Fear For (Not Of) Obama

When Jesse Jackson came to my college campus on a campaign stop in the spring of 1988, my classmates and I were awed by his speech. We cheered wildly. We sang classic protest songs, mocked Ronald Reagan, and looked toward a future closer to MLK's vision than we saw in the world around us.

I also remember the Secret Service agents that swarmed our campus that day, and later sitting a few feet away from one of them, a man wearing a suit and mirrored aviator sunglasses in a gym that had to be 90 degrees. Sweat ran down his face but he did not blink or wipe it off. Armed agents surrounded the stage and even sat among us, "undercover," posing as students. (We knew they weren't students because their clothes were all wrong-- this was Portland when grunge was simply the way we dressed and not yet a marketing tool. The female agents wore skirts without combat boots!)

But one of my most lasting impressions from Jackson's visit was fear for him-- fear that he would win the nomination and be killed before the election. A decade later, in 1998, I stood on the balcony of the Lorainne Hotel in Memphis, in the very spot where Dr. King was shot and fell into the arms of his friends, including Jesse Jackson. I thought back to that 1988 campaign stop and for a moment was glad that Jackson hadn't won, despite my voting for him; once again I feared the violent, racist past was really still with us.

Today, twenty years after that campaign rally that fear has once again raised its head. Few will talk about it, fewer still will write about it in the US. But if you read the papers from outside the country it's all over the place: people are worried that the grisly American tradition of killing our youngest, brightest leaders may not be dead. Barack Obama, they warn, will be a target.

Here's an example from an Australian newspaper that captured this concern today:

Listing the scores of assassinations and attempts that have haunted the US presidency, I suggested that now any number of racist maniacs, enraged by the prospect of a black president, must be plotting to kill the Democratic front-runner. As past assassinations (and numerous close calls) remind us, no president can be totally protected.

No country since ancient Rome has experienced the killing of so many leaders. The subject came up when I was preparing to interview the author of The New Rome?, a fine piece of political writing by Cullen Murphy, managing editor of The Atlantic Monthly for more than 20 years. He was concerned that I'd raise the issue of Obama being assassinated because every Australian interviewer had done so. In contrast, he said, no one in the US media has raised the possibility.

I copped the blame, knowing of no other Australian commentator who had raised the issue. And I knew I would have self-censored if my column appeared in a US paper rather than The Australian. As many US journalists must be doing. To discuss even the possibility of an Obama assassination in the US would be asking for trouble. Throwing accelerant on the flames of insanity in a nation with a blood-soaked history, with far more than its share of home-grown terrorists and far too many guns. [Philip Adams, The Australian, 2/26/08]

So the old fear is back. One would hope we've moved beyond this. Even though we're afraid to talk about it, I'm sure many of us are also hoping the Secret Service is doing an extra good job these days, perhaps trading in the mirrored aviators for something a bit less 80s looking but still on the job, refusing to blink. Hopefully the college students who flock to see Obama aren't thinking about MLK, RFK, or even John Hinkley or Squeeky Fromme. But it's hard for me to forget, and hard not to worry.

It's going to be a long election season. For many reasons.

My latest newspaper column: Push Candidates on Climate

Times Writers Group: Push candidates on climate
By Derek Larson
Saint Cloud (MN) Times

Published: February 06. 2008 12:30AM


As we rush toward the November elections, voters would do well to reflect on three developments in January, all of which underscore the need for voters to press presidential candidates on issues related to climate change.

Only through a considered change of leadership and a well-reasoned approach to the global climate crisis will we reclaim our traditional position as a nation that, at its best, unites people to solve common problems for the good of all the world's citizens.

In the first story, the League of Conservation Voters released an analysis of the major Sunday-morning network political talk shows that tracked questions asked of the presidential candidates during 2007. Of 2,938 questions only six were on global warming. This despite polls showing large majorities of Americans are concerned about the issue and significant time spent by many candidates discussing their climate and energy strategies on the stump.

Second, a range of speakers at the annual Washington conference sponsored by the National Council for Science and the Environment made it clear that the climate situation is much worse than most people think. Indeed, the debate has shifted significantly from "is it happening" to "just how bad will it be?"

Danger zone

Conference participants were dominated by discussion of how close we are to the dividing line between "dangerous" and "catastrophic" disruption of the global climate system. With this shift in emphasis comes a new way of categorizing responses, captured handily in three terms: mitigation, adaptation and suffering.

Mitigation incorporates all the things we might do to avoid making things worse than what's already bound to happen based on past emissions: reducing carbon, becoming more energy efficient, addressing the global imbalance in energy use, and other familiar responses.

Adaptation reflects how we will deal with unavoidable climate disruptions. The amount of human-induced change in the atmosphere already guarantees significant changes to weather patterns, sea levels and precipitation regimes worldwide. Many of these will be serious enough to require major changes in patterns of human life, economics, settlement and agriculture.

Suffering is a dependent variable: The more we invest in mitigation and adaptation, the less people will suffer.

The third development was the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where politicians and capitalist heavyweights talked about the global economy.

One of the more interesting events at Davos was a discussion about the confluence of poverty and climate change during which rock musician and anti-poverty activist Bono observed that the growing global climate disruption may be the first calamity in human history to be predicted in advance. He noted that many significant global reforms in 20th century came in the wake of major calamities: the League of Nations after World War I, the United Nations after World War II and the plodding but steady trend toward globalization after the Cold War.

What to expect

The challenges of global climate change exceed all of these in scope and impact, but we have the distinct advantage of knowing, at least to some extent, what to expect in advance. As Bono rightly pointed out, this offers the opportunity to reduce the scale of suffering for many millions if we plan now to avoid changes that will otherwise produce the critical famines, refugee crises and possibly even wars of the 21st century.

Near the end of Bono's discussion moderator Thomas Friedman of The New York Times noted wryly that "It is far more important to change leaders than light bulbs." That is where we come in. Most of the remaining presidential candidates — including McCain, Obama and Clinton — have taken responsible positions on climate change and would likely reverse the foot-dragging that has characterized the Bush administration's approach if elected.

It is our responsibility as Americans and members of the world community to push the candidates on this issue, to demand a Marshall Plan or Apollo project on climate. We should do the same with candidates at all levels of government.

While we cannot recapture the years lost to the denial of overwhelming scientific evidence, we can help our country regain its moral authority and do what it does best: rally the world to develop solutions for a problem far beyond the ability of any single nation to solve on its own.

Super Turnout Tuesday in Minnesota, Obama Wins

Turnout far exceeded any predictions for Minnesota's caucuses. Many precincts are reporting 10-20 times the turnout as 2004. At my caucus site in St. Cloud party officials sent out for more ballots-- twice. In my precinct the vast majority of voters had not attended a caucus before; those of us who had were listed on pre-printed rosters while newcomers signed in on blank sheets at a 3-to-1 rate. They had to send out for more blank sheets as well. It was great to see so many people from our neighborhood turn out, including many college students and other young people who were first time participants.

The turnout news was great. So was the fact that Obama won by a very large margin. At least Minnesota Democrats recognize Hillary Clinton as a moderate, corporate Democrat with negatives so high she stands no chance of winning the general election. Hopefully exit polling will tell us if Obama won because he's been successful at reaching voters, or because people were voting against Hillary.

As I type Fox News is reporting a 68-32 Obama victory with 55% of precincts reporting.

Consumed? See "The Story of Stuff"

Here's a great 20 min video about the impact of our high consumption American lifestyle. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're nuts.

The Story of Stuff http://www.storyofstuff.com/