Monday, December 3, 2007

Bush impeachment...

Is it because Congress is weak that the Administration or the "Decider" have yet to be held accountable for their actions? It appears that some may be punished for the attorney firings but what about dismissing Habeas Corpus, advocating "enhanced interrogation," and just generally ignoring the Legislative branch? The Republican-lead Congress of the late-90's pounced on Clinton's scandal. Nothing has yet been concrete enough? We're living too close to 9/11 to challenge our 9/11 President?

Would the patriotism of the opposition really be challenged 6 years later or is he in such a lame duck stage that everyone is looking ahead to 2008? Maybe the prospect of Cheney replacing W. makes some reconsider.

All I've heard is that a Democratic majority was elected last fall to get us out of Iraq and to stop Bush from gallivanting around like he's a dictator yet nothing has changed. He's yet to be held accountable for his ignorance and chroneyism.

Elected on a modest foreign policy platform...pre-emptive war. C'mon...Iraq? Yes Saddam was bad but that wasn't the initial justification and they knew that going into it. His genocide against the Kurds was after a George (senior) Bush speech in which he declared that Iraqi citizens should stand up against Saddam. A rebellion ensued and was crushed thanks to mustard gas and friends. U.S. forces occupying nearby were not permitted to act. A rebellion was called for but not supported which resulted in genocide. (The End of Iraq by Peter Galbraith)

Elected on a pro-environment, anti-emissions platform (for a conservative)... Healthy Forests Initiative (increases chances of wildfires while allowing removal of largest, most fire-resistant trees all for profit) and the Clear Skies Initiative (allowing voluntary compliance at pre-Clean Air Act standards). (Strategic Ignorance by Carl Pope)

But no single, definitive, publicizable act has yet occurred and Bush smartly (or with the help of a note from Rove), placed behind him someone the public feels is evil and cruel, thus decreasing any chances of said impeachment.

If anyone disagrees or can opine as to why he hasn't and likely will not be impeached, please comment. I'd love to know.

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Global Warming (if true) = Bad; Resulting Conservation = Good

Despite the comment to the previous post, were global warming indeed to become 100% non-anthropogenic (all that carbon released, though?), it would not be bad for the political left. Ideally, the "green" industry wouldn't suffer either. Hopefully, consumers will catch on regardless of the likely outcome because saving our resources both for those in need and our future generations cannot be argued to be a bad thing.

When some on the Right critique global warming, they say that climate is too complex and no one can know for sure. Is it just to attack the Left and preserve all economic freedom? Socialism, when in the wrong hands, is bad, but if anyone brings up conservation with respect to the economy, that's what the opposition says we'd be headed toward. If done fairly, why would legislation aimed at protecting the environment and our future be bad? Are opponents that greedy that they can't give up one iota of economic "freedom?"

Again, resources are finite, but we can push back that final date. Can we not?

Global Warming Fear: A good thing from any angle

The Right continues to attack the "Left's" persistence on the global warming issue, saying it is divisive and merely a political ploy, a vain attempt to regain a majority of voters. Recently, a book entitle "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 years" attempts to dismiss "fear-mongering" from the Left by saying that solar flux varies just slightly enough to create the warming we are currently experiencing, citing the miniature ice age of the Middle Ages. I do agree, however, that such variations have impacts but to harp on this issue so much takes away from the fact that humans have an impact as well, likely the intention of the authors and their sympathizers.

The authors' intention is to calm the global "doom-sayers" and promote economic freedom, concluding that such green/red socialism (inappropriately festive), is a hindrance upon growth and is only hurting poverty, "the greatest problem of all."

Conservation is not the problem, it is the solution! The Right insists on overconsumption and relentlessly sticks to this approach because "The American way of life is a blessed one" (Dana Perino on Bush's answer to whether he would consider reducing consumption of goods/materials, 2003). How can they be so hypocritical to claim that they are pro-human rights when it is the affluence of this country and others that is having such detrimental effects on the Third World countries they pretend to care for?

Resources are finite. No one on the Right seems to get this. If the rich conserve and reduce what they consume, the poor will have more opportunities to better themselves. Not changing our actions and habits will spell disaster, global warming aside.

The Right's stance that the Left's is merely for political strength is hypocritical because it is in itself divisive and economically-based. Are there not "green" businesses? Are they really forsaking their progeny by not quelling their affluence?

The 10 hottest years on record have been in the last 15 years. Is the solar influx peaking or rapidly increasing in order to justify this? Maybe the book goes into more detail than the many reviews lead me to believe. I hope that I'm wrong and that the Right, or at least these individuals, isn't so heartless to promote their agenda in the name of humanitarianism. Carbon dioxide emissions have increased rapidly over the past 15 years, however, thanks to India and China.

Using "green" technology and reducing consumption only extends the life of our "favorite" finite, repeat, finite resources while allowing the poor greater access to goods and opportunities.

-" Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 years" by Dennis T. Avery and S. Fred Singer