Collapse

Greenpeace warns of the danger faced by two ecosystems:

The Amazon

The "Zero Forest" bill (PL 6424/2005) currently before the Brazilian Congress would substantially weaken Brazil's Forest Code. Currently, privately owned land must maintain at least 80% of the original vegetation. Zero Forest would reduce that to 50%. (You can sign the petition against Zero Forest here.) Business interests are also attempting to remove protections for areas that have more stringent protections, areas like mountaintops and the rivers themselves. And business interests are trying to have the states instead of the federal government regulate deforestation. As the states make their income from taxing these businesses, the states have more of an incentive to be lax with deforestation regulations.

Deforestation would be emphysema to the "World's Lungs," destroying the most biodiverse region on the planet and releasing stored greenhouse gases. Important species, possibly including medicinal plants, have yet to be discovered. And the problem is more than a simple environmental one. Tribes native to the region depend on the forest, and 85% of slaves in Brazil are found in deforested regions of the Amazon.

The Bering Sea

The Bering's pollock fishery is in danger of collapse, losing 50% of its population in just one year. The population drop is so significant that seals and sea lions are washing up on Alaskan shores, dead from starvation. And again, the problems are more than environmental. Destroying the pollock fishery is obviously not in the long-term interest of the fishing industry or the Alaskan coastal towns that depend on it.

But there is no need for a tragedy of the commons scenario. The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council can set fishing limits. (You can write to the Council here.) However, the Council met last week and reduced the 2009 pollock catch limit by only 18.5%; Greenpeace denounced the reduction as a "half-measure," having urged a 55% reduction.

What You Can Do

Besides writing and petitioning through the links provided above, you can donate to Greenpeace here.

Lies and Blinking

"This is the narcissism of partisan. You get furiously outraged at the other campaign's lies, and you love your own. Nonetheless, I do think it is fair to say that the McCain campaign has been more egregious than the Obama campaign." --David Brooks

John McCain is drawing criticism for claims he's making about Barack Obama, even from the normally welcoming ladies on The View:

In one of the two ads to which Joy Behar is referring, McCain accuses Obama of sexism for saying, "You can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig." But Obama wasn't insulting Sarah Palin; he was referring to the McCain-Palin ticket's attempt to portray themselves as agents of change. And compare Obama's comment to Palin's "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick," and McCain's saying the same thing about Hillary Clinton's health care plan during the primaries.

The other ad accuses Obama of perversely wanting to teach comprehensive sex ed to kindergartners, when he really supports teaching what constitutes inappropriate behavior from adults.

And while speaking in Missouri last week, McCain said that Obama's health care plan would "force small businesses to cut jobs and reduce wages and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor." Even though Obama's plan drew criticisms in the Democratic primaries for not forcing all Americans into a government-run system. Said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, "I would say this is an inaccurate and false characterization of the Obama plan. I don’t use those words lightly.”

"We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target." --Sarah Palin

On the New York Times' most-emailed list lie at least three editorials criticizing Sarah Palin's naïveté. And why not? Her ignorance is shocking even if you're not an Eastern media elite. (Side note:

Perhaps Mitt Romney thinks he's a reporter for the Daily Show?)

Palin argued that Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her better insight into Russian affairs. Can you "[i]magine the derisive laughter in conservative circles if the Democrats had tried such nonsense"?

She was completely ignorant of the Bush Doctrine. Talking heads later argued that most Americans couldn't explain the Bush Doctrine, but how many of them are running for vice president? Others have argued that several policies could be labeled that way, but Palin seems completely unaware that the label exists at all.

She claimed that our soldiers in Iraq are fighting "the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans." In short, Sarah Palin's ignorance is frightening, reflects poorly on McCain, and is oddly reminiscent of Bush circa 2000.

It is also nicely satirized by Tina Fey: