Cold Hard Facts About Global Warming

A group of us saw the Al Gore climate documentary last night. The movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is a polished review of the available scientific evidence that the globe is warming and that human fossil fuel use is playing a large role. He paints a dire scenario of flooding, weather change and economic upheaval if the present trend is not reversed, and makes one wonder if we have not passed the tipping point.

Detractors may find Gore’s treatise merely polemical and the most cynical may call it a politically expedient preamble to another run for president with the candidate stoking fears of death and destruction, especially since such tactics worked so well for the current White House inhabitant in 2004. Such cynicism is misplaced when it comes to Gore. His concerns about climate have existed since his college days, and his previous work, Earth in the Balance, was written as long ago as 1992 and has been a subject of this blog in the past.

Gore is not alone in his concern for the planet. The flagship journal, Science, has reviewed the topic in detail and is in lock-step agreement with Gore’s conclusions: The Earth’s climate is changing rapidly and a certain contribution is the carbon emissions from industrialized society over the last 150 years. Indeed, even George W. Bush has given credence to the human contribution to greenhouse gases and the climate impact, although his 2002 Executive Summary is chock full of appeasements, industry subsidies and half-measures instead of realistic alternatives and economically sustainable remedies.

At this point, only a pollyannish lunatic would discount the existence of global warming, its human contribution or the detrimental impact on the planet. The only questions that remain are concerned with how to solve the issue for the next generations, and those questions are compelling enough that they should be addressed in the most expedient time frame.

Reducing carbon emissions and sequestering carbon after it is emitted are the two ways to keep carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Since our entire economy is based on the burning of carbon-based fossil fuels, some other forms of non-carbon energy need to be advanced. Wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal and hydro power are the leading candidates, and only nuclear power would create enough useable energy to make it a cost-effective substitute for coal or natural gas. Indeed, France generates over 90% of its electricity from uranium nuclear power plants. The problems, of course, concern handling the waste and ensuring safe operation on a national scale. Illinois, the birthplace of nuclear science, has the largest number of operating nuclear plants in the US, and could serve as a laboratory for further nuclear promotion. The other alternative energy sources could play a boutique role for individuals and small communities that are motivated; certainly investing in such technologies has promise.

Sequestering carbon emissions entails the collection of exhaust fumes from fossil fuel power plants and then either rendering them harmless through a catalytic process or reverse mining them into the ocean or deep cavern in the earth’s crust. While theoretically compelling, such technologies are still in their practical infancy.

Another, more personal, potential remedy is for every individual to attempt to reduce their carbon fuel use. Driving energy efficient automobiles, buying food from the community and setting thermostat timers would all be effective only if undertaken on a large scale. The cynical fact is that such voluntary measures are useless in the short run, and may even have a deleterious effect in the long run. Let me explain.

Let’s say 20% of the population voluntarily chooses to drive less, use less gasoline, keep their homes cooler in the winter and warmer in the summer: this would result in the supply/ demand curve leaning toward less demand and thus more supply. The 80% who choose not to conserve will have cheaper energy prices and therefore be less careful and use more until the curve rebalances. The end result will be no decrease in global carbon emissions.

The above example represents a closed system, which the world markets are not. Add into the mix the rapidly increasing demand for carbon-based energy as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) economies come on line to western standards and the emissions of carbon dioxide by-product will surely rise exponentially.

So, wearing fuzzy sweaters in January, buying your spouse a Corolla instead of an Impala, and eating asparagus grown in your backyard are all feel-good measures that may even save you a few pennies in petroleum consumption, but the beneficial impact on the planet is zero. A further negative effect of relying on personal conservation is that the 20% who conserve will feel that positive steps are being taken, and thus will not push for global mandates that would be necessary to make a positive global impact on carbon use.

The hard truth is that the solutions are not easy, and they are not personal. The solutions to global warming, assuming we are not too late, can only be found in national and international mandates. Carbon taxes and new technologies mandated and supported by large government regulatory agencies are the only way forward. Just as massive New Deal federal spending on rural electrification changed the USA in the 1930’s, the federal government must take the lead in global warming as well. Half-measures will not do. How much could the $300 billion spent in Iraq have done to reduce US' carbon emissions?

The Kyoto Protocols are not perfect, but the USA was wrong to walk away from the negotiating table. The rest of the world is showing its commitment to addressing the problem, and it’s embarrassing and dangerous for the world’s greatest carbon user to be absent from the discussion. Our political leaders are letting us down. Al Gore, where are you?

A lesson about winners and losers

So here comes Jay Mariotti of the Chicago Sun-Times ranting about his disparaging at the hands, or voice, of Ozzie Guillen. The manager took issue with Mariotti criticizing the way Guillen runs his team-- and not just any team, but the World Series Champion Chicago White Sox.

Mariotti shows up on CNBC tonight to whine to a sympathetic Donny Deutsch about being called a “fag”-- actually, a “fucking fag”-- by Guillen last week and the lack of substantive repercussion from the basball commissioner. Ozzie, for his part, apologized for using the homophobic epithet and (reluctantly) agreed to go through Selig-mandated “sensitivity training.” Of course, first Ozzie harumphed at the idea of “sensitivity training” and instead offered to spend a couple hours with his third-base coach and long-time friend, Joey Cora, because “he’s a sensitive guy, you know.”

Mariotti spews on about Ozzie's lack of sincerity at the the prospect of attending sensitivity training. Correct me if my reasoning is flawed, but if Ozzie were sensitive enough to know that he needs sensitivity training, then he wouldn't need the training in the first place, would he? I am not about to make excuses or explanations for Ozzie’s verbiage. His word choice was, shall we say, suboptimal; but he’s a baseball manager not the Secretary of State, let’s get real.

So what’s the big deal? Ozzie said something he should not have said, according to the unwritten rules of propriety, and he apologized and agreed to participate in some “training.” Everybody hugs, Sox win another pennant, and we’re all happy, no? No. Mariotti is incensed that more isn’t “being done.” He apparently thinks that Guillen should be flown to Eastern Europe, water-boarded and interrogated and then warehoused in Gitmo for the duration of Mariotti’s lame career.

Since Mariotti is presumably a sports reporter (although he has alienated himself within baseball to the degree that he is unable to actually report from the field and clubhouse) he must understand a few things about sports in general, and Chicago sports in specific. Here’s my open letter:

Dear Mr. Mariotti:

1. Professional sports is the last bastion of meritocracy in western civilization. Nobody cares what language an athlete speaks, much less if it's laced with colorful epithets. Athletes that win make more money regardless of how many f-bombs they drop in the clubhouse. No affirmative action, no politics, no nepotism. Baseball serves as one of the few remaining outlets devoid of haranguing about political correctness, and serious fans prefer to keep it that way. The elegant simplicity of the sport is not consistent with the parsing of language and micromanagement of every behavior. Leave it alone, Mr. Mariotti.

2. Ozzie is a winner. Therefore, there will always be a place for him in his chosen sport, baseball. He’s no wordsmith like yourself. He grew up in the barrios of Venezuela without a formal education and has learned his way around a competitive industry in a competitive market that regularly flushes 99.99% of those who attempt to succeed. He earned Rookie of the Year and three All-Star selections in his career, and now he has a World Series ring. You make your living with a word processor; Ozzie does it with his baseball acumen. Sure, you can write columns and intellectually bully around athletes with fancy syntax and deductive reasoning, but sports are not about argument, they are about competition. Just as I wouldn’t expect Secretariat to make my breakfast, I don’t expect Ozzie Guillen to debate a college educated writer on the propriety of language.

3. Chicago sports fans love Ozzie. Next time you wander into Sox Park, go behind home plate on the 100-level concourse and look into the display case and you’ll see the entire reason that your whining will never resonate with White Sox fans. You’ll see the World Series trophy, something that I have never seen before Ozzie brought it to my home town. He was paid to do a job, and he did it. Does he have flaws? You bet. Ozzie is a work in progress and Kenny Williams has his hands full. But fairness dictates that the punishment must fit the crime, and for Guillen, that punishment is sensitivity training.

So, Mr. Mariotti, tomorrow morning when you get up early to tweeze your eyebrows for your next TV appearance, look in the mirror closely, and you’ll see a loser. A reporter who is not allowed to report; a hack "journalist" who has become the story instead of the reporter of the story. Keep picking on Ozzie and his fresh World Series trophy and you’ll see yourself further marginalized as a sports commentator and as a Chicagoan. Perhaps some loser-bait Cubs fans will still buy the Sun-Times to read your drivel, but credible self-respecting sports fans will recognize that you are just a grandstanding media whore who intends to ride this “controversy” for all the print and TV exposure you can.

If you really care about the plight of Chicago baseball, look no further than your Northside team of losers who are nothing less than a disgrace to professional sports franchises everywhere. Try writing a column or two about a real problem and leave the White Sox alone.

XOXO, Grodge.

The Regrettable Mr. Bush

I almost avoided George W. Bush’s press conference tonight. I tried, I really did. I took the dogs for a walk, but when I came home I discovered that the White Sox weren’t playing, and I wandered into a room with a TV on. And, shazam! There they were, the dynamic dickheads of pre-emption: Bush and Blair, or should we call them Mr. 32% and Mr. 26%?

When questioned by a reporter, Bush said he regretted saying “Bring it on” and “Wanted dead or alive” because it sent the “wrong message.” What an absolute asshole. He has done so many numbskull things since those particular utterances that I had forgotten he had even said them. If that were the worst of it, he would still be above 50% approval. Saying stupid things is not his downfall, doing stupid things is his downfall, and the downfall of our soldiers, our treasury, and our diplomatic standing in the world (Mr. 26% notwithstanding).

Bush went on to laboriously tell us that he was trying to “convince the world” that Iran was a threat and that the world was better off with Saddam in jail. “Convince the world”? Maybe if you had done one thing—just one stinking thing—that made sense during your presidency, then “convincing” anybody, not to mention the whole world, wouldn’t be such an impossible task.

So, here’s my tirade to Bush and his infuriating press conference:

Dear George,

Don’t try to convince anybody of anything. Don’t give any opinion, or voice any concern. We know the world is dangerous and the Iranians hate us. They’ve hated us for decades and they’ll hate us for decades to come. We know Kim Jong-il is an asshole. We know we’re addicted to oil and that our economy is vulnerable. These are not some huge revelations that you need to enlighten us of. If the Iranians get an atomic bomb, it will be unfortunate, but so be it. Of course, it will be your fault if they do. Your fault because you commissioned our troops into an unnecessary war, watched as they got mired into a horrendous quagmire, tortured prisoners, and murdered civilians; your policies have poisoned world opinion against US priorities and have required us to spend lives and treasure on a pointless mission.

Likewise, if North Korea bombs Japan, or Islamo-fascists blow up Saudi Arabia’s oil fields, those will be your fault as well. The geopolitical instabilities are gaining steam, and the US is hamstrung; we cannot act diplomatically or militarily. Russia’s Putin, who you “trusted in your heart”, is turning out more old-school KGB than new-age progressive. We cannot flex our muscle or sweeten the porridge.

So, George… just shut up, and as Bill Maher says, don’t touch anything else. Your presidency is pretty much done. You’ve fucked up just about everything you’ve handled, so don’t touch anything anymore.

And please don’t bother with any more press conferences. I don’t care to hear your bullshit mea culpas, knowing that the only reason you would ever cop to having done something “regrettable” is that your approval ratings are in the toilet. Why on earth would you ever say “Bring ‘em on” in the first place? Why would that idea ever float into your tiny, testosterone-laden brain? And what the fuck is the point of “regretting” it? Of all the purely idiotic things that you’ve said and done, that’s the one you regret? “Bring ‘em on”? Duh.

When I first heard your “dead or alive” statement, back in 2001 or 2002, which was followed closely by Darth Cheney’s “head on a platter” comment, I knew then that we had tumbled down the rabbit hole. The discontent I felt at that time, that the heads of state of my great nation would utter such barbaric and imbecilic things, has grown into a full-fledged rage of regret and nauseating disdain for everything that has transpired since that time.

And after all your tinhorn bluster, Osama bin Laden still walks free. Your utterance of “dead or alive” should not be your worst misgiving, rather your failure to live up to the empty threat is the greater sin. For that you should apologize. (But you won’t.)

Before the 2000 election, I read Bill Minutaglio’s biography of you and had you pegged, as Ann Richards has said, as a rich kid who was born on third base who thought he’d hit a triple. Every fear I had that you were some empty suit with a trust fund and a political war chest has come true. You haven’t a clue what noblesse oblige means. You have no respect for the principles of government, or any apparent knowledge of the purpose of government.

Pundits who support you conjecture about the great mission of your presidency, the high ideals and the purity of your motivations. Pundits who oppose you conjecture about the cynical self-interest of your policies, or the evil intentions, or the incompetence. Frankly, none of that interests me. Your policies are just plain bad, whether they are purposefully self-serving or mistaken failures, it doesn’t matter. Whether you are incongruously forthright, secretly intelligent or a bumbling fool makes no difference to me. I cannot know your motivations, your work ethic or your understanding. I have no idea what goes on inside your tiny little mind. All I know is that your actions are not consistent with the productive management of a country-- any country-- especially an exceptional country like ours.

Your results suck, and that, sir, is why your approval ratings are so low. Not the “dead or alive” threat, nor the “mission accomplished” banner, nor the “bring ‘em on” statement: those aren’t the basis of the nation’s disdain for you. The videos of Osama’s continued polemics, the rising death toll in Iraq, the Medicare Part D boondoggle and the crippling federal deficits: those are the real concerns of the American people.

You run this nation like every two-bit enterprise you’ve ever run: Arbusto, Harken Energy, the Texas Rangers baseball team. In case your parents and friends haven’t told you, George, you have always been a miserable failure; and most likely, you always will be.

So, please don’t clutter up my TV with pointless press conferences where you remind us of all the lame-brain things you’ve said or done. I remember them. I was there. It’s painful enough having lived through them once, please let’s not reminisce. Yes, you have said stupid things. In fact, I cannot think of one intelligent, witty or insightful syllable you’ve ever uttered. Yes, you will say stupid things in the future. I can live with that.

For the record, in the future, when someone asks you if you have any regrets, the proper answer is “yes, I regret almost everything I’ve done the last six years. I should have stayed in Texas, I regret running for president; I regret smearing Al Gore, who should have been the president. I regret choosing Cheney as V.P. I regret ignoring threats from al Qaeda, and letting Osama escape at Tora Bora. I regret starting an unnecessary war and killing tens of thousands of humans. I regret not firing Rumsfeld. I regret lying to the American people about intelligence leaks and allowing Karl Rove to serve in the White House. I regret smearing John Kerry, who risked his life in Vietnam while I cavorted with celebrities and campaigned for war mongers. I regret everything because I am a miserable, regrettable hollow fart of a man.”

Love,

Grodge

Nanny State

I've been asked my opinion of Dean Baker’s ebook The Conservative Nanny State, which has some provocative theses on free trade and immigration. I'm interested in your thoughts. My take, after reading the first third of the book, is that he tends to oversimplify complicated issues. He also contradicts himself by offering opposing motivations of the "rich". For instance, if allowing more foreign-trained physicians would lower health costs, as Baker surmises, then why aren't the greedy capitalist business owners who pay the healthcare costs of their employees clamoring for more lax immigration policies for internationally trained doctors?

In fact, over 25% of the physicians currently practicing in the US are graduates of foreign medical schools; does Baker think that number should be 50%, 75%, 100%? In fact, foreigners make up a greater number of physicians than almost any other profession in the US, taxi drivers notwithstanding. If we are going to allow barrier-free immigration for physicians, then I suppose we are going to do the same for lawyers, chemists, teachers, economists and organic chemists as well. How many professionals should we allow in? A million? Ten million? 100 million? At some point we merely become a nation without borders, without sovereignty.

Baker would have a stronger argument if he supported opening more US medical schools or training more specialist surgeons to increase the competition, which economic law of supply and demand would seem to dictate lower salaries and lower costs. Unfortunately, studies show that if more surgeons practice in a given community, then more surgery overall is performed, even if the per capita number of cases declines. More doctors often leads to more healthcare expense. Just as having both a Wal-Mart and a Meijer store in town doesn’t mean that people will buy less televisions and toasters, having more doctors does not mean that people will access medical care any less.

It may seem I'm merely reacting to Baker's assault on the US medical system and his affectation for bemoaning the high salaries of US physicians, but I'm not. I have always been an advocate for a single payer system, or at least a single payment system, which could ensure better access to care for all at a controllable cost. This would surely provide the tools to decrease the total compensation paid to US physicians, but could lower the most highly paid specialists the most and spare those who provide primary care. In medicine, generalists make far less than subspecialty surgeons, with that discrepancy growing larger and larger. Salaries in medicine mirror the growing dichotomy in the US socioeconomic structure in general, with the rich getting richer and the "poor" just getting by. Just as in any economic system such large differences in wealth lead to class struggle and, as Marx and Engels point out, instability and warfare.

Another point I'll add: Baker keeps confusing immigration with free-trade. Restricting immigration is much different than restricting free trade. While US citizens may not be able to "enjoy the benefits” of having a horde of low-priced foreign-trained doctors rooting around their bellies at their local hospitals, these same citizens are more than free to travel to Mexico or Guatemala for their hysterectomy. Interestingly, that is happening to some degree with hospitals operating in Costa Rica and parts of SE Asia that cater to wealthy Americans and Australians, respectively. These hospitals are often staffed with well-trained nurses and doctors, but operate very cheaply because of the lack of expensive regulation and malpractice insurance. Caveat emptor.

In sum, the provision of healthcare is an extremely complicated economic model that even the venerable economist Peter Drucker couldn't solve. To think that simply opening our borders to every foreign doctor with a diploma would solve the problem is laughably glib. Would flooding the US market with foreign-trained physicians lower doctors' salaries? Certainly. But would it lead to lower healthcare costs? Never. And better quality? Ha! Is US healthcare in trouble? Yes. Does Dean Baker have the answer? Hardly.

Looking forward to finishing the ebook and engaging a more thorough discussion.

Why I am a non-theist...

..or, why I'll never be president.

Ok, I've given this a lot of thought, even more reflection and have come to a heartfelt conclusion: I am an atheist. It's not something that one decides, but rather something that one discovers. If an examined life is not worth living, then my examination has determined that god-belief is not worth wasting one's life on-- and may even be dangerous.

Sam Harris' latest book "The End of Faith" is an excellent diatribe against liberal monotheism, stating that such tolerance for irrationality by modern, thinking homo sapeins just acts to feed the inane and destructive institutions buiilt around religious belief.

Islam is the latest deadly iteration of violence in the name of religion, but Jews and Christians are just as guilty of fueling the hate game based on silly fantasies regarding god-belief. The historic atrocities done in support of Judeo-Christianity are exponentially worse. The world is becoming a smaller, more dangerous place with nuclear proliferation and WMD's becoming more available, and the human community cannot afford to perpetuate divisive, and often deadly, irrationality any longer.

Of course, this is not to say that profound wisdom is absent from the great religions. On the contrary, the Bible, Tibetan Book of the Dead, and I Ching (all texts I have become familiar with to varying degrees) contain fundamental truths that are presented in understandable ways, although they are often targeted to their specific cultural group. We must read these texts in the light of our knowledge of science and experience, and try to understand the political and social motivations present at the time of their writing.

Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and Plato's Dialogues likewise contain fundamental truths, only without the baggage of irrational fantasy. We must face the fact that a huge ark was not built by a 500 year-old man to save the world's animal species. Science does not support re-incarnation or resurrection. Mohammed and Moses did not converse with God to bring the Word to the people.

We as a human community do not have the luxury of ignoring rationality anymore. We must finally fully wake up to the idiocy of believing in sky wizards, magic and miracles, and we must especially see the dangers of believing our fantasies are somehow more informed than theirs.

All god-believers, but perhaps especially the reality-based liberals who should know better, need to come to terms with this.

Our planet depends on it.

My latest letter to Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mi)

To the Honorable Fred Upton:

I’ll take the Constitution, thank you. You are my representative and I am asking you to either explain the actions and policies of this president, or act to rid us of him.

I’m not sure what the motivation of the Bush administration has been. He says he’s protecting freedom, yet he ignores the fourth amendment. He says he supports the troops and clandestine services, yet he leaks the identity of a CIA operative for political purposes.

I trust the Constitution. I don’t trust George W. Bush. I cannot know Bush’s motives, and frankly I don’t give a damn why he does the idiotic things he does. I didn’t vote for him and wish he had never come out of his Texas backwater. He is the chief executive charged with enforcing the Constitution and he is not doing it.

I have elected representatives who are charged with checking and balancing the president when he is negligent or incompetent. Do it. The administration must be called to answer for the travesties of unnecessary war, raging federal deficits, buildings falling down, governmental incompetence, personal irresponsibility, war profiteering, lying, no-bid contracts, cherry-picked intelligence, “thousands” of tactical military errors, etc, etc.

We’ve had enough and our country is at stake. Now the time is over for negotiation and deliberation. If my elected officials will not call out this administration and this buffoon of a president, then who will?

We have a Constitution that provides remedies for these criminally negligent policies and actions. Mr. Upton, I know you are a Republican, and despite that character flaw you earned my vote the last two election cycles mainly because I (perhaps foolishly) believed that one should vote for the man and not the party.

Dig deep, Mr. Upton, and do the right thing. Act to impeach this hollow fart of a man before he damages this nation further. You are my representative, do what is best for your constituency. Impeach him. Or explain to me why not.

(Signed)

"My sheep hear my voice..."

and I know them, and they will follow." John 10:27.


From the Cunning Realist:

A striking exchange from President Bush's Q+A session with an audience in Charlotte, North Carolina on Thursday:

Q: You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own behalf. You are --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not your favorite guy. Go ahead. (Laughter and applause.) Go on, what's your question?

Q: Okay, I don't have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that I -- in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate, and --

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: No, wait a sec -- let him speak.

Q: And I would hope -- I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself.

History's proven that the greatest danger to a nation sometimes is not a wayward leader, but the unthinking masses desperate to surrender freedom to someone---anyone---promising to "protect" them. It's during those times that the individual's most lethal enemy is not his government, but his next-door neighbor.

Instead of "booo," the audience at the president's event might just as well have bleated "baaahhh."

-- Cunning Realist

Artwork attribution: Millie Ballance, who is not responsible for the editorial content.

Bush: "I Know Nothing!!"

Just when I was about to give George W. Bush credit for one of his policies, he does the unthinkable—again. He pleads ignorance. The recent flap over the United Arab Emirates buying several ports on the eastern seaboard from a British company has triggered a dust-up between Bush and the Republican congressional leadership. Congress has presented a bill to stop the sale which has already been approved by the Bush administration and Bush has promised to veto such a bill. Kudos to Mr. Bush for standing up to the demagogues who are making political hay over a non-issue in an election year.

In times like these the Democrats do well to sit back and egg on the combatants hoping that a full-scale war breaks out, and apparently it has. Tom DeLay and other Republicans have threatened to overturn any veto, so this really does mean war. In any such battle, an observer must choose sides, and at first blush, Bush is my man on this. Security is not the issue. The congressmen and women are making this an issue because 1) they want to appear strong on security and 2) they want to distance themselves from Bush who is becoming politically weak. In the end, we know it’s all just bullshit.

But then what does Bush do to me? He pulls a fast one and pleads ignorance. His press secretary Scotty the Body McClellan says that Bush did not even know about the decision to allow the sale until “several days ago.” He what? He didn’t know? Wait a minute, now I don’t know whose side I’m on. On the one hand, I understand that this future operator of a major US port is an Arab nation who once backed the Taliban government of Afghanistan and, according to former CIA Director and Medal of Freedom recipient George Tenet, supported Osama bin Laden, but on the other hand, security is the job of the US federal government and not the port operator. But, on the third hand, if the president hasn’t even looked at the facts of the case, then who the hell has? Who signed off on this deal?

I realize that McClellan is probably just setting up a situation whereby the president can retract the deal, backpedal a little to save face, and come up with a compromise with the congressional Republican leadership. He can come out in a couple days and say, OK now I’ve looked at the case and you guys have some valid points, let’s deal.

But frankly, I’m a little tired of the president’s ignorance defense. It’s been used on every single major issue the president has faced, and it’s getting old. For instance, he didn’t know that al Qaeda was a threat to the US, even though an intelligence briefing explicitly said so on Aug 6, 2001. Had no idea that the enemy would ever use airplanes as weapons, even though that strategy had been wargamed in the past. Iraq didn’t have WMD’s? Hmmm, didn’t know that. The Yellowcake Theory was a canard? Plead ignorance. Bush had no idea that a postwar insurgency would take place, or now a civil war, although analysts had predicted this back in 1991. The US would not be greeted as liberators? Who’d have guessed that. Torture at Guantanamo? Nope, not aware. Overseas renditions? Huh, din’t know. Abu Ghraib? Nope, couldn’t have known. Where’s Osama bin Laden? No clue. Did Bush know that his VP’s staff was leaking classified information about CIA officers to the press for political gotcha games? No. Bush also didn’t know that the New Orleans levees would breach in a Hurricane, although a lot of other people were well-aware of that nightmare. HeckuvaJob Brownie was an unqualified boob? Not my department. People were dying in the Ninth Ward? Didn’t know. Cheney got liquored up and shot someone? He didn’t tell me about it.

Now it’s the ports. His defense is that he simply was not made aware of the situation, so how could he have known? In the next few days, of course, Bush’s handlers will make him aware of the facts, and they will assemble the Congressional leaders and they will all march out to the Rose Garden with a grand announcement that the president has been the voice of reason and calm in this great misunderstanding.

So much for Harry Truman’s desk plaque that said, “The Buck Stops Here.”

Mr. Bush, what on earth do you know?

Happiness is a warm gun...

Notice in the picture at the left, Kerry’s hunting partner is smiling and apparently does not have birdshot lodged into his face or chest wall. We all remember during the campaign Cheney maligned Kerry after this hunting trip by stating the he “could see the price tags still dangling from the sleeves” of Kerry’s hunting apparel. Boy, that Cheney, what a card!

Alright, I’m not going to go on anymore about Cheney’s recent hunting mishap. The Veep shot some guy accidentally, and I’m sure he feels badly about it. The late night shows all have had their fun with the sophomoric jokes, so I’ll refrain.*

To be complete, John Kerry has also shot someone in his past-- of course, that person was a Viet Cong enemy combatant who had been firing rockets at US patrol boats, and Lt. Kerry earned a Silver Star for Bravery for his act of heroism.

Richard B. Cheney, on the other hand, spent the Vietnam War filing his five deferments from the safety of his Wyoming living room and, most likely, shooting only at farm-raised flightless birds and other unarmed varmints.

*But if you want a few jokes, here they are:

Daily Show:

Jon Stewart: "I'm joined now by our own vice-presidential firearms mishap analyst, Rob Corddry. Rob, obviously a very unfortunate situation. How is the vice president handling it?

Rob Corddry: "Jon, tonight the vice president is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. According to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush.

"And while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Whittington's face."

Jon Stewart: "But why, Rob? If he had known Mr. Whittington was not a bird, why would he still have shot him?"

Rob Corddry: "Jon, in a post-9-11 world, the American people expect their leaders to be decisive. To not have shot his friend in the face would have sent a message to the quail that America is weak."

David Letterman: "Good news ladies and gentleman, we have finally located weapons of mass destruction ... It's Dick Cheney." [...]

"We can't get Bin Laden, but we nailed a 78-year-old attorney." [...]

"The guy who got gunned down is a Republican lawyer and a big Republican donor and fortunately the buck shot was deflected by wads of laundered cash. So he's fine. He took a little in the wallet."

Jay Leno: "When people found out he shot a lawyer his popularity is now at 92%" [...]

"Something I just found out today about the incident. Do you know that Dick Cheney tortured the guy for a half hour before he shot him?"

Democracy Can Save the Planet: but only if you vote for the right folks

What follows is a more complete review of John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hitman which I recently read on recommendation from a couple friends, and also a discussion of the linked issues of economic globalization and environmental conservation. As my previous blog entry summarized, Perkins’ book is an account of the life of an operative who worked for a private company from the 1960’s to 1980. He details the cynical escapades of the US corporatocracy which worked in collusion with the CIA and presumably the Pentagon to inflict capitalist terror on the Third World.

Perkins opines that when simple extortion and bribery failed to convince democratically elected officials in Panama, Ecuador and Chile, the corporatocracy called in “jackals” who exterminated these leaders in order to supplant them with more pliable dictators. No doubt these rumors have merit since such speculation has circulated ever since Mossedegh was removed from oil-rich Iran in 1953 in favor of the US-backed Shah. (For that matter, we can go back to Teddy Roosevelt's "Gunboat Diplomacy" in Central America for a glimmer of extortion and threats for economic gain; or look to Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Sir Francis Drake, etc, etc, etc.) Some may leap to the cynical conclusion that all leaders, all political operatives, “all US presidents, except maybe Carter”, have conspired to promote their personal financial interests by using jackals and economic hitmen. In fact, I learned from our discussion, that some feel that the very existence of US economic supremacy is proof that “they’re all in on it.” I tend to be skeptical of persons in power, but even I don't believe that.

My take on this mind-set is that when one realizes (finally!) that the current gang in the White House is made up of corrupt scoundrels, the natural inclination is to throw one’s hands up in surrender and assume that no matter who is in the White House, no matter who we elect, such criminal activity will always be tolerated. Nothing could be further from the truth, but for a Bush voter, this is much easier to do than to admit that you simply voted for the wrong guy in 2000 and 2004.

I maintain that we in the US have an enviable governmental system of self-determination and we have the power to figure out real solutions to the world’s problems, if we choose to take that course. In the last two elections, however, we have chosen tax cuts, pre-emptive wars, financial incentives for oil drillers, environmental deregulation and sell-outs for the drug companies. We have put our trust in the “plantation owner”, as Perkins’ refers to George W. Bush. Whether the US electorate was fooled or caught unawares, we have put into power the very cabal that perfected the idea of economic hitmen.

The discussion of the book devolved into a general discussion of the sustainability of the planet with the increasing use of natural resources and voracious appetite the US consumers have for products made with cheap Third World labor. Perkins himself recognizes the straits the world is in and offers a final chapter designed supposedly to point us on the correct course. Unfortunately this “world class” economist is unable to provide anything more than 1) “discuss my book”, 2) “live simply” and 3) “talk to your friends about living simply.” I don’t know which crime is worse: killing Torrijos or calling that an economic plan for the 21^st century!!

So let’s review a real economic plan for the 21^st century that was put forth several years ago in a four-hundred page book which the author offered as just the “beginning of the conversation.” The author, I’ll call him Prince for now, outlined the extent of the problem and in the final chapters offered the Global Marshall Plan to ensure sustainability of the planet that included economic, political and technologic solutions. Prince’s five strategies included 1) stabilizing the world’s population, 2) developing environmentally appropriate technologies, especially in energy, agriculture and transportation, 3) formulating worldwide “rules of the road” to measure the economic and ecologic impact of our decisions, 4) negotiate worldwide regulations and enforcement mechanisms to ensure success of the overall plan, and 5) establish a worldwide cooperative to educate the world’s citizens about global environment. These strategies are expounded upon at moderate length as to how we can effect a positive change in “the social and political conditions most conducive to the emergence of sustainable societies.” The details of Prince's vision that connects the politics of global economy with planetary sustainability are too wonkish to pursue in this forum. The premise, written 14 years ago, emphasized the urgency of planning for the future before it’s too late.

Shortly after gaining power in 2001, our current Vice-President said, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Then he secretly met with energy company executives to formulate our "national" energy policy. Yeah, right. More recently we are learning that the Interior Department is superseding legislative fiat and giving private contracts for oil-drilling in the Alaskan reserve. Perkins mentions Cheney by name as one of the instigators of the “hitmen” who enslave the brown people throughout the world by extorting and threatening their leaders in order to extract oil, other natural resources and cheap labor from their countries. Not surprisingly, Prince’s plan does not call for extortion or bribery, but rather economic carrots and sticks as well as internationally determined regulatory structure to ensure population control, fair trade, fair wages and environmental sustainability.

The US needs to play a role in the discussion going forward. We are by far the largest per capita consumer of fossil fuels, producer of carbon waste emissions and consumer of manufactured products. The Kyoto Convention, which has been ongoing since the mid-90’s, is a worldwide consortium of nations looking at strategies to limit greenhouse gases going forward. In 2001, Bush’s emissary at the conference said, “Science tells us that we cannot say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided." Immediately afterward, Bush withdrew the US from the discussion invoking our “national interest”, but the treaty was later signed by 132 other nations to reduce greenhouse gases to pre-1990 levels. Prince would argue, and did, that despite what the economic hitmen of the Bush administration would tell you, protocols such as Kyoto are the beginning of realizing that our enlightened self-interest as a nation is manifest in just such international consortiums and they should not be ignored. The US needs to be at that negotiating table. Prince says, "Our first step should be to set realistic and achievable, binding emissions limits, which will create new markets for new technologies and new ideas that will, in turn, expand the boundaries of the possible and create new hope. Other steps will then follow. And then, ultimately, we will achieve a safe overall concentration level for greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.” Unfortunately, we have a longer way to go today than we did when Prince uttered those words in 1997.

The global environment is more than animals and rivers and streams; it also consists of 6 billion people and without proper regard for the lifestyle and well-being of the people or their economic development, then the planet is screwed. When Nike puts a factory in Thailand, the locals rush to the gates for jobs which can pay up to ten times what they make at other jobs in the community. The laws of economics predict that these jobs will be desired because the workers will gain immediate benefit from choosing them. As a consequence, the most able workers are employed by the large western multinational corporations, and any profit from their labor is extracted away from the Third World country. We cannot expect impoverished laborers to go back to the rice patties for pennies a day because "in the long run" tying their wagon to the Nike star may be a failed proposition. Any economist would see that working at Nike for $1.50 per day is immediately better than humping in a rice patty for $0.25 per day.

A previous labor secretary, Robert Reich, outlined in his book The Future of Success, a framework whereby international trade would be governed by treaties that ensured that profits from such endeavors would instead be funneled back into the Third World country. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, instead of making usurious loans to poor nations, would provide funding incentives for policies that promoted environmentally friendly practices and worker well-being. Adoption and enforcement of international worker safety standards, anti-sweat shop statutes, child labor laws, etc can only be accomplished with the cooperation of the US and other western citizenries. Embarassingly, Paul Wolfowitz is current head of the US-represented World Bank, so don’t expect any enlightened self-interest any time soon. Tom DeLay is under fire for, among other things, taking pay-offs from sweat-shop owners in the Marianas Islands in exchange for favorable legislation.

Prince's and Reich's econnomic plans are based on moral and ethical principles that are as old as humankind itself. These principles are delineated in Native American practice, Socratic philosophy, Eastern religion and Christian faith; they're universal. Unfortunately, such ideas do not gain traction within our electorate because 1) it’s not in our immediate self-interest to care about brown-skinned people when we are getting cheap microwave ovens and TV’s, and 2) the “plantation owners” and slave-traders whip up the noise machine of pre-emptive war, blow jobs, weapons of mass destruction, fear of terrorism, and on and on and on in order to distract us from the necessary reforms which our leaders further claim are expensive and threaten our sovereignty. Reich's and Prince's enlightened ideas aren’t radical bleeding-heart liberal propositions that will drain our treasury and deplete our standard of living. (Wars do that.) These are moral and ethical principles that will ensure the health of our planet and everyone on it. Whether you're a Christian, atheist, Buddhist, or whatever, isn't that what morality is?

I realize that for a blog article this is becoming a lengthy thesis, so I’ll wrap it up. I would encourage anyone to read Prince’s book for an uplifting positive view of what our future can be. Is there a lot of work to do? Yes. But concrete ideas are out there that can be expanded and molded if we work for them. Is is possible? Only if we can reason with ourselves that our government is of, by and for us and not the plantation owners. We have an obligation to elect honest, intelligent visionaries and hold ourselves responsible to the entire planet. If you feel that none are available, then run for office yourself. Sitting in a basement, fearing terrorism, dream-catching and "discussing" Perkins’ book is not enough. Driving a four-cylinder car and eating sprouts is not enough.

I am not necessarily a religious man, but this situation reminds me of the old schoolyard jokes about St. Peter at the Pearly Gates greeting the newly deceased. When our planet is inundated with water from the melted ice caps, Third World nations rise up in defiance of the west, wars and pestilence take over and the bacteria re-gain their rightful dominion of the earth, we will all be greeted by St. Peter. We’ll say, “But Peter, we believed in God and believed that God would save us from the impending doom. Why did He abandon us?”

Peter would reply, “God did not abandon you. He gave you Reason and Science to figure out solutions to your plight; instead you chose irrational belief and to live in fear rather than work for solutions. He gave you Love and Compassion to promote cooperation among all the people of the world; instead you gave power to the slave-traders who destroyed communities of your brothers and sisters throughout the world. He gave you Leaders with Vision to start you on the path of redeeming your planet. Instead you elected warmongers and ecological rapists whose short-sighted selfish financial interests destroyed your planetary home. You abandoned the gifts God gave to you. You abandoned God.” (You can substitute Earth Goddess, Krishna, Gaia or whatever your favorite flavor is for God. Personally, I'd pick simple Common Freakin' Sense!!, but that's me.)

Oh, I almost forgot… Prince’s book, written in 1992, is called Earth in the Balance.

And Prince? That was Senator, and later Vice-President, "Prince Albert" Gore.

We had our chance.

Clinton the Economic Hit Man? Not!

John Perkins’ The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man provides a chilling account of supposedly real-life cloak and dagger escapades involving private US companies and sovereign nations around the world. The account specifically outlines the manner in which the “corporatocracy” strong-arms third-world leaders into ordering goods and services from US businesses and in the process these poor nations build up huge debt which the citizenry must re-pay with cheap labor or by sacrificing their country’s natural resources to US companies. If the leaders refuse, then they are murdered, according to Perkins. He cites specific examples in Panama and Chile where democratically elected leaders (Torrijos and Allende, respectively) refused to acquiesce to the demands of the US companies and met their hasty demise under suspicious circumstances.

Perkins insinuates that these men were murdered so that despots friendly to US businesses could be inserted: Noriega in Panama and Pinochet in Chile. Both of these puppets were militarily backed by the US and their iron-fisted rule ensured that populist memes that promoted social programs and national interest were ignored. Similar activities supposedly occurred in Iran in the 1950’s when the democratically elected Mossedegh was dethroned in favor of the US-backed Shah, who proceeded to clamp down on his people’s liberties in order to provide oil for the US.

Perkin’s scenario follows the money to Republican administration officials, namely George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Casper Weinberger, Richard Cheney, George H. W. Bush, among others specifically named in the book that were closely allied or employed by US companies such as Carlyle, Bechtel and Halliburton from the 1970’s to the present. Perkins may be inaccurate, but that’s what he says. In each instance, Perkins clearly alleges a cause-and-effect relationship between the extortion and/or murder of a third-world leader, and the profitability of one of those, or another, US companies. Without making any specific accusations, I’ll add that those same companies are currently enjoying record profits supplying war materiel and re-building supplies as a direct consequence of dubious policies set forth by the current presidential administration. Coincidence? Perhaps.

When I read books such as John Perkins’ I do see correlations with Perkins’ vignettes and the foreign policy as orchestrated by George W. Bush’s administration. Not one of us can know if Perkins’ account is truthful or merely self-serving hyperbole, but if we assume his memoir can be taken as face value, then we can see a likely correlation with current Republican administration officials who have very close links to both the “corporatocracy” and our foreign policy. One could even take the baby step to see that perhaps our foreign policy has been “fixed around” the interests of the military-industrial complex which is linked to Bush officials.

One friend of mine has made the grand leap to assume that “all Presidents, even Clinton, but probably not Carter” have engaged in similar activity. This is a corollary to the Starr Principle: If somebody has done something wrong, then Bill Clinton must have done it, too. I respectfully disagree, and further find his logic of accusing one Democrat but not the other an example of speculation in its purest form. I maintain that the onus is not on anyone to prove Clinton’s innocence; rather the onus is on his accusers to provide evidence of his complicity in the barbaric overthrow of foreign nations for his personal gain or the profitability of a company to which he is closely allied or employed, as outlined in Perkins’ book. Perkins does give us his eyewitness account that implicates previous and current Republican White House officials in alleged criminal activity.

Clinton has no doubt committed many sins. We all have. Has Clinton (legally) taken money from lobbyists associated with China? Yes. Has Clinton allowed our nuclear secrets to be stolen by the Chinese? Some say so. Has Clinton perjured himself to a federal grand jury? That was the judgment. But the question at hand is: Has Clinton murdered democratically elected leaders of less-developed countries to line his own pockets? A resounding NO! Not even the wildest wingnut has ever made reputable claims that Clinton engaged in tactics as outlined in the Perkins book. Bill may have killed Vince Foster, but he never laid a hand on Hugo Chavez. Ironically, many of Clinton’s detractors have argued that he was too uninvolved in Latin America. The conservative think tank, American Enterprise Institute, scolded Clinton for his lack of promotion of US businesses and inability to expand NAFTA into Central and South America. (NAFTA and trade proposals figure into Perkins’ theme, but the issue is more convoluted, and may be detailed later.)

So, let’s review our discussion. Perkins makes accusations and names specific people that he claims have conspired to overthrow sovereign nations for personal financial gain. These same people are either currently serving in Bush’s administration, have close ties to current government officials or have financial relationships with US companies doing business with our government. I know of no similarly close ties in the Clinton administration. If someone knows of any, I'm open to references.

Iraq "Plan" is just more BS

As some may have noticed, I have been laying off George W. Bush of late. My attention has been diverted by more pleasant circumstances such as the World Champion White Sox and the First Place Bears. These indulgences are merely guilty pleasures and should never be confused with any softening of my disdain for the policies set forth by the current presidential administration. The president’s recent address that supposedly outlined his “Victory Plan for Iraq” (but was really pointless drivel more akin to yet another round of cheerleading) serves as an excellent summary of Mr. Bush’s failed intellect and cynical deceit. I’ll present examples to outline how this hollow fart of a man has obfuscated, lied and dissembled about the Iraq war to the detriment of our soldiers, our treasury and our diplomatic reputation around the world, but realize that this is only a sampling and hardly an exhaustive critique of Bush’s obtuse rationale for war.

"This [Iraqi] election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote --6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world--means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror."

This represents failed reasoning. I have no doubt Bush believes this, but then Bush believes a lot of things that are either unknowable, or just plain wrong. How can he possibly know that an Iraqi democracy will be our ally? The Shi’ite majority could align with Iran to form an anti-American theocracy, and such a sectarian government could act to destabilize Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and other oil producing nations whose anti-American majorities are ruled by heavy-handed lackeys of the Western corporatocracy. Bush’s rhetoric may work among certain voters at home, but just hoping doesn’t make it so. This is a dangerous assumption, not unlike the failed reasoning that the US soldiers would be greeted as liberators in 2003, or that Iraqi oil money would pay for the re-construction of Iraq after the war, or that WMD stockpiles would be found, or that Iraq was complicit in 9-11... What’s one more canard for old times’ sake?

The war “has caused sorrow for our whole Nation--and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving. That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone."

This represents a profoundly disingenuous statement. Who ever said al Qaeda would “become peaceful”? Answer: nobody. Instead, the question is whether the Iraq occupation has a) diverted our attention from stopping al Qaeda and global terrorism and b) helped bin Laden and Zarqawi to recruit new soldiers from the millions of disillusioned moderate Muslims worldwide. Such propaganda is evidence that he expects the American people to scrub their brains of all rationality. If Bush wants to really decrease terrorism and increase safety, he must stop making shit up and start leveling with himself and the American people about the causes for the increase in Muslim terrorism over the last four decades, and he must realize that disillusionment of the disenfranchised has some pattern that can be directly linked back to the actions of their oppressors.

"My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad, removing their safe havens, and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share…America, our Coalition, and Iraqi leaders are working toward the same goal--a democratic Iraq that can defend itself--that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists--and that will serve as a model of freedom for the Middle East."

There is so much wrong with these three sentences, that they could be used as sole evidence for Mr. Bush’s commission to a state hospital for the criminally insane, and also for his excommunication from almost any Christian congregation (except, of course, Pat Robertson’s and Jerry Falwell’s).

I’ll take the second two sentences first: Iraq was not a “safe haven” for terrorists, and certainly not al Qaeda—at least not until we showed up to destabilize the region. Any number of reports including the 9-11 Commission, the Deulfer Report and the UN has stated that Iraq did not serve as a training area or “safe haven” for al Qaeda and Iraq was not involved in any aggression toward the US. More al Qaeda operatives resided in Jeb Bush’s Florida than in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. For Bush to continue this connection is documentary proof that his brain is broke.

His first statement should be even more disturbing to any god-fearing Christian or really any US citizen who feels that our president should adopt some semblance of a moral code. To repeat what Bush stated, "My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad…” Now, I may not hold Jesus in the deified regard that George W. Bush and the Christian Right do, but I do have a passing relationship with His teachings, and I am pretty sure this statement is inconsistent with the Gospels. In fact, Bush’s “conviction” is in complete contradiction to anything that Jesus may have directed his disciples to do; the early Church had a name for people such as Bush: they called them the Anti-Christ, but I won’t go there today. A more modern understanding of the psychology of violent acts (and I’m sure my more erudite brother who holds a doctorate in psychology could provide a better discussion) submits that violence tends to beget violence, respect tends to beget respect, and killing others does not serve to further a positive agenda.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Luke 6:31, for you home-gamers.*) Not that Jesus invented this concept, but Bush has said that His version is sufficient, and I won’t pick nits. Bush has called Jesus the philosopher who has had the greatest influence on his life, yet Bush doesn’t seem to comprehend the very kernel of Christian teaching. Christ’s succinct message notwithstanding, I’m afraid the memo hasn’t reached Mr. Bush that a significant minority of 1.1 billion Muslims would like to “do unto us” that which Bush and US policy has been doing unto them for the last few decades.

"At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy--more than 50 are taking the lead--and we have transferred more than a dozen military bases to Iraqi control."

At this time last year, the administration had been predicting an imminent end to the violence with the rise of the “purple finger”, but a look at the stats shows that the violence has only increased and shifted toward softer civilian targets outside the even more fortified “Green Zone.” At this time last year, the insurgency was in its “last throes”, according to Dick Cheney. To believe the Bush administration’s cheerleading now would only be a sign of feeble-mindedness on the part of the listener.

"It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done....We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us....To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor--and I will not allow it."

As David Corn of the The Nation magazine has put it, “If the United States pulled out everything tomorrow, that would not ‘hand Iraq over’ to al Qaeda and other jihadists (who may number only 1000 or so). The Iranian-backed Shiites (and their militias) would hardly roll over. And whatever accommodation reached between the Sunni insurgents and the foreign fighters would probably go poof. Whether withdrawal is the right policy or not, it is a scare tactic to depict disengagement as leading inexorably to an Iraq run by al Qaeda.”

"We remember the words of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: 'God is not dead, nor (does) He sleep; the Wrong shall fail, the Right prevail, with peace on Earth, goodwill to men.”

Again, I’ll quote David Corn: “Justifiably or not, many folks around the world see the war in Iraq as a war on Islam. Given this sad reality, is it wise to be quoting a Christmas carol to defend and promote the war?” Mr. Bush continues to live in the fantasy world that his interpretation of God’s intent will hold some influence around the world. I realize that many Americans’ beliefs may be in lock-step with Bush’s, but to allude to our violent actions as Right and prescribed by God is to exhibit profound insensitivity toward the religious beliefs of perhaps the only people in the world whose religious beliefs are more irrational and heartfelt than Bush’s. Please, tell Mr. Bush to stop this; he’s not helping.

In conclusion, Bush’s series of speeches hardly outlined any “Plan for Victory,” instead they contained the same worn out cheerleading that has served as a military plan for the past three years. To continue to make predictions about a war, when all his previous predictions have been shown to be completely wrong, seems like a sign of insanity to me. Will they be true this time? Mr. Bush, even your supporters have stopped defending you, so please stop talking.

My input represents only a quick perusal of a few pertinent statements that caught my attention. Bush’s rhetoric is usually so full of inaccuracies that most of his outright lies are lost in the sheer volume of bullshit, and I do not pretend to even scratch the surface. Paying close attention to the president’s activities is dangerous to one’s positive outlook, and I admit that for my own mental health, I must divert myself from our continued international nightmare known as George W. Bush.

(And, ummm, oh yeah… Go Bears.)



*Personally, I prefer the Confucian version, "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" (Analects 15:23). While it’s slightly different than the newer Christian version, this statement more accurately portrays proper ethical behavior in complex social situations. Regardless of one’s flavor of social justice, stick with it and live it.

Year-end Quotes

The top ten best quotes of the year (OK, I couldn't edit it down past 15).

Grodge

15) "In Saginaw, MI, the township opposes red and green clothing on anyone. [Laughing] In Saginaw Township, they basically said, anybody, we don't want you to wear red or green." Bill O'Reilly, The O'Reilly Factor, Dec 9, 2005, (...arguing the "left" is waging a War on Christmas (TM). Later, the town manager of Saginaw, wearing red and green, refuted the claim.)

14) "You are the best governor ever." --Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, writing to Texas Gov. George Bush in 1997 on his 51st birthday, adding that she found him "cool" and that he and his wife, Laura, were "the greatest" and telling him: "Keep up the great work. Texas is blessed." (Source)

13) "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Source (Listen to audio clip)

12) "I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." --Bill Bennett, former Education Secretary and author of "The Book of Virtues," Sept. 28, 2005 (Source)

11) "I am not going to give you a number for it because it's not my business to do intelligent work." --Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked to estimate the number of Iraqi insurgents while testifying before Congress, Feb. 16, 2005 (Source) (Read more Rumsfeldisms)

10) "Get some devastation in the back." --Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, to a staff photographer as he posed for a photo op while visiting tsunami-ravaged Sri Lanka, Jan. 6, 2005 (Source)

9) "I was trying to escape. Obviously, it didn't work." --President Bush, after being thwarted by locked doors when he tried to exit a news conference in Beijing in the face of hostile questioning from reporters, Nov. 20, 2005 (Source) (Read more about Bush's door gaffe)

8) "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." --Vice President Dick Cheney, on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005 (Source) (Read more stupid Cheney quotes)

7) "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office. She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli." --Sen. Bill Frist, diagnosing Terri Schiavo's condition during a speech on the Senate floor, March 17, 2005 (Source)

6) "You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." --President Bush, to a divorced mother of three in Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005 (Source) (Listen to audio clip)

5) "Considering the dire circumstances that we have in New Orleans, virtually a city that has been destroyed, things are going relatively well." --FEMA Director Michael Brown, Sept. 1, 2005 (Source)

4) "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." --President Bush, to FEMA director Michael Brown, while touring hurricane-ravaged Mississippi, Sept. 2, 2005 (Source) (Listen to audio clip)

3) "What didn't go right?" --President Bush, as quoted by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, after she urged him to fire FEMA Director Michael Brown "because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right" in the Hurricane Katrina relief effort, Sept. 6, 2005 (Source)

2) "Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?" --House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX), to three young hurricane evacuees from New Orleans at the Astrodome in Houston, Sept. 9, 2005 (Source)

1) "What I'm hearing which is sort of scary is that they all want to stay in Texas. Everybody is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this (chuckle) – this is working very well for them." --Former First Lady Barbara Bush, on the hurricane evacuees at the Astrodome in Houston, Sept. 5, 2005 (Source)