When I come across an interesting article in a diary here or in a story elsewhere, I often calve it off into its own tab, so that it will stay in my attention until I either come back to it -- to read it or write about it -- or else give up.
I have noticed that at this moment I have seven such tabs open in my browser. Some were already part of excellent diaries here onto which I thought about adding my own spin; others I haven't noticed being mentioned here. Anyway, they're worth collecting in one place so that they'll be easier to find later on -- and so that I can finally close those tabs.
Consider this a list that you might want to send to others. This diary will contain no profanity, no snark, so it's safe for you to link.
1. The Books and Beliefs Shaping Michele Bachmann from npr.org. This is a good introduction to the second (and more important) story on the list, especially because it contains a wonderful 30" interview by Fresh Air's Terri Gross with Ryan Lizza. (Note: the interview will open in a new window.) Excerpt:
New Yorker Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza spent four days with Bachmann and her staff aboard their campaign jet in mid-June. On Tuesday's Fresh Air, he talks about his unprecedented access to the congresswoman, whom he profiles in the Aug. 15, 2011, edition of The New Yorker. The piece looks at the writers, beliefs and books that Bachmann has specifically mentioned as major influences in her life.
2. Leap of Faith: The making of a Republican front-runner. Note to anyone linked here: while I disagree strongly with most of Michele Bachmann's political beliefs, I also think that she has been treated shabbily by the Establishment Media -- in my opinion, largely at the behest of fans of other Republican candidates -- and do not call for her to get out of the race. This is not a "Newsweek cover" or "corndog" article. Excerpt:
Bachmann, a two-term member of Congress from Stillwater, Minnesota, is an ideologue of the Christian-conservative movement. Her appeal, along with her rapid ascent in the polls, is based on a collection of right-wing convictions, beliefs, and resentments that she has regularly broadcast from television studios and podiums since 2006, when she was first elected to Congress. Often, she will say something outrageous and follow it with a cheerful disclaimer. During the last Presidential campaign, she told Chris Matthews, on MSNBC, that Barack Obama held “anti-American views” and then admitted, “I made a misstatement.” (In 2010, she said that she had been right about Obama’s views all along: “Now I look like Nostradamus.”) In the spring of 2009, during what appeared to be the beginnings of a swine-flu epidemic, Bachmann said, “I find it interesting that it was back in the nineteen-seventies that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat President, Jimmy Carter. And I’m not blaming this on President Obama—I just think it’s an interesting coincidence.”
3. Piers Morgan's Troubles Mount. The conqueror of Mt. Christine O'Donnell has been leaning precariously toward involvement in the Murdochian digital telephonic theft and (perhaps) extortion scandals. This is an early piece in the development of that story, which by now has gone further. Never got around to writing about it. (Thanks a lot, Wisconsin!) Excerpt:
Thursday morning, deputy leader of the Labour party Harriet Harman told Sky News that Morgan "has got to answer" questions about Mills's accusations and put pressure on Morgan to return to the U.K. for questioning. "Morgan … said he heard a 'heart-breaking' phone message, which clearly gives rise to the assumption that he'd heard a tape-recorded message," said Harman. Morgan has so far denied any illegal behavior during his tenure with British tabloids. (Morgan served as editor of News of the World from 1994 to 1995 when he took the top job at the Daily Mirror, a position he held until 2004.) In a statement released Thursday, Morgan called Mills's claims "unsubstantiated." But MP Harman sounds serious. Following her statement the Labour party later issued a press release repeating Harman's order:
4. New voting districts give the GOP that boxed-in feeling. From over two weeks ago, when what became the final California redistricting maps were introduced. Republicans favored the Redistricting Commission; blogging-type Democrats opposed it. (Personally, I opposed it primarily because it would apply only to California, while allowing red states to run wild -- as they have. Still, as proponents promised, it has provided a good example.) Anyway, regarding the results, I have this to say to Republicans: Ha-ha! Excerpt:
The initial Republican reaction to the districts that the commission unveiled was to protest their presumed partisan bias. "We are concerned that this appears to be a tilt towards Democrats," said Tom DelDeccaro, chairman of the California Republican Party. His predecessor as chairman, Ron Nehring, enumerated the GOP's grievances. "The commission created 40 districts where the Democrats are the largest party, and 13 where Republicans hold the plurality," he complained.
But the Citizens Commission, which was called into being when California voters passed Proposition 11 in 2008, was specifically charged with carving districts without regard to their partisan composition. By law, the body is made up of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans (five of each) and four independents — a clear overrepresentation of Republicans. As of February, there were 7,569,581 registered Democrats in California and just 5,307,411 Republicans — a Democratic advantage of more than 2.25 million. Also, the new districts have to win majority support from each of the three party groups on the commission — which they did.
5. The Untransformational President. The first of two opposing pieces regarding our President. This is sober-minded progressive journalist Michael Tomasky's assessment of our President]. Excerpt:
Why isn’t Barack Obama tougher? During the week that he signed a debt deal in which the Republicans took him to the cleaners, markets tanked, and U.S. debt got hit with a historic and disastrous downgrade, several answers were bruited. It’s political: he’s in thrall to polls telling him that accommodation is what independent voters want. It’s ideological: he’s in fact (say some liberals) an aggressive moderate who’s perfectly fine with massive spending cuts. It’s psychological or biological: he just doesn’t have the tough-guy gene.
All these factors are present to varying degrees. But let me offer a different explanation—one that’s a little deeper. The problem rests in the realm of political philosophy. Obama has beliefs about democratic governance, and about himself as president, that dictate his behavior in battles like the debt-ceiling brawl. These beliefs were a big part of what made him so inspirational to so many people before he won the 2008 election, but they have served him—and his voters, and the country—poorly since he took office, and especially since the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives.
6. Stop Whining About What Obama Hasn’t Said. Look at What He’s Actually Done. This Time Swampland column gives voice to a common cri du coer here on these virtual pages, right down to the verb "whining." It didn't garner the press that the Tomasky piece did, but I was sorry that I didn't make the time to write about it -- because we need more meta diaries, right? Excerpt:
My point, which I guess I’ve made before, is simply that the liberals who keep whining that Obama isn’t telling them what they want to hear ought to open their eyes and look at what he’s trying to do. Whining enviros should be especially grateful to Obama, which I guess I’ve also said before–and that was before his latest round of fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, as well as the first-ever standards for buses and heavy trucks. As White House environmental aide Heather Zichal pointed out in a Wednesday briefing, those standards represent the biggest step the country has ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. She didn’t point out that they’re also the biggest step the country has ever taken to reduce our carbon emissions.
I can see why the White House’s failure to mention the climate crisis would be annoying to people who spend their days trying to raise awareness about it. But would you rather have a President who talks about climate change, or a President who does something about it?
7. James Hansen slams Keystone XL Canada-U.S. Pipeline: “Exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts”. That last sentence of the previous article leads directly to this, as we ponder whether President Obama will block the Keystone XL pipeline to bring the Alberta Tar Sands oil to Texas, to market, and to an atmosphere near you. This diary contains the quote that I focused on here, so I can't really claim that I didn't diary about it at all, but the just completed Stop the Tar Sands Pipeline series -- the link is to Bill McKibben's final diary, which contains links to all of the others -- certainly did. Still, it belongs here for posterity. Of course I had to choose this excerpt:
An overwhelming objection is that exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts. The tar sands are estimated (e.g., see IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) to contain at least 400 GtC (equivalent to about 200 ppm CO2). Easily available reserves of conventional oil and gas are enough to take atmospheric CO2 well above 400 ppm, which is unsafe for life on earth. However, if emissions from coal are phased out over the next few decades and if unconventional fossil fuels including tar sands are left in the ground, it is conceivable to stabilize earth’s climate.
Phase out of emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge. However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix, it is essentially game over. There is no practical way to capture the CO2 emitted while burning oil, which is used principally in vehicles.
Governments are acting as if they are oblivious to the fact that there is a limit on how much fossil fuel carbon we can put into the air. Fossil fuel carbon injected into the atmosphere will stay in surface reservoirs for millennia. We can extract a fraction of the excess CO2 via improved agricultural and forestry practices, but we cannot get back to a safe CO2 level if all coal is used without carbon capture or if unconventional fossil fuels, like tar sands are exploited.
If you've missed any of these noteworthy articles from the past half-month or so, I hope that you'll take a chance to read them. If you have other articles that you'd like others to remember, I hope that you'll paste in your links to and excerpts from them below.
8:49 PM PT: Lefty Coaster, who wrote about Tar Sands before most of us here knew about them, has added a welcome coda diary to the Tar Sands blogathon: National Congress of American Indians opposes Keystone XL pipeline.