Yes, and that ice-island is pretty tumescent as well. Unintended. Honest.
Author: Andrew Sullivan
The Only Solution May Be Technology
Brad Plumer writes:
Biochar has always sounded like a whimsical climate solution that's too good to be true. Simply stir a little charcoal into the soil and—voila—it's supposedly possible to suck thousands of tons of carbon-dioxide out of the air. Sounds suspicious, no? And yet it just might work. A new study in Nature Communications finds that the world could, in theory, sustainably offset a whopping 12 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions by producing biochar.
That study is here. I so want to believe it. I don't favor a small but slowly rising carbon tax because I want to hurt economic growth, but because I don't want an over-arching government bureaucracy setting carbon limits and offsets. But most of all because I really want to encourage the entrepreneurial dynamism of new energy investment. The real tragedy, of course, would be the emergence of climate-saving alternative energies like biochar just a little too late to prevent the kind of feed-back loops that could accelerate a process already well underway. Speaking of which, check out this new ice-island:
The image on the left was taken on 28 July and the image on the right was taken on 5 August. The floating chunk of ice measures approximately 250 square kilometres (100 square miles). According to Nasa's Earth Observatory, the glacier lost about one-quarter of its 70km-long floating ice shelf.
Here's a way to grasp the size of this new island, the biggest in half a century:
Support For Marriage Equality Accelerating? Ctd
No, I didn't quite see the phallic nature of that graph when I posted it. But thanks for letting me know. Pervs.
Happy Fourth
Julian Sanchez gamely explains the significance of a new Fourth Amendment ruling, and the particular kind of privacy it protects.
Support For Marriage Equality Accelerating? Ctd
Glenn Beck signs up. Money quote:
O'REILLY: Do you believe — do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?
BECK: A threat to the country?
O'REILLY: Yeah, it going to harm the country?
BECK: No, I don't. Will the gays come and get us?
O'REILLY: OK. Is it going to harm the country in any way?
BECK: I believe — I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?
O'REILLY: OK, so you don't. That's interesting. Because I don't think a lot of people understand that about you.
At The Hour Of Their Death
Susan Orlean and Elizabeth Gilbert talk about a tragedy known to all dog owners: the vast difference between our life span and theirs. They take solace in what the death of a beloved pet can teach us:
Just a few days after that conversation was recorded Susan Orlean’s dog died.
My own reflections on this subject here. But an update: Dusty this summer has sprung back to puppy levels of energy. Her bad leg has healed and as she got to the beach she has spent every summer of her life on, she became a dynamo of joy. She’s 12 years old and acts like a three year-old. And she’s still deafening when she howls (which is often and always at the mere concept of anything edible).
Support For Marriage Equality Accelerating?
What backlash? CNN's latest poll, in the wake of the Walker decision, is easily the most promising to date for those of us in support of marriage rights for all. For the first time, a slim majority of all Americans backs not just marriage, but a constitutional right to marriage for gay couples. A majority, in other words, believes this to be a civil rights issue, which, of course, it is, because civil marriage has long been regarded as a fundamental civil right in American constitutional history. And a majority is in favor! I'm not sure what to make of a small discrepancy in wording – between whether gays already "have" such a right or whether they "should have" – but wouldn't go so far as Allahpundit in arguing it shows that this process should be driven solely by state legislatures.
I know it's messy, but surely the fact is that the classic American process is not, and should not be, either judicial tyranny or majority rule over a minority's rights. It's an ongoing interaction of the two. Would I prefer a total legislative and democratic victory for marriage equality? You bet I would. At the same time, can anyone gainsay our amazing progress in making the case?
In 1989, the idea was preposterous. But by relentless arguing, debate, litigation and legislative and ballot-box initiatives, we have moved the needle faster than anyone once dreamed of. When a proposition has 50 percent support, you can argue either that there is no need for the courts to act. But you could equally argue that with public support already this high, such a ruling could not meaningfully represent anything approximating "tyranny". Certainly far less so than when the courts struck down bans on inter-racial marriage which enjoyed very strong popular support at the time, especially in the states where they prevailed.
And the process of litigation – the public educative function of the courts – has clearly pushed opinion in favor over the years. Just having this issue in the public realm as one generation grew up has transformed public opinion. I see this dynamic as a distinctly American one, where the three branches of government and the people address emerging social issues in a messy, but healthy way. More to the point, those in the gay leadership (the Human Rights Campaign primarily among them) who did not want this movement, took a decade to support it, favored civil unions and domestic partnerships over an allegedly divisive call for full equality … have been proven totally wrong. Nate Silver on the accelerating support for marriage equality:
Something to bear in mind is that it's only been fairly recently that gay rights groups — and other liberals and libertarians — shifted toward a strategy of explicitly calling for full equity in marriage rights, rather than finding civil unions to be an acceptable compromise. While there is not necessarily zero risk of backlash resulting from things like court decisions — support for gay marriage slid backward by a couple of points, albeit temporarily, after a Massachusetts' court's ruling in 2003 that same-sex marriage was required by that state's constitution — it seems that, in general, "having the debate" is helpful to the gay marriage cause, probably because the secular justifications against it are generally quite weak.
That's why I was never afraid to publish and disseminate the opposition's arguments, as in my anthology, because I could see how transparently weak they are. And the notion that people cannot respond to reason on this issue, and are only motivated by animus, has simply been disproved in the last two decades.
Just look at the generation gap, or rather gulf. CNN's poll only looks at the over or under 50 issue, but there, nearly 60 percent of all the under-50s back marriage equality. Imagine what the numbers are for the under-30s. And the reason you may not be hearing more from the GOP on the subject is the remarkable alignment of Democrats and Independents on this topic – they are identical in outlook. It is the Republican party that is increasingly isolated – older, and more rural.
Of course, the same poll showed an even division on birthright citizenship and hefty opposition to the Cordoba Project. Maybe the new "other" is increasingly not the gays, but Muslims and the children of illegal immigrants. Sigh.
Yglesias Award Nominee II
"Why Sarah Palin decided to get in the race is beyond me. I don't know why she feels compelled to get into primaries all over the country. … Well, yes, I wish she [would butt out of contested primaries] because what she is doing is dividing the Republican Party at a time when we don't need to be divided," – Congressman Jack Kingston.
Man is he in for a shellacking.
Quote For The Day
"Jews know that they can land on their feet in any corner of the world," – Ehud Barak, making a less familiar case for Zionism (or, rather for why Israel should risk engulfing the world in a new and terribly dangerous religious war to prevent long-term out-migration).
I hope to comment in greater depth soon on Jeffrey Goldberg's cover-story in the Atlantic.
“The Model For What A News Site Should Be”
Anthony De Rosa lauds TBD.com, a hyperlocal news site for Washington, DC. As it happens, the lead story is a fatal shooting right outside my home back in Washington. (And it has happened before.)