Where's the diversity?

I think it is remarkable that we are headed toward our third female Supreme Court justice (assuming Elena Kagan is confirmed, obviously). And mostly for the fact that the mere fact that she is a woman is no big deal. A long time coming!

And we have a dead-conservative African American on the Supreme Court (not that I agree with much of any of Justice Thomas's views, but that's not what this blog's about). And of course Latina Sonia Sotomayor.

There has been discussion in the media about lack of a Protestant Justice with the retirement of Justice Stevens. That doesn't overly trouble me, although having six of the nine of the Catholic faith strikes me as a bit unbalanced.

But what I have not heard much about is the fact that all of the new Supremes will have attended Harvard or Yale. All of 'em (Justice Ginsberg attended Harvard but graduated from Columbia).

Now those schools are diverse, to be sure. But they represent a tiny fraction of the legal pool, even of the so-called "elite" law schools. And those institutions (Harvard and Yale) no doubt promote diverse thought within their walls. But it strikes me as plain weird and scary that graduates from these schools so absolutely dominate the SCOTUS. Plus, then there's the current President. Oh, and Bush II. Oh and the current Secretary of State. And Bill Clinton. And Bush I (all Yalies except Mr. Obama).

Group think can set in with even the best of minds. I think there should be more written and said about getting a SCOTUS with a more diverse educational background. I just can't believe that there is too narrow of an educational mind-set being served up to our highest leadership positions. Don't you think there is possibly something different about the way folks approach things at the University of Chicago? Northwestern? Berkeley? Stanford? What about a fine state institution like Michigan? To analogize to sports, Magic went to Michigan State, a big-time Big 10 school in basketball at the time. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Lew Alcindor, as my brother might fondly recall), went to the vaunted UCLA program, of course. But I seem to recall Larry Bird did just fine out of lil' ol' Indiana State University.

All Politics is Local - Unfortunately, Sometimes

Barack Obama's remark to Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press yesterday, in response to a question about Caroline Kennedy's expression of interest in HRC's vacant Senate seat, takes on new meaning today, huh? Something like he likes Caroline, but he doesn't need to weigh in on New York politics because he's got enough on his plate with Illinois politics. Rod Blagojevich indeed has hit a new low in Illinois state politics, and that is saying something.

I remember encountering the comment some years ago, in law school I think, in the context of federal vs. state power, and the notion that a part of the beauty of the federal system is that we've got 50 states to experiment with different levels of regulation, different regulatory approaches and the like, and that, where we can, we should leave matters to the states to regulate because they are "closer to the people." That is, viewing the state legislatures as so-called "laboratories of democracy" as the Reagan "New Federalism" was still relatively fresh--moving power from the federal governments to state/local governments. And an effective counter to that argument (or at least it seemed so to me at the time) was that if you wanted to see how powerful lobbyists could get, unleash them on the state regulators. They could be rolled with ease, and that, even though there were 50 state governments, if you really wanted to see an industry (e.g., take the tobacco industry) control their own governmental regulatory regime, turn it over from the feds to the states.

I think events in Illinois today prove that that surely would be a probable result.

Gregory Ascendeth, Part Deux

Well, it's now official. David Gregory will take over the helm of Meet the Press. I think he is a pretty good choice (although I've also grown fond of Chuck Todd ("Chucky T" to us MSNBCer's)). But Gregory is tough, and won't let people roll him. I think he'll have to learn to balance the toughness with the respect factor that Russert had mastered. That's the way to do it. (I read somewhere in the summer that one of the hardest things to do was to knock these tried and true politicians off their talking points. I tend to believe that is true.) For example, Tim was pretty tough on old Tricky Dick Cheney, but fair enough that Cheney still did his show. It reaped benefits as Cheney was haunted by his "greeted as liberators" quip on MTP in the Iraq war build-up.

But, most importantly, it is a significant prediction break-through for me personally. See my June 23 post predicting Mr. Gregory's pending appointment (click on the "Predictions" label and you'll get there). Now I am going to advocate a review of the tape of the Hagler/Leonard fight to get that overturned. I don't know what to do, though, about my "Ghost" fiasco. Thoughts, dear readers?

Our Moon Shot

I'm not much into czars. Really, I'm not. Whether it's the "Drug Czar", an "AIDS Czar" or a "Katrina Czar", this somehow seems a uniquely American (shall I say, Bush-ian) knee-jerk response to any serious problem (see http://www.humorgazette.com/bush_czar.htm or http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=wish_upon_a_czar). Well, that and declaring "war" on something, like a tactic (terrorism) or a seemingly intractable societal problem (poverty or drugs).

But here's something that's been cooking in my brain since this summer: Obama needs do the Kennedy thing and set an aggressive goal that we are going to achieve energy independence and create a new green technology base in America in a ridiculously short period of time (8 or 10 years). Then, appoint Arnold his "Energy Czar." And turn him loose. Let him go. Give him real power. Don't muzzle him (could you anyway?). Like Biden, let him rip. Allow him to "terminate" his way to energy independence and environmental sanity. We'll clean China's clocks on this new green technology, Tom Friedman-style.

I know Arnold has an "R" by his name when they identify him as the California governor. But let's get real: the Governator is a Democrat. He's married to a Kennedy, for crying out loud. Plus if you listen to him, he generally says the right things. OK, he supported McCain. But that just shows he's a politician, and a pretty smart one. (Look at Joe Lieberman. Joe's a Republican, I'm sorry to say. He should either quit (or get kicked out of) the Democratic party, OR have backed the Democratic candidate. One or the other. Stupid politics. As Sarah Palin would say, say it ain't so, Joe!)

Arnold got my juices flowing when I heard him on George Stephanapolous's Sunday morning gab-fest this summer. It just makes so much sense: (1) Arnold is right on this issue. (2) Arnold's done what he needs to do making money and politically (perfect that he can't be president--he can't have much higher executive ambitions now--he's been the governor of a state that is bigger and more powerful than most countries). (3) Obama gets credit for "reaching across party lines"--big time. This guy's a Republican superstar (notwithstanding he's really a Democrat).

And finally, and most important and urgent of all (4) The country desperately needs this to happen, immediately, and with the right policy.

Check this out. As Peggy Noonan might say: Savor. http://steveadamsstudio.blogspot.com/2008/11/ripped-off-of-salon.html

Put to Rest, Finally

Well, I am happy to report that the fabled "liberal media bias" myth has been dispelled once and for all! Why do I say that, you ask?

Well, how has the VP debate been covered? Either it was a tie, no damage done to either campaign, but no "game changers" either. Or alternatively, Sarah Palin "won" because (pick any or all that apply): (1) she was more folksy, made a connection with the people (you know what I'm saying, "wink, wink, ;)"); (2) Biden was "boring" (all those facts and figures); (3) Biden was off his game and "lost" the first part of the debate (too passive); (4) Biden generally did not attack back ever (didn't take the bait, for example, on the "white flag of surrender" poke); and/or (5) Palin "exceeded expectations", in part because of the disastrous Katie Couric interviews, and did not run crying from the stage, vomit on the stage or freeze up -- generally saying some combination of words that vaguely resembled sentences, including nouns and verbs. [Matt Lauer asked Guiliani the next morning whether she had "mastery of the facts" or whether it sounded like she crammed for a test for a week. Guiliani said he didn't know how you could separate the two. To Matt's credit, interupted and said, well, "one is knowlege of subjects built up over years, and the other is cramming for a test." Seems pretty simple to me] [http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&vid=186bb7cd-4845-4572-b1ad-6f2808b6a4b4&playlist=videoByUuids:uuids:d1214ac3-0f54-4f1e-a498-decf5f2e6a49%2Ca57aca04-9d6b-48f5-b85a-fe3a4e7d300b%2Ceb7a7857-f982-411d-9670-83c8961cc2fa&from=MSNHP&tab=m1191248204226]

Am I right on how it's been reported? You betcha!! (Ok, maybe not the NY Times editorial page, but Palin will pick that up, because she reads "all" of the newspapers, remember?)

So that's the media reporting, including the "liberal elites." What's the objective evidence? CBS poll immediately following debate: Biden over Palin, 51% to 36%. CNN poll I just saw reported tonight: Biden 51%, Palin 36%. What about the "gender gap", you ask? Men: Biden 51%, Palin 36%. Women: Biden 51%, Palin 35%. Hmm. That's starting to sound like a Biden victory. But put facts aside--it's about personal connection, right? Now what was the most moving moment of the debates so far, on personal level? Was it Joe being emotional about being a single dad, not knowing if his sons are going to make it after he tragically lost his wife and infant daughter at age 29? Say it ain't so!!!

Now, doggone it Joe, there you go again....

Sarah-phonics

Finally, someone has written that Sarah Palin didn't tie or win the the debate. And I think we have a new phrase:

"Sarah-phonics , a mash up of sentence fragments and colloquialisms glued together with misplaced also’s and there’s — gibberish really."

Here's the entire post: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04blow.html?ref=opinion

Don't worry, Sarah Palin will never see it - it was in a newspaper (NY Times).

"This is an important election..."

How many times have we heard that? Only every election, right? However, we now know this is a truthful statement sometimes.

Only bad thing is, we can now see it was 2000 (and/or 2004). The deregulation chickens have come home to roost. Big time. We really need to know what happened to our economy. This is sickening.

Gregory Ascendeth

This summer I predicted that David Gregory would be tapped for the Meet the Press gig (see post on June 23). Looks like he might be gathering steam, as he will now host MSNBC's election night coverage, rather than Olbermann and Matthews. Also looks like he's being "groomed" for the MTP spot, per this article.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3i425366f6874393a74ad59e9c25b234b7?imw=Y

Palin Comparison

Palin's pick has reportedly "energized the base". I know one person who is a card-carrying member of the base who was down-hearted with Sen. McCain who was personally very energized by Ms. Palin's selection. We don't ever go toe-to-toe, because we are friendly and we don't want to ever release our nukes on each other. But it baffles me how he could have been poised to consider Obama, and when an ultra-conservative appears on the scene as the veep choice, then he is more excited about Mr. McCain's chances. I still don't get it.

Of course, the lack of experience here will not seem to matter to the Republicans--after all, this is just the vice president, not the president, and how could the Democrats put a person so unready at the top of the ticket? Putting aside that the experience of Mr. Obama's is superior to that of Ms. Palin, Mr. Obama went through the electoral process. People had a chance to make their case on his experience or lack thereof, and he won nonetheless, vanquishing the mighty Clinton machine. He earned it. While she might be smart, capable and bright (even if I disagree with her views), Ms. Palin has not. Plus, I've heard, and tend to believe, that some of the best "executive" experience is in fact running a campaign for president--which Obama did better, by all accounts, than Clinton, McCain, Giuliani, or any other candidate in the field this year.

But the bottom line for me is that John McCain simply did not pick the person he thought was best to take over should something happen to him. There is just no doubt about that. Again, she might well turn out to be a terrifically smart and capable person, but McCain could not have said to himself, 'this person is the best, or among the best, most capable people to lead the country if that becomes necessary.' She is someone who he thinks will help him politically, plain and simple. He met her once, six months ago, at a conference. She has not thought much about the Iraq war. She did not even know John McCain's Iraq policy yesterday. You can bet Biden knew Obama's backward and forward in late 2007 (and probably earlier), and has great ideas to help give it shape and make it work better. This is what we need.

Here's what gets me: even if you are a die-hard Republican and her views are in line with yours, you do not have any idea how she could perform the job of president--it might be okay (from your perspective), but you simply don't know and don't have any basis right now to credibly predict. Come on, Mr. McCain. You can and should have done better than this. We deserve it; you might be our next president, for crying out loud. Start doing the right thing!!!

Biden Time

I was a Biden man before I was a Baracknafile. I've been burned by David Brooks before (he has turned on my main man from Illinois and gone all conservative on me--I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football). But he wrote a nice piece today on Biden's good qualities. We shall see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/opinion/22brooks.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

More On Saturday

Well, this is very interesting. The Voodoo Blues is now apparently opening for Barack Obama (of sorts). The Old Capitol Blues Festival, where we'll be competing in the ICBC Blues competition on Saturday afternoon, will be one block from Sen. Obama's rally with his new veep choice.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/1116586,CST-NWS-sweet20.article

The competition will pause momentarily for Sen. Obama and his speech. We are slated to hit the stage from 12:30 to 1:00. Obama speechifies at 2:00. The note we received from the ICBC President was that plans were to press ahead--e.g., he still thought we'd be able to park near the stage, they're just anticipating a short pause. I don't know--that's hard to imagine. But boy, will it be exciting!!

As of yesterday, it looked like Biden was rising fast. Joe was my actual favorite in the Presidential field until it became apparent he had no legs and had to drop out post-Iowa.

Prediction

I love to make predictions. Sometimes they are wildly right (I correctly foresaw the Cardinals taking the 2006 World Series even though they stumbled, bumbled and fumbled their way in to post-season that year (remember the Astros closing in fast while the Cardinals reeled?)). But just as often (if not more often), they are stupefyingly wrong: I confidently asserted Marvelous Marvin Hagler would knock out Sugar Ray Leonard in the late '80s. Woops. The worst of all might have been after seeing "Ghost" in a sneak preview (on a double-bill with Days of Thunder, no less). It was a very rare instance of seeing a main Hollywood feature without knowing a gosh-darn thing about it in advance (think about how much you typically know about a movie before plunking down your hard-earned cash at the box office). After seeing that towering pile of junk, I prognosticated (with my usual air of arrogance) to Sharon that it would last all of one weekend (maybe not even a full weekend), then (definitely) straight-to-video and (to a moral certainty) never heard from again. (I still think that's the fate it deserved.) Double woops and a half.

But to get proper credit, I have learned the hard way one must make a prediction in advance--it does not help to say after the fact that you were secretly harboring a premonition of events to come all along (a trick I've tried to no avail).

So, while we learned this weekend from Brian Williams that Tom Brokaw will be helming Meet the Press through the November elections (which has to be a temporary fix), I will make my prediction on the permanent successor to Russert: David Gregory. I think they are grooming him for that spot. I'm not saying I think he's the best or my top choice, necessarily. But I predict he is going to get it. You heard it here, if not first, at least before it was announced.

"I saw it on Russert"

That's the way I referred to Meet the Press--it wasn't "Meet the Press" to me, it was "Russert". I have missed very few episodes of Meet the Press in the last many, many years. He was rigidly dogmatic, to the left and right and center(who else was fair to Pat Buchanan?), in getting to the real nub of the matter.

He more than "covered" the news; he helped shape what it was, but not in an obtrusive or manipulative or unfair way. What are the defining statements for Cheney, if not (to Russert on MTP): "We'll be greeted as liberators" - "Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear program"? My personal belief is that he played a central role in taking down the candidacy of Mitt Romney in December 2007, not because he vindictively went after him in a partisan way (Bill O'Reilly anyone?), but because, through his sheer journalism skills and enormous preparation simply exposed the guy as a "phony" (that was the worst word that his dad, Big Russ, could say about anyone). That's what he did--he would expose you. If what he exposed about you was great, then your stock went up. If not--well, you better hope the video goes in the same warehouse as at the end of Indiana Jones.

Beyond feeling enormously saddened that a vital man would die so young in the midst of doing what he truly loved, I feel frankly worried about the hole his passing is going to create in discourse about the election (not sure Stephanopolous is up to it, Matthews a bit too wild-eyed, David Gregory is a tad too smug for my personal taste). How am I going to get the raw information to inform my thinking on civic matters without having Mr. Russert spend hours doing the homework for me and presenting it in an immediately grasp-able way? Many of my political posts were done after watching "Russert" on Sunday morning, and being so juiced there was some point I just needed to make. (See "Dead Man Talking" about Russert's devastation of Romney discussed above.)

Russert was like a great portrait photographer. At his best, through his skills, he could show you what someone really looked like. Not his view of who you are, but who you really are. If you are a beautiful person, that will show. If you are ugly, that ugliness will show. It's not like other journalists (Sean Hannity, anyone?) who can't help putting their own spin on what you look like, don't prepare and overlay their own views--like taking a Polaroid, drawing a mustasche on the print and showing the picture to you and saying: "Here, here's what this person looks like." No, just take a picture that really shows the person. Sounds simple, but getting to a point where you can really do that, reveal the subject but not reveal yourself, I can imagine is one of the hardest things to do in portrait photography. That's what Russert did journalistically.

I'm going to miss him. Enjoy this more recent sample of his work:



The best part of this is that Russert was going to actually let him off the hook (relatively speaking), but McCain cuts him off and "answers" the quote, shooting himself in the left foot after having put his right foot in the bear trap. It's like Russert dug the grave, then led McCain in the general direction of the hole to see if he'd fall in. He does, and when Russert peers over the edge and starts to ask McCain if he'd like a ladder to get out, McCain interrupts him and says, "Hand me that shovel, this hole isn't deep enough!"

What's wrong with Gerry Ferraro?

I'm sorry, but the notion of her saying that the Dem race is sexist after the race bomb she threw into the stream this spring gets my goat. It is also prompting this post, which I make with trepidation on the fear that some may find it offensive. [So it might get taken down--feel free to comment that I should remove it.]

At the risk of wading where no white male should go, I'd like to observe that yes, there are, unfortunately, racists and misogynists in the U.S. today, and that many vote with race or gender as a principal (negative) motivating factor. And it's not right in either case, although the dynamics may differ, given that women are not, technically speaking, a "minority". There is a kernel of truth in what Ms. Ferraro said (namely, that Sen. Obama has been helped by his race, to some degree), but it seems to me that one reasonable way to look at the situation is as follows:

1. In case you had not noticed, Sen. Obama is black. That, generally speaking, has not been a plus in national Presidential politics (especially for someone with his name). His race is a factor for many who vote. It is a positive factor for most African Americans, who have a measure of pride in having a wonderfully gifted African American candidate, and as a result that constituency has supported him in great numbers. That does not trouble me. On the other hand, there are many (unfortunately) who apparently have voted against him on account of his race. That troubles me. So the question is, has race been a net plus or a net negative for him?

2. In case you had not noticed, Sen. Clinton is a woman. That, generally speaking, has not been a plus in national Presidential politics. Her name, too, carries some baggage. Her gender is a factor for many who vote. It is a positive factor for many women, who have a measure of pride in having a wonderfully gifted female candidate, and as a result that constituency has supported her in great numbers. That does not trouble me. On the other hand, there are many (unfortunately) who have voted against her because she is a woman. That troubles me. So the question is, has gender been a net plus or a net negative for her?

That's the germ of sense in what Ms. Ferraro said: Obama's race certainly has shaped what his voters have looked like, demographically. (I say 'germ' because I think she actually was trying to get at a slightly different point, but I think that notion that, for some, his race is a positive for him, has truth.)

Whether or not either factor (race or gender), on a net basis, has been helpful or hurtful is the thing that no one has any clue of how to analyze or answer effectively.

One For Chris Matthews

I'm not a huge Chris Matthews fan, generally speaking. But his ripping into conservative radio talk show host Kevin James for not knowing basic history when Mr. James was on to discuss the Bush remarks to the Israeli Knesset is what more media people should do: if a question is fair, keep asking it until you get to the nut of the thing.



Strangely a good week for Obama after losing West Virginia by 40+ points: first, John Edwards. Then, Bush elevates Obama by that crazy speech, so that people have a lot to talk about other than the West VA loss and Obama's weakness among voters who vote based on race.

"Reagan" Democrats

What does this even mean?

Of course it is a term all us political junkies have heard and used for years and years--this is nothing new. But the icing on the cake for me must have been the West Virginia primary, and the anecdotal interviews with those infamous "hard-working, white, blue collar" voters. Some of the comments were so blatantly racist it made me sick. Some of the comments I heard were unprompted; people were asked about voting generally, and, despite not being prompted about race, said things like they would never vote for a "colored" (and of course much worse--that's the kind of stuff they'd say to a reporter and then would make the airwaves).

So when I heard one more reference to "wooing the Reagan Democrats", I had a severe twang of "Why???!!!??" I know you've got to 'build a broad coalition to win', but ... words escape me. If you're undecided you must not be thinking about it too hard is all I can say.

Have you ever heard the phrase a "Kennedy Republican" (Maria and Arnold aside)? Guess what: a "Reagan Democrat" is no more a Democrat than a "Kennedy Republican" is a Republican.

"We're who we've been waiting for..."

A somewhat derided campaign line from one of Barack Obama's earlier acceptance speeches this primary season. I was reminded of it listening to MSNBC this week when Chuck Todd said sometimes you don't see turning points when you are in them. As HC's lead was dwindling Tuesday night in Indiana, the punditocracy was taking that, coupled with the big win in North Carolina, as the effective end of the Democratic primary. (I myself have been known to worship at the altar of Rev. Tim Russert ("we now know who the Democratic candidate will be, and no-one will dispute it")). Todd drew a parallel to the Obama victory in Missouri on Super Tuesday.

Same narrative--Clinton ahead early, but wait, the city vote is coming in late (go St. Louis!) and Obama does much better (winning in Missouri and coming close in Indiana). Two states that border Illinois. And, in Indiana and Missouri, two states that might, without further analysis, appear to favor the Senator from New York. But Todd rightly reminded us of the importance of that win in Missouri, giving Barack a good victory outside the deep South on that Super Tuesday and turning that day more or less into a wash, with a slight nudge to Clinton, rather than be viewed as a blow-out for Clinton. (See two earlier my posts, if interested, in February on Mighty MO, including the fact that George Will said the state to watch on Super Tuesday was the Show Me state. Also see Will's editorial from Thursday of this week--great: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703190.html.)

Also, Indiana really is the first time that a narrow loss has been widely construed as a victory, even though the punditocracy had been (wrongly) spouting that margin of victory was the thing to watch in earlier races (not fully appreciating that, mostly, a win is a win). But not so in the dear old Hoosier state.

Predictions

In response to an email from my Mom on April 22 (date of Pennsylvania primary, for those keeping score at home) that all us political junkies (she and I included) were having a hard time taking it (getting all whipped into a frenzy (even though the media is yanking us around, as she so aptly put it). My response on that date was as follows. I was a bit off, but since it still looks forward even from today, so I might as well post it:

"Let me take all the mystery out of it for you.

Hilary wins by 8%, stays in the race, and you've got two more weeks of "it all comes down to Indiana/North Carolina" (take your pick). More hand-wringing of the sort we've had for 6 weeks (is victory slipping out of the Dems' hands in a "can't miss" year? Are we handing the election to McCain? etc etc).

Then same thing happens in Indiana and NC. And "it all comes down" to Guam or Puerto Rico, or wherever. Then after that, "it all comes down" to what the super delegates do.

[That is not the worst case scenario, I suppose, but it seems to me it is probably the "most likely" worst case scenario. So expect that, and anything better is a bonus.]"

Even if you are a Hillary supporter (and I know a few read this blog), I am assuming this is killing you, too--maybe for slightly different reasons, but it seems crazy now, huh, that it feels so demoralizing on both sides for candidates who are so similar on the issues (compared with the alternative) to be ripping up on each other so bad?

Backlash?

Is it possible the Democratic primary voters in Indiana and North Carolina will actually backlash against the Wright flap, similar to the way New Hampshire voters reacted when they perceived that the press was taking too much glee in the supposed melt-down of the Hillary candidacy and the "end of the Clinton era"? I just wonder if there is a certain segment of the voters who are sick to death of hearing the talking heads pontificate on all the things that are supposed to move us. I don't know, but it occurred to me that there might be a certain segment that just wants to go out and show the press corps (again) that, paraphrasing Sergeant Shultz, "they know nuth-ink".

Whither The Daily Show (II)?

Jon Stewart skewered Hillary last night, showing her evolution of position on the role of voters in the Democratic primary system (from "the voters will decide--voters get to decide who wins" to a more recent "well, the voters play a part in the process (a very important part)"). And then there's the line that she has received more votes at the polls than any other candidate. This math works if you count of course Michigan (where Obama was not on the ballot), not to mention Florida. This sort of political expediency is what is driving a lot of us nuts.

But I refer you to my earlier post--what would have happened had Mr. Stewart been skewering her throughout the entire writers' strike? I don't know of course, and probably the answer is "not much."

And my fervent hope is that should she garner the nomination, that she beat McCain, and, most importantly, that whomever is president show some real leadership. It is a travesty that we are not even having a discussion, let alone moving toward solution, on vital issues such as global warming, Iraq, health care, the economy, etc. Global warming alone scares me, as I believe we are unleashing forces we do not understand, and may already be past the tipping point.