Horsehead Nebula
1 week ago
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Why Are We in Iraq
Update: This essay on the Rec list with a good discussion at European Tribune.
With the deal last week between the Bushites and the current Iraqi government to formalize the intention to keep U.S. troops in those huge permanent bases in Iraq, and to "encourage" foreign investment (i.e. U.S. oil companies and related Bushite corporations), two prominent theories--not mutually exclusive by any means--got additional evidence for their answers as to why the Bushites began and prosecuted the war and occupation of Iraq.
One theory is Naomi Klein's in her book, The Shock Doctrine. Basically she outlines a strategy used in various parts of the world to further the goal of enriching large corporations--almost always run by or with strong ties to the folks now identified as Bushites, but who have pulled strings, or assisted their mentors in doing so, in previous Republican administrations. On Thursday she got the opportunity--the first I know of--to explain what she means on U.S. television: on a very well done segment of Countdown with Keith Olbermann. (Her theory aside, Klein should be regularly analyzing geopolitics and the news on U.S. television.) Here's what she said about Iraq:
KLEIN: Well, Iraq is the classic example of the shock doctrine. You had a military strategy that was called Shock and Awe. It was a military strategy designed to maximize disorientation. The theory was—This is a quote from Richard Armitage, the former deputy undersecretary of state, who said that the theory was that Iraqis would be so shocked, they would be easily marshaled from point A to point B.
In that moment when they were supposed to be easy to control, easy to martial, you had Paul Bremer waltz in his Brooks Brothers suits and Army beauties, the uniform of the disaster capitalists, and say Iraq is open for business, and create this sort of—an attempt to create a corporate Utopia for American multinationals.
It didn‘t work out. Then you saw the emergence of a third shock, not an economic shock, but shocks to body, the shock of torture, as they attempted to control this rebellious country. There‘s three kinds of shocks in “The Shock Doctrine,” the shock of the crisis, then an economic shock therapy program, and then, if people don‘t behave, a third shock, which is the shock of torture.
But didn't it work out? Certainly it's been messy, and so far such favored corporations as Halliburton, Bechtel and Blackwater have had to take their considerable piles of money and run, but could this latest agreement be the Bushite victory?
Jim Holt in the London Review of Books reverse-engineers the Iraq war and sees how this is entirely possible. First, he outlines the prize Iraq represents. That it's all about the oil isn't a news flash to a lot of people, but probably most don't know just how much oil is involved:
Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world’s oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world’s oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today’s prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion.
To get and keep control of that oil--even if it takes another decade or two--is the purpose of those bases, Holt suggests. He mentions that "Five self-sufficient ‘super-bases’ are in various stages of completion. All are well away from the urban areas where most casualties have occurred. There has been precious little reporting on these bases in the American press, whose dwindling corps of correspondents in Iraq cannot move around freely because of the dangerous conditions." But they are all mini-cities or walled suburbs. He refers to Thomas Ricks' reporting on one of the bases, the Balad air base: "Although few of the 20,000 American troops stationed there have ever had any contact with an Iraqi, the runway at the base is one of the world’s busiest. ‘We are behind only Heathrow right now,’ an air force commander told Ricks."
(Holt mentions something that I pointed out a couple of years ago--that U.S. bases in Iraq meant that U.S. bases in somewhat unstable Saudi Arabia, that so upset Osama bin Laden, could be closed--and they have been.)
But even if the U.S. and the West can't get much Iraqi oil into their pipelines for awhile, they still win because the U.S. presence deters their major competitor for oil in the world: China. Without more energy, China's economy can't keep growing at its current rate. By denying China this source, the West has a chance to weather the Chinese economic storm.
So Holt wonders: Was the strategy of invading Iraq to take control of its oil resources actually hammered out by Cheney’s 2001 energy task force? One can’t know for sure, since the deliberations of that task force, made up largely of oil and energy company executives, have been kept secret by the administration on the grounds of ‘executive privilege’. One can’t say for certain that oil supplied the prime motive. But the hypothesis is quite powerful when it comes to explaining what has actually happened in Iraq. The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration’s cavalier attitude towards ‘nation-building’ has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades – a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth.
Which is why the failure to nurture a strong central government is actually success: If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East?
So if you're thinking in terms of dollars and cents--even in billions or trillions--the whole thing makes sound business sense:
The costs – a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) – are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success.
In fact the only counter argument Holt can muster is that the Bushites don't appear to be this smart. Still, there is reason to be sceptical of the picture I have drawn: it implies that a secret and highly ambitious plan turned out just the way its devisers foresaw, and that almost never happens.
Yet it makes perfect sense, even rhetorically. When real politik Republicans talk about freedom, they mean the freedom of themselves, their rich cronies and supporters to loot the world unencumbered by law, morality or compassion. (It's also why they're not bothered at all about the missing billions likely used for graft and other payoffs. Or why the current rampant corruption in Iraq is of no concern. After all, China has no problem with it either in their colonies such as Cambodia. It's part of the price of business.) That certainly seems to be what the Bushites mean when they say they're bringing freedom to Iraq.
With the deal last week between the Bushites and the current Iraqi government to formalize the intention to keep U.S. troops in those huge permanent bases in Iraq, and to "encourage" foreign investment (i.e. U.S. oil companies and related Bushite corporations), two prominent theories--not mutually exclusive by any means--got additional evidence for their answers as to why the Bushites began and prosecuted the war and occupation of Iraq.
One theory is Naomi Klein's in her book, The Shock Doctrine. Basically she outlines a strategy used in various parts of the world to further the goal of enriching large corporations--almost always run by or with strong ties to the folks now identified as Bushites, but who have pulled strings, or assisted their mentors in doing so, in previous Republican administrations. On Thursday she got the opportunity--the first I know of--to explain what she means on U.S. television: on a very well done segment of Countdown with Keith Olbermann. (Her theory aside, Klein should be regularly analyzing geopolitics and the news on U.S. television.) Here's what she said about Iraq:
KLEIN: Well, Iraq is the classic example of the shock doctrine. You had a military strategy that was called Shock and Awe. It was a military strategy designed to maximize disorientation. The theory was—This is a quote from Richard Armitage, the former deputy undersecretary of state, who said that the theory was that Iraqis would be so shocked, they would be easily marshaled from point A to point B.
In that moment when they were supposed to be easy to control, easy to martial, you had Paul Bremer waltz in his Brooks Brothers suits and Army beauties, the uniform of the disaster capitalists, and say Iraq is open for business, and create this sort of—an attempt to create a corporate Utopia for American multinationals.
It didn‘t work out. Then you saw the emergence of a third shock, not an economic shock, but shocks to body, the shock of torture, as they attempted to control this rebellious country. There‘s three kinds of shocks in “The Shock Doctrine,” the shock of the crisis, then an economic shock therapy program, and then, if people don‘t behave, a third shock, which is the shock of torture.
But didn't it work out? Certainly it's been messy, and so far such favored corporations as Halliburton, Bechtel and Blackwater have had to take their considerable piles of money and run, but could this latest agreement be the Bushite victory?
Jim Holt in the London Review of Books reverse-engineers the Iraq war and sees how this is entirely possible. First, he outlines the prize Iraq represents. That it's all about the oil isn't a news flash to a lot of people, but probably most don't know just how much oil is involved:
Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world’s oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world’s oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today’s prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion.
To get and keep control of that oil--even if it takes another decade or two--is the purpose of those bases, Holt suggests. He mentions that "Five self-sufficient ‘super-bases’ are in various stages of completion. All are well away from the urban areas where most casualties have occurred. There has been precious little reporting on these bases in the American press, whose dwindling corps of correspondents in Iraq cannot move around freely because of the dangerous conditions." But they are all mini-cities or walled suburbs. He refers to Thomas Ricks' reporting on one of the bases, the Balad air base: "Although few of the 20,000 American troops stationed there have ever had any contact with an Iraqi, the runway at the base is one of the world’s busiest. ‘We are behind only Heathrow right now,’ an air force commander told Ricks."
(Holt mentions something that I pointed out a couple of years ago--that U.S. bases in Iraq meant that U.S. bases in somewhat unstable Saudi Arabia, that so upset Osama bin Laden, could be closed--and they have been.)
But even if the U.S. and the West can't get much Iraqi oil into their pipelines for awhile, they still win because the U.S. presence deters their major competitor for oil in the world: China. Without more energy, China's economy can't keep growing at its current rate. By denying China this source, the West has a chance to weather the Chinese economic storm.
So Holt wonders: Was the strategy of invading Iraq to take control of its oil resources actually hammered out by Cheney’s 2001 energy task force? One can’t know for sure, since the deliberations of that task force, made up largely of oil and energy company executives, have been kept secret by the administration on the grounds of ‘executive privilege’. One can’t say for certain that oil supplied the prime motive. But the hypothesis is quite powerful when it comes to explaining what has actually happened in Iraq. The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration’s cavalier attitude towards ‘nation-building’ has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades – a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth.
Which is why the failure to nurture a strong central government is actually success: If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East?
So if you're thinking in terms of dollars and cents--even in billions or trillions--the whole thing makes sound business sense:
The costs – a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) – are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success.
In fact the only counter argument Holt can muster is that the Bushites don't appear to be this smart. Still, there is reason to be sceptical of the picture I have drawn: it implies that a secret and highly ambitious plan turned out just the way its devisers foresaw, and that almost never happens.
Yet it makes perfect sense, even rhetorically. When real politik Republicans talk about freedom, they mean the freedom of themselves, their rich cronies and supporters to loot the world unencumbered by law, morality or compassion. (It's also why they're not bothered at all about the missing billions likely used for graft and other payoffs. Or why the current rampant corruption in Iraq is of no concern. After all, China has no problem with it either in their colonies such as Cambodia. It's part of the price of business.) That certainly seems to be what the Bushites mean when they say they're bringing freedom to Iraq.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Gratitude
It's a hard time to be thankful, at least in the usual way the word is used for the American Thanksgiving. Our prosperity and comforts seem selfish when contrasted with all the pain and injustice in the world, and like those first Pilgrims, a lot of what we enjoy is paid for by the pain and oppression of others. This year in particular, we may reflect that quite a bit of our comfort is contributing to killing the planetary life that supports us.
It's hard to concentrate on being thankful when it all seems to be falling apart before our eyes. Reuters reports that "Americans enter the holiday season in a dark mood, with economic worries, security fears and a lack of confidence in government fueling growing pessimism, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday."
So given all this, I wanted to share excerpts from an article I've read, entitled "Gratitude," by Joanna Macy. It has a different perspective on gratitude, that is both spiritual and political.
There's only a couple of paragraphs from it online at the Shambhala Sun site, the magazine in which it appears, but it's in the current November issue, so you should still be able to find it on the stands.
The article begins:
"We have received an inestimable gift. To be alive in this beautiful, self-organizing universe--to participate in the dance of life with senses to perceive it, lungs that breathe it, organs that draw nourishment from it--it is a wonder beyond words. It is an extraordinary privilege to be accorded a human life, with self-reflexive consciousness that brings awareness of our own actions and the ability to make choices. It lets us choose to take part in the healing of our world."
"Gratitude for the gift of life is the primary wellspring of all religions, the hallmark of the mystic, the source of all true art. Yet we so easily take this gift for granted. That is why so many spiritual traditions begin with thanksgiving, to remind us that for all our woes and worries, our existence itself is an unearned benefaction, which we could never of ourselves create."
That our world is in crisis--to the point where survival of conscious life on Earth is in question---in no way diminishes the value of this gift; on the contrary. To us is granted the privilege of being on hand: to take part, if we choose, in the Great Turning to a just and sustainable society. We can let life work through us, enlisting all our strength, wisdom and courage, so that life itself can continue.
There is so much to be done, and the time is so short. We can proceed, of course, out of grim and angry desperation. But the tasks proceed more easily and productively with a measure of thankfulness for life; it links us to our deeper powers and lets us rest in them...."
Macy is writing within a Buddhist tradition (she mentions specifically the Tibetan Buddhist path) and much of what I'm leaving out relates to Buddhist practice. What she says more generally pertains directly to that path, but certain points jumped out at me as being more universal. Especially this paragraph:
"The great open secret of gratitude is that it is not dependent on external circumstance. It's like a setting or a channel that we can switch to at any moment, no matter what's going on around us. It helps us connect to our basic right to be here, like the breath does. It's a stance of the soul...."
Gratitude not for what we have but what we are, and for the given world we are part of. Gratitude not for what we have versus what other people don't, but for what we have in common: being alive and human in the web of planetary life.
She directs her ideas towards another feature appropriate to this week: consumerism. (Even before Thanksgiving Day has really begun, stories abound on the importance of "Black Friday," the first and erstwhile biggest day of the Christmas shopping season. In fact, one story claims that retailers don't even want to wait until Friday--they want to turn Thanksgiving itself into a shopping day.) But Macy's approach to gratitude, not being dependent on possessions and comforts, turns it a different way:
"Thankfulness loosens the grip of the industrial growth society by contradicting its predominant message: that we are insufficient and inadequate. The forces of late capitalism continually tell us that we need more--more stuff, more money, more approval, more comfort, more entertainment. The dissatisfaction it breeds is profound...
So gratitude is liberating. It is subversive. It helps us realize that we are sufficient, and that realization frees us...."
Macy directly relates gratitude to activism:
"There are hard things to face in our world today, if we want to be of use. Gratitude, when it is real, offers no blinders. On the contrary, in the face of devastation and tragedy, it can ground us, especially when we're scared. It can hold us steady for the work to be done."
She writes of "the activist's inner journey" as a spiral, which begins with "opening to gratitude", then "owning our pain for the world," "seeing with new eyes," and "going forth." Gratitude is the wellspring:
"[Gratitude] reconnects us with basic goodness and our personal power. It helps us to be more fully present in our world. That grounded presence provides the psychic space for acknowledging the pain we carry for our world....
Then, ever again, we go forth into the action that calls us... Even when we don't succeed in a given venture, we can be grateful for the chance we took and the lessons we learned. And the spiral begins again."
It's hard to concentrate on being thankful when it all seems to be falling apart before our eyes. Reuters reports that "Americans enter the holiday season in a dark mood, with economic worries, security fears and a lack of confidence in government fueling growing pessimism, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday."
So given all this, I wanted to share excerpts from an article I've read, entitled "Gratitude," by Joanna Macy. It has a different perspective on gratitude, that is both spiritual and political.
There's only a couple of paragraphs from it online at the Shambhala Sun site, the magazine in which it appears, but it's in the current November issue, so you should still be able to find it on the stands.
The article begins:
"We have received an inestimable gift. To be alive in this beautiful, self-organizing universe--to participate in the dance of life with senses to perceive it, lungs that breathe it, organs that draw nourishment from it--it is a wonder beyond words. It is an extraordinary privilege to be accorded a human life, with self-reflexive consciousness that brings awareness of our own actions and the ability to make choices. It lets us choose to take part in the healing of our world."
"Gratitude for the gift of life is the primary wellspring of all religions, the hallmark of the mystic, the source of all true art. Yet we so easily take this gift for granted. That is why so many spiritual traditions begin with thanksgiving, to remind us that for all our woes and worries, our existence itself is an unearned benefaction, which we could never of ourselves create."
That our world is in crisis--to the point where survival of conscious life on Earth is in question---in no way diminishes the value of this gift; on the contrary. To us is granted the privilege of being on hand: to take part, if we choose, in the Great Turning to a just and sustainable society. We can let life work through us, enlisting all our strength, wisdom and courage, so that life itself can continue.
There is so much to be done, and the time is so short. We can proceed, of course, out of grim and angry desperation. But the tasks proceed more easily and productively with a measure of thankfulness for life; it links us to our deeper powers and lets us rest in them...."
Macy is writing within a Buddhist tradition (she mentions specifically the Tibetan Buddhist path) and much of what I'm leaving out relates to Buddhist practice. What she says more generally pertains directly to that path, but certain points jumped out at me as being more universal. Especially this paragraph:
"The great open secret of gratitude is that it is not dependent on external circumstance. It's like a setting or a channel that we can switch to at any moment, no matter what's going on around us. It helps us connect to our basic right to be here, like the breath does. It's a stance of the soul...."
Gratitude not for what we have but what we are, and for the given world we are part of. Gratitude not for what we have versus what other people don't, but for what we have in common: being alive and human in the web of planetary life.
She directs her ideas towards another feature appropriate to this week: consumerism. (Even before Thanksgiving Day has really begun, stories abound on the importance of "Black Friday," the first and erstwhile biggest day of the Christmas shopping season. In fact, one story claims that retailers don't even want to wait until Friday--they want to turn Thanksgiving itself into a shopping day.) But Macy's approach to gratitude, not being dependent on possessions and comforts, turns it a different way:
"Thankfulness loosens the grip of the industrial growth society by contradicting its predominant message: that we are insufficient and inadequate. The forces of late capitalism continually tell us that we need more--more stuff, more money, more approval, more comfort, more entertainment. The dissatisfaction it breeds is profound...
So gratitude is liberating. It is subversive. It helps us realize that we are sufficient, and that realization frees us...."
Macy directly relates gratitude to activism:
"There are hard things to face in our world today, if we want to be of use. Gratitude, when it is real, offers no blinders. On the contrary, in the face of devastation and tragedy, it can ground us, especially when we're scared. It can hold us steady for the work to be done."
She writes of "the activist's inner journey" as a spiral, which begins with "opening to gratitude", then "owning our pain for the world," "seeing with new eyes," and "going forth." Gratitude is the wellspring:
"[Gratitude] reconnects us with basic goodness and our personal power. It helps us to be more fully present in our world. That grounded presence provides the psychic space for acknowledging the pain we carry for our world....
Then, ever again, we go forth into the action that calls us... Even when we don't succeed in a given venture, we can be grateful for the chance we took and the lessons we learned. And the spiral begins again."
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Climate Crisis in Court
Update: On Sunday the New York Times took editorial notice of this decision and opined: The ruling comes at an important moment. Congress is beginning to consider global warming legislation, the E.P.A. is fashioning a response to the Supreme Court, the State Department is preparing for a new round of global climate talks in Bali, and everyone is worried about the cost of oil. The California decision should help persuade all these players that the time for delay and denial is long past.
Before the UN climate crisis report released today overwhelms the topic, there's this from Friday's news:
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a federal transportation agency on Thursday to rewrite its fuel economy standards for many SUVs, minivans and light trucks, arguing that the new rules are inadequate in part because they fail to properly assess the risk of global warming.
The decision is a huge win for several environmental groups and 11 states, including California, that argued that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's new fuel economy standards ignored the effects of carbon dioxide emissions.
The decision was the most recent example of growing pressure on the Bush administration to require automobile makers to sell more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Thursday's "court decision is a rebuke to the Bush administration and its refusal to make meaningful steps to reduce global warming pollution from our automobiles," said Pat Gallagher, director of environmental law at the Sierra Club. "The decision tells the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that it can't monkey the numbers when it sets fuel economy standards by ignoring the cost of carbon emissions."
Before the UN climate crisis report released today overwhelms the topic, there's this from Friday's news:
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a federal transportation agency on Thursday to rewrite its fuel economy standards for many SUVs, minivans and light trucks, arguing that the new rules are inadequate in part because they fail to properly assess the risk of global warming.
The decision is a huge win for several environmental groups and 11 states, including California, that argued that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's new fuel economy standards ignored the effects of carbon dioxide emissions.
The decision was the most recent example of growing pressure on the Bush administration to require automobile makers to sell more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Thursday's "court decision is a rebuke to the Bush administration and its refusal to make meaningful steps to reduce global warming pollution from our automobiles," said Pat Gallagher, director of environmental law at the Sierra Club. "The decision tells the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that it can't monkey the numbers when it sets fuel economy standards by ignoring the cost of carbon emissions."
Debate Drama and the Climate Crisis
A few additions and clarifications to yesterday's comment...I am well aware that the candidates have their own motives and strategies for what they say and how they say it at the debates, but that's the only aspect of the debates that gets reported and analyzed ad nasueam.
What I find significant is that the candidates are out there campaigning, not only talking but listening to concerns expressed in Iowa and New Hampshire and elsewhere, particularly in today's campaigning style that emphasizing town meetings and other forums where citizens ask questions and even engage the candidates one on one. So they hear what voters are concerned about. But who do the TV "journalists" listen to, who are asking the questions and otherwise making the rules of these debates? It seems to me they listen mostly to each other, and of course their bosses.
There's a real and growing disconnect between what's important to the voters and what's important to cable and network TV. The candidates respond to this--partly because of what they hear from voters, and partly because they know about and even care about these issues. Say what you want about Bill Richardson's image, style and poll numbers--he clearly cares about health care, education, immigration, energy and environmental issues. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd may be afterthoughts to the hosts and handicappers, but they know a lot about what to do and how to do it in America's relationship to the world, and to not benefit from their knowledge but to instead indulge these low wattage media "stars" in their blather is criminal.
And Dennis Kucinich--before the media bobbleheads got their single story together so they could shout it at each other all day today--that for instance the crowd was on Hillary's side at the debate in "Vegas"--some observers remarked that the person the crowd responded to the most was Dennis the K, especially when he uttered the word "impeachment."
That the people in that room, whoever they were, did not approve of John Edwards going after Hillary so relentlessly, or Obama lumping her in with Romney and Rudy, and at the same time, cheered Dennis most of the time, seems to comport with my image of the Democratic electorate this year. They want substance, and they want boldness; they are civil and they are angry.
As for the issues that voters care about but the media finds too boring to talk about, one of the biggies these days is the climate crisis. After being dazed and confused by the subject for a number of years, it is now a matter of widespread public concern. If you needed any evidence of that, listen to how the candidates are trying to cram in their positions and plans on the subject whenever they're asked anything remotely relevant.
And the climate crisis is going to become much more relevant to this campaign in a formal way, later today in Los Angeles at a candidate's forum and in particular at a bipartisan presidential forum on energy and climate change in New Hampshire next month, weeks before the primary. Both Democratic and Republican candidates will participate, and each "team" will have a "captain": Ahnold for the Repubs, and for the Dems, Al Gore.
What I find significant is that the candidates are out there campaigning, not only talking but listening to concerns expressed in Iowa and New Hampshire and elsewhere, particularly in today's campaigning style that emphasizing town meetings and other forums where citizens ask questions and even engage the candidates one on one. So they hear what voters are concerned about. But who do the TV "journalists" listen to, who are asking the questions and otherwise making the rules of these debates? It seems to me they listen mostly to each other, and of course their bosses.
There's a real and growing disconnect between what's important to the voters and what's important to cable and network TV. The candidates respond to this--partly because of what they hear from voters, and partly because they know about and even care about these issues. Say what you want about Bill Richardson's image, style and poll numbers--he clearly cares about health care, education, immigration, energy and environmental issues. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd may be afterthoughts to the hosts and handicappers, but they know a lot about what to do and how to do it in America's relationship to the world, and to not benefit from their knowledge but to instead indulge these low wattage media "stars" in their blather is criminal.
And Dennis Kucinich--before the media bobbleheads got their single story together so they could shout it at each other all day today--that for instance the crowd was on Hillary's side at the debate in "Vegas"--some observers remarked that the person the crowd responded to the most was Dennis the K, especially when he uttered the word "impeachment."
That the people in that room, whoever they were, did not approve of John Edwards going after Hillary so relentlessly, or Obama lumping her in with Romney and Rudy, and at the same time, cheered Dennis most of the time, seems to comport with my image of the Democratic electorate this year. They want substance, and they want boldness; they are civil and they are angry.
As for the issues that voters care about but the media finds too boring to talk about, one of the biggies these days is the climate crisis. After being dazed and confused by the subject for a number of years, it is now a matter of widespread public concern. If you needed any evidence of that, listen to how the candidates are trying to cram in their positions and plans on the subject whenever they're asked anything remotely relevant.
And the climate crisis is going to become much more relevant to this campaign in a formal way, later today in Los Angeles at a candidate's forum and in particular at a bipartisan presidential forum on energy and climate change in New Hampshire next month, weeks before the primary. Both Democratic and Republican candidates will participate, and each "team" will have a "captain": Ahnold for the Repubs, and for the Dems, Al Gore.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Debate Drama
For me the central drama of the Democratic candidate debates is the conflict between candidates trying to address serious issues versus TV "journalists" asking simpleminded and irrelevant questions designed to create soundbites and basically to up their ratings with manufactured conflict.
To show even more clearly that these are engineered as shows, CNN--which ran last night's debate-- has been exposed as selecting questions posed from the audience as well as their own questioning which dominated the debate-- in one case, preventing a student from asking the serious question she wanted to ask, about nuclear waste storage, and insisting she ask Hillary Clinton whether she preferred diamonds or pearls.
This comes after a week of bushwah over the Clinton campaign suggesting to a student in Iowa that she ask Hillary a question about global warming. I am no fan of the main figures in the Clinton staff or how they operate. But all campaigns do this all of the time, and if it takes planting a question to get the Climate Crisis discussed, I'm for it.
What disgusts me is this bloodlust for ratings that goes through all kinds of contortions to turn the campaign into a prize fight, in the place of the kind of debate the nation and the world needs and deserves over the future.
To show even more clearly that these are engineered as shows, CNN--which ran last night's debate-- has been exposed as selecting questions posed from the audience as well as their own questioning which dominated the debate-- in one case, preventing a student from asking the serious question she wanted to ask, about nuclear waste storage, and insisting she ask Hillary Clinton whether she preferred diamonds or pearls.
This comes after a week of bushwah over the Clinton campaign suggesting to a student in Iowa that she ask Hillary a question about global warming. I am no fan of the main figures in the Clinton staff or how they operate. But all campaigns do this all of the time, and if it takes planting a question to get the Climate Crisis discussed, I'm for it.
What disgusts me is this bloodlust for ratings that goes through all kinds of contortions to turn the campaign into a prize fight, in the place of the kind of debate the nation and the world needs and deserves over the future.
The Heaviest Warning
In what sounds to be its heaviest warning yet--and despite efforts by the U.S. to soften its language--the BBC is reporting that the final summary report to be released tomorrow by the Nobel Peace Prize winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is going to be harsh and unequivocal, with a new warning of possible "abrupt and irreversible" climate change.
According to the BBC, "Among its top-line conclusions are that climate change is "unequivocal", that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases are more than 90% likely to be the main cause, and that impacts can be reduced at reasonable cost. "
The report now being completed "strengthens the language of those earlier reports with a warning that climate change may bring "abrupt and irreversible" impacts. Such impacts could include the fast melting of glaciers and species extinctions."
"Climate change is here, it's impacting our lives and our economies, and we need to do something about it," commented Hans Verolme, director of the climate change programme with the environmental group WWF. "After this report, there are no politicians left who can argue they don't know what climate change is or they don't know what to do about it."
The summary is expected to be released Saturday, and will accompany a full report, in addition to the three reports on aspects of the Climate Crisis already issued this past year.
According to the BBC, "Among its top-line conclusions are that climate change is "unequivocal", that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases are more than 90% likely to be the main cause, and that impacts can be reduced at reasonable cost. "
The report now being completed "strengthens the language of those earlier reports with a warning that climate change may bring "abrupt and irreversible" impacts. Such impacts could include the fast melting of glaciers and species extinctions."
"Climate change is here, it's impacting our lives and our economies, and we need to do something about it," commented Hans Verolme, director of the climate change programme with the environmental group WWF. "After this report, there are no politicians left who can argue they don't know what climate change is or they don't know what to do about it."
The summary is expected to be released Saturday, and will accompany a full report, in addition to the three reports on aspects of the Climate Crisis already issued this past year.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Dreaming Up Solutions
This blog is supposed to be about dreaming up a future even if it seems the world is downward bound. Unfortunately most of the babble here is about the downward bound part.
But there was a piece in Monday's SF Chronicle called "Inviting Everyone to the Party to change the world" by Ellen Freeman Roth, about innovative ideas and actual accomplishments discussed at the annual Pop! Tech forum, its purpose being "to fuel positive social change through innovation and technology."
Some approaches were "outer world" and technical :
Victoria Hale described how she created this country's first not-for-profit pharmaceutical company, OneWorld Health, whose drug to treat the parasitic disease Leishmaniasis could save thousands of lives annually. Marine ecologist Enric Sala discussed the devastating human impact on the oceans and the potential to reverse the damage. (Consumers can start by limiting fish purchases to those certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.)
Other approaches were "inner world" attitudes: Carl Honore, author of "In Praise of Slowness," said we're so connected electronically that we're disconnected emotionally from each other. "We need to create new cultural norms around technology," he said, touting the spiritual and creative benefits of slowing down. "I, for one, have rediscovered my inner tortoise."
Nina Jablonski, evolutionary biologist and head of anthropology at Penn State University, warned that in this abstract electronic age we must remember we have bodies, and touch is important. We're still primates. Daniel Pink, author of A Whole New Mind suggested that in addition to logical thinking, we're going to need imagination, empathy and synthesis. (Which you might say is the Holy Trinity of this site.)
The piece ended with some ideas for homemade carbon offsets. You can read the whole thing here and there are podcasts with more ideas and inspiration from that conference at the Pop!Tech site. Yeah, some of it may make you squirm with suburban NewAgey cooties, but on the "inner" stuff, we never did learn the real lessons of the 60s before it all got distorted, and there's been considerably more info and refined ideas since on integrating body and mind, feelings and spirit: the constituents of soul.
And it's hard to argue with many of the "outer" innovations--including heartbreakingly cheap solutions to terrible problems in the vast areas of the earth where people are poor and sick, for want of a few simple medications, and a pair of cheap reading glasses. Some of these were discussed in the latest in the Charlie Rose Show Science series (Episode 10 on Global Health.) It may be a bit hard to get past the Pfizer sponsorship, or for quite a few Mac and indie computer people to accept what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is accomplishing, but let's face it, some much needed money and attention is going to dreaming up and trying solutions to some of the worst health problems on the planet, that plague the poorest. Not to mention what the Gates Foundation and the millionaires involved in Bill Clinton's projects are doing for the natural environment essential for the future. Criticism is part of the process, but so is doing what needs to be done for real.
But there was a piece in Monday's SF Chronicle called "Inviting Everyone to the Party to change the world" by Ellen Freeman Roth, about innovative ideas and actual accomplishments discussed at the annual Pop! Tech forum, its purpose being "to fuel positive social change through innovation and technology."
Some approaches were "outer world" and technical :
Victoria Hale described how she created this country's first not-for-profit pharmaceutical company, OneWorld Health, whose drug to treat the parasitic disease Leishmaniasis could save thousands of lives annually. Marine ecologist Enric Sala discussed the devastating human impact on the oceans and the potential to reverse the damage. (Consumers can start by limiting fish purchases to those certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.)
Other approaches were "inner world" attitudes: Carl Honore, author of "In Praise of Slowness," said we're so connected electronically that we're disconnected emotionally from each other. "We need to create new cultural norms around technology," he said, touting the spiritual and creative benefits of slowing down. "I, for one, have rediscovered my inner tortoise."
Nina Jablonski, evolutionary biologist and head of anthropology at Penn State University, warned that in this abstract electronic age we must remember we have bodies, and touch is important. We're still primates. Daniel Pink, author of A Whole New Mind suggested that in addition to logical thinking, we're going to need imagination, empathy and synthesis. (Which you might say is the Holy Trinity of this site.)
The piece ended with some ideas for homemade carbon offsets. You can read the whole thing here and there are podcasts with more ideas and inspiration from that conference at the Pop!Tech site. Yeah, some of it may make you squirm with suburban NewAgey cooties, but on the "inner" stuff, we never did learn the real lessons of the 60s before it all got distorted, and there's been considerably more info and refined ideas since on integrating body and mind, feelings and spirit: the constituents of soul.
And it's hard to argue with many of the "outer" innovations--including heartbreakingly cheap solutions to terrible problems in the vast areas of the earth where people are poor and sick, for want of a few simple medications, and a pair of cheap reading glasses. Some of these were discussed in the latest in the Charlie Rose Show Science series (Episode 10 on Global Health.) It may be a bit hard to get past the Pfizer sponsorship, or for quite a few Mac and indie computer people to accept what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is accomplishing, but let's face it, some much needed money and attention is going to dreaming up and trying solutions to some of the worst health problems on the planet, that plague the poorest. Not to mention what the Gates Foundation and the millionaires involved in Bill Clinton's projects are doing for the natural environment essential for the future. Criticism is part of the process, but so is doing what needs to be done for real.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
The Dreaming Up Daily Quote
“It’s such an odd notion, particularly in this technological society, of whether your life is justified by being a novelist. And the nice thing about getting older is that I no longer worry about that. I’ve come to the simple recognition that would have saved me much woe 30 or 40 or 50 years ago — that one’s eventual reputation has very little to do with one’s talent. History determines it, not the order of your words.”
Norman Mailer
in 2007
Norman Mailer
in 2007
R.I.P. Norman Mailer
For much of the late 1960s and early 1970s, Norman Mailer was everywhere. In a period in which public intellectuals, from anthropologist Margaret Mead to journalist-philosopher Walter Lippmann, used the full range of public media--popular magazines and daily newspapers as well as specialized journals, television talk shows as well as university speeches--to offer insight and the play of intelligence, no one was more intelligent or playful than Norman Mailer.
He was an original, pugnacious in defiance and pushing his championing of ideas to their edge, and sometimes over it. He was infuriating to many. He risked being ridiculous, and he often enough was. But he had his moments--like his chaotic confrontation with Gore Vidal on the Dick Cavett Show, which ended with his moving, naked statement of the heights of writing to which he aspired.
He was perhaps the last great champion of the American novel, though his achievements now, especially in those years are measured in his polemics and nonfiction. Still, I can remember being riveted reading his now mostly forgotten late 60s novel, Why Are We in Vietnam?, a titanic riff on the American soul, as I recall it.
He was one of the clearest voices articulating the postwar change in America--he noted that a characteristic of plastic, and this society made of plastic, is that it shows no wear until it just breaks. I remember to this day something I heard him say on TV, and then read in one of his earlier books (he was stealing his own material): "Totalitarianism is the interruption of mood."
He remained a provocative, complex and subtle intelligence to the last, even as he mellowed and grew wiser. Life overcame his single dedication--life and his own energies and interests. He said and did a lot of crazy things, but for several decades at least, no one was more alive to the times.
For the last few decades his interests haven't much been mine, and I have read little of his later books. What I most learned from him in those earlier formative years was the courage to think large, and to care deeply about what few others care about in this society that fascinated him: the exact journey of words, the shape of sentences. His image to others may be of ego, violence and odd notions on sex, morality and the nature of reality, but to me he was one of the last to offer writing--especially the novel--- as a hard and holy occupation.
His New York Times obit is here, and an essay by Michiko Kakutani.
He was an original, pugnacious in defiance and pushing his championing of ideas to their edge, and sometimes over it. He was infuriating to many. He risked being ridiculous, and he often enough was. But he had his moments--like his chaotic confrontation with Gore Vidal on the Dick Cavett Show, which ended with his moving, naked statement of the heights of writing to which he aspired.
He was perhaps the last great champion of the American novel, though his achievements now, especially in those years are measured in his polemics and nonfiction. Still, I can remember being riveted reading his now mostly forgotten late 60s novel, Why Are We in Vietnam?, a titanic riff on the American soul, as I recall it.
He was one of the clearest voices articulating the postwar change in America--he noted that a characteristic of plastic, and this society made of plastic, is that it shows no wear until it just breaks. I remember to this day something I heard him say on TV, and then read in one of his earlier books (he was stealing his own material): "Totalitarianism is the interruption of mood."
He remained a provocative, complex and subtle intelligence to the last, even as he mellowed and grew wiser. Life overcame his single dedication--life and his own energies and interests. He said and did a lot of crazy things, but for several decades at least, no one was more alive to the times.
For the last few decades his interests haven't much been mine, and I have read little of his later books. What I most learned from him in those earlier formative years was the courage to think large, and to care deeply about what few others care about in this society that fascinated him: the exact journey of words, the shape of sentences. His image to others may be of ego, violence and odd notions on sex, morality and the nature of reality, but to me he was one of the last to offer writing--especially the novel--- as a hard and holy occupation.
His New York Times obit is here, and an essay by Michiko Kakutani.
Friday, November 09, 2007
The Daily Babble
Following up on the Power Shift conference on the Climate Crisis this past weekend, there's this report: Some 5500 mostly young delegates met outside Washington, which the environmental online magazine Grist calls "huge -- consider, by way of contrast, that this year's much publicized YearlyKos convention attracted just 1,400 attendees."
Further evidence of intense youth interest in their Climate Crisis future comes from the children of Republicans. Al Gore often says it should not be a partisan political issue, but it may be turning out to be a generational issue.
Meanwhile, after making brave noises against Bushite support for torture and the attorney general nominee's refusal to condemn the practice of induced temporary drowning, the elders of Congress shamefully approved his appointment. Why? I guess because Bush is so popular, and because America believes he's taking the country in the right direction, he has political power to overwhelm the opposition.
Meanwhile, Bushite plans to bomb Iran for Rudy go forward--ostensibly to prevent that nation from acquiring a nuclear weapon in years to come, while supporting the increasingly dictatorial regime in Pakistan, which has working nuclear weapons. And Rudy? Well, Mr. Law & Order's favorite police chief is being indicted. Maybe our big mistake was learning to trust anyone over 30.
Further evidence of intense youth interest in their Climate Crisis future comes from the children of Republicans. Al Gore often says it should not be a partisan political issue, but it may be turning out to be a generational issue.
Meanwhile, after making brave noises against Bushite support for torture and the attorney general nominee's refusal to condemn the practice of induced temporary drowning, the elders of Congress shamefully approved his appointment. Why? I guess because Bush is so popular, and because America believes he's taking the country in the right direction, he has political power to overwhelm the opposition.
Meanwhile, Bushite plans to bomb Iran for Rudy go forward--ostensibly to prevent that nation from acquiring a nuclear weapon in years to come, while supporting the increasingly dictatorial regime in Pakistan, which has working nuclear weapons. And Rudy? Well, Mr. Law & Order's favorite police chief is being indicted. Maybe our big mistake was learning to trust anyone over 30.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Climate Crisis: The Republican Solution
Yes, I believe the Republicans do have their own plan for addressing the Climate Crisis, or at least as represented by the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld ruling class.
After promising to abide by the Kyoto Accords during his 2000 campaign, G.W. Bush did exactly the opposite in office, and suffered no immediate political damage (it was the other guy in 2004 who got labelled a flip-flopper.) Years of energetic climate crisis denial followed, which increasingly involved suppressing data and conclusions from other parts of the government, and ignoring recommendations of scientific organizations.
The policy of suppression and censorship continues--most recently in slicing off about half the prepared testimony of the director of the Centers for Disease Control on the health effects of climate change, concentrating on eliminating the substantive findings. But like some medieval Pope moving slowly towards acknowledging that the earth revolves around the sun, Bush began gingerly mentioning global climate change, and even convened an international meeting on the subject in September.
His solutions continue to be woefully inadequate, but there are probably also strategic. He emphasizes research and technology, which essentially mean government money going to corporations, or universities whose research will eventually enrich corporations, without the inconvenience of paying for their own R& D.
The obvious Bushite strategy is to postpone action on reducing greenhouse gases, which would inconvenience the oil and coal companies and related technology corporations that were and will be run by Bushites and their cronies. But I suspect this is only part of the strategy.
I've written before about the two different elements of the Climate Crisis: the near-term effects and the effects further in the future. The near-term effects are by now unavoidable--the only actions that can be taken is to try to fix the problems that climate change create. I've called this the "fix it" element.
Those sounding the alarm about the Climate Crisis, including Democrats, are concentrating on the effects further in the future, because they are potentially catastrophic. Yet only by acting now, or very soon, can we avoid those consequences 20 or 50 or 100 years from now. And by the time those consequences start becoming obvious, it may well be too late to prevent ultimate catastrophe, which very well could be the end of human civilization and life as we know it on earth. That's why action is needed now on severely reducing greenhouse gases. I've called this the "stop it" element.
I believe the Bushite Republican strategy is or will be to concentrate on the "fix it" element, and ignore the "stop it" element. That is, they will refuse real action on stopping greenhouse gases, until the near-term effects of the Climate Crisis become overwhelming. And then they will say that we can afford only to fix these problems, and if we need fossil fuel energy to do it, that's the price we have to pay. The future will have to take care of itself.
Politically, this is a realistic strategy, especially given the Bushite record. It is realistic because they will not be asking people to address a crisis they can't yet see, or transform society in order to avoid a greater catastrophe that hasn't yet happened.
Effects happening in the present can be used to focus fear, and fear is the great motivator--the easy push-button they've used very effectively. Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine, exposes this general strategy: use shocks to create fear, use fear to create dependence on the strong leader's solutions, and use that dependence to create more centralized control, and use that control to funnel taxpayer dollars to crony corporations.
Each shock is a profit-making opportunity for the few. The rest become victims of "disaster apartheid."
So what near-term effects am I talking about? Because of a drought that the Southeast couldn't see because it was so bizarre, Atlanta has 90 days of water left and no plan to deal with it--except maybe to cut off water to Mobile. The rest of the Southeast is also in a grim drought situation. And this is just the beginning--some 36 states are likely to have water problems in the next five years--in the Southeast, Southwest, Northeast, Great Lakes--almost everywhere.
Drought in the West will eventually have an impact on food supplies and prices. Then the Midwest. But drought isn't the only effect--there are floods as hit in Texas and most recently in Mexico, where a million people were affected.
Then there are the health effects, that the Bushites want to suppress for now: as the "edited" parts of the CDC testimony enumerates them: Direct effects of heat, health effects related to extreme weather events, air pollution-related health effects, allergic diseases, water- and food-borne infectious diseases, vector-borne and zoonotic diseases, food and water scarcity, at least for some populations; mental health problems, and long-term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects.
Fires, hurricanes and other storms--sooner or later, someone is going to connect the dots. If that someone is a Republican, he is going to say that these are the effects of climate change--we aren't sure why the climate is changing, we just know it is. So we must confront these effects now with all our resources. The Republican President will take over, and the war on terror will be the template: civil liberties will disappear, militarization of the society will ensue.
The information on health effects will stay suppressed until something big happens--mosquito-borne disease epidemics in areas where they hadn't happened before, or any large-scale epidemic or effect. Something big enough to cause a giant shock--one which the American people will be unprepared for, partly because this sort of information is being suppressed. Shock is important: it clouds judgment, calls out for immediate solution, and it is easy to exploit.
This Republican President (or presidential candidate) will promise to solve the problems now, not the problems of fifty or a hundred years in the future. If the recent past is a guide, the people will respond. They will regress into the status of scared children, and the Republicans will issue their no-bid contracts to enrich each other, and make sure they are protected.
That's consistent with Naomi Klein's vision, and I think she's right:
"Looking ahead to coming disasters, ecological and political, we often assume that we are all going to face them together, that what's needed are leaders who recognize the destructive course we are on. But I'm not so sure. Perhaps part of the reason why so many of our elites, both political and corporate, are so sanguine about climate change is that they are confident that they will be able to buy their way out of the worst of it."
Next time: the Democratic Solution, which has its own problems.
After promising to abide by the Kyoto Accords during his 2000 campaign, G.W. Bush did exactly the opposite in office, and suffered no immediate political damage (it was the other guy in 2004 who got labelled a flip-flopper.) Years of energetic climate crisis denial followed, which increasingly involved suppressing data and conclusions from other parts of the government, and ignoring recommendations of scientific organizations.
The policy of suppression and censorship continues--most recently in slicing off about half the prepared testimony of the director of the Centers for Disease Control on the health effects of climate change, concentrating on eliminating the substantive findings. But like some medieval Pope moving slowly towards acknowledging that the earth revolves around the sun, Bush began gingerly mentioning global climate change, and even convened an international meeting on the subject in September.
His solutions continue to be woefully inadequate, but there are probably also strategic. He emphasizes research and technology, which essentially mean government money going to corporations, or universities whose research will eventually enrich corporations, without the inconvenience of paying for their own R& D.
The obvious Bushite strategy is to postpone action on reducing greenhouse gases, which would inconvenience the oil and coal companies and related technology corporations that were and will be run by Bushites and their cronies. But I suspect this is only part of the strategy.
I've written before about the two different elements of the Climate Crisis: the near-term effects and the effects further in the future. The near-term effects are by now unavoidable--the only actions that can be taken is to try to fix the problems that climate change create. I've called this the "fix it" element.
Those sounding the alarm about the Climate Crisis, including Democrats, are concentrating on the effects further in the future, because they are potentially catastrophic. Yet only by acting now, or very soon, can we avoid those consequences 20 or 50 or 100 years from now. And by the time those consequences start becoming obvious, it may well be too late to prevent ultimate catastrophe, which very well could be the end of human civilization and life as we know it on earth. That's why action is needed now on severely reducing greenhouse gases. I've called this the "stop it" element.
I believe the Bushite Republican strategy is or will be to concentrate on the "fix it" element, and ignore the "stop it" element. That is, they will refuse real action on stopping greenhouse gases, until the near-term effects of the Climate Crisis become overwhelming. And then they will say that we can afford only to fix these problems, and if we need fossil fuel energy to do it, that's the price we have to pay. The future will have to take care of itself.
Politically, this is a realistic strategy, especially given the Bushite record. It is realistic because they will not be asking people to address a crisis they can't yet see, or transform society in order to avoid a greater catastrophe that hasn't yet happened.
Effects happening in the present can be used to focus fear, and fear is the great motivator--the easy push-button they've used very effectively. Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine, exposes this general strategy: use shocks to create fear, use fear to create dependence on the strong leader's solutions, and use that dependence to create more centralized control, and use that control to funnel taxpayer dollars to crony corporations.
Each shock is a profit-making opportunity for the few. The rest become victims of "disaster apartheid."
So what near-term effects am I talking about? Because of a drought that the Southeast couldn't see because it was so bizarre, Atlanta has 90 days of water left and no plan to deal with it--except maybe to cut off water to Mobile. The rest of the Southeast is also in a grim drought situation. And this is just the beginning--some 36 states are likely to have water problems in the next five years--in the Southeast, Southwest, Northeast, Great Lakes--almost everywhere.
Drought in the West will eventually have an impact on food supplies and prices. Then the Midwest. But drought isn't the only effect--there are floods as hit in Texas and most recently in Mexico, where a million people were affected.
Then there are the health effects, that the Bushites want to suppress for now: as the "edited" parts of the CDC testimony enumerates them: Direct effects of heat, health effects related to extreme weather events, air pollution-related health effects, allergic diseases, water- and food-borne infectious diseases, vector-borne and zoonotic diseases, food and water scarcity, at least for some populations; mental health problems, and long-term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects.
Fires, hurricanes and other storms--sooner or later, someone is going to connect the dots. If that someone is a Republican, he is going to say that these are the effects of climate change--we aren't sure why the climate is changing, we just know it is. So we must confront these effects now with all our resources. The Republican President will take over, and the war on terror will be the template: civil liberties will disappear, militarization of the society will ensue.
The information on health effects will stay suppressed until something big happens--mosquito-borne disease epidemics in areas where they hadn't happened before, or any large-scale epidemic or effect. Something big enough to cause a giant shock--one which the American people will be unprepared for, partly because this sort of information is being suppressed. Shock is important: it clouds judgment, calls out for immediate solution, and it is easy to exploit.
This Republican President (or presidential candidate) will promise to solve the problems now, not the problems of fifty or a hundred years in the future. If the recent past is a guide, the people will respond. They will regress into the status of scared children, and the Republicans will issue their no-bid contracts to enrich each other, and make sure they are protected.
That's consistent with Naomi Klein's vision, and I think she's right:
"Looking ahead to coming disasters, ecological and political, we often assume that we are all going to face them together, that what's needed are leaders who recognize the destructive course we are on. But I'm not so sure. Perhaps part of the reason why so many of our elites, both political and corporate, are so sanguine about climate change is that they are confident that they will be able to buy their way out of the worst of it."
Next time: the Democratic Solution, which has its own problems.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
The Dreaming Up Daily Quote
"The nub of the problem now is how to flip over, as in jujitsu, the magnificent growth energy of modern civilization into a noacquisitive search for deeper knowledge of self and nature. Self-nature. Mother Nature. If people come to realize that there are many nonmaterial, nondestructive paths of growth--of the highest and most fascinating order--it would help dampen the fear that a steady state economy would mean deadly stagnation."
Gary Snyder
"Energy is Eternal Delight"
Gary Snyder
"Energy is Eternal Delight"
Climate Action Day
Update: Many of these events were in heartland areas previously immune or hostile to environmentalist initiatives. But the American West is changing, as evidenced in part by this: For Al Gore's presentation on the Climate Crisis in Boise, Idaho, organizers hoped for an audience of about 1,000. Instead they had to move the event to the basketball stadium, and sold 10,000 tickets in 5 hours. Mcjoan at Daily Kos puts this in historical and political perspective.
A version of what follows was front-paged at E Pluribus Media , on the recommended list at European Tribune, and on the Eco-Diary Rescue at Daily Kos.
The National Day of Climate Action today was the definition of a grassroots event. With practically no media coverage, or mention on even climate-related internet sites, thousands of people gathered in places large and small across the U.S., in large groups and small, for events associated with the Step It Up campaign for action on the Climate Crisis.
Though seniors were conspicuously present at many events, this is basically a youth movement, and though officeholders like Senator John Kerry attended events, the main speaker at one was eleven years old. These are young people addressing their future.
In the photos that follow, you might notice that some people look kind of cold. Despite storms along the East Coast generated by Hurricane Noel, they turned out earlier today. These photos were sent in by participants to the Step It Up site, and more of them can be viewed there.
Also today, the Youth Climate Movement Power Shift convention began in DC. Here's their latest dispatch. Their activities continue through the weekend, climaxing in a "lobby day" on Monday, when they will attend hearings on pending climate bills and lobby members of Congress. (Here's the schedule.)
The Power Shift and Step It Up movements are coalescing around an agenda called 1Sky: 1. Mobilize America: 5 million green jobs conserving 20% of our energy by 2015. 2. Secure Our Future: freeze climate pollution levels now and cut at least 80% by 2050 and 30% by 2020. 3. Transform Our Energy Priorities: No new coal plants until they can safely dispose of climate pollution.
This common agenda has won some impressive endorsements, including well-known Climate Crisis voices like Bill McKibben and James Hansen but also Van Jones of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, the Rev. Sally Bingham of the Regeneration Project and Inuit representative Sheila Watts-Cloutier. Organizations on board include the League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Climate Crisis Coalition and National Resources Defense Council, as well as Physicians for Social Responsibility and several religious groups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
