We have all encountered people who claim that the United States was founded to be a "Christian Nation," that the founders were born-again Christians, and that any resistance to the agenda of the evangelicals trying to establish a theocracy today is thus a violation of the founders' intent. We know this is nonsense, but it's often hard to come up with convincing contrary evidence on the spot. Here's a terrific web page, provided by "Archiving Early America," with documented quotations from and references to what the founders actually said and wrote.
One excellent and useful example, from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams and ratified by the United States Senate in 1797: "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Can it be any clearer than that?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
McCain and Bush
Here's the picture we want every American voter to have in mind, every minute of the day, until the first Tuesday in November.
Friday, February 08, 2008
John McCain
It looks pretty certain that John McCain will be the Republican nominee, so it's time for progressives to get ready to counter the media's shameless love affair (see here) with him. People who should know better say they like him because he seems to talk straight and because he doesn't play the familiar political games. He does occasionally appear a bit different from the run-of-the-mill white guys in suits that run this country, but when it comes to policy--the things he stands for--he's just another Republican who's spent most of the last seven years kissing George Bush's ass.
It's time to start getting some truly straight talk about this guy, who, if elected, will give us, in fact, the third term of the Bush-Cheney administration.
Just a few minutes of googling turns up all sorts of things that the McCain campaign will not want voters to be thinking about, come November.
The North Carolina Democratic Party has a nice web page, with some telling McCain statements. Here's one you might want to have ready at your family Labor Day picnic when your republican cousin starts gushing about McCain (h/t jj):
After the start of the Iraq war, McCain praised President Bush for his leadership and said, "I think the president has led with great clarity and I think he's done a great job leading the country." Asked if he thought the president exaggerated the case for war, McCain said, "I don't think so."
Even better is Joshua Holland's essay at Alternet. Holland reminds us that McCain has said that it's fine with him if American troops stay in Iraq for a hundred years, and he claims the "surge" is working--this despite the mountains of evidence (well outlined in Holland's piece) that it is anything but the success the Republicans and their compliant friends in the press insist it is.
In the matter of the war and so much else, McCain is a Bush Republican. If the Democratic Party has any sense at all (always uncertain), it should shout to the sky, endlessly, "If you liked George W. Bush, you'll LOVE John McCain."
It's time to start getting some truly straight talk about this guy, who, if elected, will give us, in fact, the third term of the Bush-Cheney administration.
Just a few minutes of googling turns up all sorts of things that the McCain campaign will not want voters to be thinking about, come November.
The North Carolina Democratic Party has a nice web page, with some telling McCain statements. Here's one you might want to have ready at your family Labor Day picnic when your republican cousin starts gushing about McCain (h/t jj):
After the start of the Iraq war, McCain praised President Bush for his leadership and said, "I think the president has led with great clarity and I think he's done a great job leading the country." Asked if he thought the president exaggerated the case for war, McCain said, "I don't think so."
Even better is Joshua Holland's essay at Alternet. Holland reminds us that McCain has said that it's fine with him if American troops stay in Iraq for a hundred years, and he claims the "surge" is working--this despite the mountains of evidence (well outlined in Holland's piece) that it is anything but the success the Republicans and their compliant friends in the press insist it is.
In the matter of the war and so much else, McCain is a Bush Republican. If the Democratic Party has any sense at all (always uncertain), it should shout to the sky, endlessly, "If you liked George W. Bush, you'll LOVE John McCain."
Monday, January 21, 2008
Martin Luther King Day
Today we celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The few people who attend official ceremonies will hear much about non-violence and King's hopes for racial harmony. Orators will describe a peacefully re-ordered society where race is no impediment to success, where the vestiges of Jim Crow, which were ubiquitous in King's life, have peacefully disappeared. This is a vision to which no conscientious person can object, of course, but it's incomplete. In our quest for heroes who don't particularly threaten us, we have constructed a "King," with whom we can all (or nearly all--there are still troglodytes out there who'd like to abolish the holiday) feel comfortable.
The reality is that King was a radical. He questioned the way American society is organized, especially its economic system. This is the King that our contemporary politicians, of both parties, will not be eulogizing today.
A few months before he was murdered, King addressed the 11th Convention of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, in Atlanta. The compete text is available here and makes for fascinating reading. The title is "Where Do We Go from Here."
Among other things, King challenged the legitimacy of American capitalism. He knew that the poor of this country--of any color--would never be free so long as they were ruthlessly exploited by a system that denied their basic humanity. In a country where wealth and resources remain controlled by a few, justice is not possible: "We must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, 'Why are there forty million poor people in America?' And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, 'Who owns the oil?' You begin to ask the question, 'Who owns the iron ore?' You begin to ask the question, 'Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that's two-thirds water?'"
King understood that American capitalism, which, one should never forget, developed with the labor and sweat of African slaves, leads to the dehumanization and exploitation of human beings and to imperialism: "The whole structure must be changed. A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years will … make them things. And therefore, they will exploit them and poor people generally economically. And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and it will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together." How sadly accurate this analysis of America was. And how sad it is to note how well it fits the Bush-Cheney administration.
Since King died, things have gotten worse. There has been a massive movement of wealth into the hands of an obscenely rich elite. In the last 30 years, as Bob Herbert reminds us in Sunday's New York Times, “The distribution of wages, income and wealth in the United States has become vastly more unequal over the last 30 years. In fact, this country has a more unequal distribution of income than any other advanced country.” To find out what's really going on with respect to the American economy, check out the web site of the Economic Policy Institute.
Martin Luther King would be appalled by the failure of this country--and both political parties--to deal with economic injustice. He knew that a government that serves only the rich promotes injustice and demeans human dignity. Wouldn't it be great if some of today's orators would talk about the real Dr. King?
The reality is that King was a radical. He questioned the way American society is organized, especially its economic system. This is the King that our contemporary politicians, of both parties, will not be eulogizing today.
A few months before he was murdered, King addressed the 11th Convention of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, in Atlanta. The compete text is available here and makes for fascinating reading. The title is "Where Do We Go from Here."
Among other things, King challenged the legitimacy of American capitalism. He knew that the poor of this country--of any color--would never be free so long as they were ruthlessly exploited by a system that denied their basic humanity. In a country where wealth and resources remain controlled by a few, justice is not possible: "We must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, 'Why are there forty million poor people in America?' And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, 'Who owns the oil?' You begin to ask the question, 'Who owns the iron ore?' You begin to ask the question, 'Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that's two-thirds water?'"
King understood that American capitalism, which, one should never forget, developed with the labor and sweat of African slaves, leads to the dehumanization and exploitation of human beings and to imperialism: "The whole structure must be changed. A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years will … make them things. And therefore, they will exploit them and poor people generally economically. And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and it will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together." How sadly accurate this analysis of America was. And how sad it is to note how well it fits the Bush-Cheney administration.
Since King died, things have gotten worse. There has been a massive movement of wealth into the hands of an obscenely rich elite. In the last 30 years, as Bob Herbert reminds us in Sunday's New York Times, “The distribution of wages, income and wealth in the United States has become vastly more unequal over the last 30 years. In fact, this country has a more unequal distribution of income than any other advanced country.” To find out what's really going on with respect to the American economy, check out the web site of the Economic Policy Institute.
Martin Luther King would be appalled by the failure of this country--and both political parties--to deal with economic injustice. He knew that a government that serves only the rich promotes injustice and demeans human dignity. Wouldn't it be great if some of today's orators would talk about the real Dr. King?
Friday, January 18, 2008
The Surge, Another Look
The headline for a piece in USA Today for 18 Jan. 2008, mostly reprinted in the Port Huron Times Herald for the same date, claims, "Military says 75% of Baghdad areas now secure." The article makes a series of assertions about how security has improved in that beleaguered city since the arrival of additional American troops. On the surface, these claims are probably more or less accurate; in much of Baghdad, street violence is down. This is obviously a good thing.
But the fact that the article stops there tells us volumes about what is wrong with the way mainstream American media report on Iraq. Tom Engelhardt has an excellent account in The Nation of what the media are too lazy or too corrupt to tell us. Let's take a brief look at just a few important issues not addressed in the media most Americans read or watch:
* Iraqi authorities say they will not be able to maintain security without American help until 2018. The president has admitted that is is the case.
* Baghdad has become a largely Shia city: see here and here. This is the real reason the violence is down. Those responsible for most of the ethnic killing have, for now anyway, won. Neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed. But this doesn't mean those driven from their homes won't try to come back. The momentary lull is fragile. Even if the Sunni don't try to return to their homes, declaring the current situation a triumph rewards aggression and ducks responsibility for enabling it.
* The Iraqi government has done virtually nothing to show it can actually govern. The recent legislation that appears to allow ex-Baath party members to return to government jobs is a sham. It provides no evidence that any sort of settlement between Shia and Sunni is in the works.
The Bush-Cheney surge has bought time. Iraq is not on the front page, and it's not seriously discussed by the presidential candidates of either party. The Unites States has brought unimaginable suffering, dislocation, and damage to Iraq. A momentarily diminished level of violence may keep us from thinking about Iraq for a while, but the unavoidable certainty that this invasion/occupation is the worst foreign policy disaster in American history is not going away.
But the fact that the article stops there tells us volumes about what is wrong with the way mainstream American media report on Iraq. Tom Engelhardt has an excellent account in The Nation of what the media are too lazy or too corrupt to tell us. Let's take a brief look at just a few important issues not addressed in the media most Americans read or watch:
* Iraqi authorities say they will not be able to maintain security without American help until 2018. The president has admitted that is is the case.
* Baghdad has become a largely Shia city: see here and here. This is the real reason the violence is down. Those responsible for most of the ethnic killing have, for now anyway, won. Neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed. But this doesn't mean those driven from their homes won't try to come back. The momentary lull is fragile. Even if the Sunni don't try to return to their homes, declaring the current situation a triumph rewards aggression and ducks responsibility for enabling it.
* The Iraqi government has done virtually nothing to show it can actually govern. The recent legislation that appears to allow ex-Baath party members to return to government jobs is a sham. It provides no evidence that any sort of settlement between Shia and Sunni is in the works.
The Bush-Cheney surge has bought time. Iraq is not on the front page, and it's not seriously discussed by the presidential candidates of either party. The Unites States has brought unimaginable suffering, dislocation, and damage to Iraq. A momentarily diminished level of violence may keep us from thinking about Iraq for a while, but the unavoidable certainty that this invasion/occupation is the worst foreign policy disaster in American history is not going away.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Surge
It's disappointing to note the almost complete absence of any serious discussion of Iraq among the leading Democratic candidates. They all appear, more or less, to want the U.S. out, and they disagree only slightly on how fast that should happen. But they obviously don't want to talk about Iraq in any detail. One reason for this, I fear, is that, along with too many others, they think the "surge" has actually accomplished something. Or else they know it hasn't and don't want to appear to contradict the media-promoted conventional wisdom.
While the level of street violence has in fact decreased in recent months, the major announced objective of the surge, the creation of political space for the Iraqi government to get its act together and actually do some governing, has clearly not been achieved. The pressing issues--distribution of oil revenue, writing a useful constitution, and figuring out how the major ethnic groups can live together in one country--remain disastrously unresolved. For a satisfyingly acute expression of how far from successful the surge has been see this essay at Truthout by Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida. For an equally trenchant assessment of what all this silence really means, see this essay in today's New York Times Magazine by Noah Feldman.
We should not forget that the main reason the day-to-day violence in Baghdad has diminished is that entire neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed. The Sunnis and Shi'ia simply don't live near each other any more. Millions of Iraqis are either dead or displaced. The surge can never erase their suffering. It can only, and only momentarily, distract Americans from contemplating what our government has done in our name.
The American misadventure in Iraq is just as much a failure as it has ever been. Its consequences will haunt whoever is elected President in November. Until our politicians grapple meaningfully with Iraq, there's little hope that the endgame will be any less catastrophic than what we've seen the last five years.
While the level of street violence has in fact decreased in recent months, the major announced objective of the surge, the creation of political space for the Iraqi government to get its act together and actually do some governing, has clearly not been achieved. The pressing issues--distribution of oil revenue, writing a useful constitution, and figuring out how the major ethnic groups can live together in one country--remain disastrously unresolved. For a satisfyingly acute expression of how far from successful the surge has been see this essay at Truthout by Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida. For an equally trenchant assessment of what all this silence really means, see this essay in today's New York Times Magazine by Noah Feldman.
We should not forget that the main reason the day-to-day violence in Baghdad has diminished is that entire neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed. The Sunnis and Shi'ia simply don't live near each other any more. Millions of Iraqis are either dead or displaced. The surge can never erase their suffering. It can only, and only momentarily, distract Americans from contemplating what our government has done in our name.
The American misadventure in Iraq is just as much a failure as it has ever been. Its consequences will haunt whoever is elected President in November. Until our politicians grapple meaningfully with Iraq, there's little hope that the endgame will be any less catastrophic than what we've seen the last five years.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
The Election: Random Thoughts
(Caveat lector: The following reflects my own coffee-addled meanderings, not an official position adopted by BlueNovember.)
Michael Moore has posted a thoughtful analysis of the three Democratic front runners. He declines to make an outright choice, but it's clear he's leaning to Edwards. At Alternet, Norman Solomon offers a cogent argument for why those who have been sticking with Kucinich should consider shifting to Edwards; like many of us, he's mystified by Kucinich's decision to instruct his supporters in Iowa to switch to Obama after the first ballot. Kucinich has been the most progressive, forthright candidate in the Democratic pack, and Edwards is the frontrunner with the positions closest to his. It makes no sense for Kucinich folks to move toward Obama. Go figure.
The primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina will probably settle Edwards's chances. If he can win or even finish close in NH and then win in SC, he stays viable. If he doesn't, then I'm for Obama as the obvious best bet to stop Clinton. I don't hate Clinton the way many progressives seem to. Though I find her vote on the Iraq war resolution and her failure to make amends for it to be unforgivable, and though her later support of a resolution declaring an element in the Iranian security apparatus a "terrorist" organization seems equally politically motivated, I don't think, in the long run, that a Clinton presidency would be much different from an Obama presidency. They both would have to deal with a Neanderthal Congress (even it's run by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi), and they both have far too many ties to corporate interests (consider, for example, Obama's cozy relationship with big coal). I find Obama's endless talk of "change" to be vague, almost empty. But when it comes down to choosing between Obama and Clinton, I pick Obama, simply because I think he has a better chance of winning next November. Clinton has too many negatives with too many voters, who I think are more likely to move toward a relatively fresh face. Obama and Clinton are offering policy positions much more similar than different. Edwards's are better, especially with respect to the power of wealth in our political culture, but the media have opted to marginalize him (just look at the coverage in today's New York Times [h/t, jj]), and that may mean the end of his chances. So if we're left with Clinton and Obama, I'm going with Obama.
Another thing: when the hell is this country going to make its elections remotely democratic? The travesty of the Iowa caucuses and the obscene wads of money dumped there on television, political operatives, and god knows what else should ring alarm bells across the land. And now it's on to New Hampshire, another nearly all-white, low-population, rural state. Why in the world do these backwaters have so much authority in the selection of the American president? From the primaries to the Electoral College, the American system of voting is dysfunctional, undemocratic, and unrepresentative. Today's Times Herald offers a predictably vapid essay (not available on line) by DeWayne Wickham on the putative superiority of the process by which Americans elect their president, with the absurd claim that it offers "the world a lesson in self-governance that can be learned nowhere else around the globe"; I don't think the irony in that declaration was intended. You could say that the lesson suggested by our system is indeed unique. It's uniquely chaotic and unreflective of the popular will, and no people in their right mind would adopt it. In France (a country and a culture the American right wing loves to ridicule), to offer a counter-example, people vote for president, and the candidate with the most votes wins. Sounds pretty straightforward, does it not? In the United States, we can't do anything so obvious. Just ask Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000. That's a lesson for the world? Wayne, you must be joking!
The messiness of the whole process is well exemplified by the Michigan Democratic primary, which apparently is completely meaningless--not to mention a waste of money. I'm considering voting in the republican primary, just to muddy their already turbulent waters. Whom I should vote for? I'm thinking McCain is now the front runner, and I predict he'd be a formidable opponent. I also think he's nuts, so I don't want to help him. Giuliani scares the sox off me (take a look at Elizabeth Kolbert's probing analysis of Rudy in the New Yorker), so I sure don't go for him. Huckabee's a flake, and a win for him would upset the party bosses, but he's also pretty scary and might surprise us all. Romney is an empty suit, and I think any one of the leading Dems could take him down. So maybe I'll give him my vote on the 15th.
Michael Moore has posted a thoughtful analysis of the three Democratic front runners. He declines to make an outright choice, but it's clear he's leaning to Edwards. At Alternet, Norman Solomon offers a cogent argument for why those who have been sticking with Kucinich should consider shifting to Edwards; like many of us, he's mystified by Kucinich's decision to instruct his supporters in Iowa to switch to Obama after the first ballot. Kucinich has been the most progressive, forthright candidate in the Democratic pack, and Edwards is the frontrunner with the positions closest to his. It makes no sense for Kucinich folks to move toward Obama. Go figure.
The primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina will probably settle Edwards's chances. If he can win or even finish close in NH and then win in SC, he stays viable. If he doesn't, then I'm for Obama as the obvious best bet to stop Clinton. I don't hate Clinton the way many progressives seem to. Though I find her vote on the Iraq war resolution and her failure to make amends for it to be unforgivable, and though her later support of a resolution declaring an element in the Iranian security apparatus a "terrorist" organization seems equally politically motivated, I don't think, in the long run, that a Clinton presidency would be much different from an Obama presidency. They both would have to deal with a Neanderthal Congress (even it's run by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi), and they both have far too many ties to corporate interests (consider, for example, Obama's cozy relationship with big coal). I find Obama's endless talk of "change" to be vague, almost empty. But when it comes down to choosing between Obama and Clinton, I pick Obama, simply because I think he has a better chance of winning next November. Clinton has too many negatives with too many voters, who I think are more likely to move toward a relatively fresh face. Obama and Clinton are offering policy positions much more similar than different. Edwards's are better, especially with respect to the power of wealth in our political culture, but the media have opted to marginalize him (just look at the coverage in today's New York Times [h/t, jj]), and that may mean the end of his chances. So if we're left with Clinton and Obama, I'm going with Obama.
Another thing: when the hell is this country going to make its elections remotely democratic? The travesty of the Iowa caucuses and the obscene wads of money dumped there on television, political operatives, and god knows what else should ring alarm bells across the land. And now it's on to New Hampshire, another nearly all-white, low-population, rural state. Why in the world do these backwaters have so much authority in the selection of the American president? From the primaries to the Electoral College, the American system of voting is dysfunctional, undemocratic, and unrepresentative. Today's Times Herald offers a predictably vapid essay (not available on line) by DeWayne Wickham on the putative superiority of the process by which Americans elect their president, with the absurd claim that it offers "the world a lesson in self-governance that can be learned nowhere else around the globe"; I don't think the irony in that declaration was intended. You could say that the lesson suggested by our system is indeed unique. It's uniquely chaotic and unreflective of the popular will, and no people in their right mind would adopt it. In France (a country and a culture the American right wing loves to ridicule), to offer a counter-example, people vote for president, and the candidate with the most votes wins. Sounds pretty straightforward, does it not? In the United States, we can't do anything so obvious. Just ask Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000. That's a lesson for the world? Wayne, you must be joking!
The messiness of the whole process is well exemplified by the Michigan Democratic primary, which apparently is completely meaningless--not to mention a waste of money. I'm considering voting in the republican primary, just to muddy their already turbulent waters. Whom I should vote for? I'm thinking McCain is now the front runner, and I predict he'd be a formidable opponent. I also think he's nuts, so I don't want to help him. Giuliani scares the sox off me (take a look at Elizabeth Kolbert's probing analysis of Rudy in the New Yorker), so I sure don't go for him. Huckabee's a flake, and a win for him would upset the party bosses, but he's also pretty scary and might surprise us all. Romney is an empty suit, and I think any one of the leading Dems could take him down. So maybe I'll give him my vote on the 15th.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Global Warming, Again
Local climate skeptic Lou Johnson has been spreading his ignorance again, most recently in a letter to the Times Herald on 17 December. He's taken to task in today's (22 December) Times Herald by SC4 biologist David Webb, who correctly points out that Johnson is getting much of his misinformation from the discredited and erratic William Gray. In his retirement, Gray is going around the country arguing that global warming is a myth. For a solid, devastating rebuttal of Gray's nonsense see this page on the excellent Real Climate web site.
Another of Johnson's errors demands correction. This is the claim, routinely repeated by climate skeptics, that "in the 1970s, scientists were instead predicting another ice age." To begin with, there was no consensus in the '70s about an impending ice age, nothing like the nearly unanimous understanding today that warming is real and that it's anthropogenic. Johnson and his ilk like to make this claim because it suggests that scientists were wrong then and we therefore have no reason to take them seriously today. What happened was this: some scientists did suggest that a cooling trend might be beginning. Their predictions were tentative, and they did not reflect anything like a consensus among climate scientists. It in no way constituted a situation analogous to what we have today. Like everything else that Johnson and other climate skeptics say, this claim is misleading and irrelevant. Grist provides a good response to it.
Another of Johnson's errors demands correction. This is the claim, routinely repeated by climate skeptics, that "in the 1970s, scientists were instead predicting another ice age." To begin with, there was no consensus in the '70s about an impending ice age, nothing like the nearly unanimous understanding today that warming is real and that it's anthropogenic. Johnson and his ilk like to make this claim because it suggests that scientists were wrong then and we therefore have no reason to take them seriously today. What happened was this: some scientists did suggest that a cooling trend might be beginning. Their predictions were tentative, and they did not reflect anything like a consensus among climate scientists. It in no way constituted a situation analogous to what we have today. Like everything else that Johnson and other climate skeptics say, this claim is misleading and irrelevant. Grist provides a good response to it.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Global Warming
The world is facing probably the greatest crisis in human history, and the Bush administration stubbornly refuses to admit it. The United Nations has convened a meeting of world leaders at Bali to try to work out a way to slow down the emissions of carbon dioxide that are warming the global climate, but the United States delegation is thwarting every attempt to reach an agreement. See this article in today's New York Times for the latest examples of American obstinacy. At this conference Vice President Al Gore told the delegates, “my own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali.”
Two points need emphasis.
First, the data showing a warming climate are unequivocal. So far, 2007 is the second warmest year on record (only 2005 was warmer). The last ten years are the warmest decade on record. No responsible climate scientist now denies that warming is occurring.
Second, the overwhelming consensus among atmospheric chemists, climatologists, and geophysicists is that human activity is a major cause of this warming. This is where the argument gets sticky. While climate skeptics now generally acknowledge the fact of warming, they like to throw out all sorts of red herrings about the cause. They say that solar variation explains warming, that water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than carbon is, that carbon build up follows rather than causes warming, that there's apparent warming on Mars. These claims--each containing a germ of truth--are all irrelevant and misleading, raised to cloud the ineluctable facts that carbon dioxide has been shown repeatedly to have a greenhouse effect and that levels of carbon dioxide have risen dramatically since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Scientists alarmed at the prospect of global warming all understand that warming can result from multiple causes, and they further understand that there's one cause of the current warming trend that we must do something about: that is emissions of carbon dioxide.
Two excellent web sites provide the necessary background for an informed awareness of global warming. Real Climate is an ongoing discussion among scientists about all aspects of climate change. Grist is an on-line magazine covering a wide range of environmental issues, with a terrific set of essays on "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic".
It's often said that the Bush-Cheney administration is beholden to corporate interests and routinely does the bidding of big business. This is only partly true, especially when we consider the list of American corporations that are pleading for our government to take climate change seriously, including General Electric, Sunoco, DTE, and DuPont, to name a few. The truth is that on this issue, at least, the administration is controlled by fossil fuel interests, especially big coal. Coal-burning power plants are the largest single source of atmospheric carbon, and the coal producing companies of this country do not want anything interfering with their obscene profits.
Global warming threatens our children and grandchildren with agricultural collapse, starvation, pestilence, drought and flood, possibly the end of civilization as we now enjoy it. The Bush-Cheney mafia are determined to ignore it as long as they are in office. But their days, finally, are numbered. We should be asking every candidate for federal and state office where s/he stands on this, the fundamental issue of our time. Any candidate without a firm, scientifically defensible position on the need for substantial reductions of carbon emissions does not deserve our vote.
And please go to this site to let the world know that Bush does not speak for you.
Two points need emphasis.
First, the data showing a warming climate are unequivocal. So far, 2007 is the second warmest year on record (only 2005 was warmer). The last ten years are the warmest decade on record. No responsible climate scientist now denies that warming is occurring.
Second, the overwhelming consensus among atmospheric chemists, climatologists, and geophysicists is that human activity is a major cause of this warming. This is where the argument gets sticky. While climate skeptics now generally acknowledge the fact of warming, they like to throw out all sorts of red herrings about the cause. They say that solar variation explains warming, that water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than carbon is, that carbon build up follows rather than causes warming, that there's apparent warming on Mars. These claims--each containing a germ of truth--are all irrelevant and misleading, raised to cloud the ineluctable facts that carbon dioxide has been shown repeatedly to have a greenhouse effect and that levels of carbon dioxide have risen dramatically since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Scientists alarmed at the prospect of global warming all understand that warming can result from multiple causes, and they further understand that there's one cause of the current warming trend that we must do something about: that is emissions of carbon dioxide.
Two excellent web sites provide the necessary background for an informed awareness of global warming. Real Climate is an ongoing discussion among scientists about all aspects of climate change. Grist is an on-line magazine covering a wide range of environmental issues, with a terrific set of essays on "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic".
It's often said that the Bush-Cheney administration is beholden to corporate interests and routinely does the bidding of big business. This is only partly true, especially when we consider the list of American corporations that are pleading for our government to take climate change seriously, including General Electric, Sunoco, DTE, and DuPont, to name a few. The truth is that on this issue, at least, the administration is controlled by fossil fuel interests, especially big coal. Coal-burning power plants are the largest single source of atmospheric carbon, and the coal producing companies of this country do not want anything interfering with their obscene profits.
Global warming threatens our children and grandchildren with agricultural collapse, starvation, pestilence, drought and flood, possibly the end of civilization as we now enjoy it. The Bush-Cheney mafia are determined to ignore it as long as they are in office. But their days, finally, are numbered. We should be asking every candidate for federal and state office where s/he stands on this, the fundamental issue of our time. Any candidate without a firm, scientifically defensible position on the need for substantial reductions of carbon emissions does not deserve our vote.
And please go to this site to let the world know that Bush does not speak for you.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Iraq: Getting it Right
In Friday's Times Herald, is a headline (no link available) about Iraq that suggests progress in that beleaguered country: "U.S. deaths in Iraq fall again: Refugees' return hailed as 'great victory.'" It would be wonderful if this were the whole story. All Americans would love to see that the sacrifices of American and Iraqi lives, the expenditure of hundreds of billions of American tax dollars, and the deterioration of America's reputation around the word had finally produced something positive. I say this here, up front, because it's become a routine talking point on the right to insist that those of us who opposed this war from the beginning wish for failure, that we are so relentless in our contempt for Bush-Cheney policies that we cannot accept, and even reject out of hand, evidence that those policies might be working. Nothing could be further from the case: we grieve for lives lost, and we hope for the establishment of a decent civil society in Iraq.
But we also are determined not to gloss over the truth and not to be fooled by superficial, incomplete stories such as the one in Friday's Times Herald. One place to start getting a more complete account of what's actually happening would be this article in Friday's New York Times: "Iraq unprepared as war refugees return." It turns out that the Times Herald, as usual, is reporting less than the whole tale. The putative lull in violence in Baghdad is largely explained by the fact that murderous militias have successfully eliminated their enemies from whole neighborhoods. Extensive parts of Baghdad that were mixed, with Shi'ites and Sunnis living side by side, have been ethnically cleansed, and U. S. field commanders are seriously worried that this moment of relative calm will quickly disappear when families driven from their homes try to return. The Iraqi government, such as it is, has no plan to deal with this potential catastrophe.
One reason the Iraqi authorities are so unprepared is the widespread corruption and criminal activity that permeate the Malaki government (click here). Remember that the Bush-Cheney "surge" was designed to give the Iraqi government breathing space to get its act together and actually govern? Rather than get the electricity grid functioning, the government has turned to extortion and theft.
While all Americans are grateful for any respite in the horrors brought to Iraq by the U.S. occupation, we should not be fooled into concluding that the Bush-Cheney gang finally has a plan. What's really happening is a constant lowering of expectations. Once upon a time in the Bush-Cheney fantasy world, the U. S. invasion was going to bring peace and democracy. Now, if they get the violence down for a month or two--though still to levels that should horrify us--they claim success, even though their own commanders in the field know that this illusion of stability is fragile and probably transient.
But we also are determined not to gloss over the truth and not to be fooled by superficial, incomplete stories such as the one in Friday's Times Herald. One place to start getting a more complete account of what's actually happening would be this article in Friday's New York Times: "Iraq unprepared as war refugees return." It turns out that the Times Herald, as usual, is reporting less than the whole tale. The putative lull in violence in Baghdad is largely explained by the fact that murderous militias have successfully eliminated their enemies from whole neighborhoods. Extensive parts of Baghdad that were mixed, with Shi'ites and Sunnis living side by side, have been ethnically cleansed, and U. S. field commanders are seriously worried that this moment of relative calm will quickly disappear when families driven from their homes try to return. The Iraqi government, such as it is, has no plan to deal with this potential catastrophe.
One reason the Iraqi authorities are so unprepared is the widespread corruption and criminal activity that permeate the Malaki government (click here). Remember that the Bush-Cheney "surge" was designed to give the Iraqi government breathing space to get its act together and actually govern? Rather than get the electricity grid functioning, the government has turned to extortion and theft.
While all Americans are grateful for any respite in the horrors brought to Iraq by the U.S. occupation, we should not be fooled into concluding that the Bush-Cheney gang finally has a plan. What's really happening is a constant lowering of expectations. Once upon a time in the Bush-Cheney fantasy world, the U. S. invasion was going to bring peace and democracy. Now, if they get the violence down for a month or two--though still to levels that should horrify us--they claim success, even though their own commanders in the field know that this illusion of stability is fragile and probably transient.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
More Bush Hypocrisy
Think Progress has a stunning article today illustrating further, as if we needed it, the truly mind-boggling hypocrisy of George W. Bush and his lackeys. Here are the horrifying details: A woman in Saudi Arabia was gang raped. For her crime (yes, our trusted ally in the GWOT, Saudi Arabia, declares that a raped woman is a criminal), she was sentenced to 200 lashes and 6 months in prison. Does the Bush administration have anything critical to say about this? Well, no. Did George Bush himself say the following in his second inaugural address: "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend…that women welcome humiliation and servitude."? Yes, he did.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Invading Iraq: What Have We Achieved?
* American Deaths: 3849
* Cost of the war: $465,730,004,018
* Documented Iraqi civilian deaths: 76,075 – 82,883
* Likely total civilian deaths: 1,099,372
* Iraqi refugees: over 4 million
(all the above as of 4 November 2007)
* Imminent war between Turkey and Iraqi Kurds
* Al Qaeda stronger, with more recruits, enhanced standing through the Islamic world
* Pakistan on the verge of civil war
* Iran's position in the Gulf strengthened
* Loss of American prestige around the world
* Loss of constitutional liberties
* Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture as official U. S. policy, civil war in Iraq
What has the U. S. invasion of Iraq NOT produced?
* Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, evidence that Iraq was in any way connected to 9/11, evidence that Iraq was a threat in any way to the U.S.
* Cost of the war: $465,730,004,018
* Documented Iraqi civilian deaths: 76,075 – 82,883
* Likely total civilian deaths: 1,099,372
* Iraqi refugees: over 4 million
(all the above as of 4 November 2007)
* Imminent war between Turkey and Iraqi Kurds
* Al Qaeda stronger, with more recruits, enhanced standing through the Islamic world
* Pakistan on the verge of civil war
* Iran's position in the Gulf strengthened
* Loss of American prestige around the world
* Loss of constitutional liberties
* Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture as official U. S. policy, civil war in Iraq
What has the U. S. invasion of Iraq NOT produced?
* Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, evidence that Iraq was in any way connected to 9/11, evidence that Iraq was a threat in any way to the U.S.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Islamofascism?
Cenk Uygur is co-host of The Young Turks, a new morning show for Air America Radio. He was born a Muslim, has law and business degrees, and knows what he's talking about. Here's his take on the current neocon con, stirring up war hysteria about "Islamofascism." It's a must read, making three main points: the neocons and their allies are absurdly exaggerating the threat; "Islamofascism" is a nonsense, made-up word, calculated to elicit fear, but with no connection to political reality; fear of "Islamofascism" can lead (and is purposefully so designed) to loss of our constitutionally protected liberties, to accepting torture as a legitimate tool of American police work, and to illegal, unnecessary, counterproductive wars of choice. Please take a look.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Peace between Muslims and Christians
“Christians and Muslims reportedly make up over a third and over a fifth of humanity respectively. Together they may up more than 55% of the world’s population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace.”
This quotation comes from A Common Word between Us and You, an open letter signed by 138 Muslim scholars and leaders from around the world representing all branches of Islam. Their letter is addressed to the leaders of Christian churches everywhere, many of them listed by name. It discusses major features common to the two religions: belief in one God, the obligation to love God, and the obligation to love one’s neighbor. While not denying that Muslims and Christians differ over important issues of belief, A Common Word is careful to avoid giving offense to Christians. Instead it encourages both Christians and Muslims to follow their respective faiths more closely.
This letter is receiving positive responses from Christian leaders. For example, Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and president of the Lutheran World Federation, has this to say: “I acknowledge this letter in gratitude and recognition of the need for its further study and consideration. I likewise accept it in the belief that Jews, Muslims, and Christians are called to one another as to a holy site, where God's living revelation in the world is received in reverence among the faithful and not in fear of our neighbors.”
A Common Word between Us and You is a timely statement since the two faiths are frequently misrepresented and misunderstood, even by their own adherents. It is an important contribution to the respectful dialogue between Islam and Christianity now on the rise in many places. A Common Word deserves to be welcomed, not only by Christians and Muslims, but by all people of good will.
For a summary and abridgment of A Common Word, as well as the full text and other resources, see http://www.acommonword.com.
This quotation comes from A Common Word between Us and You, an open letter signed by 138 Muslim scholars and leaders from around the world representing all branches of Islam. Their letter is addressed to the leaders of Christian churches everywhere, many of them listed by name. It discusses major features common to the two religions: belief in one God, the obligation to love God, and the obligation to love one’s neighbor. While not denying that Muslims and Christians differ over important issues of belief, A Common Word is careful to avoid giving offense to Christians. Instead it encourages both Christians and Muslims to follow their respective faiths more closely.
This letter is receiving positive responses from Christian leaders. For example, Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and president of the Lutheran World Federation, has this to say: “I acknowledge this letter in gratitude and recognition of the need for its further study and consideration. I likewise accept it in the belief that Jews, Muslims, and Christians are called to one another as to a holy site, where God's living revelation in the world is received in reverence among the faithful and not in fear of our neighbors.”
A Common Word between Us and You is a timely statement since the two faiths are frequently misrepresented and misunderstood, even by their own adherents. It is an important contribution to the respectful dialogue between Islam and Christianity now on the rise in many places. A Common Word deserves to be welcomed, not only by Christians and Muslims, but by all people of good will.
For a summary and abridgment of A Common Word, as well as the full text and other resources, see http://www.acommonword.com.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Iran
As always, Juan Cole is right on the mark today in his analysis of the latest Bush-Cheney moves against Iran. Yesterday, the U. S. announced new sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and several Iranian banks. As Cole points out, this maneuver stinks of the usual Bush-Cheney hypocrisy. The administration accuses Iran of supporting terrorism, when that's just what the U. S. is doing with the Kurdish guerillas now attacking both Turkey and Iran (see here). The new sanctions completely ignore the complexities of Iranian politics and will probably have little effect. For an excellent assessment of what it all means, see this article in Asia Times.
A U S. strike against Iran is probably on the way. The neocons, led by Dick Cheney, appear determined to hit Iran before they leave office. Republicans are lining up with the usual rhetoric declaring Iran a major threat. None of it is true, but that doesn't seem to matter. Iran is many years away from nuclear capabilities and does not have a delivery system remotely capable of threatening the U. S. The evidence that Iran is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency is thin--about as convincing as the evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction in 2002. In any case, the neocons never examine the fine points: the Iraqi insurgency is almost exclusively Sunni, historic enemies of Iranian Shi'ites. It is extremely unlikely that Iran or any of its clients would be providing arms to Sunni insurgents, who in fact are fighting against a Shi'ite government recognized and favored by Iran.
What really boggles the mind is the stunning incompetence of the neocons clamoring for war with Iran. That they are ideologically bizarre has been demonstrated repeatedly, but why does everything Cheney and his thugs do have to be so incredibly counter to U. S. interests? The occupation of Iraq has given al Qaeda new life; it has strengthened the Iranian position in the Gulf; it has strained the U. S. military to the point of collapse; it has destroyed U. S. credibility in the world community; it has run up a staggering debt. In no way has this debacle improved U. S. security. A strike against Iran would be more of the same. It will bolster the tenuous grip on power of the erratic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants nothing more than to lead Iran in a military conflict with the U. S. It will disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf. It will lead to much more dangerous circumstances for U. S. troops in Iraq. And it will probably lead to Iranian attacks on Israel. It could easily and quickly spiral out of control. Iran is capable of causing enormous damage--around the Gulf, in Iraq, in Israel, in Afghanistan. Do the neocons seriously think that Iran will simply change its ways and toe the U. S. line?
A military strike against Iran poses cataclysmic possibilities. It does nothing to make this country or its allies more secure. It would be the final move of a desperate administration unpopular at home and despised around the world.
A U S. strike against Iran is probably on the way. The neocons, led by Dick Cheney, appear determined to hit Iran before they leave office. Republicans are lining up with the usual rhetoric declaring Iran a major threat. None of it is true, but that doesn't seem to matter. Iran is many years away from nuclear capabilities and does not have a delivery system remotely capable of threatening the U. S. The evidence that Iran is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency is thin--about as convincing as the evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction in 2002. In any case, the neocons never examine the fine points: the Iraqi insurgency is almost exclusively Sunni, historic enemies of Iranian Shi'ites. It is extremely unlikely that Iran or any of its clients would be providing arms to Sunni insurgents, who in fact are fighting against a Shi'ite government recognized and favored by Iran.
What really boggles the mind is the stunning incompetence of the neocons clamoring for war with Iran. That they are ideologically bizarre has been demonstrated repeatedly, but why does everything Cheney and his thugs do have to be so incredibly counter to U. S. interests? The occupation of Iraq has given al Qaeda new life; it has strengthened the Iranian position in the Gulf; it has strained the U. S. military to the point of collapse; it has destroyed U. S. credibility in the world community; it has run up a staggering debt. In no way has this debacle improved U. S. security. A strike against Iran would be more of the same. It will bolster the tenuous grip on power of the erratic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants nothing more than to lead Iran in a military conflict with the U. S. It will disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf. It will lead to much more dangerous circumstances for U. S. troops in Iraq. And it will probably lead to Iranian attacks on Israel. It could easily and quickly spiral out of control. Iran is capable of causing enormous damage--around the Gulf, in Iraq, in Israel, in Afghanistan. Do the neocons seriously think that Iran will simply change its ways and toe the U. S. line?
A military strike against Iran poses cataclysmic possibilities. It does nothing to make this country or its allies more secure. It would be the final move of a desperate administration unpopular at home and despised around the world.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
More Phony Soldiers?
Here's a link to a piece in the Washington Post, 16 October 2007, in which 12 former captains in the U.S. Army describe what's really happening in Iraq. How long will it be before Rush Limbaugh calls them "phony soldiers"? That's his term for any member of the military who dares to express independent views on this disaster (see here).
Friday, October 12, 2007
Al Gore's Nobel Prize
Al Gore, who was elected President of the United States in 2000 but denied the office by the United States Supreme Court, has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global climate change. The Nobel citation noted that he "is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted” to slow down this cataclysmic threat to world peace and stability. The New York Times article on this award is here.
What will be interesting in the next few days--aside from the inevitable speculation on whether or not he will now decide to run for President--will be how the right-wing attack machine will go into full assault mode in its endless efforts to deny climate change and smear Gore personally. The temperature is rising, and the polar ice caps are melting, yet the well-funded climate skeptics, encouraged by the Bush-Cheney junta, will do anything to protect the interests of the fossil-fuel trust.
Global climate change is probably the most pressing issue in the dismal history of the human species. Among other things, it will disrupt agriculture, raise sea levels, cause mass extinctions, and alter precipitation patterns. There's not much time left to avert the worst of what is likely to happen to our planet's already endangered ecological health.
Al Gore deserves this award, and he deserves our respect and support for his efforts to wake up a somnolent world community.
What will be interesting in the next few days--aside from the inevitable speculation on whether or not he will now decide to run for President--will be how the right-wing attack machine will go into full assault mode in its endless efforts to deny climate change and smear Gore personally. The temperature is rising, and the polar ice caps are melting, yet the well-funded climate skeptics, encouraged by the Bush-Cheney junta, will do anything to protect the interests of the fossil-fuel trust.
Global climate change is probably the most pressing issue in the dismal history of the human species. Among other things, it will disrupt agriculture, raise sea levels, cause mass extinctions, and alter precipitation patterns. There's not much time left to avert the worst of what is likely to happen to our planet's already endangered ecological health.
Al Gore deserves this award, and he deserves our respect and support for his efforts to wake up a somnolent world community.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Honorable Interrogation
The Bush regime insists that torture is necessary to extract essential information from its prisoners. But not only is torture immoral and contrary to international law, it is not necessary for effective interrogation. That’s the claim made by several American interrogators from World War II who were recently honored at a ceremony near the nation’s capital.
“During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone,” said George Frenkel from Kensington, Virginia. “We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”
“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, an MIT physicist.
When Peter Weiss, a human rights and trademark lawyer from New York, went up to receive his award, he took the microphone and spoke his mind. “I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war.”
Read the whole article at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492_pf.html
“During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone,” said George Frenkel from Kensington, Virginia. “We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”
“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, an MIT physicist.
When Peter Weiss, a human rights and trademark lawyer from New York, went up to receive his award, he took the microphone and spoke his mind. “I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war.”
Read the whole article at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492_pf.html
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Thank Candice Miller (Really)
Candice Miller is one of many Republicans who voted to expand the SCHIP program that provides health insurance for children from low-income families. The President vetoed that bill yesterday, and the vote to overturn the veto in the House of Representatives will be close. Go to this web site to let her know that you support her position and to encourage her to resist the inevitable White House Pressure to change it.
Friday, September 28, 2007
(Bush) = (War) - (Healthcare)
"Follow the money"--that's what a popular film a few years ago declared. That's how you find out what's really happening.
The Bush administration wants another $190 billion for its occupation of Iraq. If this request is funded, the continuing insanity in Iraq will cost 15% more in 2008 than it did in 2007 and be the single most costly year since the invasion began. (Click here.) So, do you believe the Whitehouse's claims about maybe beginning troop withdrawal next year? The money says, forget it.
Meanwhile, tough-guy Bush says he'll veto the bill Congress has passed to provide health care for American children. That bill would cost $7 billion per year for five years. For 2008, that means it would cost less than 4% of the price for the illegal Bush-Cheney occupation of Iraq. What more do we need to know about this administration's values? There's money for Blackwater mercenaries, but none for our children's health.
The Bush administration wants another $190 billion for its occupation of Iraq. If this request is funded, the continuing insanity in Iraq will cost 15% more in 2008 than it did in 2007 and be the single most costly year since the invasion began. (Click here.) So, do you believe the Whitehouse's claims about maybe beginning troop withdrawal next year? The money says, forget it.
Meanwhile, tough-guy Bush says he'll veto the bill Congress has passed to provide health care for American children. That bill would cost $7 billion per year for five years. For 2008, that means it would cost less than 4% of the price for the illegal Bush-Cheney occupation of Iraq. What more do we need to know about this administration's values? There's money for Blackwater mercenaries, but none for our children's health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
