Boxer listened intently as Dr. Patricia Conolly, an internal medicine specialist, walked her through the medical record system, which Kaiser began phasing in in 2005; Conolly said it has made it easier for her and other Kaiser physicians to track and improve patient care while lowering costs. Everything from a patient’s complete medical history, including all previous Kaiser visits, to tools for diagnosis and prescription are available at the touch of a button by the patient’s bedside, Conolly said.

“Wow,” Boxer marveled, “did you invent this?”

“No,” Conolly replied as Kaiser staffers chuckled.

“Did Al Gore?” Boxer quipped.

Esteban Armando Nunez, 19, and three others were arrested in Sacramento on Tuesday and charged with murder and assault with a deadly weapon in connection with the Oct. 4 slaying of a college student from Concord in San Diego. According to the arrest warrant, “Nunez said whatever happens, he would take the rap for it” and that “hopefully his dad would take care of it and could get them off on self defense.”

It’s heartbreaking, in so many ways — first and foremost for the family of Luis Santos, the young man killed in the incident. There can be no true, full justice for the loss of a child.

But you’ve got to feel for Fabian Nunez too, just as so many must’ve felt for Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, whose son, Michael, has repeatedly been denied parole from his 15-to-life sentence for murdering a reputed drug dealer in 1979. Or for Oakland City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente, whose namesake son is serving 14 years in prison as a serial rapist.

You’d have to feel for any parent who sees his or her child stand accused this way, to understand the doubt and dismay inherent in pondering what went so terribly wrong. Whether or not the parent had a close relationship, or any relationship at all with the child, seems to matter little when you know the person up there in jail togs and chains is your blood. As a courts reporter, I used to see that horror in parents’ eyes all the time; as a parent, I imagine I feel it every time I read a story like Dellums’ or De La Fuente’s or Nunez’s.

Even those whose kids stand accused of lesser crimes – think Jeb Bush’s Noelle, or Al Gore’s namesake son – must feel this pain, though they need not take upon themselves the pain of victims and their families.

Any parent of any defendant must feel this way, but I’d imagine that to endure it as an elected official means a certain sort of amplification: The public has chosen you to represent its interests, and now it sees your child as the very bogeyman you were elected to protect against. There will be no privacy for you during this painful process; all the eyes that watched your work will now watch your personal pain as well.

Then again, it could be so much worse. Just ask former state Senator and Secretary of State Bruce McPherson.

You don’t have to agree with a politician’s politics to empathize with him or her as a human being, as a parent. So think a good thought for Fred and Kathy Santos of Concord as they grapple with the tragic loss of their son, but think one as well for Fabian Nunez as he grapples with how and why his got so far away from him.

2000 Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Al Gore:

And I’ll post Barack Obama’s presidential nomination acceptance speech as soon as I’ve got a clean clip…

UPDATE @ 9:23 P.M.: Here it is…

A very happy April Fools’ Day to you all.

“The valley is a very globally thinking kind of economy,” he said. “The mayor talks a lot about that… competitiveness in improving our picture.”

Kvamme — a partner emeritus at high-tech venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers — said Giuliani wants to roll back government regulation that forces business overseas, but also is “very committed to the whole issue of workforce generation and education… Most of us here in the valley believe that more choice in the (school) system would be good for the system.”

On immigration, “the mayor is the one person who can sort out this issue, because its a big one and he lived in it for a number of years” but also because he understands total, comprehenisve reform may not be the appropriate, immediate goal if Silicon Valley wants to continue attracting the best and brightest from around the world. And on energy, Kvamme said, Giuliani “has recognized that on the electricity front, the cleanest electricity going is nuclear power” and opposes raising taxes on U.S. oil production.

Giuliani is “taking California very seriously — he has been here a ton of times,” Kvamme said. “People are excited about his candidacy and I think he’s going to do extremely well in California.”

Incidentally, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers partner John Doerr and his wife, environmental advocate Ann Doerr, today announced their support of Hillary Clinton, citing her “forward-looking agenda in energy, innovation, healthcare and the economy” and her “experience, judgment and leadership to strengthen America’s standing in the world.”

Just as Kvamme is a longtime GOP figure — high-tech advisory positions in the administrations of President George W. Bush and former Gov. Pete Wilson; a stint as chairman of a Bill Bennett-founded conservative think tank; giving, with his wife, at least $122,000 to Republican causes in the 2004 cycle, $252,000 in 2000 — the Doerrs were big-time Al Gore supporters in ‘00 and gave $428,000 to Democratic causes in ‘04. John Doerr had endorsed Joe Lieberman in 2003 but quickly fell in line behind John Kerry post-nomination in 2004.

“We have recently received a communication from a member of Al Gore’s staff discouraging any efforts to put Al Gore’s name on the primary ballot,” stated Roy Gayhart, organizer for the statewide campaign. “Accordingly, effectively immediately, we have ceased our signature collection and related fund raising activities.”

This is not the same as the national “Draft Gore” committee which held a fundraiser last month at Oakland’s Grand Lake Theater.

Draft Gore leader Monica Friedlander of Berkeley said the California Draft Gore group was gathering signatures to place Gore’s name on the ballot, while her group’s only goal is to influence his decision to get into the race. “We will continue to do that as long as we think theres a reasonable chance to accomplish that,” she told me today. “We have not received any communications indicating our efforts are anything but appreciated… and we have the freedom to continue as long as we think it can make a difference.”

Read more of California Draft Gore’s news release after the jump…

Here’s the rest of the release:

More than 1,000 Californians had volunteered to collect signatures ballot across the state to qualify Al Gore’s name to be placed on the February 5, 2008 presidential primary. The California Election Code allows for a candidate’s name to be placed on the ballot if at least 500 registered Democrats’ signatures are obtained from each of the state’s congressional districts during the period from October 8th until December 4th.

“We were doing well collecting signatures in the urban districts and were behind in some of the rural districts,” said Gayhart. “We had raised money to hire professional petition circulators to help us close out the rural districts when we received the communication. With three weeks to go, we were confident of succeeding.”

Many of the Gore volunteers spoke of the experience of finding so much support for Al Gore throughout California. “It was remarkable to watch hundreds of people smile and without saying a word sign a nomination paper to place Al Gore’s name on our state’s primary ballot,” stated Suzanne Harris, a campaign coordinator from Los Angeles. “They got it.”

Others shared the significance of what the California campaign has meant. Susan Rowe, a coordinator from Coarsegold perhaps said it best, “Over the past several months California Draft Gore and the national draft Gore movement has become a force to be reckoned with. The other presidential candidates need to shift their message on climate protection. None of them has yet come close to embracing the position that must be adopted in order slow down global warming. We must preserve and protect our nation and our planet for the future generations to come.” Marta Jorgensen, a coordinator from Solvang added, “We have created the foundation for a new political movement, one that is not based on the old ideology of yesterday, but on how the world is today.”

Oakland’s Grand Lake Theater tomorrow (Thursday, Oct. 25) will screen Al Gore climate-change magnum opus “An Inconvenient Truth” all day long — that’s five screenings, at noon, 2:30, 5, 7:35 and 10 p.m. — with all proceeds going to benefit the national Draft Gore campaign. Draft Gore activist Monica Friedlander of Oakland — who founded and chaired the effort to pull Gore into the 2004 race, and who now is at it again — says the money probably will be used to produce a television ad; Draft Gore on Oct. 10 ran a full-page ad in the New York Times, which got lots of national media attention but didn’t manage to pull the former vice president and 2000 Democratic presidential nominee into the 2008 race.

Will a television ad work? As I’ve said before, the movie won an Oscar for best documentary; Gore’s Current TV won a Primetime Emmy for interactive technology; and he just shared this year’s Nobel Peace Prize — he seems too effective in his current role, and too smart, to squander all the goodwill he has built up by jumping into a presidential race $91 million and 30 percentage points behind the apparent frontrunner.

But hey, maybe it’ll be a VERY convincing ad.

“He’s doing great, he’s a world leader… He’s by far the prophet on this issue (of global warming),” McAuliffe said, gazing out at the sun-drenched, panoramic Bay view from the San Francisco Grand Hyatt’s 36th-floor restaurant. “How do you change that? You go run for president. Why would he risk it?”

That is, I asked, why would Gore go up against a guy he once called “the greatest fund-raiser in the history of the universe” — McAuliffe himself? “He wouldn’t,” McAuliffe chuckled.

Here’s the plain truth as I see it: if Gore got into the race tomorrow, he would have an Emmy, an Oscar, the Nobel Peace Prize and international goodwill under his belt, but he also would be about $90 million and at least 30 percentage points behind Clinton. And most Nobel Prize winners are smarter than that.

BTW, the Clinton campaign’s home page today spotlights a picture of Gore with the caption, “Congratulations to Al Gore for his well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize. His dedication and tireless work have been instrumental in raising international awareness about global warming.”

Gore yesterday spoke at a San Francisco fundraiser for U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; in a few minutes he’ll meet the press at the Palo Alto headquarters of the Alliance for Climate Protection, which he co-founded. Will he run for president, everyone breathlessly asks? My money is still on “No.”

Here’s what some notables have to say about Gore’s Nobel Prize:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco: “Al Gore sounded a clarion call that awakened the world to the very real threat of global warming. He has performed an invaluable service to humanity that is more than worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.

“Through his ground-breaking film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ his lectures, books, concerts, and many other activities, Al Gore has done more to educate the public on the dangers of climate change – and on the positive steps we can take to prevent it – than any other individual.

“Vice President Gore’s public advocacy and the scientific efforts of Dr. Rajenda Pachauri and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have opened the world’s eyes and removed any doubt that the climate crisis threatens our world and our children’s future.”

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.: “No one on Earth has done more to put climate change and global warming on the front burner of public policy in virtually every country than Al Gore.

“My husband and I saw him last evening, and he had no idea. So, it must be a wonderful surprise.

“An Oscar, an Emmy, and a Nobel Peace Prize, is an unprecedented combination in one year. So, congratulations, Al Gore.”

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles: “I’m delighted about the award because it not only recognizes Al Gore’s visionary leadership on climate change, it also establishes the fact that climate change has broader implications beyond specific environmental threats. Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reminds us all that global instability and insecurity will rise alongside the planet’s temperature. It’s very appropriate that the prize was announced while the Vice President was here in California, since California has been the proving ground that shows political leaders, the business community and environmental groups can all come together behind effective climate change solutions. For years Al Gore has issued a stirring challenge to the world. With our commitment to implementing AB 32, developing new alternative fuels and spurring a green economy for our state, California will continue to lead the response to that challenge.”

Meanwhile, climate-change guru Al Gore will be in San Francisco this afternoon to speak at a fundraiser for U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; musicians Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne also will be on hand for an acoustic performance. Gore had cancelled yesterday, but reversed that earlier today and is scheduled to attend — one day before this year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner is announced, with rampant speculation that it’ll be Al Gore himself.

Will he win? If so, will he run for president? My guesses: maybe, and no.

If you’re interested in DiFi’s remarks today, the prepared text is after the jump…

“Just a few years ago, there were many who closed their eyes to the reality of global warming. They tried to muddy the waters. They tried to silence the voices of those who were calling for action.

Fortunately, times have changed.

A great consensus has been forged. The science has coalesced. And the time for debate is over.

Today, the vast majority of Americans agree that global warming is real – and that it is one of the most profound challenges of our time.

And it comes down to this: what are we as individuals, as communities, as nations, and as a world going to do to confront it?

The good news is that the “green” revolution is no longer the stuff of imagination – it’s already happening:
· Toyota has sold 1 million of its signature Prius hybrid.
· Wal-Mart has sold 100 million fluorescent light bulbs, some 2 months ahead of schedule.
· California is working with Great Britain and the Northeastern states to cut emissions and to develop credit trading markets.
· Even Hollywood is taking notice. This spring, the Academy awarded an Oscar to Al Gore for his global warming movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

This has a lot to do with the fact that global warming isn’t just theory. We’re already seeing the stark results, and they seem to be accelerating:
· In August, for the first time ever, the mythical “Northwest Passage” was navigable without an ice breaker.
· This summer’s melting of Arctic sea ice was equal to the size of two Great Britains. Scientists are now saying that the Arctic Circle could be ice free by 2030.
· If you add to this the melting of Greenland’s glaciers, sea levels would rise by 20 feet.
· The harlequin frog and the purple snail are among the first victims to global warming.
· More intense hurricanes like Dean and Felix.

The list goes on and on.

The simple truth is that global warming cannot be stopped, but it can be slowed.

So, what can we do?

To stabilize climate change by the end of the century, we need an 80 percent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by 2050.

But there is no silver bullet. No one thing to turn the tide.

Here’s why: greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide are produced when we burn fossil fuels.

But here’s the key: Carbon dioxide doesn’t dissipate. It stays in the atmosphere for 30, 40, 50 years or more. This means that the carbon dioxide produced today will still be in the atmosphere in 2050 and beyond.

The urgency is clear: we must break our addiction to fossil fuels. We must make a major shift towards renewable energy and clean technology. And we must act soon.

If we can do this, we can contain the warming to a manageable 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit. We would still experience significant, but manageable changes.

But if we do not act, we could experience warming of 5 to 9 degrees or more. The results would be catastrophic.

Just here in California, two-thirds of the Sierra-Nevada snowpack would disappear. That’s equal to the water for 16 million people in the Los Angeles basin.

Although some may through up their hands in despair, I believe we’re standing at the threshold of great opportunity for American innovation and ingenuity. And I have no doubt that we’re up to the challenge.

In Washington, however, action on global warming is not assured.

We’ve got a President who claims to take global warming seriously. But he refuses to act.

He won’t attend international global warming conferences. He refuses mandatory action. It’s all rhetoric and no action.

In fact, he seems to be doing everything he can to postpone action until he’s out of office.

But we cannot wait for the President to join the fight. Congress must act.

And in the Senate, there is some good news. My friend and colleague, Barbara Boxer, is the new chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over global warming legislation.

The bad news is that the Senate is deeply divided. The Democrats have a very slim majority. And there are still many who don’t want to take action.

Similarly, in the House, Nancy Pelosi has established a new committee on global warming. But it lacks the authority to pass legislation.

So, we’ve got our work cut out for us.

And this morning, I’d like to take a few moments to share my thoughts with you on what we can do before the end of 2008, to help set us on the path of meaningful change.

The first thing we can do is raise CAFE standards.

This summer, the Senate did something some thought impossible: we took on Detroit and won. We passed the largest fuel economy increase in more than two decades.

The Ten-in-Ten bill, which I sponsored, would raise the fleet-wide average fuel economy for all cars and trucks by 10 miles per gallon over 10 years. It was included in the Senate energy bill.

The bill would achieve an 18 percent reduction in emissions below projected levels by 2025.

This was is a major victory – and a step long overdue.

But the House did not include fuel economy language in its energy bill.

So, when House and Senate negotiators come together to iron out the differences in their energy legislation, it’s critical that they uphold the Senate’s fuel economy language.

We cannot afford to squander this historic opportunity.

The second thing we can do is to pass comprehensive global warming legislation.

Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner are working on a serious proposal. It’s expected to be the vehicle for legislation in the Senate. We haven’t yet seen the details of the bill. But, I would like to share with you my thoughts on some key elements that an effective bill should include.

First, the bill must cap emissions at a level sufficient to avoid dangerous climate change. Scientists tell us that we need to contain the warming to 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit. So, the Lieberman-Warner draft proposal must reduce emissions by 70 percent from 2005 levels, which is within the range of what we need to achieve this goal.

Second, we need to ensure that the EPA follows the guidance of up-to-date, independent research when it sets emissions reduction targets. Every four years, an independent panel of eight scientists should make recommendations to the EPA about the target greenhouse gas level needed to avoid dangerous climate change, and the timetable for achieving the target.

Third, the bill must include sensible cost-containment measures that do not undermine emissions reduction targets. This should include agricultural offsets, like voluntary carbon sequestration by farmers and foresters, who can then sell low-cost offset credits to companies that need to reduce their emissions.

Fourth, linking the U.S. carbon market with international carbon markets can help contain costs. The bill should allow companies to buy up to 25 percent of their carbon credits from low-cost projects in developing nations and other countries. U.S. companies could also profit from selling technologies to developing nations.

Fifth, a substantial percentage of the auction revenue should be used for the development of new low-carbon technologies. The bill should require that 80 percent of the auction revenue will be used for developing new zero- and low-carbon technologies, including clean coal, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. This is really the key to providing incentives for the business community to develop innovative solutions.

Finally, we need market oversight. It’s no question that a new multi-billion dollar carbon market could attract the worst kind of market manipulators. Unfortunately, we in California are well-versed with the consequences of such manipulation. So, anti-manipulation and anti-fraud regulation must be in place from the first day of trading.

Many of these components I’ve outlined were included in a cap-and-trade bill that I proposed earlier this year for the electricity sector.

Energy efficiency must be a cornerstone of a comprehensive approach to global warming. We need green building codes for residential and commercial use. ENERGY STAR products should be bought by every home. And we need tax incentives to make this cost-effective for consumers and businesses.

We also need to reduce emissions caused by motor vehicles. This can be achieved by lowering the carbon content of fuels and cutting tailpipe emissions.

First, we need to reduce the carbon content of our fuel supply – and instead promote the use of low-carbon fuels like biodiesel, E-85 made with cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen, electricity and others.

Second, California’s landmark tailpipe emissions reduction must be enacted on the national level.

Now, let me conclude with a final thought: Confronting global warming is not just something we should to because it’s good for the environment – there is tremendous opportunity for economic growth. Clean technology can, and should, shape the future of America’s economy. It can create new industries and jobs. California has long been on the cutting edge of new economic trends – and clean technology is no different.

Here are just a few examples:
· Wind technology: In 2001, Clipper Windpower was founded in Carpinteria, California, to take advantage of a global wind turbine shortage. Today, the Clipper wind turbines are the industry gold standard. They’re sold out through 2009. And the six-year-old company already has 450 employees.
· Fuel cells: Last fall, I visited Bloom Energy, a cutting edge fuel cell company in Silicon Valley. Five years ago fuel cell power cost more than 10 times consumer rates. But next year Bloom Energy will commercialize fuel cell electric generators that can significantly reduce emissions without costing consumers more than they pay for power today.
· Academic Research: In February, BP announced that it would invest $500 million in a new Energy Biosciences Institute at UC Berkeley. The Center will look at how we can use biotechnology to produce biofuels – or turning plants and plant materials like wood, switch grass, and algae, into fuels for transportation.

Bottom line: clean technology is the wave of the future. And you have already begun to seize this opportunity.

You are working to create innovative solutions to wean America off of its fossil fuel habit. And you’re working to make the shift towards clean technology and renewable energy.

But much more work needs to be done.

So here is what I ask of you: let Congress know that you want comprehensive global warming legislation. Work with business leaders across the country to support immediate action on climate change.

Don’t shift the burden to the next generation.

The choice is clear. It is time to stop talking and to take action.”