Federal Agencies must use American made Electric cars for 70% of their vehicle fleets beginning January of 2011 and thereafter. This will create instant demand for U.S. made electric cars, which will put Americans back to work, boost the American economy, reduce the demand for Oil, and will give the American people a choice to drive an affordable vehicle that is clean and does not pose a threat to our coastal economies or our wildlife. Sincerely, The Undersigned

It may seem impossible to ask for a 70% credit on a car - but, if credit rebate like that is offered,for a set period of time, in the same way the Cash for Clunkers program worked, it will cause a huge increase in production, and ultimately drive down the costs per vehicle long term. That means, you the consumer, could buy a $50,000 Tesla for $15,000 or a $40,000 Volt for $12,000. And with the Chevy Volt, the Government could likely negotiate a lowered cost for the Chevy Volt with GM, since the US now owns a majority share of 60% of GM's stock. Also, the mandate for government fleets to consist of 70% Electric cars will ensure a steady customer base for companies like Tesla or General Motors, also reducing costs. Cash for Clunkers program was very popular. That is because unlike the unpopular multi-Trillion dollar Bank Bailouts which give nothing to average citizens, this program would provide a tangible asset for American consumers. And this bill stipulates the cars be American made - thus employing more Americans. Heading into the mid-terms, the number one issue at this time is the job market. Imagine if GM announces they are re-hiring laid off workers or that a closed GM factory is re-opening? Also, Mechanics all across the country would suddenly have an increase in their work orders from people who want to take advantage of the tax credit to exchange their gas engine for an electric one. Imagine, you could exchange out your 1995 Impala gas engine for a 2010 Chevy Volt engine, and see your driving costs drop for transportation - for even less cost than purchasing a new electric car. We must act - especially since BP is already acting to make this oil spill become out of sight and out of mind, by dumping thousands of gallons of toxic dispersant chemicals on the Oil Spill, which is more harmful than the oil itself, but seemingly only so that the Oil Spill is not as visible on the surface of the Ocean. (greenwashing at it's worst) Certainly fines and regulations will be useful as a lesson to industry, and stopping new drilling will reduce accidents, but we must get to the cause of our oil use. To prevent this type of accident we must get to the source problem, and changing our cars is one way to do that - so let's make electric cars and new engines affordable enough for the middle class and promote their purchase. Now, I am not just looking for signatures on a petition, I am looking for you to call your members of Congress and the Senate to support this kind of legislation - and for anyone who might know a supportive legislator who would carry this type of bill forward. Contact Congress Here and Contact the Senate Here or simply call the general phone number (202) 224-3121 and ask your representative to support the Gulf Oil Spill Electric Car Credit. Add in the comments section which Congress person or Senator would be a good candidate to carry this bill forward. Sign the petition and get our leaders to support it in Congress. It's time to take the oil stains off our hands forever.

The Gulf Oil Spill is our wake up call. Sign the Petition for the Gulf Oil Spill Electric Car Credit

It's simple really, to hold on to a Senate seat, don't start out a re-election campaign without the support of base democratic voters. But here in Colorado, Senator Michael Bennet is starting out his re-election bid with that strategy. In addition to that some lifelong Democrats are saying

"they will vote Republican before they will vote for Michael Bennet"

Denver Teachers told me that was the sentiment among Denver Public School teachers about incumbent Democratic Senator Michael Bennet. (See video) That statement should give any democrat reason for pause, considering the Democrats need to hold on to every vulnerable Senate seat in what looks to be an anti-incumbent election year - and 'Colorado is in the Toss up category' - with Republicans seeking to take back the Senate. Senator Bennet was appointed Superintendent of Denver Public Schools, and a few years later was appointed to the Senate to replace Senator Salazar. However, the Teachers who worked under Michael Bennet's tenure as the Denver Public Schools Superintendent have some choice words about his re-election efforts to the Senate. (yikes!) Crossposted at Huffington Post and Square State

MS. BARBARA BENNETT: I was actually on the committee of teachers that participated in interviewing Michael Bennet, and at that time during his interviews he was committed to staying as superintendent in Denver Public Schools for five years. As we know, he did not stay five years. And when he began his career as superintendent in Denver, he really did make the effort to go out and start talking to teachers, something that was sort of unheard of. And I have to say that I noticed over the years that that dwindled significantly as soon as he started getting pushback from teachers; he didn't spend the time talking to teachers as much as he had when he first started. And I kind of feel like he used the superintendent's job to create a name for himself as a stepping stone to move on into politics, and that's exactly what happened. So, that's how I perceive Michael Bennet.

I included this quote because it comes from someone who was monitoring Mr. Bennet's term at the helm of Denver Public Schools from before day 1 through the time that he left, and who had given him the benefit of the doubt about his tenure. Even then, she noticed he became less and less approachable as his decisions as Superintendent became less and less popular. Next, Mr. Bennet's veracity on his policies and agenda as Superintendent. Mr. Bennet negotiated the removal of a popular pay system known as Pro-Comp which rewards career track teachers. After this was done, he stated to the press that the Denver teachers had just received the biggest pay raise in Colorado history - but it turns out it was only a raise in terms of retirement benefits.

(question) (ME) As Superintendent, Michael Bennet stated on camera that Denver Teachers had just received a pay raise - was it a raise? MS.UNDERWOOD-VERDEAL "Technically that is one way to talk about compensation, but that is certainly not the way we live, because I won't be able to use my retirement to go the grocery store now. It was not a raise teachers realized on their paychecks." So it was not true? "No, it was not true, in the practical sense."

This half-truth espoused by Superintendent Bennet was reviled by many school teachers, and Ms. Underwood-Verdeal was not the first teacher to talked to me about this issue. Lastly, while Superintendent Mr. Bennet recommended the Denver Public School board to invest 700 million dollars of the Retirement account into a 'sound investment strategy' - which they did, because after all, Mr. Bennet was appointed to the Superintendent position because of his finance and management expertise. It now turns out that the investment strategy for the retirement funds was none other than a banking derivative swap just like the kind that bankrupted Greece and several municipalities around the country.

MS.MELISSA UNDERWOOD-VERDEAL:"As we find out more about this (investment) we are finding out it was risky. The fact we lost millions of dollars is clear, and teachers are starting to worry about their retirement."

What do all of these decisions by Mr. Bennet as Superintendent add up to? Consider Michael Bennet's re-election bid to the Senate:

(ME): "Let's ask a hypothetical question, if Andrew Romanoff loses to Bennet, to Michael Bennet in the primary, what do you think of that? What have you heard?" MS.UNDERWOOD-VERDEAL"I have heard from many people that they will not vote in that race" MS.BENNETT"I have heard lifelong democrats, teachers, in Denver, say they will not vote for Michael Bennet, that they will vote Republican, before they will vote for Michael Bennet."

Why the opinions of these teachers are crucial to retaining this Senate seat for Democrats: Colorado's population is basically 1/3rd Democrat, 1/3rd Independent, and 1/3rd Republican. Democrat candidates in state wide contests usually win by this strategy: First the candidate must take up a centrist platform in the General election which appeals to at least half of the Independents and also might peel away a Republican vote or two. And secondly, the candidate must absolutely sew up every single Democratic vote of the base voters and energize the Democrats who are not consistent voters. Now consider this: Senator Bennet is starting his Re-election bid with the ire of the State's largest School system with 4,555 current teachers. Denver is a democratic stronghold, and many of these teachers are active in the Democratic party, and as you can see above, are not afraid to share their opinion with someone they just met with a camera. That means they are sharing their opinions with other teachers in the Colorado Education Association. That means they are sharing their opinions with their spouses and relatives. Think about this, 4,555 teachers in Denver, the state's largest city, with the most democratic votes, seem to judge Senator Bennet in three categories: 1)lukewarm in supporting Bennet's candidacy 2)will not vote in the Senate race 3)or are willing to switch their vote from Democrat to Republican, even as a lifelong democrat. In addition to this, the banking derivative swap that Bennet persuaded the DPS school board to invest in was a very poor decision. It is disappointing to the teachers, but in this election cycle, any association to Wall Street or banks or lost money in bad investments go over like a lead balloon. In addition with that poor decision, Senator Bennet was one of the few Democrats that stood up for Banks to oppose cramdown, which would have allowed millions of people to re-negotiate their mortgages. And you can certainly guarantee that whoever the Republican challenger is, that vote and those banking derivative investment decisions will be repeated in every attack ad, thus weakening Bennet's chances among independents. (and even though this will not be a big General election issue, in light of the recent Oil Spill and especially the deadly coal mine disasters, as an environmentalist, it is hard to get behind a person who joined with fellow conservadems to support millions in tax subsidies for natural gas as well as for coal, which is not surprising since Bennet was at the top of the list for receiving funds from Utility companies) No matter your opinion of Senator Bennet, it is clear that to allow Michael Bennet out of his primary will be giving the Republicans an easier path to victory this fall. And looking at the Tea-party loving candidates the Republican are putting up, it behooves the Democratic party to put up the best candidate for the general election. Democrats in Colorado and across the nation, need a tested political candidate who has actually run for office and won an election, something Bennet has never done. The moderator in the most recent debate summed up my sentiments about Senator Bennet's chances considering how he is running his re-election campaign. (At 14:41 in this video of the debate)

MODERATOR: "Despite your significant fundraising advantage, your performances in caucuses and county assemblies has been underwhelming. By all evidence, you have been out-organized. In fact, it appears, you, a sitting U.S. Senator, are pursuing a back-up plan to gather signatures in order to just qualify for the August 10, primary ballot. Given your lackluster performance so far, please outline why you would be the strongest democratic candidate to run against a tough Republican candidate this fall?"

Bennet's primary opponent, Andrew Romanoff, is a viable alternative who can win the general. Andrew Romanoff polls better vs the Republican challengers, has the support of the majority of the base as evidenced by consecutive caucus victories and perhaps most importantly has been part of the leadership in the Democratic party and has campaigned on statewide legislation. It is time to listen to our teachers and to common sense. Support Andrew Romanoff's primary challenge in order to send the strongest candidate into the General Election and to retain this Senate seat from Colorado.

Florida teachers just won a victory over Senate Bill 6, which would base teacher pay solely on test scores. Now, teachers in Colorado are seeing a similar piece of legislation. Senate bill 191 creates a new system of bureaucracy to grade 'teacher effectiveness' without paying for it. Teachers wanted to talk, and you can hear their opinions on this bill. Senate Bill 191, may have good intentions for reform, but it makes 50% of Teacher's pay and job security based solely on student's standardized test scores. Two teachers, Melissa Underwood-Verdeal and Barbara Bennett weigh in on this bill:

"Senate Bill 191 addresses teacher effectiveness without defining what teacher effectiveness means. I believe I have a responsibility to the whole child, not just the part of the child that is going to put a pencil in their hand and take a test."

"50% of teachers effectiveness is based on student test scores. I currently have 28 students who are English language learners, and for me to have 50% of my effectiveness determined by student responses on a test they can't even read is of grave concern to me."

This quote seems to sum up the disparities this bill does not consider, in fact this bill seems likely to simply reward teachers who teach in affluent districts whose students are likely to do better on standardized tests, regardless of teacher 'effectiveness' and at the same time create a disincentive to those who would take on the task of teaching in schools who have higher numbers of students who don't speak English or are from poorer backgrounds.

"Senator Johnston's bill seeks to get 'Race to the Top' money, but they are failing to recognize that every Bill must have teacher union support or it will lose Race to the Top points, and teachers and the union are going to fight this bill, just as they did in Florida."

This last point is the most important - this bill seeks "Race to the Top" points, however, one of the qualifications of the Race to the Top program is that the Teacher's Union in each participating state must support legislation to meet the requirements. If Senate Bill 191 passes, it is apparent that the Teachers Union will not support it, thus nullifying any ability for Colorado to qualify for Race to the Top funds - so what is the end game? It appears that if Senator Johnston truly wanted the Race to the Top funds, he would have sought to craft a bill which Teachers would have supported. Additionally, Senator Johnston is proposing a bill that mandates more spending at a time that the State budget is already being slashed and the largest School district, Denver Public schools, is reeling from losses from investing in a banking derivative. Reform is a good thing, and is appreciated, but this approach seeks reform blindly in an attempt to get Federal funds, without considering the unintended consequences or how educators themselves view this bill. Please contact Colorado legislators and tell them to vote 'NO' on Senate Bill 191. (crossposted at Square State)

Headlines today tell of Wall Street bailouts and banking abuses that have resulted in our usurious credit card hikes, heartless foreclosures, and the bankruptcy of Greece's entire economy. It seems that no person or institution is safe from corrupt banking practices. While we might naively think that these practices are limited to Wall Street and large banking institutions, it has become clear that these practices have robbed our communities as well. Big banks, along with politicians, have lured states and communities across the US to buy into banking derivatives or 'swaps' and all are paying the price. And in each of these cases, well heeled politicians were paving the way for the banks at the people's expense. Let's look at a few example, and find out why Bill Richardson had to withdraw his name for Commerce Secretary, and why Colorado Senator Michael Bennet has a lot to explain. (hattip to JeffcoBlue) (Crossposted at Square State) To explain the derivatives that bankrupted Greece, and threaten to rob the pension of Colorado School Teachers, let's look at this article from the New York Times:

Across our very own country, municipalities, school districts, sewer systems and other tax-exempt debt issuers are ensnared in the derivatives mess. Like the credit default swaps that hid Greece's obligations, the instruments weighing on our municipalities were brought to us by the creative minds of Wall Street. The rocket scientists crafting the products got backup from swap advisers, a group of conflicted promoters who consulted municipalities and other issuers. Both of these camps peddled swaps as a way for tax-exempt debt issuers to reduce their financing costs. Now, however, the promised benefits of these swaps have mutated into enormous, and sometimes smothering, expenses. Making matters worse, issuers who want out of the arrangements -- swap contracts typically run for 30 years -- must pay up in order to escape. That's right. Issuers are essentially paying twice for flawed deals that bestowed great riches on the bankers and advisers who sold them. Taxpayers should be outraged, but to be angry you have to be informed -- and few taxpayers may even know that the complicated arrangements exist.

So the Bankers have preying upon municipalities who needed financial solutions in a down economy, only to find out they had been duped. But who was advising the municipalities? Our elected officials: New Mexico: (hattip Colleen Heild and Mike Gallagher)

They were touted as a state-of-the-art financing tool that would help New Mexico stretch its highway improvement dollars. Nearly five years later, state officials are trying to keep the $420 million in fancy financing from turning sour. In the last six months, one of the banks involved in the so-called interest rate swaps has gone bankrupt and the state has had to post about $16 million in collateral because the value of the investments dropped. That's in addition to major political fallout. The swaps and how a California company was selected to handle them are at the center of a federal grand jury investigation that derailed Gov. Bill Richardson's nomination as commerce secretary.

It seems that many state municipalities engaged in swaps that are now causing a lot of anger among tax payers:

Eight California municipalities, including Los Angeles, Fresno and San Diego County, filed civil class-action, or group lawsuits. The suits, most of which were consolidated with others in U.S. District Court in New York City, allege that banks colluded by deliberately losing bids in exchange for winning one in the future, providing so-called courtesy bids, secretly compensating losing bidders and allowing banks to see other bids. Brokers participated in the collusion by facilitating communication among banks and sharing in illegal profits, the civil class-action suits allege.

And what is the cost of extracting your state from the swap?

New York State provides a good example. An Oct. 30, 2009, filing describing its swaps shows that for the most recent fiscal year, April 2008 to March 2009, the state paid $103 million to terminate roughly $2 billion worth of swaps -- more than a quarter of which resulted from the Lehman bankruptcy in September 2008.

On a local level here in Colorado, the circle grows tighter, as Colorado's own State Senator, Chris Romer, was at that time the person lobbying for New Mexico to engage in these Swaps.

NMFA records show that among those lobbying for the swaps was a lead banker for JP Morgan, Chris Romer. His company ended up among the five banks that entered into swap agreements with the state.

And the ties to Colorado don't stop there - Senate appointee - Colorado's Michael Bennet was formerly at the head of Denver Public Schools. He was at the helm when the decision was made to invest the Teacher's pension fund into a derivative 'swap' deal. Now, 2 years, Denver Public Schools is paying about 3 million per month in losses on this swap.

DPS (Denver Public Schools) entered into negotiations with JP Morgan and CitiGroup, agreeing to issue fixed-rate bonds secured by DPS school buildings and other properties. DPS then began discussion to enter into an interest-rate swap agreement with JP Morgan, Bank of America and the Royal Bank of Canada. We believe that following ensued: DPS entered into a swap transaction, believing that interest rates would stay high. As recent financial news tells us, interest rates fell. We are concerned that this may have translated to a loss of taxpayer dollars.

I wonder if the local SEIU chapter will stand by it's endorsement of the newly appointed Senator - Michael Bennet, who happens to have raised the 5th highest amount of campaign cash from Wall street banks and was responsible for putting our Teacher's pension in a 'swap' when SEIU international is now calling for a sweeping investigation of these 'swaps'. In the face of the worst economy since the depression, we don't need gambling on derivatives with taxpayer money at the expense of teacher's pension. Join SEIU's call for an investigation ,to get some kind of justice. As for me, I will support Bennet's primary challenger.

The North Carolina Coastal Resource Commission just finished the first study of sea level rise in the United States. The most significant part of the study was what the report said about what the market has decided about sea level rise.

...even if the public and governments drag their feet on reacting to a changing coast, others aren't waiting to adapt. State Farm, for example, announced this week that it will no longer write or renew insurance policies for structures on barrier islands to reduce its exposure in areas prone to catastrophic events like hurricanes.

Crossposted at Square State Here is the real point of this story - that insurance companies, which are based on the so-called 'invisible hand of the free market' have seen the writing on the wall and are no longer in the business of insuring new homes on the Outer Banks in my home state of NC. This is the lesson I want deniers who are in positions of power in our government to hear - the market is denying your denial. Capitalism is recognizing something you refuse to do, based mostly either on your ignorance or perhaps on your close ties to fossil fuel industry lobbyists. And when you protest with your bully pulpit, average people become misinformed and impede the ability for our leaders and governments to take action or achieve meaningful goals (hint:Copenhagen), even as science shows us that the earth is continually heating, and that this past decade was the warmest on record. In the UK a similar study was recently completed http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/asia/091203/australia-environment-sinking-continent?page=0,1

The report suggests private property owners "withdraw, relocate or abandon assets that are high risk." Residents on the east coast of the United Kingdom, in Norfolk, are also feeling the sting of abandonment from local and national governments in some coastal areas, which have been deemed too costly to protect. More than 15 million people live near the U.K. coastline, but Britain's Environment Agency has already said that the area known as the Norfolk Broads will probably be left to be reclaimed by the sea.

And their government is starting to plan a course of action: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8460089.stm

About 10 million people in England and Wales live in flood risk areas. The project, launched on Friday, is a joint venture between the Institution of Civil Engineers (Ice) and the Royal Institute of British Architects (Riba). The report, Facing up to Rising Sea Levels, urges the government, planning authorities and the public, to act sooner rather than later. "If we act now, we can adapt in such a way that will prevent mass disruption and allow coastal communities to continue to prosper," said Riba president Ruth Reed. "But the key word is 'now'," she added. The study warns that rising sea levels, an increase in the frequency of storms and sinking landmasses could leave many UK coastal areas vulnerable to extreme flooding.

Industrialized countries are planning their defense of coastal areas and acknowledge that this endeavor will be costly. Other countries in less prosperous economies,however, are struggling with facing this economic reality. Here is one report on the changing coastline of Africa http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BH4PD20091218

The United Nations estimates Africa has 320 coastal cities and about 56 million people living in "low lying" coastal zones, those less than 10 meters above mean sea level. Some expects say sea levels have risen by about 20 cm since the start of the Industrial Revolution in northern Europe. That is no surprise to residents of Abidjan's Port Bouet, where abandoned concrete shacks litter the beach. Some have lost their front walls. Scaffolding is all that remains of others. "Twenty years ago the sea was far away from here," said Samassa Awa, 39, an unemployed nurse whose wooden shack has been flooded by the Atlantic many times. "You see all these destroyed houses? Many people fled but we decided to stay." ............. "We want the authorities of the world powers to come and rescue the poor people from the sea," said Diakite Abdullaye, 46, looking over his shoulder at the ruins of a house he said had already been destroyed by the advancing ocean. "If they can't stop the sea rising, then help us move somewhere else," said the resident of Ivory Coast's biggest city.

as well as here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8369236.stm

Mozambique has been identified as one of the countries likely to be affected most by climate change, and the issue will not go away. Much of what Mozambique would like to do is deemed too expensive While scientists cannot give an exact figure of how much the sea has already risen in Mozambique, the effects are already obvious. "I went to the beach a lot as a child, and I've noticed things are changing," said 34-year-old Jose, who lives in Maputo. "The water is eating the land - little by little it's eating the land." Mozambique has compiled an action plan, and has been offered help from the World Bank, UN agencies and a plethora of other aid agencies. But so far little has been done, and much of what the country would like to do is beyond its budget. "I think people are still at the stage of 'Oh my God - what are we going to do?'" as environmentalist Antonia Reina puts it.

And while too much water is an issue for Coastal inhabitants, not enough water is the other issue for many other people who rely on glacial melt for fresh drinking water - such as in Bolivia, where Scientists recorded the first glacier to 'disappear' from existence this past year. Or in news closer to home, The Winter Olympics in Vancouver are having to use trucks to bring in Ice and Snow for their downhill skiing competition because it has been too mild for snowfall.

Winter Games officials have given up on any help from Mother Nature and will now be trucking in snow for the freestyle skiing and snowboarding events at Cypress Mountain, on Vancouver's North Shore.... Mild temperatures and heavy rains earlier this month forced officials to close the mountain ahead of schedule, as snow gave way to mud.

I find it to be the ultimate irony, that at the gathering of the world's countries to compete for Winter Sports, the phrase "giving up on Mother Nature" is being used. How much of Mother Nature's failure will we have to see before we realize what's going on? It seems clear from reading these reports, that action to address these crises needs to start sooner rather than later. However, the United States is home to some of the leading stalwarts of climate change denial and are increasing the severity of the problem. In my other home state of Colorado - Rep. Dave Schulteis has proudly proclaimed why he has decided to vote against Martha Rudolph's appointment to the Executive Director of the Department of Public Health and Environment: http://senatorschultheis.blogspot.com/2010/01/sen-schultheis-votes-no-on-gov.html (hattip sufimarie)

1) Is there an issue with global warming...and is it caused by humans? Her answer to both related questions was an unqualified "yes." 2) Does she consider CO2 to be a pollutant? Her answer: It is a contributor to Global Warming, although it does not fit easily into the federal Clean Water Act... ...Based on her answers to the committee, I voted NO and will debate these issues on the full floor of the Senate when this comes to the full Senate for confirmation

I included this local story, because it seems in every state across this nation, there is a vocal global warming denier making news. And with the recent Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns, the strength of the global fossil fuel lobbying campaign to impede meaningful legislation on Climate Change just got a whole lot tougher. I take comfort in this video made by Peter Sinclair who debunks climate denial myths. The point of this video indicates that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report discloses that it does not take into account "Rapid Dynamical Change in Ice Flow" - an event where glacial instability tips out of control and melts uncontrollably. This is what scientists are now coming to grips with, that the glaciers on Greenland and Antarctica are destabilizing at an exponential rate. We have had a period of "Rapid Dynamic Change in Ice Flow". The last time we had such an event was 14,000 years ago (12,000 BCE) when Ice sheets suddenly destabilized - this was called the 'Meltwater Pulse 1-A' and in a rapid period of time sea levels rose 75 feet to their current level - which some scientists have speculated could have been caused by an impact from space, but the verdict is still out. (Perhaps not too coincidentally, this is the same date of the massive die off of species in the Western Hemisphere such as the American Horse, Giant Sloth, Sabre Tooth Cat, Dire Wolf, and perhaps most famously, the Great Mastodon - one instance where I believe man has been wrongly blamed for the extinction of species of animals) This event of worldwide sea level rise, I believe, is most likely the common event that is recorded worldwide both in oral and written tradition as the "Great Flood." We are approaching another epic event, and it is now on the horizon, begging us to mitigate it's affects. I have been frustrated by the lack of response by governments to address the threat to the millions of people that are already being displaced on low lying islands and who have no legal status as 'Environmental Refugees' - and even started a petition to remedy this issue of legal limbo. For their sakes, when our legislators realize that their beach houses are going to be threatened, or their ski slopes will be bare, then they will start thinking about the true human cost of their denial of the truth. The inaction of these legislators on Climate Change may not be shameful to them, but in the future their children and their grandchildren certainly will discover they have been denied an honorable namesake.

I was just reading several blogs and saw this great diary from Icebergslim, (good to see you) and I noticed the back and forth about Olbermann and Obama. While surfing the blogs related to this, I was alarmed by this story on Huffington Post about the Comcast takeover of NBC and by that I also mean, progressive television on MSNBC. So you are thinking "Comcast, so what?" Well, there have been diaries here about Comcast removing MSNBC from the regular cable line up - in favor of Golf TV or Food Network or for whatever is not the outlet for our progressive voices.

General Electric Co. has reached an agreement to buy the 20 percent stake in NBC Universal held by French media conglomerate Vivendi SA, The Associated Press has learned. That would pave the way for GE to sell a 51 percent stake in the TV and movie company to Comcast Corp., the largest U.S. cable TV provider. That deal, which would make Philadelphia-based Comcast one of the nation's largest entertainment companies, is valued at about $30 billion.... NBC Universal was formed in 2004, after Vivendi agreed to merge its Vivendi Universal Entertainment business with GE's NBC in a move to sell off some of its businesses after running up billions of dollars in debt in a buyout binge. Comcast wants NBC Universal largely for its lucrative cable channels, such as Bravo and CNBC. NBC Universal also spans the NBC and Telemundo broadcast networks, the Universal Pictures movie studio and Universal theme parks.

Josh Silver has some very good reasons why this merger is bad for us all.

1. The merger would eliminate the hard bargaining for distribution and content that normally occurs between distributors (like Comcast) and content producers (like NBC). That competitive bargaining will only intensify as more video is distributed over the Internet in the coming years. 2. The Comcast-NBC behemoth would control several distribution platforms -- a major television network, the largest cable company and the largest Internet service provider. The merged company will have strong incentives and the market power to discriminate in granting access to its wealth of programming. It will have the incentive and market power to enforce anticompetitive "bundling" and price-gouge other cable companies, especially smaller cable companies. 3. As the largest cable company and Internet service provider, Comcast will have the motive to move NBC's video content behind a pay wall that will mean higher costs for consumers, and it would stunt the growth of the Internet as an alternative medium for video service. Placing video content behind a pay wall that is only available to Comcast cable customers is a classic example of "anticompetitive bundling." That is, consumers who want Internet access to NBC programming will be forced to buy the bundle of cable and Internet. 4. Perhaps the most dangerous risk of this deal -- and one we have seen many times in years -past - is that it will trigger a "merger wave" throughout the industry as distribution companies and content companies seek to "muscle up" to match the new threat that the vertically integrated Comcast poses. Consumer choice will be restricted and prices will rise. With diminishing competition, the likelihood of similar behavior by other companies grows stronger, as does the threat of collusion among competitors.

If you don't want to see the progressive voices on MSNBC silenced, then join the 'no merger' petition Update: thanks for the rec list guys: this just in courtesy of Paleo - it looks like this will will be the first big test of the Obama administration's regulators http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZso6rU.A1dI&pos=5

"This deal will really be scrutinized very strongly," Benjamin Stretch, an analyst at Macquarie Capital USA Inc. in New York, said on Bloomberg Television today. "It is the first major test of the FCC and the Obama administration, in terms of how they want to manage media and technology and distribution policy in this country."

One can hope that Obama will not continue the same type of policies that the Clinton administration pursued towards de-regulation.