Kansas: Nancy Boyda takes lead over Ryun & the Netroots helps her raise money

By Diane Silver

The times may be seriously changin'...

Democrat Nancy Boyda just released another poll showing that she has a slight lead over incumbent Republican Congressman Jim Ryun. With the margin of error, it's safe to say that the race is neck-and-neck.

Meanwhile, Ryun's staff downplayed her poll at the same time they refused to release any of Ryun's internal polling. Such a stand leads political observers, well at least this observer, to think that Ryun's own numbers aren't that good.

When the campaign started, pundits talked as if the voting was a mere formality. The seat of the former Olympic star was seen as being the safest of the safe.

The fact that the Boyda campaign has any life, though, shows the depth of voters' anger at Republican incumbents -- and the fact that this is happening in Kansas, of all places, is truly fascinating. At the same time, Boyda hasn't broadcast a single commercial, as far as I know. Imagine what she could do if she had some money.

Whether this anger translates into a victory for Boyda and/or a Democratic takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives remains to be seen.

Speaking of money, AMERICAblog.com -- one of the biggest liberal blogs -- is now actively soliciting donations for Boyda. This is the first time the netroots have taken up her cause.

Reactions to the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling on equal protection for gay unions

The New Jersey Supreme Court certainly got everyone's attention. The day after the decision came down, Doug Ireland -- a gay man who very much supports same sex marriage -- worried about the potential backlash on the progressive ezine TomPaine.com.

The Washington Post says the right wing has leaped on it in the hope that they can use it to turn out their conservative base on November 7. Bush ran around the country talking about "activist judges" and calling heterosexual marriage a "sacred institution," according to The Post.

But even The Post praised the ruling on its editorial page:

There is no good reason why same-sex couples in loving and committed relationships should not be granted affirmative recognition from state governments -- recognition that carries with it the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

The New York Times said outright that it "supports gay marriage." Their editorial implied that they would have preferred to see the court use the "M" word, but they applauded the expansion of full marriage-type rights:

The court ruling secures important rights, and paves the way for the full equality that will no doubt come.

And today's TomPaine.com includes a piece by Evan Wolfson on how to build an effective campaign for gay marriage.

For those who are disappointed that the ruling stopped short of requiring use of the term marriage, Jack Balkin has an interesting post on Balkinization on why the way the New Jersey court handled this may be more effective in the long term than the Massachusetts high court's ruling upholding gay marriage:

Same-sex marriage is an especially divisive issue at this point in our country's history. It is far better for courts to attempt to engage democratically elected legislatures in the task of designing appropriate remedies. That does not mean that courts should abdicate judicial review of what legislatures come up with. Rather, it means that in responding to challenges to marriage laws by same sex couples, courts should explain what the key constitutional principles are that must be satisfied and then leave it to legislatures to make the political compromises necessary to satisfy them. This will result in all of the branches of state government agreeing on how to resolve the question, and therefore it will greatly enhance the democratic legitimacy of the ultimate result.

The ruling still smacks of separate but equal to me, but Balkin might be right about the process.

We wrote about the ruling here.

The court's opinion can be found in pdf format here.

Yet another Kansas Republican endorses Democrat Morrison. This time it's Phil Kline!

By Diane Silver

Oh this is fun.... Not only is another Kansas Republican endorsing the Democratic opponent of Attorney General Phill Kline, but the person turning his back on the GOP attorney general is none other than Phil Kline himself.

That's Phil with one "L," or Classic Kline as he was once known in the Kansas Legislature. I remember the elder Kline -- a staunch Republican -- as a well-respected legislative leader who was willing to take up tasks ignored by Phill the Younger (That's the 2 "L" attorney general). Those tasks are such "little things" as keeping your word and telling the truth.

Classic Kline's endorsement follows the nod of other Republicans including former Attorney General Carla Stovall. And, of course, then there was the very Republican former attorney general, Bob Stephan, who blew the whistle on the worst of Kline the Younger's church fund-raising activities.

Folks not familiar with Kansas Politics should take note: Until this year, the rule in GOP circles was that it was OK to slash each other to pieces in the primary. However, one Republican never EVER opposed a fellow member of the GOP in the general election.

I guess you can only push people of integrity so far.

East Coast elections: The Washington Post blows it again

By Nancy Jane Moore

The supposedly "liberal" Washington Post has endorsed the right-wing Republican current governor of Maryland for another term.

Here in the Washington, D.C., metro area we're all scratching our heads over this one. One of The Post reasons -- that two-party politics would be good for Maryland -- might make since if Bob Ehrlich was a moderate Republican. But he's far to the right of most residents of Maryland, a very blue state.

It's not an accident that Ehrlich was the first Republican elected governor in Maryland since Spiro Agnew. (Remember Agnew? Nixon's Vice President who resigned in disgrace after being accused of taking bribes while he was governor of Maryland? And Agnew was a moderate, elected because he supported integration while the Democrat opposed it.) Ehrlich was elected in the first place because of the political state of affairs in 2002 and the fact the Democratic candidate ran a bad campaign, not because anyone really agreed with him.

My friend Alice says The Post endorsed him because they've never met a pro-developer candidate they didn't like. And it's true that about the only accomplishment Ehrlich can point to is ramming through the inter-county connector -- a freeway that will connect I-95 with I-270 and cut through established residential neighborhoods in Montgomery County. Developers love it; ordinary citizens hate it.

Otherwise he's done things like cut health benefits for children and pregnant women who are legal immigrants -- a decision that was fortunately just struck down (pdf alert) by the Maryland Court of Appeals. As The Post editorial points out, Maryland has enjoyed good economic times during Ehrlich's term -- because of the general economic health of this region, not due to his policies -- so cutting benefits from the needy shouldn't have been necessary. Nor should tuition increases at state colleges and other financial attacks on higher education, which are other marks of his administration.

The Post endorsement is a little forced; they describe the man as a "generally proficient, pragmatic governor, if not always a disciplined or mature one." Pragmatic is probably accurate -- he's come out in favor of stem cell research as a candidate, after opposing it as governor -- but I'd question proficient. The immaturity has been obvious in his spats with reporters.

Actually, though, an article in today's Post makes the whole endorsement clearer. It appears that the Democratic candidate, Mayor Martin O'Malley of Baltimore, has made some powerful enemies in his career. The Post notes that former Governor William Donald Schaefer and prominent lawyer and Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos, among others, hate O'Malley.

If the measure of someone is who his enemies are, O'Malley is doing fine by me. Schaefer was a decent governor, but he's become a caricature of himself: Although he's the current state comptroller, he managed to lose the Democratic primary in part because he made stupid sexist comments about one of his opponents.

As for Angelos -- well, any baseball fan will tell you he's ruined the Orioles. Granted, he's got lots of money, which he's apparently spending on Ehrlich, but I'm sure it will bring more votes O'Malley's way if people know he's on the other side.

Perhaps O'Malley also stepped on some toes at the upper echelons at The Post. The article doesn't mention it, but it might explain the endorsement.

O'Malley has done a decent job as Baltimore mayor. He gets a lot of African American support, even though he's white, and is generally popular in the city. And his political views are definitely a better fit with moderate to liberal Maryland than those of a right-wing Republican in the Bush mold. Supporting him makes a lot of sense.

As for The Post -- well, I pretty much gave up on their editorial page when they sucked up to Bush and waxed enthusiastic about invading Iraq. Of late some of their reporters have done a decent job of showing what an unqualified disaster the Bush administration has been, but their editorials have been, at best, mealy-mouthed, and at worst, right-wing nonsense like the endorsement of Ehrlich.

The Post has cut a lot of staff in recent years. Maybe they've joined the rest of corporate American and started outsourcing work. Some of their editorials sure sound like they were written by the Wall Street Journal.

Phill Kline, "unsubstantiated allegations," Kansas fury -- or the lack of it

By Diane Silver

The race for Kansas attorney general may well boil down to one thing: How closely are voters paying attention?

Will all the mud that Kline is slinging stick in voters' minds because they haven't paid attention to detail? That is obviously what Kline hopes. Unfortunately, too often in the past, the Big Lie method of propoganda -- repeat a lie as if it were true and people believe it -- has worked.

What's important for voters to remember, though, is that it's not just one isolated, liberal blogger who is furious about Kline's tactics. I've watched Kansas politics closely for 20 years now, and I have never seen anything as nasty and underhanded as Kline's campaign.

His mudslinging has been condemned by both of the state's major newspapers. Even Republicans are disgusted by the way Kline is using an unproven allegation to try to woe women voters, who are his weakest demographic.

I think Phillip Brownlee from The Wichita Eagle said it best today in the WE Blog:

If a 15-year-old, unproven accusation is the best Kline can come up with to try to tarnish his opponent's sterling reputation, Morrison must really be impressive. And if our state's top attorney treats unsubstantiated allegations as if they had been proved true, it's time for a better attorney.

Kansas: IRS gets complaint against Phill Kline fundraising, Kelly Summerlin & more

By Diane Silver

The race for Kansas attorney general was expected to be close, but I doubt if anyone thought it was going to get as personal and wild as it has. Today's latest:

--> A nonpartisan legal watchdog group has officially filed a complaint with the IRS, saying that Attorney General Phill Kline's church-based fundraising violates at least two churches' tax-exempt status. The key legal point: In a memo he wrote outlining his church strategy, Kline named two churches as having done a "lit drop" for him, and told his staff to arrange church events and other literature drops. To keep their tax exempt status, churches cannot advocate or work for political candidates.

--> Kelly Summerlin -- the woman at the center of a 15-year-old unproven and twice dismissed complaint against Democratic candidate Paul Morrison -- met with reporters in interviews set up by the Kline campaign. The upshot? Although Summerlin says she stands by her sexual harassment accusation, Summerlin proved there was no settlement of the case. Kline's campaign keeps claiming the case was settled. Summerlin said she did not receive a cent from Morrison.

Summerlin has since married and changed her name. The interviews were set up on the condition that journalists refrain from using her married name and showing her face. Thus, she gets to smear Morrison, while protecting her current identity. The Topeka Capital-Journal has a detailed interview with Summerlin that provides the most pro-Kline, anti-Morrison view of the incident.

--> Declaring that pulling a commercial is just politics as usual, an out-of-state group has cancelled broadcast of an anti-Morrison TV ad. The controversial ad said that Morrison and Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius were on opposite sides of a 2003 crime bill, when in fact, they both supported the final bill.

--> Describing yet another ad by Kline as "underhanded" and "downright shameful," a Kansas Republican organization has called on Kline to pull the commercial. This ad attempts to smear Morrison with the Summerlin complaint by portraying unproven accusations as reality and engages in a little play acting to do it. One of the most important Republican leaders in the state -- Senate President Steve Morris -- also told reporters that the ad should be pulled.

* Meanwhile, anti-Kline mailings were linked to Dr. George Tiller, a Wichita doctor who does abortions. The group doing the mailing, which is not connected to Morrison, should have been clearer about its identity, but I don't see how this is big news. Everyone knows Tiller opposes Kline.

Today's money quote comes from the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, the group that has filed the complaint with the IRS. Speaking about Kline, the executive director said:

"This is the top law enforcement official in the state who is encouraging everyone to break the law," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group. "He's either abysmally unfamiliar with the law, or he's deliberately violating it."

The New Jersey Supreme Court finds a right to same sex unions, but refuses to go all the way

By Nancy Jane Moore

Stopping short of finding a fundamental right to same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded Wednesday that "denying rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples that are statutorily given to their heterosexual counterparts violates the equal protection guarantee" of the state constitution. The court said:

Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this State, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution.

The high court instructed the state legislature to:

either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples. We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples.

Three justices (out of the seven on the court) dissented in part. While they agreed with the majority that it is a violation of equal protection to deny rights and benefits to committed same sex couples that are allowed to heterosexual couples, they said, in the words of Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz:

I can find no principled basis, however, on which to distinguish those rights and benefits from the right to the title of marriage, and therefore dissent from the majority's opinion insofar as it declines to recognize that right among all of the other rights and benefits that will be available to samesex couples in the future.

In other words, no one on the court was opposed to legal recognition of same sex relationships.

The decision was disappointing to some gay rights advocates, who felt it did not go far enough. The New York Times quoted Garden State Equality chair Steven Goldstein as saying "Those who would view today's ruling as a victory for same sex couples are dead wrong."

However, while the ruling certainly contains a whiff of "separate but equal" -- a judicial philosophy whose failure is manifest -- the decision should not be dismissed out of hand because it does not go as far as we want it to go. The tone of the opinion leaves no doubt that the justices of the New Jersey Supreme Court think that same sex relationships deserve the same legal respect as opposite sex ones:

We conclude that denying to committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.

The debate on the New Jersey court was not over whether to legally recognize same sex relationships or whether such relationships should be treated in the same way as heterosexual marriage -- all the justices agreed on those points -- but only on whether the state constitution required them to call that recognition marriage. Given that other supposedly progressive courts have been unable to find even the equal protection right set out in this opinion, I think the New Jersey ruling can be read as a step in the right direction.

But don't take my word for it. Go read the opinion for yourself (pdf file).

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline goes back on pledge

The Wichita Eagle's WE Blog reports that Attorney General Phill Kline's new negative ad attacking opponent Paul Morrison is not only sleazy, but also contradicts a statement (dare we say pledge?) that Kline made to the newspaper's editorial board.

Eagle blogger Phillip Brownlee writes:

Kline also says on the video that he won't use the old allegation in his campaign. That didn't last long.

The ad portrays a 15-year-old allegation against Morrison as fact, and does so by using an actor to portray Morrison as saying words he disputes saying. The sexual harassment allegation by district attorney staffer Kelly Summerlin involves one incident of one comment. The case was first dismissed for lack of evidence, and then a second lawsuit was dropped. The case was not settled, report the attorneys who represented Summerlin.

Kansas Equality Coalition-PAC endorses 53 candidates for state House

By Diane Silver

KEC-PAC, the political action committee for the Kansas Equality Coalition, has endorsed both Republicans and Democrats for the state House of Representative.

The state Senate is not up for election this year.

Based on each candidate's record and questionnaires, KEC-PAC selected candidates who are the most likely to support fair laws and equality for all Kansans and their families.

KEC-PAC did not endorse in every district. When an endorsement wasn't made either both candidates were awful, or the committee didn't have enough information to make an decision.

The endorsed candidates are:
District 3 Julie Menghini (D) Pittsburg
District 7 Richard Proehl (R) Parsons
District 14 Aunesty Janssen (D) Olathe
District 15 Heather Cessna ( D) Olathe
District 16 Gene Rardin (D) Overland Park
District 17 Stephanie Sharp (R) Lenexa
District 19 Thomas C. (Tim) Owens (R) Overland Park
District 20 Kevin Yoder (R) Overland Park
District 22 Sue Storm (D) Overland Park
District 23 Milack Talia ( D) Merriam
District 24 Ed O'Malley (R) Roeland Park
District 25 Terrie Huntington (R) Mission Hills
District 26 Bill Jackson (D) Olathe
District 30 Amy Kamm (D) Lenexa
District 32 Louis Ruiz (D) Kansas City
District 34 Valdenia Winn (D) Kansas City
District 38 Diane Bryant (D) Lenexa
District 39 Corey Mohn (D) Shawnee
District 41 Marti Crow (D) Leavenworth
District 44 Barbara Ballard (D) Lawrence
District 45 Tom Sloan (R) Lawrence
District 46 Paul Davis (D) Lawrence
District 47 James Robert Faris (D) Ozawkie
District 49 Bond Faulwell (D) Overland Park
District 50 Dennis Phillips (D) Topeka
District 52 Lana Gordon (R) Topeka
District 53 Ann Mah (D) Topeka
District 54 Tanya Dorf (D) Topeka
District 55 Annie Kuether (D) Topeka
District 56 Annie Tietze (D) Topeka
District 57 Vaughn Flora (D) Topeka
District 58 Harold Lane (D) Topeka
District 60 Don Hill (R) Emporia
District 65 Barbara Craft (R) Junction City
District 66 Sydney Carlin (D) Manhattan
District 67 Tom Hawk (D) Manhattan
District 76 Susan Fowler (D) Emporia
District 78 Ed Trimmer (D) Winfield
District 83 Jo Ann Pottorf (R) Wichita
District 84 Oletha Faust-Goudeau (D) Wichita
District 86 Judith Loganbill (D) Wichita
District 89 Melody McCray-Miller (D) Park City
District 91 Walt Chappell (D) Wichita
District 92 Nile Dillmore (D) Wichita
District 93 Marcey Gregory (D) Goddard
District 95 Tom Sawyer (D) Wichita
District 96 Terry McLachlan (D) Wichita
District 98 Geraldine Flaherty (D) Wichita
District 99 Charlie Mahoney (D) Wichita
District 100 Grady Kallenbach (D) Wichita
District 101 Mark Treaster (D) Pretty Prairie
District 103 Delia Garcia (D) Wichita
District 108 Joshua Lee Svaty (D) Ellsworth

The Kansas Equality Coalition is a unified, non-partisan, statewide group of fair-minded people who are determined to end discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The organization seeks to ensure the dignity, safety and legal equality of all Kansans.

I'm a member and serve on some of KEC's committees, although I'm not a part of the PAC.

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline drop kicks his moral compass

By Diane Silver

The darling of Kansas' Religious Right -- Attorney General Phill Kline -- seems to have totally lost his way, particularly in the area of morality.

I say that because I have always thought that one of the Ten Commandments is "you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Apparently, Kline stayed home from Sunday School the day that was taught.

Kline's latest is a TV ad using an actor to portray his Democratic opponent Paul Morrison as speaking words Morrison says he never uttered.

The ad never states this is a dramatization or that Morrison disputes the wording or that the words are from two sexual harassment cases (from the same woman) that were either dismissed for lack of evidence or dropped. And despite what Kline claims, neither case was settled. That word comes from the attorneys who represented the woman who made the charges. The woman who filed the complaints is Kelly Summerlin, who worked as the victims-witnesses coordinator in the district attorney's office.

AP reports:

The ad is unusual for having an actor portray an opposing candidate, without telling viewers they're hearing a dramatization. The actor does not appear on screen but reads the statements attributed to Morrison in a voice-over.

"As someone who's seen a lot of Kansas political ads, that's a jaw dropper," said Bob Beatty, a Washburn University political scientist. "That's the kind of ad where the people sitting around planning the ad have to pause and say, 'Are we going to run this?'"

The ad also has an unusual ending: "To be continued" appears on screen.

Not surprisingly, this ad is appearing as Kline's poll numbers are dropping among women, and as the state's only woman attorney general -- a Republican -- has endorsed Morrison, not to mention all the church fundraising that at least one group has said should be investigated.

Let me be clear: If Morrison is guilty of sexual harassment, I'd take that very seriously and would have to rethink my support of the Democrat.

However, in the 15 years since this allegation was made, it has never been proven. No other incidents of this sort have even been hinted at and, most tellingly, Kline's campaign hasn't come up with one shred of evidence that this incident actually happened. I suspect that if Kline could make this case against his opponent he would.

What's sad here is that Kline seems to be so desperate to win that he's turning his back on what he has claims is his steadfast sense of morality.

"To be continued..." says the ad. Isn't it time for Kansans to say this has continued long enough?

"A Working Relationship:" Kansas Rep. Jim Ryun changes story about Mark Foley

By Diane Silver

Struggling in what has become an unexpectedly difficult re-election campaign, Republican Rep. Jim Ryun has suddenly discovered that he really does know disgraced Congressman Mark Foley.

Not only does the recently resigned Foley live across the street from Ryun, but the two were among five GOP members of Congress who held a block-party fundraiser together in May.

The confirmation of the connection came after Ryun told reporters that he barely knew Foley.

Many thanks to Chris Moon and the Topeka Capital-Journal for uncovering the story.

Washburn University Political Science Professor Bob Beatty told the newspaper, this kind of thing can be significant.

"The Foley thing can hurt Ryun because, boom, you've got that link," Beatty said.

The newspaper reported:

Worried about winning a sixth term in Congress, U.S. Rep. Jim Ryun said this month he didn't know until recently that he lived across the street from disgraced Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla. -- whom many Republicans are trying to keep at a safe distance.

Then, when faced with questions about how that could be the case considering Ryun in May hosted a fundraiser alongside Foley on D Street in Washington, D.C., Ryun's campaign said the events weren't jointly planned.

However, neither of those statements was completely accurate, Ryun's campaign admitted last week.

Jeffrey Black, campaign manager for Ryun, said the congressman always has known he lived across the street from Foley, who quit Congress after revelations he had been sending sexually explicit e-mails to congressional pages.

Further, Black acknowledged the two congressmen, along with three other members who live on D Street, coordinated their efforts to raise as much cash as possible during a May fundraiser.
...
As for knowing Foley was his neighbor, Black said Ryun always has known.

"It's probably not the best way to say what he did," Black said of Ryun's comments at the vice president's event in Topeka. "They're congressmen. They have a working relationship."

I wonder if Ryun's earlier statements should be called flip flopping, pretending, or well, simply lying?

Ryun's opponent is Democrat Nancy Boyda.

Talking Points Memo noticed the gaffe and reminded readers that Ryun got a suspiciously terrific deal on a townhouse. Wikipedia also reminds us that Ryun was the beneficiary of more than $30,000 from disgraced Majority Leader Tom DeLay's PAC.

Applied science fiction: Kim Stanley Robinson on climate change

By Nancy Jane Moore

"Since we're going to be facing abrupt climate change, we need abrupt social change."

So says science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson. He was speaking on global warming issues at the Washington, D.C., area science fiction convention Capclave.

The issues surrounding human-caused climate change can get very scary, so it's nice to be able to report that Robinson is an optimist. Asked if it wasn't already too late to do anything, he said, "Toss 'too late' out the window." If we wallow around thinking it's too late, that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Robinson thinks that technological fixes that can turn things around on the climate change front are physically possible within 10 years. Of course, such changes require political will, and right now virtually no one in politics (Al Gore being the most obvious exception and he doesn't hold an elected office) is doing anything. Politics needs to become more scientific -- right now, unfortunately, it's almost anti-scientific.

And that's the argument for social change, because a shift in our culture will affect politics. Robinson argues in particular for a de-linkage between consumption and health and happiness. Right now we've got the two things tied together.

He points out that we are still primates, and that many of the things that bring us joy are very basic: walking, running, dancing, sex, making music, telling stories, having ideas, making things, exploring, hunting, gathering, playing with animals, looking at fire, feeling emotions, and even being terrified (he explains that last item as the only possible explanation for horror movies). Part of his talk was designed to encourage us all to spend more time on those basic activities -- ones that, for the most part, are easier on the planet.

We all respond to the sublime, which he defines as something not human, in which your instinct says you're in danger, though your rational mind says you're not -- like standing on a cliff looking over a great valley or watching a storm roll in.

But these days we live in the technological sublime -- think cars, elevators, airplanes, not to mention the amount of time we spend in front of computers, TVs, and video games. (To wrap your head around the sublime side of this, think about driving a several-thousand-pound car through traffic or just the concept of flying through the air, something no human can do unaided.) And Robinson thinks that to be in the sublime all the time is too much for humans, thus his emphasis on getting outside and doing primate things.

"The world is our body," Robinson says, and he's not talking about mystical concepts of Gaia, but the more scientific practical points. We breathe in air and it becomes part of our bodies. We share most of our DNA with practically every living thing on Earth. When it comes down to it, we're more like jelly fish than we think -- jelly fish have such thin skins that oxygen flows in and out through them.

Robinson makes one other key point: the idea that we must value the environment over the economy to deal with global warming is a false dichotomy. The two are not opposites. The problem is that we have defined economy in very limited terms, essentially as profits -- and particularly short-term profits -- over everything else. That is not a necessary definition. We could redefine accounting to include damage to the environment or the using up of a scarce resource as a cost of doing business, for example.

Robinson's current series of novels, Forty Signs of Rain, Fifty Degrees Below, and the forthcoming Sixty Days and Counting, deal with global warming. When it flooded here in Washington last June, I wrote briefly about Forty Signs of Rain, in which Robinson visits disastrous global warming floods on the nation's capital.

Robinson's books and his talk just shore up my theory -- expressed on here in "Do you read science fiction" -- that science fiction is one of the best places for us to learn how to think about and plan for the future. You can learn a lot about what's going on, and try on new ideas for size, by reading Robinson's books.