Sandy Beats Up Romney - How Climate Change Changed the 2012 Election

In the 2012 presidential election, climate change was not a prominent agenda issue for either President Obama or Governor Romney-until Hurricane Sandy washed ashore. The topic never came up in the presidential debates. President Obama did not mention it because he was accused of promulgating regulations that had stymied business expansion and slowed recovery from the Great Recession. Governor Romney did not mention it because he had been an advocate of a proactive government policy on global warming while Governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007). However, during the brutal Republican primaries, Romney reversed his position to appeal to the ultra conservative Tea Party Republicans. He did not want to call attention to that reversal during the general election.

Just before the election, the populous East Coast saw a live Climate Change Production named Hurricane Sandy. Millions of New Englanders lost power-some for weeks. According to FOX Business (Smith 2012) insured property losses exceeded $20B and economic damage exceeded $50B-exceeded only by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

In contrast to President's Bush's lackadaisical and incompetent response to Hurricane Katrina, President Obama responded quickly and forcefully. In the aftermath, the mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, endorsed Obama for President. Bloomberg asked conservative pundits, Tea Party Congressmen, and other climate change skeptics to explain two hurricanes and a freak October snowstorm in a single year to his suffering constituents. The Republican Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, stood at the President's side and enthusiastically thanked him for the help of the federal government.

In contrast, the 2012 hurricane season was devastating for Governor Romney. First Hurricane Isaac interfered with the Republican National Convention in Florida where he was nominated; then Hurricane Sandy made him look opportunistic regarding his reversal on the climate change issue, while she made Obama look presidential--on the ground, at the scene, being hugged by a grateful Republican governor.

Still conservative businessmen, like the Koch Brothers, and the philosophical brethren in Congress, whose elections they finance, deny the reality of climate change. Under the fear mongering banners of job losses, double dip recession and oppressive government regulations, they assert that one super storm, such as Hurricane Sandy, does not prove global warming. They are right, of course. In any context, one event cannot prove a pattern. However, Hurricane Sandy was more than an isolated event. The melting of the Arctic ice cap is not a one-summer phenomenon. It has been progressing with increasing speed as the climate has been warming for decades. In November, the National Climate Data Center reported that October 2012 marked the 332nd consecutive month that global land and ocean surface temperatures were above the 20th century average for that month. In 2007 ships actually began crossing the Arctic Ocean through the "Northwest Passage"-the shortcut to the Far East that Columbus tried to find 500 years ago.

Hurricane Sandy's destructive power was accentuated by the one foot rise in sea levels that has resulted from the gradual melting of the Arctic ice cap. So even in the unlikely case that Sandy was a random meteorological event, the extent of damage must be laid at the feet of global warming.

There has been international consensus on climate change for over a decade-except in the United States. According to a Brookings Institute poll (Borick et.al. 2011), in 2010, 80 percent of Canadians believed that global warming was a serious concern. In contrast, only 58 percent of Americans felt that way. A longitudinal term Gallup poll (Newport 2010) of Americans showed an even more dramatic public opinion shift away from concern with global warming. Between 1998 and 2010 the number of Americans who felt the "seriousness of global warming is greatly exaggerated" rose from 30 percent to 48 percent.

The Koch Brothers efforts to diffuse the issue of the effects of carbon dioxide emissions succeeded-at least until Hurricane Sandy. Koch Industries has huge investments in coal production and in oil production and the pipelines to deliver it. They funneled grant money to a few scientists, like Richard Muller at the University of California-Berkeley, to dispute the reality of global warming, or at least dispute the impact of human activities on changing temperatures. Thus, they prevented a 100 percent scientific consensus. Because it appeared that scientists disagreed, American citizens had an easy way to deny climate change and avoid life style changes.

However, in mid 2012 Professor Muller reversed his position because, as he said in a July 28th New York Times Op-Ed, his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project had just determined that the earth was getting warmer and that human activities were to blame. A few months later, Professor Muller (with Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels) wrote "The Frackers Guide to a Greener World." In their November 11th Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, they laud natural gas as the green answer to global warming because it produces less greenhouse gases than oil or coal and the U.S. has lots of it. The Koch Brothers are probably still happy with "their man in academia;" they are heavily invested in the new natural gas boom.

Scientists, and those political leaders who took science seriously, had concluded that the earth was warming almost a generation earlier (Gore 1992). Ecologists understood that small increases in average worldwide temperatures would ripple across physical and biological processes in the ecosystem. They understood that some of those changes would gather momentum and cascade rather than attenuate with time and space.

The climate has changed in both directions in the past. Some scientists have postulated that a major warming resulted from the carbon dioxide and methane in dinosaur flatulence (Khan 2012). When the planet was very warm, vegetation grew across polar regions. When the dinosaurs went extinct, carbon dioxide and methane levels dropped as more carbon was stored in vegetation and less carbon dioxide was released. by herbivores.. As the earth cooled, the uneaten vegetation was preserved in permafrost and was covered by accumulating snow--which compressed into vast ice sheets. The white snow reflected the suns rays to further cool the planet. Now as the earth again warms the ice melts, the darker organic matter is exposed and attracts more heat from the sun. As the permafrost melts, the organic matter is exposed to oxygen and rots--producing carbon dioxide, which warms the climate which thaws the permafrost even more quickly which releases even more carbon dioxide--reinforcing the process. All the while, melting of the ice caps causes the sea levels to keep rising, giving Hurricane Sandy (and her successors) more punch at the levies and a knock out punch at Romney--a presidential candidate who had chosen to deny her cause.

References:

Borick, C., E. Lachapelle and B. Rabe 2011 "Climate Compared: Public Opinion on Climate Change in the United States and Canada," Issues in Government studies #39, Brookings Institute

Gore, A. 1992 Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Barnes and Noble: New York, NY

Khan, A 2012 Los Angeles Times May 8

Muller, R. 2012 "The Conversion of a Climate Change Skeptic." New York Times July 28

Muller, R, and M. Daniels 2012 "The Frackers Guide to Greener World," Wall Street Journal Nov. 11

Newport, F. 2010 "American's Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop," Gallup Politics Mar. 11

Smith, S. 2012 "Super Storm Sandy Hits ETFs," FoxBusiness Nov. 19

Lowell Klessig has explored a broad range of academic disciples. He took courses in 45 departments, in 8 colleges at 2 universities. He received a BS in Biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a MAT in Molecular Biology at Vanderbilt University, a MS in Sociology and a Ph.D. in Environmental Management and Resource Planning from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Dr Klessig taught at Northland College, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and throughout Wisconsin as a Natural Resource Specialist, Extension Service, USDA. Concurrently, he also served as Executive Director of the Wisconsin Rural Leadership Program (now Leadership Wisconsin).

He has studied nature and culture in 54 countries. He has lectured on "Social Sustainability" to a variety of audiences on three continents.

In addition to two books and articles in professional journals, Dr. Klessig has authored numerous non-technical publications for adult audiences. He has written a monthly column for a Midwestern newspaper, does occasional magazine features and has written OP-EDs for newspapers in several states.

In retirement, he lectures as an Emeritus Professor of Human Dimensions of Natural Resource Management, writes social commentary, farms (has for 32 years), manages woodland, travels, serves on local government and non-profit organization boards and ice fishes.

View the original article here

Romney and Obama: Election Issues - Who Will Win the Election? - Who Will Be President?

Romney and Obama! This is of primary interest this fall. Who will win the election? Who will be President? What are the main election issues that are involved?

As a lawyer, I know that nailing the issues of a situation is vitally important. We know if we don't win the main issues, we lose our case. It's the same in politics as in the courtroom: the things people are most affected by are the main election issues of the campaign.

We all know that charisma, charm and likeability play too big a role in politics. It's often the one who smiles the most, shakes the most hands, and gives the best speeches who wins the election - national, state or local. Ability often plays a lesser role. But issues don't. Both Romney and Obama must nail the election issues.

America: Back to the Basics

I wrote a book with the above title. I wrote it for the Bush vs. Dukakis election of 1988. My slogan was, "Campaigning for America, not for political office." It was a book about getting back to the basics of a Constitutional, moral, ethical, caring America.

I tried to revive John F. Kennedy's slogan from 1960: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." I got on many radio and T.V. talk shows, and lots of people wanted to talk about this. So it was well timed for a political election. People knew we were getting too far away from a moral, Constitutional America.

Romney's 47% Remark

The news is telling us that Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, made a remark about 47% of the people in the U.S. not paying federal income taxes, and being too dependent on the U.S. government for support.

I feel this will be one of the major issues of the 2012 election.

What Can My Country Do For Me?

Sadly, JFK's words of 1960 have been put into dry-dock, and they have been changed to say, "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you."

We have a different America today than we had in 1960, or even in 1988 when I wrote my book. Unemployment compensation, and other temporary assistance programs are necessary. People get in hard times and need a helping hand for a period of time.

But sadly, there are many, many people with their hand out trying to grab anything they can get. And I don't just mean beggars on the street corner.

The issues for many people will be, "Which candidate can give me the most?" - "Which candidate will benefit me the most?" It has been said many times that more and more people are tuned into radio station WIIFM: 'what's in it for me?'

This mode of thinking will be a primary issue in the 2012 election. If they get their say, it will drive America further downhill. We will be given more and more assistance, and we'll become addicted to it even more.

What Can I Do For My County?

In case you haven't noticed, America needs help. We are very rapidly heading for a crash we will not be able to recover from. Our founding fathers predicted this if we ever let government get out of control and become too big. This is the situation today.

Many people just what to see it get bigger with their WIIFM thinking.

Those of us who don't subscribe to this must get out and vote in November, and we must urge everyone we know who is like-minded to do the same. There is not much we can do about what is happening, but we can vote. "The power of one" is still the name of the game.

We live in the greatest nation on earth. But she may not remain so if we don't act. Romney and Obama: what are the election issues? Who will win the election? Who will be president? Who will be the best president for America? We are the judge, but we must issue a ruling and vote.

Roger Himes, The Lawyer, Business Coach: http://www.rocksolidbusinesscoach.com/ - and The Gospel Life Coach: http://www.thegospelcoach.com/. Also read daily Tweets on Twitter from the Gospel Coach: Twitter dot com -- /TheGospelCoach

View the original article here

The Pandering to Women Voters in US Presidential Elections - Observations From the 2012 Election

Apparently, the pollsters for the 2012 presidential election had noted that many women voters are still undecided, and a good many of them are leaning left, rather than right. Therefore there is a big fight and charge to pander to these women voters, and address all the issues they feel important. Now then, you must understand that women voters make up half of our country, so they are the largest and most important group for these candidates. Nevertheless the amount of pandering going on between the candidates and their women voters is getting to be laughable. Let's look at some examples shall we?

We noted on the first debate that President Obama came right out and stated it was his anniversary and he'd rather be spending it with his wife, rather than in front of 45 million people, which was the assumed number of people who would be watching the debates, it turned out it was quite a bit more. Nevertheless, that was a planned statement, and it was geared towards speaking to the women voters, it was a political strategy. I find that a little unnerving, even though it is plausibly deniable that the Obama reelection campaign strategists didn't plan it, but sure they did and we all know it.

There were several other attempts to pander to women during the debates, and it is quite evident in all of their stump speeches. It is as evident as the 10s of millions of dollars being spent on advertising to purely Spanish-speaking Hispanic news outlets by the Obama campaign. If we really are a great melting pot, and we are all considered equal, we should all be spoken to as adults, and this pandering needs to stop, it's getting to be pathetic. Indeed, in many regards it's happening on both sides so we shouldn't just pick on the Obama campaign, although they are ahead with the women voters currently due to their focus on this voting demographic segment.

Another thing we notice is many of the commentators on TV who are women and the women anchors are saying that they were offended by the belligerent attitude and debating style that they had witnessed. That's interesting because women in politics have always been rather hard-hitting, and all the women I know who are involved in politics are pretty intense themselves. Are the TV news commentators trying to mold the election and the process, or are they just as tired as I am about turning our national discussion on very important matters into nothing more than a two-minute tit-for-tat cat fight? Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.

View the original article here

Romney Beats Obama 55-36 in Physician Election Poll

Physicians overwhelmingly support Republican challenger Mitt Romney by 19 points over President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, according to a new poll.

In a 3,600-physician survey that was administered last month, 55% of respondents said they'd vote for Romney, whereas just 36% said they'd choose Obama, according to a poll from physician staffing firm Jackson & Coker.

Doctors who preferred Romney are more likely to be male and retain an ownership stake in their practices. Specialties that skewed toward Romney include anesthesiology, ophthalmology, surgery, and radiology.

Not surprisingly, dissatisfaction with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - one of Obama's signature legislative achievements - ran high among physician supporters of Romney. Romney supporters were more likely to favor a "repeal-and-replace" approach to the ACA, according to the survey.

"The ACA without tort reform... is discriminatory to doctors," said one respondent. "If we are going to be governed by consumer laws, then we should have all the protection that any business and free enterprise receives including unionization, collective bargaining, and ability to fix our prices for services not by the government."

In contrast, Obama physician supporters were more likely to be female and employed by a hospital or health system. Psychiatrists, pediatricians, and addiction medicine physicians also were more likely to support Obama.

"Affordable, high-quality healthcare, including education, lifestyle adjustments, and preventive measures, must be available to all persons living in this country," said another respondent. "We cannot afford to have a significant underclass of sickly people unable to participate fully in our economy."

Among physicians, the split between more conservative practice owners and more liberal employed doctors was the subject of a 2011 New York Times article that noted the evolving political views of those in the medical profession.

"There are no national surveys that track doctors' political leanings, but as more doctors move from business owner to shift worker, their historic alliance with the Republican Party is weakening," the article noted.

For example, the American Medical Association supported the ACA, a significant change for a group that opposed "almost every major health overhaul proposal for nearly a century," the Times reported.

In the Jackson & Coker survey, here's how survey respondents self-identified their party affiliations: 35% Republican, 24% Democrat, 26% Independent, 6% Libertarian, and 7% unaffiliated.

Fifteen percent of the survey's respondents said they voted for Obama in 2008 but planned on switching their vote to the GOP this year. Among those physicians, the ACA and Obama's leadership style were the most frequently cited reasons for the change.

The survey was emailed to more than 133,000 physicians and yielded a response rate of 3%, according to Jackson & Coker.

View the original article here

US Election 2012 - Mitt Romney's "Lehman" Moment?

Besides picking Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin for his vice-president, there was a key and decisive moment on John McCain's campaign in 2008. It was in September, when the unexpected and surprising default of Lehman Brothers was announced. The Arizona Senator commented by saying that the base of the American Economy are solid. Barack Obama had a different approach and point of view, criticizing the irresponsibility of Wall Street. That was the moment that the American Electors decided which of the 2 candidates "deserved" to be at the White House for the next 4 years.

Yesterday, several Republicans noted that Romney's comments about Obama's Administration response to the unexpected e surprising attack to the United States diplomatic mission at Benghazi and the United States embassy in Cairo, as his "Lehman moment".

The declarations of the ex-Massachusetts governor, which accused the President of apologizing in America's name and insinuated a subservience to the Islamic regime, were immediately criticized by both sides of the political spectrum, diplomatic body and public opinion. The Republican candidate disrespected the deal of not campaigning on the September 11th memorial and ignored the tradition of not using National Tragedies to try and score political points.

But worst for Mitt Romney is that he decided to speak before knowing all the facts and in the end e made a wrong declaration of what happened at Libya and Egypt and Washington's reaction.

Under pressure, Romney made another mistake. Instead of correcting the mistake, he reaffirmed what he said earlier and his former critics. President Obama didn't waste any time noting that Romney likes to shoot first and then aiming. Questioned about the eventual irresponsibility of the Republican candidate, the President answered that the answer will be given by the American people.

Now that the Foreign Policy is the main issue for debate, it seems that Mitt Romney's aspirations to the White House are becoming thinner. Focusing just on the Economic side of the Obama's run seems to be a strategy that has to be reviewed if the Republicans want to be back to the White House after the 2012 Election. The October 3rd debate between the two candidates would be the perfect moment for Mitt Romney to put Obama under pressure on issues like Foreign Policy and Health for example, but the problem is that it seems that the Republican candidate doesn't feel at ease when speaking about these subjects.

Time to wait and see what the next weeks bring...

For more info, polls, news and much more check out http://uspresidential2012.blogspot.com/

View the original article here

The Presidential Election - A Season of Fantasy, Falsehood and Fabrication

I'd have to give the edge in the presidential debate to Mitt Romney. Of course it is easier to play offense than defense in such a contest. The president, who himself ran on a platform of hope and change in 2008 has, in four years, succeeded at getting more people to hope for change.

Both candidates want people to believe they can in fact change things for the better. But real, substantive change is nowhere in the offing. The election season fantasy we so enjoy is not how life works.

Every four years the presidential election cycle treats Americans to a spectacle of fantasy, falsehood and fabrication. This is an opportunity for supposedly rational and intelligent people to entertain the notion of Santa Claus - a mythically powerful person who fulfills dreams - coming to the rescue. We just wake up on inauguration morning and our something for nothing fantasy is realized - stockings are stuffed, presents abound, and peace, love and joy reign. Appealing isn't it? The truth is, however, Christmas morning celebrations are not the product of a mysterious individual swooping around the globe bearing gifts, it is the work of countless people giving of themselves so that others might benefit. This is how life works.

Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney seem like decent, caring men who genuinely want to do good. The question is, do they believe what they are saying? I ask this not as a test of authenticity and faith in the vision they present, but rather to ascertain whether they have the practical knowledge and knowhow to do what they say. A determined demeanor and appealing rhetoric are an incomplete formula for success. A strong, productive, free and prosperous America sounds great, but making that happen will take more than a flight of fancy. Real work is involved. The status quo would have to change in a big way and changing the status quo, one that benefits so many, is a daunting prospect.

Politicians operate from a basis of fantasy, falsehood and fabrication because we, the people, are children at heart. We want to believe in super heroes and easy, instantaneous change. We have deluded ourselves for so long, we have come to expect that by casting a ballot we can generate a new reality. Politicians have learned to tell people what they want to hear despite the facts, because we want to believe someone else has the power - someone can in fact change things. By relying on them, the salesman asking for a vote, I won't have to do anything. I won't have to confront the bitter facts. I won't have to assume responsibility for the mess. And I won't have to make the difficult choices and take the necessary, painful steps to right the course.

The truth is a presidential candidate will not, and cannot, do the vast majority of things he claims he absolutely will do. Hope in awe-inspiring rhetoric allows for a fleeting flight of imagination that someone else can change my life for the better. After all they are clamoring unceasingly to be given the chance - all I need do is allow them the opportunity. This election season dance nurtures the expectation that we're not, nor do we need to be, responsible - someone else can and will take care of us. Unerringly the dance ends poorly - as this election cycle will prove - because that just isn't how life works.

Real change comes from one place only. If we want to change our circumstances and our world we have to change ourselves. Despite all the political promises to the contrary, that is how life works.

Scott F. Paradis, author of "Success 101 How Life Works - Know the Rules, Play to Win" and "Warriors, Diplomats, Heroes, Why America's Army Succeeds - Lessons for Business and Life" focuses on the fundamental principles of leadership and success; http://success101workshop.com/

View the original article here