I just don’t know how to tell you all this, but Al Gore isn’t going away and neither are the questions about what he will do next, having just scooped up a second Quill Award on the heels of his Nobel Peace Prize, in a year which already included an Emmy, an Academy Award and numerous other accolades.  

The man is plowing through our prize-scape like an unstoppable bulldozer of acclaim.

For those who might have missed all the exciting blogo action here and elsewhere on Blog for Gore Day yesterday, it was a full day of Goreophilic blogging, from the facts about the Gore's green (and getting greener all the time) old house to a penetrating look at Gore's foreign policy experience to a great new video urging Gore to run!  There's lots of great stuff, so take a look below the fold.

(And please let me know if you are aware of any blogs that I missed and I will try to update later.)

I’ll come out and say that I think the piling on about Richardson’s failure to top out on the P.C. meter is a little out of hand.  We can’t seem to get enough of criticizing candidates for seeming to be pre-programmed interest group-pandering robots, yet here we’ve got someone with a very solid record who is being crucified for sharing a perspective that deviates from the party line.  Well, he’s not the only one with an opinion that deviates from the party line.  In this diary I would like to give some airing to an alternative reality, namely mine, and highlight some inconvenient truths about Richardson.

I have no evidence wheter my experience of my ultimate "orientation" is unique only to me, or if lots of other "straight" folks are aware that forcings in their life other than their genetic makeup have played an important or possibly even decisive role in the sexual label that would be applied to them today.  But I suspect that the binary choices with which we are presented from all sides silences discussion of this question.

Follow me below the fold, if you will.  Please try to bring your open mind along!

I received an e-mail from Progressive Patriots today about the Feingold Censure Resolutions.  I'm sure many of you got it too.  There is a link from the e-mail to a web form asking for input on the Censure Resolutions.

vtfinest diaried yesterday on John Nichols' piece in support of Feingold's censure resolutions.  While I thought the diary was excellent, and I understand the point Nichols is trying to make, I disagree.  I think the hard right understood the raw dynamics of the situation in early 1999 when they blocked a Democratic-led censure resolution against Clinton, and that we should learn something from their tactical opposition.  

It is a bad move to provide a milquetoast "alternative" to already trembling politicians until it is absolutely clear that there is no alternative.  They don't need a lifeboat right now; they need a kick in the pants.  So let's not give up here.  Let's keep pushing for the process that the Founders provided us to deal with a criminal executive branch.

"Science Idol: the Scientific Integrity Editorial Cartoon Contest" is the Union of Concerned Scientists' fun awareness campaign on the problem of political interference with science.  The contest leads to the creation of a calendar featuring 12 editorial cartoons lampooning the ways that politicians interfere with science.  

Recent investigations and surveys show that the censorship, manipulation, and suppression of federal government science has become pervasive in recent years. Political interference in science has hurt our air quality, allowed FDA approval of harmful drugs, and prevented the public from hearing the truth about global warming.

This spring, creative minds throughout America took the opportunity to show off their artistic and comedic talents in support of independent science by entering the 2nd annual Science Idol: the Scientific Integrity Editorial Cartoon Contest. We received hundreds of compelling cartoons and our panel of celebrity judges helped narrow those entries to 12 great finalists.

And now you get to vote for the one you like the best.

Voting closes July 23 (that's Monday), so now is your chance to have a say.

Tomorrow marks Wharton Marketing Professor J. Scott Armstrong’s unofficial deadline for Al Gore to respond to Armstrong’s so-called "Global Warming Challenge," in which he challenged Gore to a $10,000 bet that Armstrong, using a naïve model of no change in temperature, can forecast average surface temperature more accurately than any predictive model Gore chooses.  In his open letter to Gore, Armstrong claims his goal is "to improve the application of scientific methods in forecasting climate change," touting his and Gore’s "mutual interest in developing better public policy.

And what better way, I ask, to improve public policy than by loudly confronting a former Vice President President-Elect of the United States with a manipulative, self-promoting public wager on an issue of high emotion and global consequence?  Indeed, in the absence of a craps table, such bets, games of chicken and "double dares" are the methods of choice for policy development.

U Penn's paper promptly stuck a big box on its front page heralding the "Inconvenient Bet" and jeering that Armstrong "wants Al Gore to put his money where his mouth is."

Should Gore respond, and, if so, how?  Follow me after the fold as I give this some attention.