I must confess that I have something of a love-hate attachment for Steve Pearlstein.  Robert Kuttner briefly quotes him in this very interesting American Prospect article…

Last July, at a Hamilton Project public program, The Washington Post’s Steve Pearlstein mischievously asked panelists Rubin, Altman, and Summers why not take a “time out” on further trade deals until Congress passes some of the social buffers that the project keeps endorsing in principle. “To a man, they recoiled at the idea,” Pearlstein reported.

Calling this posture “a perfect example of how the Democrats have lost the instinct for the political jugular and the ability to use policy disputes to political advantage,” Pearlstein added, “The idea here isn’t to kill free trade. It’s to take it hostage.” Lately, many Democrats in Congress have indeed been trying harder to hold the next trade deal hostage to more social protections. If they fail, Rubin’s counsel will have played a key role.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=12573

Study says global warming threatens to create a Dust Bowl-like period. Water politics could also get heated.

The driest periods of the last century — the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the droughts of the 1950s — may become the norm in the Southwest United States within decades because of global warming, according to a study released Thursday.

The research suggests that the transformation may already be underway. Much of the region has been in a severe drought since 2000, which the study’s analysis of computer climate models shows as the beginning of a long dry period.

The study, published online in the journal Science, predicted a permanent drought by 2050 throughout the Southwest — one of the fastest-growing regions in the nation.

The data tell “a story which is pretty darn scary and very strong,” said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate researcher at the University of Arizona who was not involved in the study.

Richard Seager, a research scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University and the lead author of the study, said the changes would force an adjustment to the social and economic order from Colorado to California.

“There are going to be some tough decisions on how to allocate water,” he said. “Is it going to be the cities, or is it going to be agriculture?”

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-swdrought6apr06,0,122112.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Broder opposes Democracy at the Federal level of U.S. Government.

That’s right, folks: The Washington Post Columnist David S. Broder opposes the principle of one-person-one-vote at the Federal level. If you do not believe me, then check out his column for yourself. It does not make for just interesting reading — it makes for incredible reading. He justifies his opposition to one-person-one-vote at the Federal level (Although, given the way he frames the issue, he almost certainly opposes one-person-one-vote at the state level as well.) on the grounds that the two party system might suffer. It is quite obvious that he is contemptuous of any voter who supports an independent/third-party candidate. This does beg the following question: Is he an elitist? Does he support the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the common people? Before reading this column, I would immediately have dismissed this question from my mind as being ridiculous; but now I can no longer do so. All of his rationalizations come straight out of the elite playbook: Say that you are opposing this in order to protect minorities (while at the same time opposing any allocation of any meaningful resources to assist said minorities that are discriminated against in the popular culture); Say that you are opposing this in order to protect the family farmer (while at the same time supporting corporate farmers at the expense of the small stakeholder); in short, say and do anything in order to maintain your political hegemony in this country — and indeed, throughout the world.

I never before would have argued that Broder is an elitist — but now I wonder.

On Saturday, I wrote about Michigan’s economic situation. Today, WaPo writes about various mining proposals in the U.P. Check it out.

Like much of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, Marquette was built on mining. Thousands of Irish, German, Polish, Italian and other immigrants arrived here in the late 1800s and early 1900s to forge new lives in the copper and iron mines.As mines closed during the mid-1900s and many residents fled to the auto industry in Detroit, the town and the region struggled.

Now, thanks to rapidly rising metal prices, international mining companies are again interested in the Upper Peninsula. A subsidiary of industry giant Rio Tinto wants to open the country’s largest nickel mine about 25 miles from Marquette, and various companies are prospecting for copper, nickel, uranium and other materials.

One would think they would be welcomed with open arms.

Think again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201406.html?nav=hcmodule

 A survey by Rasmussen Reports of 15,000 adults shows that the number of people identifying themselves as independents has increased to an all time high of 31.5% in March.  37.2% identified themselves as Democrats while 31.7% identified themselves as Republicans.

The percentage of people identifying themselves as Democrats has changed little in the last few years while the percentage of Republicans has declined.  In November, 2004, 38.8% identified themselves as Democrats, 37.1% identified themselves as Republican, and 24.3% identified themselves as independents.

Independents now make up roughly the same proporition of the electorate as Republicans.  The significance for Greens is that they have been making inroads into the independent vote in recent elections.  In our two best showings in 2006–Illinois and Maine–Green Party candidates for governor ran competative races with the Democrat and Republican candidates among independent voters.

The Rasmussen poll seems to indicate that the electoral ground continues to grow more fertile for Green candidates.

Forests Destroyed in China’s Race to Feed Global Wood-Processing Industry

The Chinese logging boss set his sights on a thickly forested mountain just inside Burma, aiming to harvest one of the last natural stands of teak on Earth.He handed a rice sack stuffed with $8,000 worth of Chinese currency to two agents with connections in the Burmese borderlands, the men said in interviews. They used that stash to bribe everyone standing between the teak and China. In came Chinese logging crews. Out went huge logs, over Chinese-built roads.

About 2,500 miles to the northeast, Chinese and Russian crews hacked into the virgin forests of the Russian Far East and Siberia, hauling away 250-year-old Korean pines in often-illegal deals, according to trading companies and environmentalists. In the highlands of Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and Africa and in the forests of the Amazon, loggers working beyond the bounds of the law have sent a ceaseless flow of timber to China.

Some of the largest swaths of natural forest left on the planet are being dismantled at an alarming pace to feed a global wood-processing industry centered in coastal China.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033101287.html?nav=rss_email/components