Saving the planet? Again?
Writing in the April 13, 2009 edition of Newsweek, Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm falls into the same matriarchal trap so many well-meaning supporters of environmental causes easily journey.
"Our dependence on imported oil," Granholm profoundly declares, "threatens our economic prosperity, our national security and, in a very real sense, the future of the planet."
Despite the baseless rantings of creationists, the earth has been around, by most scientists estimates, 4.55 billion years. Evolutionary scientists generally accept the first presence of homo sapiens around 250,000 years ago.
Framed in Carl Sagan's perspective of the whole of time as a calendar year, man has been on earth only since 10:30 p.m. on December 31. That’s 1 ½ hours out of 2,592 hours in a calendar year or just .059% of earth’s existence.
Humbling to our self-esteem, the earth has survived 99.941% of its existence just dandy without us. Of the 1 ½ geologic “hours” we’ve been on the big blue marble, recorded history occupies a mere 10 seconds.
As Paul and Anne Erlich observed in their book Extinction, 98% of all species that have ever lived have become extinct. “No doubt,” write the famous ecologists, “They didn't imagine such an outcome was possible any more than we do.”
With the sun only about halfway through its expected life existence, the earth will likely survive for another 4 or 5 billion years. The race to human extinction is far more likely to occur than the death of the sun.
So are we saving the planet? No, earth was around for 4.5 plus billion years before humans ever started reshaping her into a more habitable environment and will likely be around another 4.5 billion years before the sun fries.
We are actually preserving our ability to live on the planet in a manner similar to what we do now. We are not saving the planet--we are seeking to delay our extinction.
-30-
C'mon, Karel, where's a new idea?
In a recent Wall Street Journal pieces, Karl Rove claimed that Republicans opposed to the recently-passed stimulus bill offered ideas on how to deal with the current economic malaise. Really? When? Where? Did we all miss something?
Oh, yeah, that’s right, more tax cuts. Unfortunately, tax cuts appear to be sole Republican response to any economic situation. Boom times? Tax cuts. Recession? Tax cuts.
The recurrent cacophony from congressional Republicans sounded like a looped and multi-tracked Marcel Marseau in ‘Silent MovIe’. How many different ways can you say ‘tax Cuts’?
The Republicans, who wrap themselves in anything and everything red-white-and-blue, specialize in a very anti-American sentiment—failure. Too many Republicans appear to want the economy to continue to slide into a depression to allow their party’s candidates to return to office in majority numbers. How sad. Patriotic? If the Republicans were truly supportive of the United States, they would seek success and productivity for Americans no matter who is in office. Guess that idea just hasn’t crossed their mind along with any fresh ideas on dealing with America’s current economic downturn.
-30-
Want further proof that Americans are not as smart as we think we are (yes, we did elect George Bush, not once but twice!)?
Michelle Bachman. The eminently quotable representative from Minneosta noted that she opposed the stimulus bill because "we're running out of rich people." Yes, the same clueless politician who--without offering a scrap of evidence--said Congress is full of "anti-Americans" last year. How do mean-spirited, egocentric ideologues like Bachman continually ascend to political office? Must be that "smart" thing again, huh.
-30-
Palin - There is no there there
Any doubt that Sarah Palin is unqualified to be vice-president was certainly removed during her incoherent, disjointed, rambling conversation with Katie Couric last night.
Even if you are conservative or Republican, frightened can be one of many adjectives that come to mind listening to her fumble like an unprepared college student for an exam spewing random talking points that appear—in her mind—to fit the bill of economics, world politics, health care or whatever, hoping to buffalo the professor, during her conversation with the CBS anchor. A sample:
Couric: “But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation -- not more."
Palin: “He's also known as a maverick though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. …”
Couric: “I'm just going to ask one more time, not to belabor the point -- specific example in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.”
Palin: “I'll try to find you some, and I'll bring them to you.”
Another sample, what can at best be considered a classic of fruitless incoherence and a case study for future college classes:
"That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh -- it's got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."
Did Palin miss any talking points? More:
COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.
PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state."
The United States deserves and needs, in this critical time, coherent, thoughtful, pragmatic leadership. If the evidence was not clear earlier, the interview with Couric is quickly illuminating the conclusion that, in the leadership category, there is no there there in Palin.
-30-
Pot calling the kettle black
Is there no clearer illustration of the loss of morality authority in the world than the response of Russia to the United States' pathetic public statements regarding the invasion of Georgia?
Once again, the White House's blissful disconnect between what is said and what is done rises to the surface like the sun on a new day.
"I was very firm with Vladimir Putin. He and I have got a good relationship -- just like I was firm with the Russian president (Dmitry Medvedev)," intoned President Bush.
"I expressed my grave concern about the disproportionate response of Russia," Bush said. "We strongly condemn bombing outside of South Ossetia."
Can you just imagine and hear Putin and Medvedev's 's laughter and incredulous facial expressions during the conversation? "Mr. Bush," Vlad might have said, "how would you categorize your invasion of Iraq? Proportionate?"
"Here we are trying to promote peace and harmony and we're witnessing a conflict take place," Bush noted.
"How does invading Iraq, bombing more than 40 countries since World War II and promoting the Bush Doctrine, which asserts United States' propensity to strike first to address perceived threats as promoting peace and harmony?" Putin might respond.
Can you just hear Bush invoking the religious card? How the United States response is deemed appropriate because God spoke through him. How the United States is engaging the proper action to spread democracy through the world.
"But, George," Dmitry might have said, "how do reconcile your stated goal of spreading democracy through the world with repeal of habeas corpus in your own country, spying on your own people without court orders and continued invocation of executive privilege when Congress subpoenas officials?"
To be fair, the Bush White House is observing greater pragmatism in its foreign policy in recent months. However, the damage from the pre-emptive, illegal invasion of Iraq and the continued delusional insistence that the United States can somehow plant the seeds of democracy in days similar to the stories of the world's alleged creation in the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament paint America into a very compact corner in responding to any other countries' military adventures.
-30-
Obama's comments should be measured on accuracy
Why is such a turmoil being made over Barack Obama's remarks at a San Francisco luncheon? The Democratic presidential hopeful rendered observations about America's small towns last week and the resulting uproar is both pathetic and a vivid illustration of the very myopic, emotion-based politics so prevalent in America today.
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Bottom line: Obama's comments are accurate.
The increasing reliance on dogma, faith and supposition instead of common sense and science in America is disturbing. In 2005, in a study led by Jon D. Miller, a political scientist at Michigan State University, people in 34 countries were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." Of the 34 countries surveyed, the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.
In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea.
In European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, and France, more than 80 percent of adults surveyed said they accepted the concept of evolution.
The proportion of western European adults who believed the theory "absolutely false" ranged from 7 percent in Great Britain to 15 percent in the Netherlands.
A recent report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says 888 hate groups operated in the United States last year, an increase of 48 percent since 2000. The study cites FBI statistics showing a 35 percent increase in reported anti-Latino hate crimes between 2003 and 2006. The report says the increase is linked to anti-immigrant activism.
Introduced in May 2006, a ballot measure in San Bernardino, California sought to (1) deny city money and permits to businesses that employ undocumented immigrants; (2) allow local police to seize the automobiles used by employers to pick up day laborers; (3) ban the ability of undocumented immigrants to rent property; and (4) require that all city business take place in English only. Joseph Turner, founder of the California based anti-immigrant organization "Save Our State" orchestrated the introduction of the San Bernardino ordinance, and authored the original draft.
Just over one year following the initial San Bernardino ordinance, approximately 90 localities have proposed more than 100 similar ordinances, and at least 35 have passed, according to testimony offered by Udi Ofer, Legislative Counsel for the New York Civil Liberties Union before Jorge Bustamante,The United Nations Special Rapporteour On The Human Rights Of Migrants
Regarding The Proliferation OfLocal Anti-Immigrant Ordinances In The United States. (full testimony: http://www.nyclu.org/node/1006)
The Bush Administration's war on science is well-documented, specifically Chris Mooney's excellent work on the right wing's effort to discard or ignore science when public policy and ideology are crossed.
And, President Bush is famous for starting way too many sentences with, "I believe..." subtly indicating a stronger tendency toward religious leanings rather than scientific or popular support. The President and his ideologues continually frame the conflict in Iraq in stark good versus evil terms painting the so-called "insurgents" or so-called "terrorists" as evil and the invading country, the United States, as purveyors of "freedom" and pursuing "democracy." And all can be irrationally justified through religious zeal.
Yes, Hillary Clinton and John McCain can spin Obama's comments to try and leverage the remarks for political gain. But, their attempts are difficult to accept given their status in society.
McCain calls Obama's comments 'elitist.' Well, John wears the prisoner of war badge proudly--and the Arizona senator should--but to call Obama elitist when the so-called maverick languishes in a life fueled by beer distribution luxury is suprising.
For Hillary to say "people like us" when she lives a life disconnected from the struggles of everyday American's living (her failure to disclose her and Bill's financial situation speaks volumes) is galling.
Obama's comments given the evidence of America's continued infatuation with religious bent and the growing anti-immgratant flare should be measured on their accuracy and not taken out of context for political gain.
-30-
Hillary and Joan
Just me or does Hillary Clinton’s voice sound like Joan River’s pipes?
-30-
