I have been a skeptic all my life. In fact, I am in a state of remission. You name it: the Bible, the Christmas story, Santa Claus, politics, the UN, the Bermuda Triangle, the war in Iraq, even the Paleolithic age seemed iffy at one point -not too bad considering almost all evangelicals, the most rapidly growing Christian church in the world, believe God created the universe less than 6,000 years ago. Nevertheless, we evolve and our horizons broaden depending on the juxtaposition of life experiences, which shape our instincts and decisions as well as those around us.
Writing about global warming is like having sex, the sinful kind, the very experience can be daunting not say risqué. But this is the Right's perspective on it, the rest of world of course, sees it as a responsibility that is both liberating and compromising, knowing that there are still some hearts to be won.
But let's face it; it can also be emotional and unraveling, and that is the difference between good publicity on global warming vs. bad publicity. Preferably sticking to the facts and avoiding the melodramatic overtones that the Right frowns upon, a good article on global warming requires enough special effects to rivet the most skeptical mind and avoid an overboard splash, or it can cause indifference and detachment, just like unilateral sex.
In some of these conservative arenas, the issue of global warming, if not the word itself, has become somewhat synonymous with the word sex, it has been plastered everywhere by the media, just like the symptomatic effect of a highly addictive drug; global warming is something which should not be discussed if you want to be taken seriously by these skeptical groups, and like sex, its corruptive 'power' destabilizes uh.. well, what exactly, the status quo?
In a recent Gallup poll, 63% of Americans believe the effects of global warming are already manifesting or will happen within five years. By a nearly 2:1 margin, Americans believe human activities rather than natural causes explain the rise in the Earth's temperature. But the truth is, attitudes on the environment remain highly partisan: A plurality of Republicans (47%) are positive about environmental conditions, contrasted with only 9% of Democrats, according to the Gallup website. In fact, most Democrats (and independents) are negative about environmental conditions. The same Gallup analysis suggests Democrats are also more likely to be sympathetic to or active in the environmental movement (76% of Democrats vs. 49% of Republicans), and to give priority status to the environment over the economy or energy production.
Sarcasm aside, these numbers are very suggestive. As an environmental convert, they are alarming, because it's my skeptical nature to ponder that the other 52% of Republicans in this poll are either hypocrites or playing possum. Even, when the issue of the environment has always been a Left-leaning issue, the fact is, it was born from the very skirts of capitalism, with traceable roots in the Conservation Movement particularly preached by Theodore Roosevelt, and then eventually sprouted up dramatically in Earth Day in 1970. Sort of like the French Revolution meets Sierra Club. In other words, conservative Republicans influenced its birth, supervised its upbringing and then completely abandoned it, only to be rescued from the dirt by Left-leaning activists in an act of deliverance during the 1960's civil rights movement.
Even today, according to the NY Times, 86 evangelical Christian leaders are now backing a major initiative to fight global warming, yet hard-core Republicans are still skeptical. This could be the single most unifying issue in American politics, not to mention U.S. foreign policy, something the war on terrorism has not been able to accomplish. And I ask myself if not this, then what? And my skeptical nature wanders again, it occurs to me that the Right's stance is a stainless steel shell which can only be transmutable by a collapse on the global economy, which by then, of course, it will be too late to prioritize national dialogue.
September 06, 2007
It's the economy, stupid
Call me an idiot if I deeply believe the American economy is not turning a corner any time soon. And call me an ignorant if I also believe that the small-scale depression choking us up is not all driven by the mortgage loan fallout. This is just a microscopic example of a greater problem.
The problem is multifaceted. The US is pumping $3 billion a week into Iraq with less than perfect oversight. The overall US debt is about $9 trillion excluding state-level debt and social programs like Medicare and Social Security which amounts to about $29 trillion. America is an import culture. Look at the computer you type on, the pen you write with, the cell phone you carry. These little things add up; in 2006 they amounted to the $765 billion American trade deficit, writes Economy in Crisis, a conservative blog.
China is our personal banker, and as such has allowed us to withdraw as much credit as we can incur. According to a Forbes article, several countries including Japan and China hold about 44% of the US debt, a powerful leverage against US interests. Just recently, China’s massive recall on several products containing toxic chemicals has put US interests at odds. While we recoil in disgust at the massive outsourcing of our manufacturing jobs to places in Asia, and cry in despair for the Chinese recalls which have killed our pets and sickened our children, we ironically continue our high demands for subsidy-level prices of Chinese imports by continuing to shop at places like Walmart. See the link. But who is at fault? The US government or the US consumer? I say, both.
But enough said, the truth is, the housing market bubble was due to crash eventually, like it has in the past, the problem lies in our overall domestic economic policy: consecutive tax cut laws which have been now renewed for the 3rd time during the Bush Administration, the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, the failed enforcing of trade agreements, the never-ending US agricultural subsidies, the continuous funding of an open-ended war, the increased military spending and on top of everything a housing market crash. How could we have missed the warning signs of an economic crisis? Simple. If Iraq is our guiding principle, we can’t expect much economic shrewdness from this administration.
The problem is multifaceted. The US is pumping $3 billion a week into Iraq with less than perfect oversight. The overall US debt is about $9 trillion excluding state-level debt and social programs like Medicare and Social Security which amounts to about $29 trillion. America is an import culture. Look at the computer you type on, the pen you write with, the cell phone you carry. These little things add up; in 2006 they amounted to the $765 billion American trade deficit, writes Economy in Crisis, a conservative blog.
China is our personal banker, and as such has allowed us to withdraw as much credit as we can incur. According to a Forbes article, several countries including Japan and China hold about 44% of the US debt, a powerful leverage against US interests. Just recently, China’s massive recall on several products containing toxic chemicals has put US interests at odds. While we recoil in disgust at the massive outsourcing of our manufacturing jobs to places in Asia, and cry in despair for the Chinese recalls which have killed our pets and sickened our children, we ironically continue our high demands for subsidy-level prices of Chinese imports by continuing to shop at places like Walmart. See the link. But who is at fault? The US government or the US consumer? I say, both.
But enough said, the truth is, the housing market bubble was due to crash eventually, like it has in the past, the problem lies in our overall domestic economic policy: consecutive tax cut laws which have been now renewed for the 3rd time during the Bush Administration, the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, the failed enforcing of trade agreements, the never-ending US agricultural subsidies, the continuous funding of an open-ended war, the increased military spending and on top of everything a housing market crash. How could we have missed the warning signs of an economic crisis? Simple. If Iraq is our guiding principle, we can’t expect much economic shrewdness from this administration.
August 28, 2007
Alberto Gonzales finally resigns
After months of continued calls for his resignation from both sides of the aisle, Alberto Gonzales has finally resigned. This was not the first time a pal of the President made it to a top cabinet position, nor will be the last. But it shows how the position of the Justice Department’s top official is too important to be filled on the basis of cronyism.
The showdown of the past months between Gonzales and Congress has been instrumental in Gonzales’ demise, as one of Bush’s more trusted legal counsels. But in the end his loyalty for the White House got in the way of his duty as Attorney General, where he was supposed to be lawyer of the people, not lawyer of the White House.
Even before Gonzales became Attorney General, he seemed more interested in justifying the administration’s aggressive use of executive powers than in applying the law. Even as White House counsel, his legal opinions seemed to spread the Constitution to provide a rationale for abandoning the Geneva Conventions in the basis of terrorism suspects. This was evident in the infamous memo, which Gen. Colin Powell, Secretary of State at the time, denounced on the basis of Gonzales declarations which had stated the Geneva Conventions to be “obsolete’ and “quaint” when it deferred to the treatment of prisoners of war. But this was not the only shadow in Gonzales’s record. Then came the famous visit he made to then Attorney General Ashcroft’s hospital bed in order to obtain a signature that would reauthorize the controversial warrantless eavesdropping surveillance program designed to stop terrorism.
What finally topped the ice cream cone though, was the unexpected firings of nine U.S. attorneys at the beginning of the year, which now is believed to have been in the basis of political retaliation for supposedly failing to attain the legal conservative agenda of Bush’s White House. What ensued after, was a political power struggle between the hill and the White House. Emails got erased, aides got reassigned, a total of 12 top Department of Justice officials have resigned or been relocated to other posts. That on top of possible perjury charges against Gonzales for continuously changing his testimony during several hearings in Congress has completely drained his lack of shame.
Let this show that cronyism has no agenda, place or counsel in government and public service. One would have expected Bush to wake up and realize this, after the disastrous Katrina/FEMA incident, but sometimes losing a battle is not enough. In his last 17-months, lame-duck presidential time left, he has time to turn back and voices to appease, if he is to purge his administration of the crony monster that dwells within.
The showdown of the past months between Gonzales and Congress has been instrumental in Gonzales’ demise, as one of Bush’s more trusted legal counsels. But in the end his loyalty for the White House got in the way of his duty as Attorney General, where he was supposed to be lawyer of the people, not lawyer of the White House.
Even before Gonzales became Attorney General, he seemed more interested in justifying the administration’s aggressive use of executive powers than in applying the law. Even as White House counsel, his legal opinions seemed to spread the Constitution to provide a rationale for abandoning the Geneva Conventions in the basis of terrorism suspects. This was evident in the infamous memo, which Gen. Colin Powell, Secretary of State at the time, denounced on the basis of Gonzales declarations which had stated the Geneva Conventions to be “obsolete’ and “quaint” when it deferred to the treatment of prisoners of war. But this was not the only shadow in Gonzales’s record. Then came the famous visit he made to then Attorney General Ashcroft’s hospital bed in order to obtain a signature that would reauthorize the controversial warrantless eavesdropping surveillance program designed to stop terrorism.
What finally topped the ice cream cone though, was the unexpected firings of nine U.S. attorneys at the beginning of the year, which now is believed to have been in the basis of political retaliation for supposedly failing to attain the legal conservative agenda of Bush’s White House. What ensued after, was a political power struggle between the hill and the White House. Emails got erased, aides got reassigned, a total of 12 top Department of Justice officials have resigned or been relocated to other posts. That on top of possible perjury charges against Gonzales for continuously changing his testimony during several hearings in Congress has completely drained his lack of shame.
Let this show that cronyism has no agenda, place or counsel in government and public service. One would have expected Bush to wake up and realize this, after the disastrous Katrina/FEMA incident, but sometimes losing a battle is not enough. In his last 17-months, lame-duck presidential time left, he has time to turn back and voices to appease, if he is to purge his administration of the crony monster that dwells within.
May 24, 2007
Global Warming: The last remnants of skepticism
Wish you could go back to 1978 when global warming hysteria in the political spectrum along side the ticking population bomb theory of the 50’s was a poster child issue conceived by the ‘radical’ Left?
Remember FDR’s New Deal? A series of programs whose goals of relief, recovery and reform of the United States economy during the Great Depression was the ultimately architectural design of big government and not the last for that matter, then came the Marshall Plan, etc.
Today’s conservatives are at it again, concluding that global warming is just the latest temptation of aspiring bigger government. However, the same market forces that conservatives deeply believe in are handing the Right a big defeat on global warming, because the scientific findings have become so compelling that even big players like Exxon Mobil and General Motors have stopped questioning the theory.
Needless to say, the scientific evidence is really strong. Climatologists say that according to weather patterns, there is over a 90% likelihood that the increase in temperatures is traceable to human activity. A panel of over 2,000 world scientists concluded the same in March this year. This is no small ice-age, or a cyclical warming of the earth, like conservatives guiltlessly emphasize. This means change, and the only meaningful and effective rollback that can make global warming slow down is big government in the form of policies that directly address it.
Although our understanding of what climate change means for the future is largely theoretical, conservatives cannot keep lucratively resisting calls for regulating greenhouses emissions. Having allied themselves for years with groups proposing “intelligence design” and other crackpot theories, the Right has lost much of their intellectual rigor. President Bush’s White House has been in a constant warfare with scientists and this has damaged their reputation considerably.
If what the Right fears in the global warming action list is a ‘consequential economic meltdown’, then they must accept that this criticism is no longer reputable, given the fact that corporate entities and market forces are joining to bring about economic incentives in developing and distributing sustainable and renewable products and services.
But if their resistance to global warming consensus is a fervor-driven crackpot theory born out of the very same natural fiber of intelligence design, then consider the last skeptics on the endangered list and let’s not allow the oversold imagery of global warming taint our efforts to slow it down.
Remember FDR’s New Deal? A series of programs whose goals of relief, recovery and reform of the United States economy during the Great Depression was the ultimately architectural design of big government and not the last for that matter, then came the Marshall Plan, etc.
Today’s conservatives are at it again, concluding that global warming is just the latest temptation of aspiring bigger government. However, the same market forces that conservatives deeply believe in are handing the Right a big defeat on global warming, because the scientific findings have become so compelling that even big players like Exxon Mobil and General Motors have stopped questioning the theory.
Needless to say, the scientific evidence is really strong. Climatologists say that according to weather patterns, there is over a 90% likelihood that the increase in temperatures is traceable to human activity. A panel of over 2,000 world scientists concluded the same in March this year. This is no small ice-age, or a cyclical warming of the earth, like conservatives guiltlessly emphasize. This means change, and the only meaningful and effective rollback that can make global warming slow down is big government in the form of policies that directly address it.
Although our understanding of what climate change means for the future is largely theoretical, conservatives cannot keep lucratively resisting calls for regulating greenhouses emissions. Having allied themselves for years with groups proposing “intelligence design” and other crackpot theories, the Right has lost much of their intellectual rigor. President Bush’s White House has been in a constant warfare with scientists and this has damaged their reputation considerably.
If what the Right fears in the global warming action list is a ‘consequential economic meltdown’, then they must accept that this criticism is no longer reputable, given the fact that corporate entities and market forces are joining to bring about economic incentives in developing and distributing sustainable and renewable products and services.
But if their resistance to global warming consensus is a fervor-driven crackpot theory born out of the very same natural fiber of intelligence design, then consider the last skeptics on the endangered list and let’s not allow the oversold imagery of global warming taint our efforts to slow it down.
May 02, 2007
President Bush's legacy
It's scandal after scandal which aggravates the Bush Administration's last golden hours and miniscules their grandiose attempt at leaving behind a legacy of conservative imprint in all branches of government. If we go back almost six years ago we have a list for your consideration: the Terri Schiavo case, the US Supreme Court nominee fiasco, the Iraq invasion, the mismanagement of the war on terror, the poor accountability of funds in the first year of the war, the suspicious contracting to big corporations, Hurricane Katrina, the 'remake' of his staff, the ousting of a CIA covert agent, the firing of US prosecutors, and the list goes on. But historians will ultimately judge Bush's presidency based on his leadership through two tragedies — the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, plus a conflict of his own design: The war in Iraq.
Unfortunately, Americans have a very poor memory, and when the time comes, Bush junior will be remembered with a condenscending grim and we will all struggle to remember the shame and incompetence which brought this country to the back of the line. Just like Bush seems to have lost the capacity of connecting with an anxious public (his ratings have been in the 30's% for many years now), so will we have lost the capacity of connecting his failures with his blundering presidency.
Unfortunately, Americans have a very poor memory, and when the time comes, Bush junior will be remembered with a condenscending grim and we will all struggle to remember the shame and incompetence which brought this country to the back of the line. Just like Bush seems to have lost the capacity of connecting with an anxious public (his ratings have been in the 30's% for many years now), so will we have lost the capacity of connecting his failures with his blundering presidency.
March 30, 2007
Ahmadinejad and Bush
I know, I know, it does not sound very respectful but consider the facts:
Ahmadinejad's approval ratings in Iran: possibly 40%
Bush's approval rating at home: 31%
Admadinejad ran for President on a campain focused on corruption and oil wealth for the poor.
Bush ran for President on a platform for restoring traditional values and compassionate politics. Both ran like reformists and ended up as neo-conservatists and hypermoralists.
Ahmadinejad is the first nonmullah to be Iran's President since 1981.
Bush is the first conservative republican to be President since 1984 (last one was Reagan).
Did I mention the fact that the legislature in both countries has continously rejected appointees by these two leaders? For example, the Majlis or Parliament has rejected several Ahmadinejad's Cabinet appointments, just like Congress has oppossed several of Bush's appointees.
Both leaders use military, political and religious rethoric to lure supporters into their webs. They are both hated by elites and moderates in their respective countries, and poor domestic policies haunt them while international policies have yet to yield positive results.
Ahmadinejad has frequently made allusions of his connection to a divine order, just like Bush has made comments of speaking to God and being in constant communication with Him.
Just like the Bush administration was forced to implement policies of the Iraq Study Group, so is Ahmadinejad being pressured to adopt some of the resolutions set forth by the UN Security Council in order to avoid further sanctions that will undermine Iran's economic growth.
So there you have it. Sometimes simililarities can be a siginifact divider in a already strained relationship such as this one. The US is waiting for Iranian moderate forces to prevail in this showdown of power, while Iran's Ahmadinejad is banking on the same exact thing.
Good luck.
Ahmadinejad's approval ratings in Iran: possibly 40%
Bush's approval rating at home: 31%
Admadinejad ran for President on a campain focused on corruption and oil wealth for the poor.
Bush ran for President on a platform for restoring traditional values and compassionate politics. Both ran like reformists and ended up as neo-conservatists and hypermoralists.
Ahmadinejad is the first nonmullah to be Iran's President since 1981.
Bush is the first conservative republican to be President since 1984 (last one was Reagan).
Did I mention the fact that the legislature in both countries has continously rejected appointees by these two leaders? For example, the Majlis or Parliament has rejected several Ahmadinejad's Cabinet appointments, just like Congress has oppossed several of Bush's appointees.
Both leaders use military, political and religious rethoric to lure supporters into their webs. They are both hated by elites and moderates in their respective countries, and poor domestic policies haunt them while international policies have yet to yield positive results.
Ahmadinejad has frequently made allusions of his connection to a divine order, just like Bush has made comments of speaking to God and being in constant communication with Him.
Just like the Bush administration was forced to implement policies of the Iraq Study Group, so is Ahmadinejad being pressured to adopt some of the resolutions set forth by the UN Security Council in order to avoid further sanctions that will undermine Iran's economic growth.
So there you have it. Sometimes simililarities can be a siginifact divider in a already strained relationship such as this one. The US is waiting for Iranian moderate forces to prevail in this showdown of power, while Iran's Ahmadinejad is banking on the same exact thing.
Good luck.
March 13, 2007
Latin America: US involvement a decade too late....
So, Bush wraps up a 5-day tour in Latin America, but brings back nothing with him.
This tour has come too late at a moment when US diplomacy is at its weakest in decades, even in recent weeks of renewed diplomatic talks with countries in the Middle East and China, and only thanks to Rice, who has been eargely making the rounds, in a move to clear up and wash out the Bush Administration's lack of foreign diplomatic overtures.
Latin America, with all its complexities and problems, seems to be hanging tough, as they have waited years to see trade agreements finalized, economic aid disembursed, and political commitments materialized. South America has for now found their guy in Venezuela's Chavez, who is more than willing to fill in the vacuum and which has plenty of cash and free advice to give.
This is exactly the danger and the frivolity of territorial politics, and the Bush Administration never seemed to capitalize on it. As Lebanon fell to Hizballah when Syria pulled out, everyone seemed too busy with the 'terrorists' and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the US.
Now, it is too late for US deals and cheap talk; China has moved in to provide trade and aid and Chavez has continued to engulf South America and Central America with his populist rethoric. Today, Venuezuela's political and economic influence in the region is proportioned to Russia's oil supply to China's economy. China is always shopping for oil suppliers and has found a loyal one in Venezuela, which only helps to fuel Chavez's regional agenda.
I say this to Bush: go back to your drawing board and come up with a new set of economic and political policies that can efficiently compete with Chavez's own.
This tour has come too late at a moment when US diplomacy is at its weakest in decades, even in recent weeks of renewed diplomatic talks with countries in the Middle East and China, and only thanks to Rice, who has been eargely making the rounds, in a move to clear up and wash out the Bush Administration's lack of foreign diplomatic overtures.
Latin America, with all its complexities and problems, seems to be hanging tough, as they have waited years to see trade agreements finalized, economic aid disembursed, and political commitments materialized. South America has for now found their guy in Venezuela's Chavez, who is more than willing to fill in the vacuum and which has plenty of cash and free advice to give.
This is exactly the danger and the frivolity of territorial politics, and the Bush Administration never seemed to capitalize on it. As Lebanon fell to Hizballah when Syria pulled out, everyone seemed too busy with the 'terrorists' and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the US.
Now, it is too late for US deals and cheap talk; China has moved in to provide trade and aid and Chavez has continued to engulf South America and Central America with his populist rethoric. Today, Venuezuela's political and economic influence in the region is proportioned to Russia's oil supply to China's economy. China is always shopping for oil suppliers and has found a loyal one in Venezuela, which only helps to fuel Chavez's regional agenda.
I say this to Bush: go back to your drawing board and come up with a new set of economic and political policies that can efficiently compete with Chavez's own.
January 22, 2007
How US Incompentence has created a civil war
It's been almost 4 years since the US invansion, and the Bush Administration has told us many incompetent lies about why we are still in Iraq. The excuses sounded so believable at the time (at least to Bush supporters): "we are fighting there so we don't have to fight them here",
" Saddan Hussein's trial we'll move Iraq forward", "national elections will free Iraquis", etc. Not even the capture of the No. 2 Al-Qaeda guy has yielded positive results. We are in a mess. A mess, nonetheless created by the same Administration that has vowed that this war is still winneable.
The truth is that the US is fighting a war on terror and the Iraquis are fighting a civil war. How can the US expect the Iraqui government to actually remedy the situation when the situation is not emendable by this Iraqui government. Iraq is so divided and the situation is so stark that the Kurds have been called in to manage troops deployments and to help secure Shiite dominated areas.
Even the manner in which Saddam's execution has been reverbated simply shows the state of affairs in Iraq's civil war-torn society.
The first consideration for the Bush team should have been the fact that the expectations for the Iraqui government to disarm militias were not realistic. The present Shiite administration is hanging on a threat, their leverage with the ongoing conflict is poor and their motives are unclear.
And now a surge of 21,000 troops has been called for by Bush. But the truth is logistically, this is a poor number, because even if Badghad shows signs of relative calm, other cities or towns will pick up the tab.
More poor policies ahead... will keep you posted.
" Saddan Hussein's trial we'll move Iraq forward", "national elections will free Iraquis", etc. Not even the capture of the No. 2 Al-Qaeda guy has yielded positive results. We are in a mess. A mess, nonetheless created by the same Administration that has vowed that this war is still winneable.
The truth is that the US is fighting a war on terror and the Iraquis are fighting a civil war. How can the US expect the Iraqui government to actually remedy the situation when the situation is not emendable by this Iraqui government. Iraq is so divided and the situation is so stark that the Kurds have been called in to manage troops deployments and to help secure Shiite dominated areas.
Even the manner in which Saddam's execution has been reverbated simply shows the state of affairs in Iraq's civil war-torn society.
The first consideration for the Bush team should have been the fact that the expectations for the Iraqui government to disarm militias were not realistic. The present Shiite administration is hanging on a threat, their leverage with the ongoing conflict is poor and their motives are unclear.
And now a surge of 21,000 troops has been called for by Bush. But the truth is logistically, this is a poor number, because even if Badghad shows signs of relative calm, other cities or towns will pick up the tab.
More poor policies ahead... will keep you posted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
