What Caused the United States’ Decline?

The Nation

What Caused the United States’ Decline?

Hint: You don’t have to look far.

By Tom Englehardt       June 14, 2018

An unidentified US soldier patrols next to a US flag on a military ship docked in Manama, Bahrain. (AP Photo / Hasan Jamali)

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com.

Think of it as the all-American version of the human comedy: a great power that eternally knows what the world needs and offers copious advice with a tone deafness that would be humorous, if it weren’t so grim. If you look, you can find examples of this just about anywhere. Here, for instance, is a passage in The New York Times from a piece on the topsy-turvy Trumpian negotiations that preceded the Singapore summit. “The Americans and South Koreans,” wrote reporter Motoko Rich, “want to persuade the North that continuing to funnel most of the country’s resources into its military and nuclear programs shortchanges its citizens’ economic well-being. But the North does not see the two as mutually exclusive.”

Think about that for a moment. The United States has, of course, embarked on a trillion-dollar-plus upgrade of its already massive nuclear arsenal (and that’s before the cost overruns even begin). Its Congress and president have for years proven eager to sink at least a trillion dollars annually into the budget of the national security state (a figure that’s still rising and outpaces by far that of any other power on the planet), while its own infrastructure sags and crumbles. And yet it finds the impoverished North Koreans puzzling when they, too, follow such an extreme path.

Clueless is not a word Americans ordinarily apply to themselves as a country, a people, or a government. Yet how applicable it is.

And when it comes to cluelessness, there’s another, far stranger path the United States has been following since at least the George W. Bush moment that couldn’t be more consequential and yet somehow remains the least noticed of all. On this subject, Americans don’t have a clue. In fact, if you could put the United States on a psychiatrist’s couch, this might be the place to start.

AMERICA CONTAINED

In a way, it’s the oldest story on Earth: the rise and fall of empires. And note the plural there. It was never—not until recently at least—empire, always empires. Since the 15th century, when the fleets of the first European imperial powers broke into the larger world with subjugation in mind, it was invariably a contest of many. There were at least three or sometimes significantly more imperial powers rising and contesting for dominance or slowly falling from it. This was, by definition, the history of great powers on this planet: The challenging rise, the challenged decline. Think of it for so many centuries as the essential narrative of history, the story of how it all happened until at least 1945, when just two “superpowers,” the United States and the Soviet Union, found themselves facing off on a global scale.

Of the two, the United States was always stronger, more powerful, and far wealthier. It theoretically feared the Russian Bear, the Evil Empire, which it worked assiduously to “contain” behind that famed Iron Curtain and whose adherents in this country, always modest in number, were subjected to a mania of fear and suppression. However, the truth—at least in retrospect—was that, in the Cold War years, the Soviets were actually doing Washington a strange, if unnoted, favor. Across much of the Eurasian continent, and other places from Cuba to the Middle East, Soviet power and the never-ending contest for influence and dominance that went with it always reminded American leaders that their own power had its limits. This, as the 21st century should have (but hasn’t) made clear, was no small thing. It still seemed obvious then that American power could not be total. There were things it could not do, places it could not control, dreams its leaders simply couldn’t have. Though no one ever thought of it that way, from 1945 to 1991, the United States, like the Soviet Union, was, after a fashion, “contained.”

In those years, the Russians were, in essence, saving Washington from itself. Soviet power was a tangible reminder to American political and military leaders that certain areas of the planet remained no-go zones (except in what, in those years, were called “the shadows”). The Soviet Union, in short, rescued Washington from both the fantasy and the hell of going it alone, even if Americans only grasped that reality at the most subliminal of levels.

That was the situation until December 1991 when, at the end of a centuries-long imperial race for power (and the never-ending arms race that went with it), there was just one gigantic power left standing on Planet Earth. It told you something about the thinking then that, when the Soviet Union imploded, the initial reaction in Washington wasn’t triumphalism (though that came soon enough) but utter shock, a disbelieving sense that something no one had expected, predicted, or even imagined had nonetheless happened. To that very moment, Washington had continued to plan for a two-superpower world until the end of time.

AMERICA UNCONTAINED

Soon enough, though, the Washington elite came to see what happened as, in the phrase of the moment, “the end of history.” Given the wreckage of the Soviet Union, it seemed that an ultimate victory had been won by the very country its politicians would soon come to call “the last superpower,” the “indispensable” nation, the “exceptional” state, a land great beyond imagining (until, at least, Donald Trump hit the campaign trail with a slogan that implied greatness wasn’t all-American anymore).

In reality, there were a variety of paths open to the “last superpower” at that moment. There was even, however briefly, talk of a “peace dividend”—of the possibility that, in a world without contesting superpowers, taxpayer dollars might once again be invested not in the sinews of war-making but of peace-making (particularly in infrastructure and the well-being of the country’s citizens).

Such talk, however, lasted only a year or two and always in a minor key before being relegated to Washington’s attic. Instead, with only a few rickety “rogue” states left to deal with—like… gulp… North Korea, Iraq, and Iran—that money never actually headed home and neither did the thinking that went with it.

SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM: If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nation’s work.

Consider it the good fortune of the geopolitical dreamers soon to take the reins in Washington that the first Gulf War of 1990-1991, which ended less than a year before the Soviet Union collapsed, prepared the way for quite a different style of thinking. That instant victory led to a new kind of militarized dreaming in which a highly tech-savvy military, like the one that had driven Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein’s forces out of Kuwait in such short order, would be capable of doing anything on a planet without serious opposition.

And yet, from the beginning, there were signs suggesting a far grimmer future. To take but one infamous example, Americans still remember the Black Hawk Down moment of 1993 when the world’s greatest military fell victim to a Somali warlord and local militias and found itself incapable of imposing its will on one of the least impressive not-quite-states on the planet (a place still frustrating that military a quarter-century later).

In that post-1991 world, however, few in Washington even considered that the 20th century had loosed another phenomenon on the world, that of insurgent national liberation movements, generally leftist rebellions, across what had been the colonial world—the very world of competing empires now being tucked into the history books—and it hadn’t gone away. In the 21st century, such insurgent movements, now largely religious, or terror-based, or both, would turn out to offer a grim new version of containment to the last superpower.

UNCHAINING THE INDISPENSABLE NATION

On September 11, 2001, a canny global jihadist by the name of Osama bin Laden sent his air force (four hijacked US passenger jets) and his precision weaponry (19 suicidal, mainly Saudi followers) against three iconic targets in the American pantheon: the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and undoubtedly the Capitol or the White House (neither of which was hit because one of those jets crashed in a field in Pennsylvania). In doing so, in a sense bin Laden not only loosed a literal hell on Earth, but unchained the last superpower.

Shakespeare would have had a word for what followed: hubris. But give the top officials of the Bush administration (and the neocons who supported them) a break. There had never been a moment like it: a moment of one. A single great power left alone, triumphant, on planet Earth. Just one superpower—wealthy beyond compare, its increasingly high-tech military unmatched, its only true rival in a state of collapse—had now been challenged by a small jihadist group.

To President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the rest of their crew, it seemed like nothing short of a heaven-sent opportunity. As they came out of the shock of 9/11, of that “Pearl Harbor of the 21st century,” it was as if they had found a magic formula in the ruins of those iconic buildings for the ultimate control of the planet. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would instruct an aide at the Pentagon that day, “Go massive. Sweep it up. Things related and not.”

Within days, things related and not were indeed being swept up. The country was almost instantly said to be “at war” and soon that conflict even had a name, the Global War on Terror. Nor was that war to be against just Al Qaeda, or even one country, an Afghanistan largely ruled by the Taliban. More than 60 countries said to have “terror networks” of various sorts found themselves almost instantly in the administration’s potential gun sights. And that was just to be the beginning of it all.

In October 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan was launched. In the spring of 2003, the invasion of Iraq followed, and those were only the initial steps in what was increasingly envisioned as the imposition of a Pax Americana on the Greater Middle East. There could be no doubt, for instance, that Iran and Syria, too, would soon go the way of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush’s top officials had been nursing just such dreams since, in 1997, many of them formed a think tank (the first ever to enter the White House) called the Project for a New American Century and began to write out what were then the fantasies of figures nowhere near power. By 2003, they were power itself and their dreams, if anything, had grown even more grandiose.

In addition to imagining a political Pax Republicana in the United States, they truly dreamed of a future planetary Pax Americana in which, for the first time in history, a single power would, in some fashion, control the whole works, the Earth itself. And this wasn’t to be a passing matter either. The Bush administration’s “unilateralism” rested on a conviction that it could actually create a future in which no country or even bloc of countries would ever come close to matching or challenging US military power. The administration’s National Security Strategy of 2002 put the matterbluntly: The United States was to “build and maintain” a military, in the phrase of the moment, “beyond challenge.”

They had little doubt that, in the face of the most technologically advanced, bulked-up, destructive force on Earth, hostile states would be “shocked and awed” by a simple demonstration of its power, while friendly ones would have little choice but to come to heel as well. After all, as President Bush said at a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in 2007, the US military was “the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known.”

Though there was much talk at the time about the “liberation” of Afghanistan and then Iraq, at least in their imaginations the true country being liberated was the planet’s lone superpower. Although the Bush administration was officially considered a “conservative” one, its key officials were geopolitical dreamers of the first order and their vision of the world was the very opposite of conservative. It harkened back to nothing and looked forward to everything. It was radical in ways that should have, but didn’t, take the American public’s breath away; radical in ways that had never been seen before.

SHOCK AND AWE FOR THE LAST SUPERPOWER

Think of what those officials did in the post-9/11 moment as the ultimate act of greed. They tried to swallow a whole planet. They were determined to make it a planet of one in a way that had never before been seriously imagined.

It was, to say the least, a vision of madness. Even in a moment when it truly did seem—to them at least—that all constraints had been taken off, an administration of genuine conservatives might have hesitated. Its top officials might, at least, have approached the post-Soviet situation with a modicum of caution and modesty. But not George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and pals. In the face of what seemed like the ultimate in possibilities they proved clueless when it came to the possibility that anything on Earth might have a shot at containing them.

Even among their critics, who could have imagined then that, more than 16 years later, having faced only lightly armed enemies of various sorts, still wealthy beyond compare, still with a military funded in a way the next seven countries couldn’t cumulatively match, the United States would have won literally nothing? Who could have imagined that, unlike so many preceding imperial powers (including the United States of the earlier Cold War era), it would have been able to establish control over nothing at all; that, instead, from Afghanistan to Syria, Iraq deep into Africa, it would find itself in a state of “infinite war” and utter frustration on a planet filled with ever more failed statesdestroyed citiesdisplaced people, and right-wing “populist” governments, including the one in Washington? Who could have imagined that, with a peace dividend no longer faintly conceivable, this country would have found itself not just in decline, but—a new term is needed to catch the essence of this curious moment—in what might be called self-decline?

Yes, a new power, China, is finally rising—and doing so on a planet that seems itself to be going down. Here, then, is a conclusion that might be drawn from the quarter-century-plus in which America was both unchained and largely alone. The Earth is admittedly a small orb in a vast universe, but the history of this century so far suggests one reality about which America’s rulers proved utterly clueless: After so many hundreds of years of imperial struggle, this planet still remains too big, too disparate, too ornery to be controlled by a single power. What the Bush administration did was simply take one gulp too many and the result has been a kind of national (and planetary) indigestion.

Despite what it looked like in Washington once upon a time, the disappearance of the Soviet Union proved to be no gift at all, but a disaster of the first order. It removed all sense of limits from America’s political class and led to a tale of greed on a planetary scale. In the process, it also set the United States on a path to self-decline.

The history of greed in our time has yet to be written, but what a story it will someday make. In it, the greed of those geopolitical dreamers will intersect with the greed of an ever wealthier, ever more gilded 1 percent, of the billionaires who were preparing to swallow whole the political system of that last superpower and grab so much of the wealth of the planet, leaving so little for others.

Whether you’re talking about the urge to control the planet militarily or financially, what took place in these years could, in the end, result in ruin of a historic kind. To use a favored phrase from the Bush years, one of these days we may be facing little short of “regime change” on a planetary scale. And what a piece of shock and awe that’s likely to prove to be.

All of us, of course, now live on the planet Bush’s boys tried to swallow whole. They left us in a world of infinite war, infinite harm, and in Donald Trump’s America where cluelessness has been raised to a new power.

Tom Engelhardt created and runs Tomdispatch.com, a project of The Nation Institute where he is a Fellow. His next book, A Nation Unmade by War (Dispatch Books), will be published later this month.

Is the Trans Mountain Pipeline (and Other Fossil Fuel Investments) a Future Stranded Asset?

Resilience

Building a world of resilient communities

Is the Trans Mountain Pipeline (and Other Fossil Fuel Investments) a Future Stranded Asset?

 By Martin Bush. Orig. pub in DeSmog Blog    June 11, 2018

Reposted with permission from ClimateZone.org.

The Dakota Access pipeline being installed between farms, as seen from 50th Avenue in New Salem, North Dakota. Credit: Tony Webster, CC By SA 2.0

Several major economies, including the U.S. and Canada, rely heavily on fossil fuel production and exports. But the surging market penetration of renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency improvements, and climate emission policies are certain to substantially reduce the global demand for fossil fuels.

In a seminal paper published a week ago in Nature Climate Change, researchers present the results of sophisticated multi-dimensional modeling of the macro-economic impacts of future technology transformations and climate change policy, as the demand for fossil fuels declines and the price of oil falls.

This is a peer-reviewed paper that was scrutinized by other experts for almost a year before it was accepted for publication. Its warnings should be taken seriously.

Irrespective of whether or not new climate policies are adopted, global demand growth for fossil fuels is already slowing due to the accelerating transition to a low carbon global economy. Given the pace of low-carbon technology market penetration, fossil fuel assets are likely to become stranded due to advances in renewable energy deployment, improvements in energy efficiency, and the electrification of the transportation sector.

There can be no doubt that a global energy transition is fully underway. Last year was another record-breaking year for renewable energy — characterized by the largest ever increase in renewable power capacity, falling costs, increased investment, and advances in enabling technologies.

Solar photovoltaic capacity installations were off the chart — nearly double those of wind power (in second place) — and adding more net capacity than coal, natural gas, and nuclear power combined. Check out the numbers.

The Paris Agreement aims to limit the increase in global average temperatures to below 2°C. Attaining this objective absolutely requires that a fraction of existing reserves of fossil fuels remain in the ground, and that a part of present production capacity remains unused — effectively becoming stranded assets.

Since investors had assumed that these reserves will be commercialized, the stocks of listed fossil fuel companies may soon be judged to be over-valued. This situation gives rise to the possibility of a “carbon bubble” — which may eventually burst with global economic consequences.

The modeling results show that the lower demand for fossil fuels leads to substantial stranded fossil fuel assets if climate change policies are not adopted. For individual countries, the effects vary depending on their  marginal costs of production, with oil production becoming concentrated in OPEC member countries–where costs are lower. Regions with higher marginal costs experience a steep decline in production (for instance Russia), or risk losing a substantial part of their oil and gas industries — like Canada and the U.S.

The Sell-out

The magnitude of the economic impact depends on a variety of factors. The analysis suggests that the behavior of low-cost producers and/or the adoption of 2°C policies can lead to an amplification of the losses. If low-cost producers decide to increase their ratio of production relative to reserves to outplay other asset owners and minimize their losses by selling out early–in effect a “sell-out” — this strategy has a major and very negative impact on higher cost producers.

The low carbon transition generates a modest GDP and employment increase in regions with limited exposure to fossil fuel production (for example, most of the EU and Japan). This is due to a reduction of the trade imbalance arising from fossil fuel imports, and higher employment arising from new investment in low carbon technologies. The improvement occurs despite the general increase in energy prices and hence costs for energy intensive industries.

However, fossil fuel exporters experience a steep decline in their output and employment due to the near shutdown of their fossil fuel industry. These patterns emerge even though there is only a modest overall impact on global GDP — indicating the impacts are primarily distributional with clear winners — the EU and China, and clear losers — the U.S. and Canada.

Gains and Losses

The figure below shows the gains and losses for major economies including the U.S. and Canada through to 2035.  The units are in trillions of U.S. dollars. The principal winners are the EU, China and India. The main losers are the U.S. and Canada.

Cumulative GDP gains and losses by country/region. Credit: Mercure et al., Nature Climate Change 2018. 

Although the U.S. losses are larger in absolute terms, the percentage loss of GDP for Canada is much larger — increasing to over 20 percent within the next ten years. Unemployment increases to around 8 percent over the same time frame. These projections are shown in the graphs below.

Percentage change in GDP. Credit: Mercure et al., Nature Climate Change 2018. 

For Canada, the higher marginal costs of oil sands production (including transport to tidewater via pipelines or oil trains) doom the industry to a future of increasingly curtailed production and stranded assets.

It’s in the context of these long term macroeconomic projections that the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline should be viewed. Within a decade there will be no market for the oil sands production of heavy oil and bitumen. Low-cost producers, sensing the end of an era, will start to sell off their assets. Oil prices will tumble.

It makes no sense to build a pipeline intended to increase production from the oil sands when even maintaining the existing level of production is seriously in doubt.

Justin Trudeau, now the proud owner of an obsolete and very expensive pipeline, should check the fine print.

Maybe he’s still got a few days where he can change his mind.

Capitalism is killing the planet and needs to change, says investor Jeremy Grantham

CNBC

Capitalism is killing the planet and needs to change, says investor Jeremy Grantham

“Capitalism and mainstream economics simply cannot deal with these problems. Mainstream economics largely ignore [them],” Grantham says.
“We deforest the land, we degrade our soils, we pollute and overuse our water and we treat air like an open sewer, and we do it all off the balance sheet,” he adds.

By Fred Imbert         June 13, 2018

Getty Images

Jeremy Grantham, the longtime investor famous for calling the last two major bubbles in the market, is urging capitalists and “mainstream economists” to recognize the looming threat of climate change.

“Capitalism and mainstream economics simply cannot deal with these problems. Mainstream economics largely ignore [them],” Grantham, who co-founded GMO in 1977, said Tuesday in an impassioned speech at the Morningstar Investment Conference in Chicago. “We deforest the land, we degrade our soils, we pollute and overuse our water and we treat air like an open sewer, and we do it all off the balance sheet.”

This negligence is due in large part to how short-sighted corporations can be, Grantham said. “Anything that happens to a corporation over 25 years out doesn’t exist for them, therefore, as I like to say, grandchildren have no value” to them, he said.

        Getty Images

2016 is likely to have been the hottest year since global temperatures were recorded in the 19th century.

Grantham has been outspoken about his concerns over climate change for years. In 1997, he started the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, which gives money to entities that look to protect the environment. Grantham’s company also launched the GMO Climate Change fund last year, which invests in wind and solar companies.

Throughout his presentation, Grantham cited a slew of data showing how climate change is impacting soil, grains, temperature as well as general human health. Those numbers, coupled with Grantham’s speech delivery, scared a lot of people in attendance at the conference.

Grantham also pointed out that many of the problems with how capitalists deal with climate change stem from the very nature of corporations. “A corporation’s responsibility is to maximize profit, not to spend money and figure out how to save the planet,” he said.

But Grantham added: “We’re racing to protect much more than our portfolios. … We’re racing to protect our grandchildren and our species, so get to it.”

Grantham correctly called the bursting of the dotcom bubble in 2000 as well as the sharp market downturn in 2008. These calls helped solidify his reputation in the investment world as a legendary investor. However, Grantham’s GMO has taken massive hits in recent years. The firm’s assets under management have dropped to $71 billion in March from about $124 billion in June 2014 following big bets on emerging markets.

MORE FROM CNBC

Cramer: Stocks aren’t down because market believes Trump is ‘right’ about trade

‘Trump is being played,’ says expert on the Koreas

This new water bottle could put the ‘squeeze’ on the $8 billion reusable water bottle industry

Scientists at a company part-owned by Bill Gates have found a cheap way to convert CO2 into gasoline

Trump and Kim have lunch: Here’s the guest list — and the menu

Elon Musk admits Tesla will have to turn a profit one day

Republicans propose penalties for states that oppose offshore drilling

The Hill

Republicans propose penalties for states that oppose offshore drilling

By Luis Sanchez       June 13, 2018

© Getty

House Republicans unveiled a draft proposal this week that would place fines on states that block offshore gas and oil drilling.

The Republican draft proposal, first reported by The Washington Post, will be discussed at the Natural Resources Committee on Thursday.

It would allow states to disapprove of offshore drilling for gas and oil in half of its lease blocks without facing any penalties.

However, states with proposed lease sales that disapprove of drilling in more than 50 percent of the blocks would have to pay a fee equal to at least one-tenth the estimated revenue the government would have made if it had leased the blocks.

The proposal also sets up a revenue-sharing scheme for states that allow drilling.

The move would help pressure local politicians to fall in line with President Trump’s plan to increase offshore leasing.

Earlier this year, Trump called for offshore drilling in nearly all U.S. coastal waters, negating a drilling ban former-President Obama imposed near the end of his term.

Many Democrats and some Republicans in coastal areas have resisted Trump’s plan, and some have pledged to keep the federal government from allowing offshore leasing in their states.

The pushback led Trump’s interior secretary, Ryan Zinke to tell Congress he would scale back Trump’s plan.

Democrats are opposed to the proposal, arguing it could cost states millions or billions in fees if they choose to oppose drilling.

Republicans on the committee have said that the proposal could still be changed, the Post reported.

Democrats Score Special Election Upset In Wisconsin District Trump Won Big

HuffPost

Democrats Score Special Election Upset In Wisconsin District Trump Won Big

Amanda Terkel, HuffPost         June 13, 2018 

Wisconsin Democrats scored a major upset victory Tuesday night, winning a state Senate seat in a district that went for Donald Trump by double digits in 2016.

Caleb Frostman defeated state Rep. Andre Jacque (R) for the open seat in District 1 that was previously held by state Sen. Frank Lasee (R), who resigned to take a job in Gov. Scott Walker’s administration. Frostman will be on the ballot again in November for the regular election.

Republicans held on to a state Assembly seat in District 42 that also held a special election Tuesday.

Although Frostman’s term is short, his win is a huge victory for the Democratic Party. Not only was the seat held by a Republican, but Trump defeated Democratic rival Hillary Clinton there by 17 points in the 2016 presidential election. Trump also won the state of Wisconsin overall.

“Tonight is a good night for Wisconsin Democrats,” said state party chair Martha Laning. “We continued a winning streak by flipping a red seat blue and electing Caleb Frostman to the state Senate, a 21-point swing from Trump’s 2016 performance.”

Frostman’s win is especially sweet for Democrats because Walker tried to prevent Tuesday’s contests from taking place to begin with. Both the vacancies were created when Walker tapped the incumbents to join his administration in December.

State law requires the governor to call special elections for vacancies that take place before May in an election year, but Walker had refused to do so.  He planned to keep them vacant until the regular elections in November. The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, a group led by former Attorney General Eric Holder, sued Walker ― and won.

Walker reluctantly called these special elections in March, knowing full well that Democrats had a real shot at flipping the seats.

In January, Democrat Patty Schachtner also had a surprise victory in a state Senate special election, succeeding in another district that had been held by Republicans and went to Trump by 17 points. At the time, Walker called the results a “wake-up call” for Republicans that there was a potential blue wave of Democratic wins coming in November.

“Scott Walker and his Republican allies gerrymandered this district for their own partisan benefit,” said Holder on Tuesday night, “but the citizens of Wisconsin are clearly speaking out this year to demand a state government that better represents their values.”

Democrats have flipped 43 state legislative seats from red to blue since Trump became president. Republicans have flipped seven from blue to red.

Related:

Tuesday’s special elections in Wisconsin: What you need to know

Green Bay Press Gazette

Tuesday’s special elections in Wisconsin: What you need to know

Patrick Marley, Milwaukee     June 11, 2018

       (Photo: Craig Gilbert / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

MADISON – Wisconsin will hold two closely watched special elections  Tuesday, the latest test of whether a “blue wave” could be coming this fall.

Why are the elections being held?

Tuesday’s elections will fill the seats of former Sen. Frank Lasse (R-De Pere) and former Rep. Keith Ripp (R-Lodi), who stepped down in December to take jobs in Gov. Scott Walker’s administration.

Walker didn’t call special elections at the time. Voters in those districts — with the help of a group run by former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder — sued and courts ruled Walker had to call the special election.

Who’s running?

In Senate District 1, Republican Rep Andre Jacque of De Pere faces Democrat Caleb Frostman, the former head of the Door County Economic Development Corp. The district includes all of Door and Kewaunee counties and parts of Brown, Manitowoc, Calumet and Outagamie counties.

In Assembly District 42, Republican Jon Plumer, a Lodi Town Board member and owner of karate schools, is running against Democrat Ann Groves Lloyd, a Lodi alderwoman and University of Wisconsin-Madison academic adviser.

The district is just north of Madison and includes most of Columbia County and parts of Dane, Dodge, Fond du Lac, Green Lake and Marquette counties.

     Caleb Frostman (left), the Democratic candidate in Tuesday’s special election for state Senate, talks to Sturgeon Bay voter Tom Fernandez.  (Photo: Craig Gilbert / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

Are the races being closely watched? 

Since President Donald Trump took office last year, 25 legislative and congressional seats have flipped from Republican to Democrat, according to Charles Franklin, a pollster and political scientist at Marquette University Law School. Just five have flipped the other way.

Among the seats that went to Democrats was a state Senate seat in western Wisconsin won by Patty Schachtner in January. Walker called that result a “wake-up call” that should warn Republicans they could be in trouble this fall.

Election experts say people shouldn’t draw too many conclusions from one election night, but Tuesday’s results could help guide the narrative about whether a “blue wave” is coming.

Candidates for Assembly District 42 seat meet in Lodi for candidate forum. WisconsinEye

How long will the winners hold the seats?

Not long. The districts are up for election again in November, so both the winners and the losers will have to stay in election mode.

Election observers say Tuesday’s winners will have an edge in the fall election, but no guarantee they will win again. Turnout in the fall is certain to be much higher in the fall than on Tuesday.

What’s at stake?

In one sense, the stakes are low because the seats will immediately be up for election again. In another, they’re high because the Senate seat is an important part of Democrats’ strategy to try to take over the upper house.

Republicans control the Senate 18-14 and Democrats would need to net three seats in the fall to take power in that house.

Republicans have a much firmer, 63-35 margin in the Assembly.

Two Truthless Leaders Just Signed an Agreement That Commits No One to Anything

Esquire

Two Truthless Leaders Just Signed an Agreement That Commits No One to Anything

The Trump-Kim summit on North Korean denuclearization concludes with…something.

By Charles P. Pierce     June 12, 2018

Getty Images

Every foot is the wrong foot.

Yes, it is better to talk than to rattle plutonium at each other. Yes, given the history of United States foreign policy going back at least to the 1890s, it is absurd to get hysterical about an American president meeting with bloodthirsty foreign leaders. Yes, to those of us who are old enough to remember the conservative howling when Jimmy Carter tried to make human rights central to American foreign policy, it is hilarious to hear conservatives waxing wroth about the subject now. Yes, yes, yes.

At the same time, this was a singularly absurd spectacle, as well as one of the strangest episodes in the history of cable news, a real-life anime exercise to rival all those shots of an empty podium that so enthralled the nation during the 2016 presidential campaign. Endless shots of an empty road in Singapore, “live coverage” of a closed-door meeting, of which there is no official record, between two of the most notorious bad-faith artists ever to lead sovereign nations. Meanwhile, pundits in Washington, D.C., practiced their remote viewing skills on camera.

Getty / Images

Then, there was this press conference to remind us who we’re dealing with here as our president*. I slept through it, and I feel confident that I made the right choice. From The Washington Post‘s transcript:

“Well, [Kim] is very talented. Anybody that takes over a situation like he did at 26 years of age and is able to run it and run it tough, I don’t say it was nice or I don’t say anything about it, he ran it. Very few people at that age, you can take one out of 10,000 probably couldn’t do it.”

“Otto Warmbier is a very special person and he will be for a long time in my life. His parents are good friends of mine. I think without Otto, this would not have happened. Something happened from that day. It was a terrible thing. It was brutal. But a lot of people started to focus on what was going on, including North Korea. I really think that Otto is someone who did not die in vain. I told this to his parents. A special young man and I have to say, special parents, special people. Otto did not die in vain. He had a lot to do with us being here today.”

Wow.

Getty / Images

“No. Not at all because if you look at it, I mean it said we are going to — let’s see here. It will be gone — I don’t think it can be anymore plain than what we’re asking, issues related to the establishment of the new U.S.-DPRK relations, the building. We talk about the guarantees. And we talk about unwavering commitment to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. This is the document that we just signed…Yes, we did. Yes, we did. And we’ll be verifying. Yes. We’ll be verifying. It will be verified.”

Oh, OK.

“He actually mentioned the fact that they proceeded down a path in the past and ultimately as you know nothing got done. In one case, they took billions of dollars during the Clinton regime. Took billions of dollars and nothing happened. That was a terrible thing. And he actually brought it up to me. And he said, we have never gone this far. I don’t think they’ve ever had the confidence, frankly, in a president that they have right now for getting things done and having the ability to get things done.”

Wait. Kim told him that North Korea had taken billions of dollars from the Clinton Administration and did nothing in return and now, what, Kim feels guilty about the whole thing? I find the credibility of this account…disturbing.

“Yes, we’ve done exercises for a long period of time working South Korea. And we call them war games, that I call them war games, and they’re tremendously expensive, the amount of money that we spend on that is incredible. And South Korea contributes but not a hundred percent, which is certainly a subject that we have to talk to them about also. And that has to do with the military expense and also the trade. So, we’re doing that, we actually have a new deal with South Korea in terms of the trade deal. But we have to talk them, and we have to talk to many countries about treating us fairly. But the war games are very expensive, we pay for a big majority of them, we fly in bombers from Guam, I said it when I first started, I said, where do the bombers come from? Guam, nearby, I said, “Oh, great. Nearby. Where is nearby? Six and a half hours. Six and a half hours? That’s a long time for these big massive planes to be flying to South Korea to practice and then drop bombs all over the place and then go back to Guam.”


Getty / Images

“I know a lot about airplanes, it’s very expensive…I think it’s very provocative, I have to tell you, Jennifer, it’s a very provocative situation. When I see that, and you have a country right next door, so under the circumstances that we are negotiating a very comprehensive, complete deal, I think it’s inappropriate to be having war games.”

As iodine shares skyrocket on the South Korean stock market.

“From the beginning, we got along. But there’s been a lot of ground work. This wasn’t like we went and we started talking about as you know, right? We didn’t just come in and start talking about these very complex subjects that have been going on for 70 years. We’ve been discussing this for months. And once the rhetoric stopped, once they did a great thing — North Korea did a great thing by going to the Olympics because the Olympics and President Moon will tell you this, the Olympics was not exactly doing great. People didn’t feel like being bombed out of the opening ceremonies. They weren’t exactly selling tickets. And as soon as the chairman, Chairman Kim, said “Let’s participate in the Olympics”, it sold like wildfire and was a great success as an Olympics. It was a great success. He did a great thing.”

Kim Jong-StubHub.

“I may be wrong, I mean I may stand before you in six months and say, ‘Hey I was wrong.’ I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that, but I’ll find some kind of an excuse.”

Most truthful thing he’s ever said. It’s the moment he became president*.

“As an example they’ve got great beaches… I explained, you could have the best hotels in the world right there. Think of it from a real estate perspective.”

Yeah, me too:

Beyond all that, and the equally strange interview with ABC’s George Stephanopolous, this was an anomalous exercise between two anomalous creatures of history. The two anomalous creatures signed an anomalous document that really doesn’t commit anyone to anything. There is really nothing to comment upon, except for the fact that an American president* met a leader of North Korea for the first time. There’s no reason for them to trust each other, and no reason for the rest of us to trust either of them.

And, besides, no country in the history of the world willingly has given up all its nuclear weapons once it had them. I am skeptical that North Korea under its present leadership is going to be the first one to do so. But, hey, maybe they really want a yacht club and a couple of casinos.

RELATED STORIES

Trump Said Something Honest About North Korea

These Photos of Trump and Kim Jong Un Are Weird

Dennis Rodman Interview Was One for Our Times

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page here.

Rising CO2 poses bigger climate threat than warming, study says

UPI – Home / Science News

Rising CO2 poses bigger climate threat than warming, study says

New research suggests geo-engineering efforts designed to encourage cooling and reduce rising temperatures are likely to do little to prevent damaging weather extremes.

By Brook Hays     June 12, 2018

New research suggests CO2 concentrations are a better predictor of the extreme weather events associated with global warming. Photo by Reinhard Tiburzy/Shutterstock

June 12 (UPI) — Even if global warming is curbed and the increase in global temperature is limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius, scientists warn rising CO2 concentrations could still trigger a dangerous increase in extreme weather.

Broadly speaking, more CO2 translates to higher temperatures, but the relationship between atmosphere and climate is complex, and scientists say there are scenarios in which warming could be limited to 1.5 degrees, despite a sizable increase in atmospheric CO2.

New climate models developed by researchers at the University of Bristol and the University of Oxford suggest CO2 levels, not global temperatures, are a better predictor of the most damaging consequences of climate change.

“Future work is needed to confirm exactly why we see this direct CO2 effect, but current research points to a combination of circulation and cloud cover changes, and an increase in the amount of direct radiation on the Earth’s surface due to simply having more CO2 in the atmosphere,” Hugh Baker, a PhD student in physics at Oxford, said in a news release.

In a new study, published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, scientists argued climate change mitigation agreements need set targets for atmospheric CO2.

The new research suggests geo-engineering efforts designed to encourage cooling and reducing rising temperatures are likely to do little to prevent damaging weather extremes.

“Geo-engineering techniques that reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth’s surface are increasingly thought of as a way of achieving the Paris Goals because they decrease surface temperature,” said Bristol scientist Dann Mitchell. “However, our results show that for extreme climate such as heatwaves, changing the global mean temperature is not enough, you need to reduce CO2 concentrations themselves.”

Related UPI Stories

Study reveals missing drivers of ocean deoxygenation

Taking CO2 out of the air is more economical than scientists thought

Atmospheric CO2 levels in April hit highest average ever recorded

First global CO2 maps published using China’s TanSat data

Incredible footage of a rare White Moose has been captured in Sweden.

Native American Wisdom

February 13, 2018

Incredible footage of a rare White Moose has been captured in Sweden. There are only an estimated 100 of them left in the country!!

*BeatyWhiteMoose*

Incredible footage of a rare White Moose has been captured in Sweden. There are only an estimated 100 of them left in the country!!Please Post where you're from so i can track how far the video going…?💞Thankyou💖💗

Posted by Native American Wisdom on Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Water wars! Investors looking to profit off water shortages, including the Colorado River.

DeSmogBlog

June 11, 2018

Investors are eyeing water shortages as investment opportunities including the Colorado River which provides water for 40 million Americans.

Water wars? Investors look to profit off of water shortages

Investors are eyeing water shortages as investment opportunities including the Colorado River which provides water for 40 million Americans.

Posted by DeSmogBlog on Monday, June 11, 2018