Pre-Mortem

I've fallen down on my responsibilities recently. The elections are (coming) up and so I thought I'd take a few moments and add in my own thoughts. I'm going out on a limb and broadly going to suggest that things won't be as ugly for Democrats as all the writing around the blogosphere suggests it will. Check out this piece from Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight. That's a hypothetical, and yes, he did write it as a devil's advocate. Yes, there is another piece from a few days earlier, written in the same style, about how Republicans could pick up 70 or 80 seats in the House rather than the widely predicted 50 or 55. As Nate has talked about a lot recently, the actual margin (statistically speaking) is really wide this year. Polls suggest anything from a Republican gain in the mid 20s up to the low 80s as possible. But I'm a liberal blogger and so what am I going to do but come down on the side of Democrats? I'm inclined to believe that it won't be any worse than 55, and could very well be much better than that. But that's not statistical, that's my gut feeling. Let's examine the issues.

The Enthusiasm Gap
Much political hay has been made out of the so-called "Enthusiasm Gap" this cycle. Republicans and Tea Partiers are fired up and Democrats have just stopped caring. My evidence against this is anecdotal, yes. But I've spent some time actually making phone calls and knocking on doors this cycle for state and national Democrats and have seen plenty of Dems who are ready and eager to go to the polls and make clear that, even if we aren't 100% happy with the work the Obama White House and the Pelosi/Reid Congress has done, we don't think a Congress lead by Mitch McConnell and John Boehner will be doing us any favors. Democrats view this contest as the lesser of two evils, yes. But the current Congress is clearly the lesser. The devil you know, as they say.

Voter Turnout
Voter Turnout is really closely linked to the Enthusiasm Gap. If you're not enthused, you don't turn out, right? But there are other issues to bring to bear here. Democrats still have a registration advantage over Republicans, thanks in large part to the Obama Campaign and it's post inauguration sibling Organizing for America. Democrats nationally have a better turnout machine than Republicans. I'm counting on that machine to counter and Enthusiasm Gap that might present its ugly head tomorrow.

The Democratic Record
It's become obvious over the last six months that most national and even state level Dems are attempting to run campaigns that, to put it kindly, don't talk about their accomplishments in Washington since the beginning of the 111th Congress. Nowhere has this been taken to such a visible extreme as Joe Manchin's ad in which he shoots the Cap and Trade Bill. That's an extreme example, and Manchin is clearly anti-Cap and Trade because West Virginia relies so heavily on it's coal industry. But there are Democrats all over the place talking about killing "ObamaCare", keeping the Bush Tax Cuts, and generally trying to run away from what Congress has done. Call me crazy, but I think the Democrats would be having a better year if they ran actively and forcefully on their record.

Let's get more specific. As we've covered, the Dems are losing the House. This is essentially a foregone conclusion and all the quibbling has been over how many seats we can expect the Republicans to pick up. My bet, 35. This is quite low and I could be totally off.

The Senate is a bit easier. I'd bet money that the Dems keep the Senate even if only by a slim margin. Here, I'm in complete agreement with Five Thirty Eight. The Republicans look to pick up 4 to 9 seats depending on what kind of night they have. Their chances at picking up the Senate went down the drain when Christine O'Donnell won the nomination in Delaware. If that didn't seal the deal then the increasing leads that Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray have over their opponents in California and Washington definitely will.

I'm going to take a moment to look at some individual races now. Some I'm pretty bullish on, others not so much. Starting in no particular order we have...Nevada.

Nevada
Before the primaries were done in Nevada, Harry Reid was sunk. He was down 20 points versus the generic Republican candidate. He's not charismatic, and not many people in Nevada like him all that much. Then the GOP nominated Sharron Angle. She thinks Flouride is a communist plot, Social Security should be personalprivatized, and refuses to answer questions from reporters. In fact, Mrs. Angle's craziness is the ONLY thing keeping Mr. Reid in the race. That said, Mr. Reid has about as finely tuned a turnout machine as has ever existed. Numbers from early voting suggest that registered Dems are turning out at a little under 3% more than registered Republicans. Couple that with Mrs. Angle's clearly racist, anti-Latino ads and I call this one for Mr. Reid by a hair.

California
Barbara Boxer has made some serious inroads into the numbers that Carly Fiorina has been putting up. She's showing a solid lead of 2 to 3 points now. Couple that with the momentum that Jerry Brown has made against Meg Whitman and I suggest that California will stay blue this year.

Washington
This could be the race to watch as far as the Senate this year. Republican Dino Rossi has been giving Democrat Patty Murray a run for her money all year and it could come down to some seriously late night (early morning) counting before this one is called. Murray has been pulling away just a little bit as of late so this one could really be indicative of how the Republicans do over all. If they have a wave night, count on seeing Senator Rossi in Washington. If the Democrats outperform their number, Murray will hold on.

Alaska
The three way race in Alaska has only gotten more interesting in the last week. Republican (and Tea Party fav) Joe Miller has appeared to be losing ground to incumbent and Write-In candidate Lisa Murkowski. What makes this that much more interesting is that the way Write-In votes are counted could end up handing the election to Democrat Scott McAdams if he can top Mr. Miller. Expect this one to run long (as in days and weeks after tomorrow). Alaska is one of the last states to close the polls and counting all those Write-Ins is technically challenging. I'm less bullish on this one. I'll give it to Mrs. Murkowski, though I'd love to see McAdams pull an upset.

Florida
Finally, we have the other three way this year between Marko Rubio, Charlie Crist, and Kendrick Meek. This is one where I have no faith in the Democratic nominee. Mr. Meek has denied that Democrats as high up as President Clinton have asked him to drop out and endorse Mr. Crist. Essentially, Mr. Rubio (who the Tea Party loves) is running away with this one. Having everyone who's against him splitting their vote between Governor Crist and Mr. Meek will give this seat away. Say hello to Senator Rubio.

I could write about a lot of other races, but these are by far the closest and most interesting. I have skipped West Virginia because I don't feel as qualified to talk about it, but in fact, it may be the first bellwether you get along with some of the races in Ohio.

If you Build it, They will Come

Please forgive me, both for the cliche title and the attempt to blog away my insomnia. I promise I do have an excellent (if long) post for you if you keep reading. You might want to grab a chair.

I want to take a moment to talk about something that has been both derided as a waste of public money and hyped as the sexiest word in American Politics. I'm talking of course about Infrastructure. My education is in a design field that is allied with fields like Architecture, Art, and Engineering. I'm going to try to both make the case for infrastructure as well as talk about what people mean when they use that word. When we talk about spending on infrastructure, what sorts of projects are we discussing? When the President, the other week, announced $50 billion for the jump starting of a National Infrastructure Bank (known from here on out as the NIB) what sorts of things did he have (or should have) in mind?

Let's look at things as they now stand first. America's infrastructure is old. How old? It varies to be sure. But suffice it to say that many important projects in this country were built in the 1950s with the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act under President Eisenhower. Yes. A Republican. Infrastructure investment shouldn't be an anathema to Republican and Republican leaning lawmakers. Much of the infrastructure is even older than that. Much of it is in dire need of servicing as well. States have been putting off maintenance on important bits of this mystical infrastructure for years, citing a lack of money. In reality it's usually more a lack of will, though the country's general blindness to the state of it's infrastructure is certainly not making money for that sort of work easy to come by.

And now I've said another magic word! Work! That's right. Pretty much anything that falls under the definition of infrastructure needs to be built and maintained. And what is one thing this country has in abundance right now? That's right. Unemployed people. Especially unemployed people in the construction industry. This link to a press release from the Associated General Contractors of America (who I suspect know a thing or two about building) cited the unemployment rate in the construction industry as 27.1%. I'm fairly certain the number has changed little in the six months since that report was released. This is point number one. We have lots of unemployed people that could be put back to work through public and private investment in infrastructure right now. The housing market is flooded with houses that no one is buying and it's going to be a long time before all of these unemployed construction workers are putting up suburbs again. I'd wager it'll be never for the suburbs, but that that's a different post. This brings me to point number two. Investment.

Check out this Op-Ed Paul Krugman wrote for the New York Times earlier this month. It does deal with a specific project (the Arc Tunnel under the Hudson from New Jersey to Manhattan) but he hits on points that are relevant to all sorts of infrastructure spending right now. Specifically, I want to highlight this:

the price is right: with interest rates on federal debt at near-record lows, there has never been a better time to borrow for long-term investment.

That's the main point of his Op-Ed besides the unemployed construction workers which we've now covered as well. Borrowing money when the National Debt is approaching $14 Trillion may not look appealing. But if we're borrowing for tangible things that are going to make our country more productive in the long run it's worth it. If we can increase GDP we both get out of this recession and make the job of paying down the National Debt that much easier. And infrastructure of almost all types will increase GDP beyond just the people working and getting paid to build it. That tunnel that Governor Christie has killed would ensure the smooth flow of traffic from New Jersey to Manhattan, one of the largest financial and business centers in the world. And just check out what's doing the job right now. One tunnel, two tracks, built almost a hundred years ago. If that's not word for word a description of the state of our infrastructure as it stands now, I don't know what is.

So now that we've talked about why infrastructure spending (and by extension the NIB) is a good thing let's take a minute to look at what kind of projects we're talking about. In my view, infrastructure can be part of three broad groups (though many projects overlap, and a few will defy definition). In general you're looking at projects that deal with Building and Space, Transportation, or Energy and Communications. All of these areas are sadly not up to snuff currently in America. In addition I would describe each project regardless of which group it's in as also being either Monumental or Diffuse. Let's take a look at each category and then some real life projects that would be part of that group.

Building and Space
These projects are, as you might imagine, either buildings, public open spaces, or a combination of the two. This is often the area where it's easiest to convince private money to take part or fund something entirely. Sure, plenty of buildings are nondescript, but some would also be classified as Monumental. When I say Monumental, I mean that the work exists in a specific place, is well constructed and designed, and either is or has the potential to be a monument. We're talking tourists here. For constructed works I'm thinking, the Space Needle, the Flat Iron Building, Sears Tower and the like as well as Central Park, The Presidio, and other famous open spaces. Under way already? Try the construction under way for both buildings and open space in Lower Manhattan at Ground Zero. That link is worth it just for the photos and architectural renderings by the way. That's just a taste.

Transportation
Transportation projects are fairly obviously about moving people or goods from place to place. In that sense, many of them are going to be Diffuse as opposed to Monumental, but not all. These projects could range from the already discussed Arc Tunnel from New Jersey to New York, to construction and additions to subways, busses, and light rail like the Second Avenue Subway in Manhattan or the planned Orange Line addition to Portland's MAX Light Rail. These are all Diffuse or otherwise unviewable (meaning under the Hudson) by the public. In this section though you can also include projects like the new bridge near Hoover Dam that Rachel Maddow covered it last night. I'd call that Monumental. Wouldn't you agree?

This section would be remiss to leave out the continuing discussion about High Speed Rail (HSR) that has started in this country. This article at Infrastructurist (a fabulous blog) makes it clear why this is a liberal issue. Republicans view all this infrastructure spending as borrowing that the government can't sustain. There's also this post which highlights all the HSR lines that are receiving federal funding as of January. That map is pretty spectacular to me. And you can see where building even further in the future would go. An HSR backbone down the Pacific Coast from Vancouver, BC to Los Angeles? Who wouldn't want to make that trip in a matter of hours? Also, a connection through the heart of the country making Coast to Coast HSR travel possible isn't out of the long term question. They did it in the 1800s, why not now? I think we could find another Golden Spike.

Energy and Communications
Finally we have Energy and Communications which are, almost by definition, Diffuse. They're networks of transmission lines, computers, and the like. While they may not be as flashy as Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere, they're very important. In this section we not only have the opportunity to update our aging electrical and communications grids, we have the opportunity to build them afresh with technologies in mind like the Internet, mobile web surfing, and green energy production. If you think the electrical grid is fine the way it is, check out this piece from Joel Achenbach at National Geographic. It's fabulous. Not only do we need to update the transmission wires themselves though, we also have an opportunity to update how we get the electrons that run though those wires. That's where projects which the likes of Google have been supporting come in. In specific we have suggestions for an East Coast Wind Backbone, placing very large wind turbines off the coast and out of sight, as well as Geothermal in West Virginia Coal Country. Now if that can't break West Virginia's (and indeed the whole country's) dirty habit, I don't know what will.

Almost as an aside, I think there is room here too for collaboration on something with a little less function like Mount Rushmore between the future NIB and the National Endowment for the Arts. That's right, I said the NEA.

So what's the big picture? Most of the projects I've linked to have price tags running into the billions. But investment now, when we have every resource and financing trick on our side, can make the cost a bit less. Construction materials haven't been as cheap in decades. In closing, we, as America, have a choice. We can stand up and fix what is very rapidly breaking in this country and invest in the future. Or we can stand aside and let other countries (chief among them China) do what we are known for doing for over a century. If we do not choose to step up now, we can later. But it's going to be harder and come at a higher cost. If we make the investment now, we set the stage for another century of American greatness as well as begin to solve our problems right here, right now. Ranging from current unemployment and economic malaise to the desperate need to transition to energy sources other than oil and coal, the opportunity is now. I'll leave you with this scary chart from the Washington Post to think about.

Mission Accomplished! Again!

Having just finished watching President Obama's prime time address on the end of the Iraq War, I thought I'd put my thoughts to digital paper. A simple list of "pros and cons" if you will, seems a good place to start.

Cons:
As the title suggests, this felt, to me, very much like President Bush's "Aircraft Carrier, Mission Accomplished" speech. The fact is that, whether the mission title has changed or not, whether the troops left are classified as "combat troops" or not, we still have 50,000 American warriors stationed in this country.

I saw very little discussion of what we've actually accomplished. This was very much more a "we're done" speech than a "we've won" speech. Trying to point to tangible things that have spelled a US victory in Iraq is hard. And Americans, more than any other country in the world, don't like losing wars. Or even ending wars on an ambiguous note. We tend to accept as the American public, nothing short of full blown victory. And that's hard when you can't define victory.

This speech was INCREDIBLY kind to the Bush Administration. So kind I don't even know how to talk about it. If we track back, the first reason we invaded was because Iraq was in bed with al Qaeda. That didn't hold up. And so, the justification for war became Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. We launched our invasion under those premises. When it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq the reasoning morphed again. And ever since, we've been in Iraq in order to bring "freedom and democracy" to "that region of the world". Which is really just a nice metaphor for we're already there and would look foolish if we left now. I understand that President Obama doesn't want to dwell on the Bush Administration. He doesn't want to dwell so much that his administration refuses to haul anyone of any importance up on charges. Fine. We'll just let our own government break the law. It doesn't matter.

Pros:
Well, there aren't many. It's true that this is a step (a baby step) toward ending this unjust and prolonged war. It's also true that this is sticking to the time table that President Obama set up for leaving Iraq after entering office. Maybe that means we can believe him when he says the 50,000 men and women who are still there will come home next year. And finally, it means that the President is fulfilling a campaign promise.

Those lists are a bit lopsided. I'm reporting. You decide.

I've remembered!

If you read my previous post on SB 1070, the for-profit prison system, and marriage equality you will remember that I said I had another issue that I thought important to discuss but had forgotten it at the time I sat down to write. Well....I've remembered!

It's this "Ground Zero Mosque" business. Everyone's freaking out. The President has weighed in on the topic during the annual Iftar dinner (did Bush do that too? Would that make him a closet Muslim?) at the White House. Polls have been taken every which way with (surprisingly) Fox News' being the best. And news and opinion people of all stripes have had their say. So now I'm going to have mine.

Firstly, check out the map at the top of the 538.com post I linked to. It's the second link down in the above paragraph. That's what people mean by "at Ground Zero". They actually mean not at Ground Zero. The proposed location is some 5 blocks from Ground Zero in a closed Burlington Coat Factory. So important fact number one is that when someone says, "They're going to build a Mosque at Ground Zero! That's so wrong!" they have their facts wrong.

Important point number two, more widely disseminated by the media, is the fact that this is really a community center. It will have worship spaces. But it'll also have a swimming pool and art rooms and all sorts of stuff. It's a sort of Islamic YMCA as this sketch from Mike Luckovich of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution makes clear.

Important point number three, which should be noted to be the most important, is that Amendment One to the Constitution states in part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

 That's the first part of the very short, very explicit First Amendment. Our country doesn't have an official religion. Congress can't make an official religion. And people are free to practice their religion how, when, and where they want provided that it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights; which Islam doesn't.

President Obama had a moment at the Iftar that I think reminds me of the way he talked on the campaign trail. It's very moving. In part, this is what he had to say.

 Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly New York.  Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan.  The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country.  And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable.  So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders.  And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear.  As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.  And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.  This is America.  And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.  The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.  The writ of the Founders must endure.

You're free to make the argument that a mosque or Islamic cultural center that close to Ground Zero is in poor taste. I don't think it is. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people who want to actually stop the construction/move in. They want to use eminent domain and other governmental powers to keep this from happening. And that's unconstitutional. In short, I don't care if you think muslims are the spawn of satan. In this country they're free to worship. And I'll fight for that right. Me. The damned atheist. Freedom of Religion, as it's enshrined in the Constitution doesn't just mean Protestant versions of Christianity that you're okay with. You don't get  to pick and choose. The freedoms granted American citizens by the Constitution come free to everyone regardless of race, color, creed, sex, religion, ability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, pregnancy, how many piercings they have, whether they like oranges or not, or any other status that you can thing of to use to discriminate against people.

Let's be honest. This is just intolerance and muslim bashing. Just like the rest of the last ten years. I'm pretty thoroughly ashamed of my country and how it has reacted to the events of 9/11. It could have been a turning point for us and for the world. Instead it's just another excuse for war and division.

EDIT: They have a wonderful post with a couple of points I didn't even think of over at Feministe. Take a look.

This is how the fight against Obama is being characterized. With Fawkesian subtitles, clever editing, and a sound track more fit to an end of the world/disaster movie than a political campaign. Obama isn't perfect. Not by a long shot. But this is why we need to support him in 2010 and 2012.

If you go to their website two things will happen. One, you'll think it's funny that only 113,000 people have taken their "pledge" so far as of the beginning of May and two, you'll notice that, way down at the bottom, it says, "Paid for by the Republican Governors Association". Just saying.

She's at it Again

Friday saw another post by our beloved former governor of Alaska on her Facebook page in response to the Horizon Oil Spill. I thought about not linking it in order to not give her the traffic, but as I'm going to quote some of the post here I want it to be available to readers in full so as not to take the Governor out of context. Her note is here. As you might expect the core of her response is still "Drill, Baby, Drill", now wrapped in a shell of concern for the environment.

As an Alaskan, I can speak from the heart about the tragedy of an oil spill. For as long as I live, I will never forget the day the Exxon-Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef and millions of gallons of North Slope crude poured into the waters of our beautiful Prince William Sound.

To be honest, I'm tired of this idea that only Alaskans understand the oil and gas industry for what it really is. We all buy their products, refineries are everywhere, and there are (as has been horribly demonstrated) other places where extraction is happening inside the US other than the North Slope and Prudhoe Bay.

Alaskans understand the tragedy of an oil spill, and we’ve taken steps to do all we can to prevent another Exxon tragedy, but we are still pro-development. We still believe in responsible development, which includes drilling to extract energy sources, because we know that there is an inherent link between energy and security, energy and prosperity, and energy and freedom.

I think it's safe to say that Americans understand the tragedy of an oil spill. But leaving that aside, if Alaska has done all it can, how come twenty years later the majority of tankers operating out of the Port of Valdez in Prince William Sound are still single hulled tankers? Could it be that replacing those tankers might cost Exxon and BP money that they don't want to spend and so they haven't been pushed to make necessary changes?

She does get one thing right. And I want to give credit where it's due. There is a link between energy and security, energy and prosperity, and energy and freedom. So why is it then, as a major news contributor and a political figure of some serious heft, Governor Palin hasn't used any of her significant power to push for more money for R&D on renewable energy generation, or more money toward the technologies that we already have?  After all, we just approved the new wind farm off of Cape Cod. I agree that it was a tough decision but it comes down to whether you're willing to make the sacrifices to break America's dependency on foreign oil or not. Clearly the Governor and her friends in the Tea Party and the GOP aren't willing to make that sacrifice. For them, truly, national security always comes down to who to kill, what war to start, or what to blow up in that country several thousand miles from here. Even though their rhetoric says that they get it, they never seem to make the easy choices that will advance our national security and safeguard the lives of all Americans including those in the military.

The Governor also pushes the idea in her post that she (and by extension the GOP) has been tough on Big Oil.

This was the position I took as an oil and gas regulator and as Governor of Alaska when my administration ramped up oversight of the oil industry and created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for potential environmental risks. I took a lot of heat for the stand I took “against the oil industry” (which is how political adversaries labeled my actions). But we took tough action because there was proof of some improper maintenance of oil infrastructure which I believed was unacceptable. We instituted new oversight and held British Petroleum (BP) financially accountable for poor maintenance practices.

If that is true, why is it that profits for Petroleum companies went through the roof during the Bush Administration? Well, besides the fact that two unnecessary wars opened up a big new market for them. Granted, the Obama Administration doesn't get off the hook. After all they just a few weeks ago lifted a ban on deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico that they are only now, in the light of a national disaster, walking back. The Obama Administration is, just like the Bush Administration, far to loyal to big business interests. We've seen this time and again from the deep water drilling, to the weak stance on Health Care Reform when Big Pharma got involved and now we're seeing it in Wall Street Reform. Everyone is to blame here. Every administration since the early 1900s, the Democrats, the GOP, the Tea Party, and yes, you and me. We take for granted that our choices at the pump and at the ballot box have no effect on these big companies and we're wrong. It's time, well past time, to make a conscious effort to drive less, take public transit, walk, and bike more, vote for representatives who legitimately want to control big business, and get America off our Oil Addiction, foreign or otherwise.

I Must Admit....

I must admit to being pretty depressed with the state of the world right now. On top of the ongoing grievances of Iraq and Afghanistan, Darfur, Somalia, the near total collapse of the Greek economy, the total collapse of the Icelandic economy, that Icelandic volcano that's still causing some travel problems for Europe, watching the Parliamentary Elections in Britain get uglier, and I'm sure a thousand other things I could mention we have three issues just in the US that make me so frustrated.

So, if you were a bit too happy today here's your bit of sad.

First and oldest bit, the FBI is now probing Massey Energy to see if there was possible bribery involved in the flagrant violation of safety rules in the Upper Big Branch Mine that claimed the lives of 29 miners in West Virginia a few weeks ago. Since then there has been a much smaller problem with a collapse in a mine in Utah I believe where a handful of miners were also injured or killed. Both of these mines are non-union mines. American corporations have done such a good job over the last thirty years or so convincing the public that unions are bad news. It's starting to come back to haunt us.

In slightly fresher news, the Goldman Sachs case has gone a step up from unethical and wrong to possibly illegal. Now not only is the SEC charging Goldman with fraud in a civil suit, but the case has now been handed over to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation. It looks like this is gonna get even uglier than it already was. You thought the language on CSPAN was bad the other day? Let's get ready to rumble.

And in developing news the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico is now the size of Deleware. To make matters worse, the containment measures don't seem to be working, and we are now finding out that the slick is growing at five times the rate we thought it was. Whether that is something we didn't know, or was being kept from us is up for debate. As an aside to this story, the Administration is pretty much turning a blind eye. President Obama announced today that he would hold off on authorizing any more off shore drilling, but none was immediately in the works anyway. It's looking like the plan is to come up with some hand-waving in the form on "new safety regulations" before they go ahead and give projects the green light again. How hard is it to understand that the gains to be made from domestic drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (and ANWAR) are too little to make up for these sorts of disasters? It is time for Americans to do everything we can to end our abusive relationship with fossil fuels for the sake of our health, the health of our environment, and our national security. If nothing else, think if it as a war we can win without ever having to fire a shot. The best kind.

Edit: The slick is now, according to the Rachel Maddow Show, bigger than the state of West Virginia.