SENATOR BILL CLINTON?
Hilary has apparently been invited to serve as Secretary of State, and if she accepts, she will have the opportunity to serve her country during an historic period.
It would be a bad idea to appoint Bill Clinton to fill her Senate seat. It would be too much of a temptation for Bill and Hilary to work both sides of the street, trying to create their own version of a foreign policy. But this would lead to mistrust and contention within the Obama administration - confusion that we do not need in these precarious times.
It would be better for Bill to take his turn at Hilary''s side, as a respected advisor within the next Administration, free to speak his mind within the private councils of the Executive Branch. In foreign policy, it is vital to show the world a clear and unified determination of purpose. For Hilary to be Secretary of State, Bill must play a supporting role this time.
I like Caroline Kennedy for the job, myself.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
SOME PERSPECTIVE
In the 1970's, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger began a series of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, and enacted several SALT agreements with the Soviet Union.
The first, SALT I, limited defensive systems (ABMs) to small areas around capital cities and missile launching sites.
Later agreements brought actual arms reductions and supervised dismantling of nuclear missiles. Great, huh?
Unfortunately for us, the SALT I treaty included a provision that the President could unilaterally suspend it if he thought that would be in the national interest. And that is exactly what George W. Bush did, in December 2001.
Why?
Well, the deployment of a Star Wars system would be in violation of the SALT I treaty, and Star Wars was really, really important to the defense moguls pulling the strings of the Bush administration. They wanted Star Wars because it meant truckloads of money, and because it wouldn't work.
Even the hawkiest hawks had to admit we had enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the world several times over. They just couldn't sell Minuteman III, where we put nuclear missiles on trucks and trains and kept them circling around our prairies to keep them from being targeted. They just couldn't sell the N-bomb, which killed people by enhanced neutron radiation but would be detonated high enough to leave buildings standing. Our European allies wouldn't allow it. Sure, it would kill invading Russians in their tanks, with minimized collateral damage. But that collateral damage included our own allies in their own houses, and they just didn't like the idea.
But defensive systems can still be sold. And defensive systems that don''t work are even better. Once you get a few billions invested, you can go back to Congress year after year, exposing vulnerabilities, scaring people, asking for a few billions more. You'll get it.
That's why.
Star Wars has no chance of working. It's a 21st century Maginot Line. It's pork barrel politics combined with the utter insanity of Dr. Strangelove (a character rumored to be based on dear Dr. Kissinger himself).
So why are we doing this? Because it means billions and billions of dollars of federal spending, and it won''t work. It's a scam, and what's worse, it's a deadly threat to our national security.
If you''re a defense contractor, these are the good times. If you're a loyal American, or even a decent human being, you have to ask Why are we doing this to ourselves?, Why have we sabotaged the SALT treaties?, Why are we reigniting the Cold War and stimulating nuclear proliferation around the world?
Why?
The conflict in Georgia is only the first bloody mess we face unless we stop the Star Wars madness.
In the 1970's, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger began a series of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, and enacted several SALT agreements with the Soviet Union.
The first, SALT I, limited defensive systems (ABMs) to small areas around capital cities and missile launching sites.
Later agreements brought actual arms reductions and supervised dismantling of nuclear missiles. Great, huh?
Unfortunately for us, the SALT I treaty included a provision that the President could unilaterally suspend it if he thought that would be in the national interest. And that is exactly what George W. Bush did, in December 2001.
Why?
Well, the deployment of a Star Wars system would be in violation of the SALT I treaty, and Star Wars was really, really important to the defense moguls pulling the strings of the Bush administration. They wanted Star Wars because it meant truckloads of money, and because it wouldn't work.
Even the hawkiest hawks had to admit we had enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the world several times over. They just couldn't sell Minuteman III, where we put nuclear missiles on trucks and trains and kept them circling around our prairies to keep them from being targeted. They just couldn't sell the N-bomb, which killed people by enhanced neutron radiation but would be detonated high enough to leave buildings standing. Our European allies wouldn't allow it. Sure, it would kill invading Russians in their tanks, with minimized collateral damage. But that collateral damage included our own allies in their own houses, and they just didn't like the idea.
But defensive systems can still be sold. And defensive systems that don''t work are even better. Once you get a few billions invested, you can go back to Congress year after year, exposing vulnerabilities, scaring people, asking for a few billions more. You'll get it.
That's why.
Star Wars has no chance of working. It's a 21st century Maginot Line. It's pork barrel politics combined with the utter insanity of Dr. Strangelove (a character rumored to be based on dear Dr. Kissinger himself).
So why are we doing this? Because it means billions and billions of dollars of federal spending, and it won''t work. It's a scam, and what's worse, it's a deadly threat to our national security.
If you''re a defense contractor, these are the good times. If you're a loyal American, or even a decent human being, you have to ask Why are we doing this to ourselves?, Why have we sabotaged the SALT treaties?, Why are we reigniting the Cold War and stimulating nuclear proliferation around the world?
Why?
The conflict in Georgia is only the first bloody mess we face unless we stop the Star Wars madness.
THE WAR ON TERROR
America can not afford to lose the War on Terrorism.
Our problem right now is that the Bush administration has always treated the War on Terrorism as a political program, like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. They have used it shamelessly as a political tool to advance their own agenda, and especially as a source of nearly limitless money to pour into the pockets of their cronies.
We have MORE private contractors in Iraq than troops, getting paid princely sums that far exceed what a poor reservist gets. We spend $BILLIONS in contracts to build bases, to operate oil facilities, to protect civilian personnel. Why is the administration negotiating with the government of Iraq for permission to STAY LONGER? Because it''s worth $BILLIONS to them for us to stay there!!!
A REAL War on Terror would be over by now, if we had used the worldwide sympathy and good will that followed 9/11 to build alliances and intelligence networks and international police agencies to combat terrorism. All legitimate governments fear terrorism, and would cooperate to allow terrorism no safe haven.
But, sickeningly, this corrupt administration has been willing to terrorize its own population in order to advance its right wing dreams: a vast expansion of executive powers, huge sums of money showered on their cronies in the name of national security, occupation of the second largest oil reserves in the world.
We need to win the War on Terror. And to do that we need to get these neocon war criminals out of our government.
America can not afford to lose the War on Terrorism.
Our problem right now is that the Bush administration has always treated the War on Terrorism as a political program, like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. They have used it shamelessly as a political tool to advance their own agenda, and especially as a source of nearly limitless money to pour into the pockets of their cronies.
We have MORE private contractors in Iraq than troops, getting paid princely sums that far exceed what a poor reservist gets. We spend $BILLIONS in contracts to build bases, to operate oil facilities, to protect civilian personnel. Why is the administration negotiating with the government of Iraq for permission to STAY LONGER? Because it''s worth $BILLIONS to them for us to stay there!!!
A REAL War on Terror would be over by now, if we had used the worldwide sympathy and good will that followed 9/11 to build alliances and intelligence networks and international police agencies to combat terrorism. All legitimate governments fear terrorism, and would cooperate to allow terrorism no safe haven.
But, sickeningly, this corrupt administration has been willing to terrorize its own population in order to advance its right wing dreams: a vast expansion of executive powers, huge sums of money showered on their cronies in the name of national security, occupation of the second largest oil reserves in the world.
We need to win the War on Terror. And to do that we need to get these neocon war criminals out of our government.
GOODBYE SANTA
There's not really an argument about one fact: in the absence of other factors, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will raise the surface temperature of the earth. And we have been increasing the concentration of one greenhouse gas - carbon dioxide - since the Industrial Revolution caused humankind to switch from firewood to fossil fuels like coal and oil.
(If you disagree with this, please try your own little greenhouse experiment. Park your car in the summer sunshine, roll up all your windows, and sit there for a while. Your car windows absorb infrared energy even more effectively than carbon dioxide gas does, and you've just put yourself inside a little greenhouse. Wait there for a while. See what happens. Please don't bring any pets or small children with you.)
However, since a planetary climate system IS complicated by so many other factors, and since the future is ALWAYS uncertain, it becomes possible for vested interests to confuse any reasonable discussion of the issue. That doesn't change the facts, or the future we face. It only protects those vested interests by delaying the pressure they would face from an informed public.
What vested interests?
Why the Blood for Oil people of course. The ones controlling the present Republican administration and right wing media machine. They've sold out their country and our children''s future - for record profits, though!
It won't be this summer. It might be next summer. But it won't be long now.
The North Polar Ice Cap is going to melt away completely during some summertime in the next few decades. There will be open seas at the North Pole.
Goodbye, Santa.
There's not really an argument about one fact: in the absence of other factors, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will raise the surface temperature of the earth. And we have been increasing the concentration of one greenhouse gas - carbon dioxide - since the Industrial Revolution caused humankind to switch from firewood to fossil fuels like coal and oil.
(If you disagree with this, please try your own little greenhouse experiment. Park your car in the summer sunshine, roll up all your windows, and sit there for a while. Your car windows absorb infrared energy even more effectively than carbon dioxide gas does, and you've just put yourself inside a little greenhouse. Wait there for a while. See what happens. Please don't bring any pets or small children with you.)
However, since a planetary climate system IS complicated by so many other factors, and since the future is ALWAYS uncertain, it becomes possible for vested interests to confuse any reasonable discussion of the issue. That doesn't change the facts, or the future we face. It only protects those vested interests by delaying the pressure they would face from an informed public.
What vested interests?
Why the Blood for Oil people of course. The ones controlling the present Republican administration and right wing media machine. They've sold out their country and our children''s future - for record profits, though!
It won't be this summer. It might be next summer. But it won't be long now.
The North Polar Ice Cap is going to melt away completely during some summertime in the next few decades. There will be open seas at the North Pole.
Goodbye, Santa.
Monday, February 18, 2008
WHY IRAQ?
There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
Years of effort - and human torture - have produced no evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession or close to possessing nuclear weapons. And the "weapons of mass destruction" obfuscation, designed to allow liars in the Bush administration to talk about poison gas in one sentence and mushroom clouds in the next, didn't even save them. No stockpiles of nerve gas were ever found; no weaponized infectious agents were ever discovered. That hasn't stopped right wingers from continuing to spew lies like "The nerve gas was hidden in Syria!" But sane people realize that there was no imminent threat from Iraq.
Years of effort -and human torture - have produced no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Al Qaeda attack on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. This makes perfect sense. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, who remained in power only by intimidation and violence. He was a ruthless murderer, and although that is not a technical disqualification from being a religious zealot these days, he was not, in fact, connected with any religious movements. For him to be working with Al Qaeda would be like Ralph Reed to be working with Jack Abramoff - oops, bad example. But, despite the vicious and criminal efforts of the Bush administration to manufacture evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, there has been nothing added to the false claims that were being made many years ago. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11.
Well, there is a connection, now. The tragic attacks of 9/11 have been used - cynically and falsely - as an excuse by the Bush administration to pursue their own fascist agenda and to expand executive powers far beyond all legal and Constitutional limits. It is worth asking whether the utter failure of the Bush administration to protect our nation from these attacks was the result of incompetence - certainly supported by an abundance of other examples - or treason - if warnings were ignored so that greater powers could be seized in a crisis.
So what was the reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq?
It wasn't retaliation for the attacks of 9/11. Our intelligence services knew then - as we all know now - that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
It wasn't protection of our national interest from a rogue state. Our intelligence services knew then - as we all know now - that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq and that there was no cooperation between the atheistic dictator and the religious mujadeen.
The answer can be found, finally, now http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-11.html
Here is another Bush administration attempt to subvert the Constitution, this time by writing a treaty that isn't a treaty, that somehow binds our country to an agreement with Iraq that will never be ratified by Congress.
What does it say?
Permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and preferential treatment for U.S. corporations.
That's what it was all about.
First, relocation of American military forces out of Europe where they are no longer needed and out of Saudi Arabia where they are endangering a friendly Saudi government. Second, as always with the corporate whores of the Bush administration, protection of the economic interests of their corporate sponsors.
Blood for oil; government of, by, and for people who have sold themselves out to Halliburton or Blackwater or other corporate criminals.
That's what is was all about. That's what it has always been about.
Disgrace is too mild a word.
There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
Years of effort - and human torture - have produced no evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession or close to possessing nuclear weapons. And the "weapons of mass destruction" obfuscation, designed to allow liars in the Bush administration to talk about poison gas in one sentence and mushroom clouds in the next, didn't even save them. No stockpiles of nerve gas were ever found; no weaponized infectious agents were ever discovered. That hasn't stopped right wingers from continuing to spew lies like "The nerve gas was hidden in Syria!" But sane people realize that there was no imminent threat from Iraq.
Years of effort -and human torture - have produced no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Al Qaeda attack on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. This makes perfect sense. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, who remained in power only by intimidation and violence. He was a ruthless murderer, and although that is not a technical disqualification from being a religious zealot these days, he was not, in fact, connected with any religious movements. For him to be working with Al Qaeda would be like Ralph Reed to be working with Jack Abramoff - oops, bad example. But, despite the vicious and criminal efforts of the Bush administration to manufacture evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, there has been nothing added to the false claims that were being made many years ago. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11.
Well, there is a connection, now. The tragic attacks of 9/11 have been used - cynically and falsely - as an excuse by the Bush administration to pursue their own fascist agenda and to expand executive powers far beyond all legal and Constitutional limits. It is worth asking whether the utter failure of the Bush administration to protect our nation from these attacks was the result of incompetence - certainly supported by an abundance of other examples - or treason - if warnings were ignored so that greater powers could be seized in a crisis.
So what was the reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq?
It wasn't retaliation for the attacks of 9/11. Our intelligence services knew then - as we all know now - that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
It wasn't protection of our national interest from a rogue state. Our intelligence services knew then - as we all know now - that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq and that there was no cooperation between the atheistic dictator and the religious mujadeen.
The answer can be found, finally, now http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-11.html
Here is another Bush administration attempt to subvert the Constitution, this time by writing a treaty that isn't a treaty, that somehow binds our country to an agreement with Iraq that will never be ratified by Congress.
What does it say?
Permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and preferential treatment for U.S. corporations.
That's what it was all about.
First, relocation of American military forces out of Europe where they are no longer needed and out of Saudi Arabia where they are endangering a friendly Saudi government. Second, as always with the corporate whores of the Bush administration, protection of the economic interests of their corporate sponsors.
Blood for oil; government of, by, and for people who have sold themselves out to Halliburton or Blackwater or other corporate criminals.
That's what is was all about. That's what it has always been about.
Disgrace is too mild a word.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
WHAT REALLY MATTERS
Have you noticed it too?
We live in a world that bombards us with information - images, noise, logos, celebrities, pundits, graphics, jingles, on and on and on.
And yet, it feels empty.
Over the past few months, we have been treated to the usual sports coverage of the election process by prating fools who cover polls and percentages more than the real choices facing us.
Over the next few months, we will be treated to show trials from Guantanamo, leading to death penalties just before election day, just as Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death three days before the last national election.
And in the meantime, our national leaders send our jobs and especially our children's jobs overseas, as our industrial base is modernized and rebuilt on foreign shores. And in the meantime, the nuclear arms race is being rekindled as our country pursues billion dollar boondoggles to pour federal dollars into the pockets of defense contractors. And in the meantime, any realistic plans to seek energy independence and respond to global warming threats are thwarted by cynical oil company connections within the government. And in the meantime, our American ideals and heritage - freedom, human dignity, government of the people, by the people, and for the people - are being savaged by the intellectual heirs of Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest.
And yet, our media still finds time for OJ and Britney and Paris and, still, once in a while, poor Princess Di.
What really matters anyway?
What matters to me is that we humans could make this world a better place to live if we all agreed to seek peace through justice, and prosperity through fairness. Sadly, there are predators among us who seek power by intimidation and violence, and wealth by conquest and theft.
It may be that the decent among us will ultimately prevail; that the meek will truly inherit the earth. Or it may be that the sky is darkening and the future we are about to experience will be fearsome indeed.
Perhaps it would help if those of us who care about peace and justice and decency and honor decided to focus our thoughts on finding a hopeful vision for the future, and to join forces in moving towards this dream. Whether we succeed or fail, it might make our brief journey through this life a little brighter, and in some small ways the world that we live in a better place. It might make the time we spend on this earth worthwhile.
And isn't that what really matters?
Have you noticed it too?
We live in a world that bombards us with information - images, noise, logos, celebrities, pundits, graphics, jingles, on and on and on.
And yet, it feels empty.
Over the past few months, we have been treated to the usual sports coverage of the election process by prating fools who cover polls and percentages more than the real choices facing us.
Over the next few months, we will be treated to show trials from Guantanamo, leading to death penalties just before election day, just as Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death three days before the last national election.
And in the meantime, our national leaders send our jobs and especially our children's jobs overseas, as our industrial base is modernized and rebuilt on foreign shores. And in the meantime, the nuclear arms race is being rekindled as our country pursues billion dollar boondoggles to pour federal dollars into the pockets of defense contractors. And in the meantime, any realistic plans to seek energy independence and respond to global warming threats are thwarted by cynical oil company connections within the government. And in the meantime, our American ideals and heritage - freedom, human dignity, government of the people, by the people, and for the people - are being savaged by the intellectual heirs of Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest.
And yet, our media still finds time for OJ and Britney and Paris and, still, once in a while, poor Princess Di.
What really matters anyway?
What matters to me is that we humans could make this world a better place to live if we all agreed to seek peace through justice, and prosperity through fairness. Sadly, there are predators among us who seek power by intimidation and violence, and wealth by conquest and theft.
It may be that the decent among us will ultimately prevail; that the meek will truly inherit the earth. Or it may be that the sky is darkening and the future we are about to experience will be fearsome indeed.
Perhaps it would help if those of us who care about peace and justice and decency and honor decided to focus our thoughts on finding a hopeful vision for the future, and to join forces in moving towards this dream. Whether we succeed or fail, it might make our brief journey through this life a little brighter, and in some small ways the world that we live in a better place. It might make the time we spend on this earth worthwhile.
And isn't that what really matters?
Monday, September 03, 2007
A NAUGHTY BOY
I watched the Kieth Olbermann "Countdown" reenactment of the Senator Craig bathroom incident. When I saw the details of the police report, and when I heard his "wide stance" explanation, I thought it would be obvious to everyone that he was lying. I mean, we've all used stalls in public restrooms. And we know that our feet and the feet of others don't just go wandering around underneath the partitions. Wide stance or not, you just don't stick your feet into somebody else's stall. Craig was lying.
This bothered the Republican Party, of course. For, after all, they are the world's most dedicated and professional liars, and Craig had not consulted with them first. His inferior lying had put the GOP in a bad light. Perhaps, with help from above, Craig could have kept things hidden a while longer, as Mark Foley was helped to win several more elections to Congress after the first allegations against him surfaced in 1996. He had important work to do, after all, serving as chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.
So now Craig has gone. He's not "gay". He just likes to be "naughty" once in a while. What's the difference? Well, if he were gay, he would approve of such behavior, and defend it as a private, personal choice. Since he's not gay, he opposes such behavior and encourages others to condemn it and even use political powers to harass "gay" people. It's a big difference, the difference between saying "naughty" and "nice".
Craig is definitely a wierd, twisted little creature, like many Republicans.
Still, my wife has raised the question of what was the crime that Craig actually committed? And why was a police officer working to apprehend such offenders?
I admit, I made the assumption that the Minneapolis police were just doing their duty. I figured there must have been some complaints made. Perhaps the place had become notorious among travelers and was giving visitors to the city a distorted impression of Minneapolis. Perhaps straight men were getting creeped out by the frequent sight of eyeballs staring at them through the crack by the door. Perhaps there were never any stalls left any more. I don't know. I just assumed that the police had what they considered to be a good reason to take action.
I wouldn't make that assumption about Los Angeles, by the way.
Now I'm feeling a little concerned. It's clear there are some laws on the books that don't belong there.
But it was nice to see a Republican tell a lie and actually get caught. It was a dumb lie, and obviously didn't come from the pros in the propaganda department. The last time we saw this happen was on Super Bowl Sunday in 2002. Sure, he "choked on a pretzel", lost consciousness, fell down, and came to by himself - during the Super Bowl. Or could it be that he sipped half way through a bottle of Southern Comfort, was seriously out of practice in heavy drinking, tripped on his own feet in the bathroom, and came up with a ridiculous story before any of his staff could whip up a better one?
You be the judge.
I watched the Kieth Olbermann "Countdown" reenactment of the Senator Craig bathroom incident. When I saw the details of the police report, and when I heard his "wide stance" explanation, I thought it would be obvious to everyone that he was lying. I mean, we've all used stalls in public restrooms. And we know that our feet and the feet of others don't just go wandering around underneath the partitions. Wide stance or not, you just don't stick your feet into somebody else's stall. Craig was lying.
This bothered the Republican Party, of course. For, after all, they are the world's most dedicated and professional liars, and Craig had not consulted with them first. His inferior lying had put the GOP in a bad light. Perhaps, with help from above, Craig could have kept things hidden a while longer, as Mark Foley was helped to win several more elections to Congress after the first allegations against him surfaced in 1996. He had important work to do, after all, serving as chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.
So now Craig has gone. He's not "gay". He just likes to be "naughty" once in a while. What's the difference? Well, if he were gay, he would approve of such behavior, and defend it as a private, personal choice. Since he's not gay, he opposes such behavior and encourages others to condemn it and even use political powers to harass "gay" people. It's a big difference, the difference between saying "naughty" and "nice".
Craig is definitely a wierd, twisted little creature, like many Republicans.
Still, my wife has raised the question of what was the crime that Craig actually committed? And why was a police officer working to apprehend such offenders?
I admit, I made the assumption that the Minneapolis police were just doing their duty. I figured there must have been some complaints made. Perhaps the place had become notorious among travelers and was giving visitors to the city a distorted impression of Minneapolis. Perhaps straight men were getting creeped out by the frequent sight of eyeballs staring at them through the crack by the door. Perhaps there were never any stalls left any more. I don't know. I just assumed that the police had what they considered to be a good reason to take action.
I wouldn't make that assumption about Los Angeles, by the way.
Now I'm feeling a little concerned. It's clear there are some laws on the books that don't belong there.
But it was nice to see a Republican tell a lie and actually get caught. It was a dumb lie, and obviously didn't come from the pros in the propaganda department. The last time we saw this happen was on Super Bowl Sunday in 2002. Sure, he "choked on a pretzel", lost consciousness, fell down, and came to by himself - during the Super Bowl. Or could it be that he sipped half way through a bottle of Southern Comfort, was seriously out of practice in heavy drinking, tripped on his own feet in the bathroom, and came up with a ridiculous story before any of his staff could whip up a better one?
You be the judge.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
NOSTALGIA
It's been a while since I last posted. I've been busy. And I haven't been inspired by much that's happening these days.
I was an optimist, once. I felt lucky. I have been lucky, in many respects, but I felt that good fortune would always be a part of my future. I don't feel that way any more.
I could never have imagined some of the things I have witnessed in the past decade. The stolen elections. The phony reasons for war. The trashing of the Constitution.
And, what's worse, the pathetic weakness in the defense of this nation and its principles.
This generation of Americans has failed, so far, to defend America from its enemies: Bush, Cheney, and their corporate masters. Our government, our media, our future have been sold out. We have been sold out. And most of us just sit, helpless.
It's depressing.
Is there hope?
It would be nice to think so.
As a nation, we've been through tough times before, and we have prevailed. There's reason to believe that we will do so again. Real democracy may survive here - if we are determined.
In the words of a non-corrupt Republican: "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Those were terrible times. But at least we had an honest President.
It's been a while since I last posted. I've been busy. And I haven't been inspired by much that's happening these days.
I was an optimist, once. I felt lucky. I have been lucky, in many respects, but I felt that good fortune would always be a part of my future. I don't feel that way any more.
I could never have imagined some of the things I have witnessed in the past decade. The stolen elections. The phony reasons for war. The trashing of the Constitution.
And, what's worse, the pathetic weakness in the defense of this nation and its principles.
This generation of Americans has failed, so far, to defend America from its enemies: Bush, Cheney, and their corporate masters. Our government, our media, our future have been sold out. We have been sold out. And most of us just sit, helpless.
It's depressing.
Is there hope?
It would be nice to think so.
As a nation, we've been through tough times before, and we have prevailed. There's reason to believe that we will do so again. Real democracy may survive here - if we are determined.
In the words of a non-corrupt Republican: "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Those were terrible times. But at least we had an honest President.
Monday, May 21, 2007
DON IMUS AND THE PERILS OF COMEDY
Bye-bye, Mr. Imus.
I won't miss him. I don't listen to radio very much, and I've only seen him growling on air during his cable TV broadcasts. As I was switching through the channels, sometimes I'd see him in his cowboy hat with his studio full of doo-wah backup fellas. But I wouldn't stay long. He wasn't worth much.
He must have been a funny guy long ago. But now he's 67 years old and running on empty.
Still, he has become a cause celebre of sorts, for insulting a woman's college basketball team.
So what is there to say about this guy?
I think of a Knights of Columbus dinner for good old Father O'Malley. At the podium, all night long, there are guys making fun of good old Father O'Malley. His golf game, his thinning hair, his bad eyes, that time he called out the wrong bingo number and had two charming old ladies ready to go nuclear - these are all fair game and get plenty of laughs.
But what happens when that comic down at the local club starts telling the same jokes, and Father O'Malley and the Knights of Columbus hear about it? It's not funny any more. That comic, he's not even Catholic. Where does he get off, making fun of good old Father O'Malley? That really pisses us off, goddamn it. Let's get that guy!
It's the same thing with poor Don. If he had been perceived as a long time supporter of the black community, and was known to be speaking only in fun, he would still be babbling over the airwaves. But the problem for Don is that he wasn't seen as sympathetic or supportive of the black community. In fact, insulting a group of young women who were seen as brilliant success stories within the black community - smart and successful - only proves how completely inept and out of touch poor Don was.
He was trying to be funny.
But he wasn't funny any more.
Bye-bye, Don.
Good riddance.
Bye-bye, Mr. Imus.
I won't miss him. I don't listen to radio very much, and I've only seen him growling on air during his cable TV broadcasts. As I was switching through the channels, sometimes I'd see him in his cowboy hat with his studio full of doo-wah backup fellas. But I wouldn't stay long. He wasn't worth much.
He must have been a funny guy long ago. But now he's 67 years old and running on empty.
Still, he has become a cause celebre of sorts, for insulting a woman's college basketball team.
So what is there to say about this guy?
I think of a Knights of Columbus dinner for good old Father O'Malley. At the podium, all night long, there are guys making fun of good old Father O'Malley. His golf game, his thinning hair, his bad eyes, that time he called out the wrong bingo number and had two charming old ladies ready to go nuclear - these are all fair game and get plenty of laughs.
But what happens when that comic down at the local club starts telling the same jokes, and Father O'Malley and the Knights of Columbus hear about it? It's not funny any more. That comic, he's not even Catholic. Where does he get off, making fun of good old Father O'Malley? That really pisses us off, goddamn it. Let's get that guy!
It's the same thing with poor Don. If he had been perceived as a long time supporter of the black community, and was known to be speaking only in fun, he would still be babbling over the airwaves. But the problem for Don is that he wasn't seen as sympathetic or supportive of the black community. In fact, insulting a group of young women who were seen as brilliant success stories within the black community - smart and successful - only proves how completely inept and out of touch poor Don was.
He was trying to be funny.
But he wasn't funny any more.
Bye-bye, Don.
Good riddance.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
DIVIDE AND CONQUER
The Romans had a saying, Divide et Impera. Thank you, Wikipedia.
It means Divide and Rule Over, Dominate, Conquer, Own.
It's what we have today in American politics, practiced by the American Right Wing.
They have a deliberate strategy to find and promote divisiveness in our political discourse.
It helps too, if you've bought up the mass media and can fire anybody who's not a media whore. Goodbye, Peter Arnett, Dan Rather, Bill Maher. Hello, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reillly, Tucker Carlson.
We won't talk about how American corporate interests killed the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and reignited the nuclear arms race, so that billions of dollars could be spent in deployment of a Star Wars system in Alaska that is completely doomed to failure.
We won't talk about how American corporate interests greedy to get their hands on oil fields in Iraq and greedy to build permanent military bases in Iraq perverted American foreign policy to send our military to set up a puppet govenment (with those lovely corrupt officials) in Iraq.
(Of course, the Iraqis aren't that dumb. This whole perverse scheme is also doomed.)
We won't talk about how the War on Terror has led to unprecedented and illegal invasions of privacy of ordinary Americans, by liars and crooks and degenerates who can't be trusted with any authority under any circumstances.
We were going to talk about gay marriage and abortion rights and illegal immigrants.
Anything but governance and public policy and our future as a nation.
Perhaps, one by one, Americans are waking up.
Not listening to Right Wing liars.
We are a mighty people if we remain true to our Constitution and our fundamental beliefs : "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Inalienable means undeniable, absolute, sacred, protected from interference ESPECIALLY BY FASCIST RIGHT WING GOVERNMENTS LIKE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!
Let's agree on that.
Because, undivided, we will prevail.
The Romans had a saying, Divide et Impera. Thank you, Wikipedia.
It means Divide and Rule Over, Dominate, Conquer, Own.
It's what we have today in American politics, practiced by the American Right Wing.
They have a deliberate strategy to find and promote divisiveness in our political discourse.
It helps too, if you've bought up the mass media and can fire anybody who's not a media whore. Goodbye, Peter Arnett, Dan Rather, Bill Maher. Hello, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reillly, Tucker Carlson.
We won't talk about how American corporate interests killed the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and reignited the nuclear arms race, so that billions of dollars could be spent in deployment of a Star Wars system in Alaska that is completely doomed to failure.
We won't talk about how American corporate interests greedy to get their hands on oil fields in Iraq and greedy to build permanent military bases in Iraq perverted American foreign policy to send our military to set up a puppet govenment (with those lovely corrupt officials) in Iraq.
(Of course, the Iraqis aren't that dumb. This whole perverse scheme is also doomed.)
We won't talk about how the War on Terror has led to unprecedented and illegal invasions of privacy of ordinary Americans, by liars and crooks and degenerates who can't be trusted with any authority under any circumstances.
We were going to talk about gay marriage and abortion rights and illegal immigrants.
Anything but governance and public policy and our future as a nation.
Perhaps, one by one, Americans are waking up.
Not listening to Right Wing liars.
We are a mighty people if we remain true to our Constitution and our fundamental beliefs : "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Inalienable means undeniable, absolute, sacred, protected from interference ESPECIALLY BY FASCIST RIGHT WING GOVERNMENTS LIKE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!
Let's agree on that.
Because, undivided, we will prevail.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
PREDATORS
One might consider the human condition.
One of us humans might consider it, anyway. Who else / What else would care? Have you ever considered the parrot condition? The moray eel condition? The Vulcan condition?
Well, perhaps you have. Now I'm starting to wonder about them myself. But back to business.
We are the dominant species of this planet. Why?
We don't have the horrible crushing jaws of the shark, or the stealth and power of the tiger, or the breathless speed and piercing vision of the eagle. And yet they are endangered. By us.
How?
Intelligence? It would be nice to think so. But you can't turn on a television and still feel that way for long. Britney Spears? Anna-Nicole? George W? Pul-eeese! It's not that they exist. The horribly disgraceful thing is that ANYONE IS PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM!
I think the strength of humanity is in the "we" part of humanity.
"We" are stronger, smarter, and more capable than any single one of us.
"We" can do things no other species can, because we remember much of all previous human experience and build on it. Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." He was a clever dude. He taught himself calculus. By inventing it.
I believe that our greatest strength as the human species is that we can work together, and that we can learn from each other. That is what has allowed us to develop vaccines by learning from the French (Louis Pasteur) , and to create computers by learning from the British (Alan Turing), and to send men to the moon by learning from the Nazis (Werner Von Braun).
But there is a fly in this ointment.
There is a predatory streak in human nature. Of course, this was a good thing when we were hunting wild boars and buffalo. But it is a bad thing when we are being predatory towards ourselves. And, unfortunately, we make good targets.
Slavery? Imagine that you stick a pistol in someone's ribs and take his wallet. That's bad. But imagine you overpower him and demand everything he ever owns, everything he ever earns, even his children. That's slavery. And that's the kind of crap that the right wing Bible Bangers are on record as supporting.
Don't believe me?
Hey look at this:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0401/answers.html
So we have a problem.
Some people believe that it is acceptable to be predators of their own kind.
This, of course, is treason for any decent, patriotic American.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
That's us. That's Americans. That's from our own Declaration of Independence.
But that's not the ideal that right wing degenerates are living by.
For them, divisiveness and hate are a way of life. And when it comes to Us versus Them, public floggings and lynchings (pre-desegregation) and (lately) Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and CIA renditions are just a normal part of their perverse belief system.
They are unashamed enemies of mankind, of decency, and of what is best about humanity.
They are predators.
But "We" are stronger, smarter, and more capable than they are.
"We" are going to defeat them.
After all, even Jesus said "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled. "
Goodness will prevail.
One might consider the human condition.
One of us humans might consider it, anyway. Who else / What else would care? Have you ever considered the parrot condition? The moray eel condition? The Vulcan condition?
Well, perhaps you have. Now I'm starting to wonder about them myself. But back to business.
We are the dominant species of this planet. Why?
We don't have the horrible crushing jaws of the shark, or the stealth and power of the tiger, or the breathless speed and piercing vision of the eagle. And yet they are endangered. By us.
How?
Intelligence? It would be nice to think so. But you can't turn on a television and still feel that way for long. Britney Spears? Anna-Nicole? George W? Pul-eeese! It's not that they exist. The horribly disgraceful thing is that ANYONE IS PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM!
I think the strength of humanity is in the "we" part of humanity.
"We" are stronger, smarter, and more capable than any single one of us.
"We" can do things no other species can, because we remember much of all previous human experience and build on it. Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." He was a clever dude. He taught himself calculus. By inventing it.
I believe that our greatest strength as the human species is that we can work together, and that we can learn from each other. That is what has allowed us to develop vaccines by learning from the French (Louis Pasteur) , and to create computers by learning from the British (Alan Turing), and to send men to the moon by learning from the Nazis (Werner Von Braun).
But there is a fly in this ointment.
There is a predatory streak in human nature. Of course, this was a good thing when we were hunting wild boars and buffalo. But it is a bad thing when we are being predatory towards ourselves. And, unfortunately, we make good targets.
Slavery? Imagine that you stick a pistol in someone's ribs and take his wallet. That's bad. But imagine you overpower him and demand everything he ever owns, everything he ever earns, even his children. That's slavery. And that's the kind of crap that the right wing Bible Bangers are on record as supporting.
Don't believe me?
Hey look at this:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0401/answers.html
So we have a problem.
Some people believe that it is acceptable to be predators of their own kind.
This, of course, is treason for any decent, patriotic American.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
That's us. That's Americans. That's from our own Declaration of Independence.
But that's not the ideal that right wing degenerates are living by.
For them, divisiveness and hate are a way of life. And when it comes to Us versus Them, public floggings and lynchings (pre-desegregation) and (lately) Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and CIA renditions are just a normal part of their perverse belief system.
They are unashamed enemies of mankind, of decency, and of what is best about humanity.
They are predators.
But "We" are stronger, smarter, and more capable than they are.
"We" are going to defeat them.
After all, even Jesus said "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled. "
Goodness will prevail.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
GERALD R. FORD
I voted for him.
On June 17, 1972, police apprehended five men who were attempting to burglarize the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. A little more than two years later, on August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency and Gerald R. Ford was sworn into office as our thirty-eighth President.
One of Ford's first official acts was to issue a pardon for Nixon, protecting him from prosecution for any crimes Nixon committed while in office and effectively ending the ongoing Congressional investigations that were gathering evidence for his impeachment.
There are those who believed this pardon was the result of a deal between Nixon and Ford. Suspicion about this possible act of political corruption was one of the reasons Gerald Ford became our first unelected President, losing to Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Personally, I didn't suspect Ford of doing anything shady. I assumed that Nixon people had been sniffing around the Hill and that they had decided that Ford was likely to end the Watergate spectacle with a pardon if given the opportunity. Ford was well known around Washington after 25 years in Congress, and his opinions on the eventual conclusion of the Watergate proceedings were probably widely circulated.
When Nixon left office, and Ford pardoned him, I thought that was fine. I thought the worst punishment that Nixon could face would be removal from office, and that had already happened. I thought the nation had been paralyzed by the continuing Constitutional crisis of Watergate for almost two years, and it was time to move on.
So in 1976, I voted for Ford. I don't even regret that, since the better candidate won anyway.
But now I wonder about that pardon.
On the night of Nixon's resignation, I was walking across a college campus and saw a security guard I recognized. I said, "Hey, did you hear the news? Nixon has resigned!" I was surprised by his reaction. He seemed irritated and said, "Yep, they hounded him out of office."
I wonder how many other people still supported Nixon at that point, and might still believe today that he deserved to remain in office.
For me, Watergate was just the tip of the iceberg. I thought sleazy Nixon campaign aides had planned the breakin to spy on the Democrats , and that Nixon had just bungled his way into a failed coverup.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for carrying on an illegal and unapproved war run by the CIA outside the borders of Vietnam, in Laos and Cambodia.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for his doctrine of "impoundment", when he asserted the authority to ignore laws passed by Congress by "impounding" the funds authorized for programs he didn't like.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for extortion and corruption in raising millions of dollars of cash contributions from donors who were promised favors if they did and punishment if they didn't support his 1972 re-election campaign.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for many serious Constitutional issues, and I was glad to see him go no matter how he went.
But with the pardon, the investigations stopped, and the full extent of the criminal acts of his administration were never exposed. And a whole host of sleazy criminals were left to continue their traitorous assault on our democracy. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz were all working for Nixon at the time of his resignation.
If the investigations had proceeded, if all the facts had come out then, maybe the Nixon Administration would have become universally disgraced and discredited before the American public. Maybe those who served in it would have become political pariahs, forever deemed unfit for public service.
And the world would be at peace today.
I voted for him.
On June 17, 1972, police apprehended five men who were attempting to burglarize the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. A little more than two years later, on August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency and Gerald R. Ford was sworn into office as our thirty-eighth President.
One of Ford's first official acts was to issue a pardon for Nixon, protecting him from prosecution for any crimes Nixon committed while in office and effectively ending the ongoing Congressional investigations that were gathering evidence for his impeachment.
There are those who believed this pardon was the result of a deal between Nixon and Ford. Suspicion about this possible act of political corruption was one of the reasons Gerald Ford became our first unelected President, losing to Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Personally, I didn't suspect Ford of doing anything shady. I assumed that Nixon people had been sniffing around the Hill and that they had decided that Ford was likely to end the Watergate spectacle with a pardon if given the opportunity. Ford was well known around Washington after 25 years in Congress, and his opinions on the eventual conclusion of the Watergate proceedings were probably widely circulated.
When Nixon left office, and Ford pardoned him, I thought that was fine. I thought the worst punishment that Nixon could face would be removal from office, and that had already happened. I thought the nation had been paralyzed by the continuing Constitutional crisis of Watergate for almost two years, and it was time to move on.
So in 1976, I voted for Ford. I don't even regret that, since the better candidate won anyway.
But now I wonder about that pardon.
On the night of Nixon's resignation, I was walking across a college campus and saw a security guard I recognized. I said, "Hey, did you hear the news? Nixon has resigned!" I was surprised by his reaction. He seemed irritated and said, "Yep, they hounded him out of office."
I wonder how many other people still supported Nixon at that point, and might still believe today that he deserved to remain in office.
For me, Watergate was just the tip of the iceberg. I thought sleazy Nixon campaign aides had planned the breakin to spy on the Democrats , and that Nixon had just bungled his way into a failed coverup.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for carrying on an illegal and unapproved war run by the CIA outside the borders of Vietnam, in Laos and Cambodia.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for his doctrine of "impoundment", when he asserted the authority to ignore laws passed by Congress by "impounding" the funds authorized for programs he didn't like.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for extortion and corruption in raising millions of dollars of cash contributions from donors who were promised favors if they did and punishment if they didn't support his 1972 re-election campaign.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for many serious Constitutional issues, and I was glad to see him go no matter how he went.
But with the pardon, the investigations stopped, and the full extent of the criminal acts of his administration were never exposed. And a whole host of sleazy criminals were left to continue their traitorous assault on our democracy. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz were all working for Nixon at the time of his resignation.
If the investigations had proceeded, if all the facts had come out then, maybe the Nixon Administration would have become universally disgraced and discredited before the American public. Maybe those who served in it would have become political pariahs, forever deemed unfit for public service.
And the world would be at peace today.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
GLOBAL WARMING
At one point, many astronomers believed that there was a significant chance of finding life on the planet Venus. It was closer to the sun, and its average temperature was expected to be 10-20 degrees warmer than Earth's. It was blanketed with clouds, and it was easy to imagine that these clouds covered a moist, fertile environment, teeming with life.
That view changed throughout the twentieth century, as new observations produced a dramatically different picture of conditions on our sister planet. In the 1930's, spectrographic analysis found no oxygen and high concentrations of carbon dioxide in the Venusian atmosphere. In the 1950's, radio astronomy indicated a surface temperature over 600 F. And in December 1962, the Mariner 2 mission measured a surface temperature of 800 F. More details are in
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/whyweexplore/Why_We_22.html
The discovery of these high temperatures on Venus called for an explanation. And over time an understanding emerged. Venus was so extremely hot because its atmosphere was different from Earth's. The Venusian atmosphere consists of 95% carbon dioxide, at an atmospheric pressure 75 to 100 times greater than our Earth's. We know from experiment that carbon dioxide is relatively transparent to visible and ultraviolet light, but is highly absorbent of infrared and lower energy emissions. The thick Venusian atmosphere acts as a blanket to trap solar radiation and to raise the surface temperature, making it hotter than an open flame.
This phenomenon has become known as the greenhouse effect. The term was coined in the 1930's by astronomer Rupert Wildt to describe the expected effect of high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Venus. At the time, most Americans would have been familiar with the experience of walking into a backyard greenhouse on a cold day and feeling the warmth inside. Modern Americans are more familiar with cars than greenhouses. We know what it's like to open a car that has been parked in direct summer sunlight for a few hours with its windows rolled up tight. Maybe we should come up with a new name. Should we call this the parked car effect? The rolled up window effect? The car upholstery effect?
OK. The greenhouse effect it is.
Glass is made to be transparent to visible light and is also transparent to higher energy ultraviolet light. But glass absorbs infrared and lower energy wavelengths. The emission spectrum of the hot sun contains plenty of high energy radiation that passes through the glass and into the car. But the emissions of the lower temperature car surfaces are blocked from escaping. As solar energy is trapped within the car, the temperature rises. Eventually, the temperature difference between inside and outside starts heat flowing through the structure of the car, and its hotter inside surfaces produce higher energy emissions that can pass through the glass. An equilibrium is reached when the energy entering the car equals the energy escaping from it. Ouch, that's hot!
There are various gases that share the same property of being transparent to high energy ultraviolet radiation while being highly absorbent of low energy infrared radiation. These greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and others. They do not interact much with high energy light, and therefore visible and ultraviolet light from the sun passes through them unaffected. But they interact strongly with infrared radiation, and therefore act as a barrier to reflected energy from the surface of the Earth.
The physics is not in question. Adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere will allow solar energy to reach the Earth but will form a barrier to its escape. In the absence of other factors, this added energy will cause the temperature of the Earth to rise.
But here we are talking about an entire planet, and the "other factors" and their interactions are so complex that human science can not make precise predictions of the present and future behavior of our climate. Cynical vested interests have used this uncertainty as an opportunity to sow confusion and doubt, and to make it impossible for there to be a reasoned national response to this issue.
But the truth is out there.
It can be found on the bone dry searing lifeless surface of Venus.
It can be found in the blast of heat that brings beads of sweat to our foreheads when we slide onto the seat of a car that was parked with its windows closed in the hot summer sun.
We're rolling up the windows. And we can't get out of the car.
An inconvenient truth indeed.
At one point, many astronomers believed that there was a significant chance of finding life on the planet Venus. It was closer to the sun, and its average temperature was expected to be 10-20 degrees warmer than Earth's. It was blanketed with clouds, and it was easy to imagine that these clouds covered a moist, fertile environment, teeming with life.
That view changed throughout the twentieth century, as new observations produced a dramatically different picture of conditions on our sister planet. In the 1930's, spectrographic analysis found no oxygen and high concentrations of carbon dioxide in the Venusian atmosphere. In the 1950's, radio astronomy indicated a surface temperature over 600 F. And in December 1962, the Mariner 2 mission measured a surface temperature of 800 F. More details are in
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/whyweexplore/Why_We_22.html
The discovery of these high temperatures on Venus called for an explanation. And over time an understanding emerged. Venus was so extremely hot because its atmosphere was different from Earth's. The Venusian atmosphere consists of 95% carbon dioxide, at an atmospheric pressure 75 to 100 times greater than our Earth's. We know from experiment that carbon dioxide is relatively transparent to visible and ultraviolet light, but is highly absorbent of infrared and lower energy emissions. The thick Venusian atmosphere acts as a blanket to trap solar radiation and to raise the surface temperature, making it hotter than an open flame.
This phenomenon has become known as the greenhouse effect. The term was coined in the 1930's by astronomer Rupert Wildt to describe the expected effect of high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Venus. At the time, most Americans would have been familiar with the experience of walking into a backyard greenhouse on a cold day and feeling the warmth inside. Modern Americans are more familiar with cars than greenhouses. We know what it's like to open a car that has been parked in direct summer sunlight for a few hours with its windows rolled up tight. Maybe we should come up with a new name. Should we call this the parked car effect? The rolled up window effect? The car upholstery effect?
OK. The greenhouse effect it is.
Glass is made to be transparent to visible light and is also transparent to higher energy ultraviolet light. But glass absorbs infrared and lower energy wavelengths. The emission spectrum of the hot sun contains plenty of high energy radiation that passes through the glass and into the car. But the emissions of the lower temperature car surfaces are blocked from escaping. As solar energy is trapped within the car, the temperature rises. Eventually, the temperature difference between inside and outside starts heat flowing through the structure of the car, and its hotter inside surfaces produce higher energy emissions that can pass through the glass. An equilibrium is reached when the energy entering the car equals the energy escaping from it. Ouch, that's hot!
There are various gases that share the same property of being transparent to high energy ultraviolet radiation while being highly absorbent of low energy infrared radiation. These greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and others. They do not interact much with high energy light, and therefore visible and ultraviolet light from the sun passes through them unaffected. But they interact strongly with infrared radiation, and therefore act as a barrier to reflected energy from the surface of the Earth.
The physics is not in question. Adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere will allow solar energy to reach the Earth but will form a barrier to its escape. In the absence of other factors, this added energy will cause the temperature of the Earth to rise.
But here we are talking about an entire planet, and the "other factors" and their interactions are so complex that human science can not make precise predictions of the present and future behavior of our climate. Cynical vested interests have used this uncertainty as an opportunity to sow confusion and doubt, and to make it impossible for there to be a reasoned national response to this issue.
But the truth is out there.
It can be found on the bone dry searing lifeless surface of Venus.
It can be found in the blast of heat that brings beads of sweat to our foreheads when we slide onto the seat of a car that was parked with its windows closed in the hot summer sun.
We're rolling up the windows. And we can't get out of the car.
An inconvenient truth indeed.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
A NEW YEAR
Who would have believed it? After such depths of agony and disgrace, the people of America, one by one, decided it was time for a change. The Republican strategy - lies, secrecy, distraction, judicious cheating where it counts and where it won't be caught - didn't quite work this time. Of course it helped a lot that the really close elections - Virgnia and Montana - had Democratic governors instead of Republicans. We can only thank the heavens above that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris weren't in charge of counting the votes in Montana, that Ken Blackwell wasn't responsible for providing voting booths in Virginia.
And now we will have a new Congress, a Democratic Congress. We can only hope it will do its duty to the nation in fostering open debate of national policy instead of the shameful bootlicking performed shamelessly by the Republicans. We can only hope it will do its duty in questioning the deception and propaganda so skillfully manufactured by the vicious right wing fanatics who occupy the White House. We can only hope it will do its duty in seeing that our nation invests its prosperity in building a future for America instead of bleeding our national treasury into pockets of corruption and greed.
But after such horrible pain and international disgrace and cynical corruption, at least we can say that there is new hope for America in this coming year.
Happy New Year to us all.
Who would have believed it? After such depths of agony and disgrace, the people of America, one by one, decided it was time for a change. The Republican strategy - lies, secrecy, distraction, judicious cheating where it counts and where it won't be caught - didn't quite work this time. Of course it helped a lot that the really close elections - Virgnia and Montana - had Democratic governors instead of Republicans. We can only thank the heavens above that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris weren't in charge of counting the votes in Montana, that Ken Blackwell wasn't responsible for providing voting booths in Virginia.
And now we will have a new Congress, a Democratic Congress. We can only hope it will do its duty to the nation in fostering open debate of national policy instead of the shameful bootlicking performed shamelessly by the Republicans. We can only hope it will do its duty in questioning the deception and propaganda so skillfully manufactured by the vicious right wing fanatics who occupy the White House. We can only hope it will do its duty in seeing that our nation invests its prosperity in building a future for America instead of bleeding our national treasury into pockets of corruption and greed.
But after such horrible pain and international disgrace and cynical corruption, at least we can say that there is new hope for America in this coming year.
Happy New Year to us all.
Friday, December 22, 2006
SUCCESS
Why did we invade Iraq?
It was always a lie to say we invaded because Iraq was a threat. In fact it was just the opposite. You can't imagine a weenie like Rumsfeld arguing with the professional leadership of the U.S. military that we needed FEWER troops if they really considered Iraq to be a threat, can you? Actually, after the Gulf War, years of sanctions, and Clinton's Tomahawk attack in 1996, Iraq was clearly on the ropes. The Chicken Hawk Bushies wanted to attack BECAUSE Iraq was no conceivable threat. And if Big Dick Cheney's blood lust for Saddam was to be satisfied, the sooner we attacked the better.
And what about Weapons of Mass Destruction and that stuff? Just lies for idiots.
But there were real reasons for invading Iraq.
First and foremost was getting U.S. hands on Iraqi oil. Success! We've got thousands and thousands of U.S. government contract employees operating the Iraqi oil fields these days.
And second was getting permission from the Iraqis to allow the U.S. to locate a string of major military bases in Iraq. Success! Halliburton and Bechtel and other contractors have been paid to build 14 military bases within Iraq.
And third was gaining the political advantage of "being at war", being able to squash opposition by claiming it was unpatriotic and disloyal. Well, this has faded a little, but it lasted for years and years.
So whether Iraq is a success or failure depends on what it was meant to achieve in the first place. The Bush Administration has gotten most of what it wanted from Iraq. It's been a great success, as you might guess from the stolid persistance of the Dimwit Decider Himself.
Of course, most Iraqis view the U.S. as an occupation force, which it is, and no legitimate Iraqi government can ever accept those bases as a permanent feature. And Iraqis will ultimately reject sharing oil profits with foreign leeches like Halliburton because foreign leeches are foreign leeches. So the whole effort is doomed.
The only way out would be for the U.S. to do what's right for Iraq, to sponsor an international peacekeeeping force to maintain order while a new Iraqi government is formed. But that would mean withdrawing U.S. operatives from the oil fields and abandoning the U.S. bases. This will never happen while Bush and Cheney are in power.
Fortunately for democracy, it means the Iraqi mess will be even messier in 2008. And maybe there will be enough decent, sane Americans to bring decency and sanity into the White House again.
Why did we invade Iraq?
It was always a lie to say we invaded because Iraq was a threat. In fact it was just the opposite. You can't imagine a weenie like Rumsfeld arguing with the professional leadership of the U.S. military that we needed FEWER troops if they really considered Iraq to be a threat, can you? Actually, after the Gulf War, years of sanctions, and Clinton's Tomahawk attack in 1996, Iraq was clearly on the ropes. The Chicken Hawk Bushies wanted to attack BECAUSE Iraq was no conceivable threat. And if Big Dick Cheney's blood lust for Saddam was to be satisfied, the sooner we attacked the better.
And what about Weapons of Mass Destruction and that stuff? Just lies for idiots.
But there were real reasons for invading Iraq.
First and foremost was getting U.S. hands on Iraqi oil. Success! We've got thousands and thousands of U.S. government contract employees operating the Iraqi oil fields these days.
And second was getting permission from the Iraqis to allow the U.S. to locate a string of major military bases in Iraq. Success! Halliburton and Bechtel and other contractors have been paid to build 14 military bases within Iraq.
And third was gaining the political advantage of "being at war", being able to squash opposition by claiming it was unpatriotic and disloyal. Well, this has faded a little, but it lasted for years and years.
So whether Iraq is a success or failure depends on what it was meant to achieve in the first place. The Bush Administration has gotten most of what it wanted from Iraq. It's been a great success, as you might guess from the stolid persistance of the Dimwit Decider Himself.
Of course, most Iraqis view the U.S. as an occupation force, which it is, and no legitimate Iraqi government can ever accept those bases as a permanent feature. And Iraqis will ultimately reject sharing oil profits with foreign leeches like Halliburton because foreign leeches are foreign leeches. So the whole effort is doomed.
The only way out would be for the U.S. to do what's right for Iraq, to sponsor an international peacekeeeping force to maintain order while a new Iraqi government is formed. But that would mean withdrawing U.S. operatives from the oil fields and abandoning the U.S. bases. This will never happen while Bush and Cheney are in power.
Fortunately for democracy, it means the Iraqi mess will be even messier in 2008. And maybe there will be enough decent, sane Americans to bring decency and sanity into the White House again.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
THE AXIS OF EVIL
Were you puzzled, too?
In his first State of the Union address, the Little Bush used the term Axis of Evil to refer to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
It is unlikely that his speechwriters were unaware of the Axis powers of WWII - Germany, Italy, and Japan formed an actual alliance that opposed the Allied powers. Using the term "Axis" was probably meant as some kind of call to arms to the people of the United States, in the same way we had been called to defend democracy in the 1940's.
Bush's Axis of Evil was a lie, of course. In fact, these countries had no alliance and few political or economic connections. Iran and Iraq had in fact fought a bitter war after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980.
Was it a lie? Well, I think it was, and a good one. A statement which is intended to deceive is a lie, in my book, even if it is subtly phrased so that it becomes difficult to contradict. The lie was simply this: Instead of viewing the fall of Communism as an opportunity to begin a new era of world peace and prosperity, it was necessary for the United States to go back to war.
Bush had already sent our troops to war in Afghanistan in October 2001. One of the allies of the United States in the struggle to force Soviet troops out of Afghanistan had been a Muslim fundamentalist organization calling itself Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda had carried out a shocking attack on U.S. targets on September 11. Al Qaeda still had a presence in Afghanistan, including sanctuary for its leader Bin Laden. The Bush Administration wanted to invade, even though the government of Afghanistan was made offers to arrest and try Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership if we provided evidence that they had been involved in the attack. But the Bushies decided to invade.
Five years later Bin Laden is still mocking us, the Taliban is seeking to force U.S. troops out of Afghanistan just as they once forced out the Soviets, and American troops are still dying there. So things haven't worked out all that well. But at least there was an argument for Afghanistan.
But Iran? Iraq? North Korea? Where did that come from?
Please see http://www.newamericancentury.org/ for an answer.
This is a group of moral degenerates, proudly following the traditions of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin in promoting military occupations and wars of aggression. The organization was formed during the Clinton years to plan and work towards their goal: world conquest by the military forces of the United States to create an unassailably dominant position that would allow them to rule the world during the next century.
They had a problem with this plan. Well, actually, the plan had lots of problems - as you might expect when a sycophantic group of moral degenerates with no military experience begins planning such crimes against humanity.
But one problem they saw was in getting sufficient political support within the United States to allow them send off our troops on this vicious and brutal quest. They said so in one of their reports:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
They published this concern in September 2000. See page 63 of this document:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Fortunately for them and unfortunately for the rest of humanity, by various foul means they managed to win the U.S. Presidential election in November 2000. And when it came to be their responsibility to act on the warnings they receieved prior to September 11, 2001, they simply had to wait. They got their Pearl Harbor, and they were ready.
We heard about the Axis of Evil. And we were in a War on Terror.
Were you puzzled, too?
In his first State of the Union address, the Little Bush used the term Axis of Evil to refer to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
It is unlikely that his speechwriters were unaware of the Axis powers of WWII - Germany, Italy, and Japan formed an actual alliance that opposed the Allied powers. Using the term "Axis" was probably meant as some kind of call to arms to the people of the United States, in the same way we had been called to defend democracy in the 1940's.
Bush's Axis of Evil was a lie, of course. In fact, these countries had no alliance and few political or economic connections. Iran and Iraq had in fact fought a bitter war after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980.
Was it a lie? Well, I think it was, and a good one. A statement which is intended to deceive is a lie, in my book, even if it is subtly phrased so that it becomes difficult to contradict. The lie was simply this: Instead of viewing the fall of Communism as an opportunity to begin a new era of world peace and prosperity, it was necessary for the United States to go back to war.
Bush had already sent our troops to war in Afghanistan in October 2001. One of the allies of the United States in the struggle to force Soviet troops out of Afghanistan had been a Muslim fundamentalist organization calling itself Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda had carried out a shocking attack on U.S. targets on September 11. Al Qaeda still had a presence in Afghanistan, including sanctuary for its leader Bin Laden. The Bush Administration wanted to invade, even though the government of Afghanistan was made offers to arrest and try Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership if we provided evidence that they had been involved in the attack. But the Bushies decided to invade.
Five years later Bin Laden is still mocking us, the Taliban is seeking to force U.S. troops out of Afghanistan just as they once forced out the Soviets, and American troops are still dying there. So things haven't worked out all that well. But at least there was an argument for Afghanistan.
But Iran? Iraq? North Korea? Where did that come from?
Please see http://www.newamericancentury.org/ for an answer.
This is a group of moral degenerates, proudly following the traditions of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin in promoting military occupations and wars of aggression. The organization was formed during the Clinton years to plan and work towards their goal: world conquest by the military forces of the United States to create an unassailably dominant position that would allow them to rule the world during the next century.
They had a problem with this plan. Well, actually, the plan had lots of problems - as you might expect when a sycophantic group of moral degenerates with no military experience begins planning such crimes against humanity.
But one problem they saw was in getting sufficient political support within the United States to allow them send off our troops on this vicious and brutal quest. They said so in one of their reports:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
They published this concern in September 2000. See page 63 of this document:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Fortunately for them and unfortunately for the rest of humanity, by various foul means they managed to win the U.S. Presidential election in November 2000. And when it came to be their responsibility to act on the warnings they receieved prior to September 11, 2001, they simply had to wait. They got their Pearl Harbor, and they were ready.
We heard about the Axis of Evil. And we were in a War on Terror.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
PRESIDENT PELOSI
Hmm.
Dubya has committed all sorts of crimes. He abrogated the SALT agreements so that he could pour federal tax money into the pockets of his buddies in the defense industry - and get some nice kickbacks afterwards. He waited for the September 11 attack to happen so that he could pursue a war of aggression to get his buddies some sweet deals in the Iraqi oil fields. He set loose the NSA to spy on Americans in complete defiance of the laws to regulate that kind of thing. And, of course, he's tried to hide torture and murder at Guantanamo AND IN FORMERLY COMMUNIST PRISONS IN EASTERN EUROPE! He's the worst President in history; he's a monster; he deserves to be convicted as a war criminal and hanged.
And Cheney is just as bad, maybe worse. Bush was never very smart, and after heavy drinking and drug use throughout his pathetic youth, he hasn't gotten any smarter. Just listen to him talk - you know just what I mean. He - at last - has become a President who represents the Double Digit People. IQ < 100. The Double Digit People. But Cheney isn't that dumb.
Cheney is perverse. He's a paranoid. He's spent millions of your tax dollars building an underground bunker beneath the Vice President's Residence because he sleeps with a guilty conscience. His blood thirst for Saddam Hussein was a driving force for the invasion of Iraq.
I remember a press conference Cheney held during the first Gulf War. He was the Old Bush's Secretary of Defense then. Near the end of the fighting, the U.S. used special concrete-penetrating bombs to attack a bomb shelter in downtown Bagdad. Peter Arnett was on hand the next morning as they carried out the hundreds of burned bodies of men, women, and children.
It is a war crime to attack a civilian facility, and there is no question that hundreds of civilians died horrible deaths that night. What justification was there for this brutal, deliberate attack?
Well, it turns out that the Old Bush Administration thought this might be where Saddam Hussein was sleeping at night. And we planned the attack to take him out - along with hundreds of innocent people. But we were wrong. Saddam wasn't there. Just the innocent people.
On the day after the attack, Dick held a press conference. Reporters asked him if Saddam Hussein had been seen since the bombs fell. It was sickening. Cheney smirked, tried not to smile, and giggled like a schoolgirl. He was so happy to say that, No, no one had seen Saddam since the attack.
It made me sick. It's one thing to wage war, to be forced into violence in national defense. But no one who giggles, who feels excitement and pleasure about such things, should have war making powers. Dick Cheney is a sick, perverted, monstrous creature.
He lied about the falsified justifications for this war. He lied about his connections to the huge no bid contracts given to Halliburton for their occupation activities on the heels of our troops. He's lied about so many things. He lies every time he opens his mouth. Surely there must be grounds for impeaching this monster.
So, what if... Bush is impeached for multiple high crimes and misdemeanors. Cheney is then impeached for the same crimes and worse.
And, whew, we have a new President.
President Nancy Pelosi.
And we can stop worrying about the possibility of a Hilary Clinton campaign.
Nice.
Hmm.
Dubya has committed all sorts of crimes. He abrogated the SALT agreements so that he could pour federal tax money into the pockets of his buddies in the defense industry - and get some nice kickbacks afterwards. He waited for the September 11 attack to happen so that he could pursue a war of aggression to get his buddies some sweet deals in the Iraqi oil fields. He set loose the NSA to spy on Americans in complete defiance of the laws to regulate that kind of thing. And, of course, he's tried to hide torture and murder at Guantanamo AND IN FORMERLY COMMUNIST PRISONS IN EASTERN EUROPE! He's the worst President in history; he's a monster; he deserves to be convicted as a war criminal and hanged.
And Cheney is just as bad, maybe worse. Bush was never very smart, and after heavy drinking and drug use throughout his pathetic youth, he hasn't gotten any smarter. Just listen to him talk - you know just what I mean. He - at last - has become a President who represents the Double Digit People. IQ < 100. The Double Digit People. But Cheney isn't that dumb.
Cheney is perverse. He's a paranoid. He's spent millions of your tax dollars building an underground bunker beneath the Vice President's Residence because he sleeps with a guilty conscience. His blood thirst for Saddam Hussein was a driving force for the invasion of Iraq.
I remember a press conference Cheney held during the first Gulf War. He was the Old Bush's Secretary of Defense then. Near the end of the fighting, the U.S. used special concrete-penetrating bombs to attack a bomb shelter in downtown Bagdad. Peter Arnett was on hand the next morning as they carried out the hundreds of burned bodies of men, women, and children.
It is a war crime to attack a civilian facility, and there is no question that hundreds of civilians died horrible deaths that night. What justification was there for this brutal, deliberate attack?
Well, it turns out that the Old Bush Administration thought this might be where Saddam Hussein was sleeping at night. And we planned the attack to take him out - along with hundreds of innocent people. But we were wrong. Saddam wasn't there. Just the innocent people.
On the day after the attack, Dick held a press conference. Reporters asked him if Saddam Hussein had been seen since the bombs fell. It was sickening. Cheney smirked, tried not to smile, and giggled like a schoolgirl. He was so happy to say that, No, no one had seen Saddam since the attack.
It made me sick. It's one thing to wage war, to be forced into violence in national defense. But no one who giggles, who feels excitement and pleasure about such things, should have war making powers. Dick Cheney is a sick, perverted, monstrous creature.
He lied about the falsified justifications for this war. He lied about his connections to the huge no bid contracts given to Halliburton for their occupation activities on the heels of our troops. He's lied about so many things. He lies every time he opens his mouth. Surely there must be grounds for impeaching this monster.
So, what if... Bush is impeached for multiple high crimes and misdemeanors. Cheney is then impeached for the same crimes and worse.
And, whew, we have a new President.
President Nancy Pelosi.
And we can stop worrying about the possibility of a Hilary Clinton campaign.
Nice.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
IMPEACHMENT
You may not remember the Watergate hearings. I do. I was living in Boston , and reading the Boston Globe every day to see what had happened in yesterday's testimony.
I didn't believe Nixon had been involved. His wacko right wing Attorney General, John Mitchell, had resigned that position to head up Nixon's re-election campaign committee. I assumed Mitchell had been the one to screw things up.
In fact, I was wrong. Years later, Jeb Macgruder admitted that Nixon had directly ordered the Watergate breakin to plant bugs in the Democratic Campaign Headquarters.
But at the time, people thought Nixon was too smart to do anything so astonishingly stupid. In fact, after the breakin in June 1972 We the People of the United States went on to re-elect Richard Nixon in November. The losing candidate, George McGovern, was so completely disgusted that he arranged to be out of the country on Inauguration Day, rather than be obligated to attend the ceremony.
But still, there had been a crime committed, and the persons apprehended were saying that they had been acting with Executive Authority. So a few individuals in the press, and one or two inside sources, kept digging and giving additional information to the public.
After a while, the Congress felt pressured to open investigations. They were obviously scared to death. But they called people in and asked questions. Bob Haldeman and John Erlichmann - top Nixon staffers - practically laughed in their faces. They said they didn't remember anything; they said the reports in the press were totally wrong. Nothing was going anywhere with the hearings. Then somehow a low level guy named Alexander Butterfield mentioned that Nixon was taping all his Oval Office conversations to help in writing his memoirs. These tapes were subpoenaed. Nixon said, no, they belong to me. A federal judge said the Congressional subpoena for investigation of a criminal offense was valid. Things started to crumble. Eventually, the combination of truth and open testimony from John Dean and others forced the Congress to bring impeachment proceedings against Nixon. He resigned.
Today, we are in worse circumstances. We're not talking about planting a bug in the Democrat's campaign offices. We're talking about massive, illegal bugging of conversations of ordinary American citizens. And dirty tricks? Try torturing prisoners to death, in hidden torture camps, kept away from the American public, the Red Cross, and the Geneva Convention. And financial corruption on a grandiose scale, billions of tax dollars stolen.
It's too soon to talk of Impeachment, just as June 1972 was too soon to get rid of Richard Nixon.
But let the Democratic Congress start investigating the criminal actions of the Bush Administration over the last few years. The Bushies have acted as though they were completely unaccountable to anyone, for anything. As long as they had a boot licking Republican Congress, that may have been true. But it doesn't have to be true any more.
Let the Democrats start doing their duty and enforcing some level of oversight over the conduct of the Bush Administration. Let them start investigations of a few of the smelliest and most repulsive of the Republican crimes over the past few years.
When the facts start coming out, when the American people start hearing how they have been betrayed, that's when there will be a natural and obvious course of action.
Impeachment.
You may not remember the Watergate hearings. I do. I was living in Boston , and reading the Boston Globe every day to see what had happened in yesterday's testimony.
I didn't believe Nixon had been involved. His wacko right wing Attorney General, John Mitchell, had resigned that position to head up Nixon's re-election campaign committee. I assumed Mitchell had been the one to screw things up.
In fact, I was wrong. Years later, Jeb Macgruder admitted that Nixon had directly ordered the Watergate breakin to plant bugs in the Democratic Campaign Headquarters.
But at the time, people thought Nixon was too smart to do anything so astonishingly stupid. In fact, after the breakin in June 1972 We the People of the United States went on to re-elect Richard Nixon in November. The losing candidate, George McGovern, was so completely disgusted that he arranged to be out of the country on Inauguration Day, rather than be obligated to attend the ceremony.
But still, there had been a crime committed, and the persons apprehended were saying that they had been acting with Executive Authority. So a few individuals in the press, and one or two inside sources, kept digging and giving additional information to the public.
After a while, the Congress felt pressured to open investigations. They were obviously scared to death. But they called people in and asked questions. Bob Haldeman and John Erlichmann - top Nixon staffers - practically laughed in their faces. They said they didn't remember anything; they said the reports in the press were totally wrong. Nothing was going anywhere with the hearings. Then somehow a low level guy named Alexander Butterfield mentioned that Nixon was taping all his Oval Office conversations to help in writing his memoirs. These tapes were subpoenaed. Nixon said, no, they belong to me. A federal judge said the Congressional subpoena for investigation of a criminal offense was valid. Things started to crumble. Eventually, the combination of truth and open testimony from John Dean and others forced the Congress to bring impeachment proceedings against Nixon. He resigned.
Today, we are in worse circumstances. We're not talking about planting a bug in the Democrat's campaign offices. We're talking about massive, illegal bugging of conversations of ordinary American citizens. And dirty tricks? Try torturing prisoners to death, in hidden torture camps, kept away from the American public, the Red Cross, and the Geneva Convention. And financial corruption on a grandiose scale, billions of tax dollars stolen.
It's too soon to talk of Impeachment, just as June 1972 was too soon to get rid of Richard Nixon.
But let the Democratic Congress start investigating the criminal actions of the Bush Administration over the last few years. The Bushies have acted as though they were completely unaccountable to anyone, for anything. As long as they had a boot licking Republican Congress, that may have been true. But it doesn't have to be true any more.
Let the Democrats start doing their duty and enforcing some level of oversight over the conduct of the Bush Administration. Let them start investigations of a few of the smelliest and most repulsive of the Republican crimes over the past few years.
When the facts start coming out, when the American people start hearing how they have been betrayed, that's when there will be a natural and obvious course of action.
Impeachment.
Monday, December 04, 2006
THE WAR ON XMAS
You know, we won't ever find a birth certificate for Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ Child.
You may believe what you want. I personally believe that the story of his birth told in the New Testament is based on historical fact. I believe that he was born in Bethlehem, and that Herod - the local ruler - feared a popular prophesy and ordered the murder of all male children born around the time of Jesus' birth. I believe that three wise men arrvied from the East and identified him as the fulfillment of this prophesy. And I believe his parents protected him by fleeing the region until they felt it was safe to return.
However, no one kept written records of births in those days. And most of whatever records were kept of anything were lost to history. We won't ever know the date on which Christ was born.
In fact, the early Christians didn't know the date either. One thing they did know was that the Holiday Season happened at the end of December and the beginning of January. The Holiday Season? Yes, of course, the Roman Saturnalia. The earliest sunset of any year is near the beginning of December, the shortest day near December 21, and the latest sunrise near the beginning of January. No matter how you look at it, late December is a time when the darkening days of Winter are turning the corner and getting brighter again. In fact, the Romans named January after Janus, the gatekeeper god, who had two faces and looked both forwards and backwards at the same time. January looked back on Winter and forward to Spring. Sounds like a good reason to have a little party.
And that's what the Romans - meaning the people who lived in Rome - did. Every year, they had a great time celebrating the passing of the Winter Solstice and the arrival of longer days. I wasn't there, but I hear things got pretty rowdy. Eating, drinking, and, uh, well, lots of fun.
When Christainity arrived in Rome, the early Christians felt left out when Saturnalia came around. It was a tradition, their own tradition before they were converted. Not like our Christmas trees and mistletoe - those came later from the Druids - but still a tradition.
But there was a solution. Who knew when Christ was born? Nobody! Nobody then, nobody now. And so, why not celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ during Saturnalia? Let's say, December 25. Why not? And so the early Roman Christians could blend in with the pagan feast days of Saturnalia by celebrating the birth of Christ during the same times.
And so, when we celebrate "Christmas" on December 25, it's really a mix of pagan Winter Solstice partying and actual observance of the birth of Christ. But, of course, having gained ten pounds over Christmas last year and having seen the November retail displays, you already had an inkling, didn't you?
So, Happy Holidays seems about right to me.
By the way, if Jesus was born while the shepherds were on the hillsides tending their flocks, he was born in the springtime. That's when lambs are born, and that's why shepherds stay on the hillsides in the springtime, to midwife births if needed. Otherwise, shepherds sleep in beds, not on hillsides. This means Jesus was born in the springtime. Probably he was an Aries, a natural born leader. Of course.
You know, we won't ever find a birth certificate for Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ Child.
You may believe what you want. I personally believe that the story of his birth told in the New Testament is based on historical fact. I believe that he was born in Bethlehem, and that Herod - the local ruler - feared a popular prophesy and ordered the murder of all male children born around the time of Jesus' birth. I believe that three wise men arrvied from the East and identified him as the fulfillment of this prophesy. And I believe his parents protected him by fleeing the region until they felt it was safe to return.
However, no one kept written records of births in those days. And most of whatever records were kept of anything were lost to history. We won't ever know the date on which Christ was born.
In fact, the early Christians didn't know the date either. One thing they did know was that the Holiday Season happened at the end of December and the beginning of January. The Holiday Season? Yes, of course, the Roman Saturnalia. The earliest sunset of any year is near the beginning of December, the shortest day near December 21, and the latest sunrise near the beginning of January. No matter how you look at it, late December is a time when the darkening days of Winter are turning the corner and getting brighter again. In fact, the Romans named January after Janus, the gatekeeper god, who had two faces and looked both forwards and backwards at the same time. January looked back on Winter and forward to Spring. Sounds like a good reason to have a little party.
And that's what the Romans - meaning the people who lived in Rome - did. Every year, they had a great time celebrating the passing of the Winter Solstice and the arrival of longer days. I wasn't there, but I hear things got pretty rowdy. Eating, drinking, and, uh, well, lots of fun.
When Christainity arrived in Rome, the early Christians felt left out when Saturnalia came around. It was a tradition, their own tradition before they were converted. Not like our Christmas trees and mistletoe - those came later from the Druids - but still a tradition.
But there was a solution. Who knew when Christ was born? Nobody! Nobody then, nobody now. And so, why not celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ during Saturnalia? Let's say, December 25. Why not? And so the early Roman Christians could blend in with the pagan feast days of Saturnalia by celebrating the birth of Christ during the same times.
And so, when we celebrate "Christmas" on December 25, it's really a mix of pagan Winter Solstice partying and actual observance of the birth of Christ. But, of course, having gained ten pounds over Christmas last year and having seen the November retail displays, you already had an inkling, didn't you?
So, Happy Holidays seems about right to me.
By the way, if Jesus was born while the shepherds were on the hillsides tending their flocks, he was born in the springtime. That's when lambs are born, and that's why shepherds stay on the hillsides in the springtime, to midwife births if needed. Otherwise, shepherds sleep in beds, not on hillsides. This means Jesus was born in the springtime. Probably he was an Aries, a natural born leader. Of course.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
CREATIONISTS
Yesterday I pointed out that the Bible itself desribes evolution of life on Earth, along with other modern scientific concepts such as the Big Bang and the formation of the solar system.
So why isn't the religious community rejoicing, and embracing science for confirmation of its own Holy Bible?
Well, it has to do with the difference between religion, and religion gone bad.
Religion can be and usually is a good thing. It provides answers to questions that cannot be answered in any normal way, and helps people cope with their lives. The most awesome question that all religions seek to answer is What happens after death? This question is urgent enough in considering our own fate, but is especially distressing in considering the fate of our loved ones who pass away. The answers provided by various religions differ in the details, but provide comfort and hope to those bereaved.
These answers often contain a common theme: Those who live a good life will be rewarded in the afterlife. This not only offers comfort to those who have witnessed the death of a loved one, but offers hope that they too can enter a paradise by being righteous in their own lives. If religion did no more than this - comfort us in the face of death and encourage us to lead good lives - it would be what religion should be, wholly good and beneficial.
Sadly, religions are human institutions, not divine, and every religion can be perverted into evil. The dividing line is simple: Actions taken by individuals to seek their personal spiritual fulfillment are positive; actions taken to coerce the actions or beliefs of others are perverse.
It would be one thing for Creationists to approach the Bible with reverence and humility. Then they - as fallible humans - might acknowledge the difficulty in comprehending the mind of the Almighty and they - as fallible humans - would treat other opinions with interest and respect.
But here we are talking about religion gone bad.
Creationists do not respect the Bible, because they treat it as a done deal, something they've got down cold, something they don't need to seek to understand. They use the Bible to intimidate any others who question their beliefs; they are pretenders to the authority of God himself. They worship themselves, not God or anything decent. They are filled with arrogance and pride, Satan's own sins.
Is it possible for a person to believe in Creationism as historically understood from the Bible, that is, a miraculaous act performed by a divine being, and not be perverse and evil? Yes, so long as that person has the humility to admit their own humanity and the possibility that they could be mistaken. If they are willing to listen to others and respect the beliefs of others, there is no harm in believing in Creationism.
But what of the person who admits no doubt, no possibility of error, who insists that all accept his one, true teaching? He has perverted religion the decent and hopeful human impulses that create our religions and turned religion into something evil. He is an abomination.
Yesterday I pointed out that the Bible itself desribes evolution of life on Earth, along with other modern scientific concepts such as the Big Bang and the formation of the solar system.
So why isn't the religious community rejoicing, and embracing science for confirmation of its own Holy Bible?
Well, it has to do with the difference between religion, and religion gone bad.
Religion can be and usually is a good thing. It provides answers to questions that cannot be answered in any normal way, and helps people cope with their lives. The most awesome question that all religions seek to answer is What happens after death? This question is urgent enough in considering our own fate, but is especially distressing in considering the fate of our loved ones who pass away. The answers provided by various religions differ in the details, but provide comfort and hope to those bereaved.
These answers often contain a common theme: Those who live a good life will be rewarded in the afterlife. This not only offers comfort to those who have witnessed the death of a loved one, but offers hope that they too can enter a paradise by being righteous in their own lives. If religion did no more than this - comfort us in the face of death and encourage us to lead good lives - it would be what religion should be, wholly good and beneficial.
Sadly, religions are human institutions, not divine, and every religion can be perverted into evil. The dividing line is simple: Actions taken by individuals to seek their personal spiritual fulfillment are positive; actions taken to coerce the actions or beliefs of others are perverse.
It would be one thing for Creationists to approach the Bible with reverence and humility. Then they - as fallible humans - might acknowledge the difficulty in comprehending the mind of the Almighty and they - as fallible humans - would treat other opinions with interest and respect.
But here we are talking about religion gone bad.
Creationists do not respect the Bible, because they treat it as a done deal, something they've got down cold, something they don't need to seek to understand. They use the Bible to intimidate any others who question their beliefs; they are pretenders to the authority of God himself. They worship themselves, not God or anything decent. They are filled with arrogance and pride, Satan's own sins.
Is it possible for a person to believe in Creationism as historically understood from the Bible, that is, a miraculaous act performed by a divine being, and not be perverse and evil? Yes, so long as that person has the humility to admit their own humanity and the possibility that they could be mistaken. If they are willing to listen to others and respect the beliefs of others, there is no harm in believing in Creationism.
But what of the person who admits no doubt, no possibility of error, who insists that all accept his one, true teaching? He has perverted religion the decent and hopeful human impulses that create our religions and turned religion into something evil. He is an abomination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)