February 27
Sounds a bit like global warming, doesn't it? There will be no binding treaty on mercury because the US doesn't want it. To be precise, the industrial special interests who own the Bush adminstration when it comes to science and the environment don't want it. Bush opposed any specific goals or deadlines. In other words, the people who profit from the use of mercury will be asked very nicely if they would phase it out, with no incentive or requirement to do so. The costs instead are borne by everyone exposed to their pollution, which is all of us to some minor degree.
CIA officers are worried about being prosecuted for mistreatment of detainees. Good. They're worried that the orders and permissions of their superiors to use torture won't protect them. That's called the Nuremberg principle. Torture is illegal under both American and international law, and permission or orders from superiors don't protect anyone who breaks those laws. Those at the top bear more responsibility, but those at the bottom aren't absolved.
February 26
Try not to faint, but the acting president has actually gotten a couple things right on his European tour. I'm obviously still not a fan, as should be clear by referring to him as "the acting president" to show he's not legitimate. Let's be optimistic, and hope a bit of praise will encourage more intelligent behavior.
First, Bush is right about selling arms to China. The only thing stopping an invasion of Taiwan is the technological edge the west has over China and has given to Taiwan, and that's just the immediate concern. Forget these Islamist terror groups. The only real threat to the west is China. It's population is bigger than North America, the east Asian democracies, and the EU put together. It's technology is advancing rapidly. Above all, it's still an authoritarian state. So what safeguards does the EU have in mind? Do the arms have a remote controlled off switch? They blow up if China tries reverse engineering? The promise not to use these arms to attack Taiwan? (Of course, this article includes the quote I ripped Bush for a couple days ago. I guess you go with the flawed spokesman you have, not the flawed spokesman you want.)
Second, Bush criticized Vladimir Putin for restricting Russian democracy. Even though Bush is a flawed spokesman for democracy, he was right about Russia. Putin has caused a devolution to authoritarianism. The linked article includes details about press controls, election fraud, and control of regional governments. Putin routinely does in his own country what he tried to do in Ukraine. Putin is also the one who restarted the war in Chechnya and helped create the current Islamic terror problem. On the upside, the willingness of pensioners to take to the streets over replacing benefits with cash payments shows democracy isn't dead, but it sure is under assault from the Russian government and media.
February 24
I know the clip has been played widely on TV and radio, but I can't help it, it's just too delicious, the acting president really did say, "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table. " What would be the more appropriate way to put this, that Bush "doesn't do irony" or "doesn't get irony". I'm sure readers get the point. He really can't see that consecutive sentences contradicted each other. It's much like that last press conference where he was asked that oft-replayed question by GOP shill James Guckert/Jeff Gannon about dealing with senators divorced from reality. Right before calling on Guckert, Bush answered the prior question by saying he told the cabinet not to pay journalists.
A thought on that video shown on the Iraqi propaganda that claims to show the confession of a Syrian agent. Maybe it's a real confession. On the other hand, how much credence should be put in a confession from a prisoner held by people who torture detainees? Especially when the video includes an anonymous Iraqi officer saying all insurgent groups are covers for Syrian intelligence. Or maybe the prisoner wasn't really a prisoner, but just an example of the Iraqis learning from the Karen Ryan school of propaganda.
February 23
Voting problems (honest mistakes and also, well, fraud) haven't been much in the news since a few congressmen bravely challenged Ohio's electoral college votes. There is a bit of news though. Some US senators have proposed voting reforms, addressing the big problems of 2004, unreasonably (and surprisingly localized in Democratic precincts) long lines, and touchscreen voting that's both paperless and unauditable (Here's the vote total. You want a recount? OK, here's the vote total again).
In Minnesota, some state legislators are trying to loosen the restrictions on press access to polls.
Finally, GOP hypocrisy when they're on the losing end of disputed elections continues, as in Washington they want another gubernatorial election. Funny how they wanted the Democratic candidate to gracefully accept the loss when they won the first count. Funny how they want they want to just forget the oddities in the acting president's elections and pretend everything turned out swell.
February 21
Following up from Wednesday, when I explained the basic common sense that should stop us spewing greenhouse gases, or any other pollutant, without needing to be well versed in the science, maybe you're the skeptical sort who still wants to know the science. Good for you. Or maybe you're the sort who hears global warming described as a "theory" and, having learned the wrong lesson from evolution being called "just a theory", assumes you can believe it or not as it pleases you. You especially, please pay attention.
I mean that. We all share this planet, so for my sake if not yours, PLEASE pay attention.
"Theory", it bears repeating, doesn't mean "guess". It means an overall explanation, like the heliocentric theory which holds that the sun is at the center of the solar system and Earth is in orbit. If someone doubted it even in the 20th century, then when spacecraft took photos that showed this, that should be definitive enough. Nonetheless, it's still a "theory" because it includes distances from the sun, shapes of orbits, order of planets --- in other words, it's a theory because it's an explanation for a collection of facts. Evolution and global warming are similar in that they are overall explanations, thus called "theories", but they're not doubted by scientists except those who are religious fundamentalists in the one case or on the payrolls of fossil fuel companies in the other.
One of the tests of a theory is that is makes predictions which can be tested, which is why creationism and intelligent design aren't theories. Evolution, by contrast, predicted intermediate forms between one species and another, the infamous "missing links" creationists cling to which, sadly for them, are fewer in number all the time. Global warming passes this test too, because it makes predictions which can be tested.
Widely reported last week was evidence presented at the American Association for the Advance of Science showing data that confirmed a prediction on global warming theory, the warming and reduced salinity of the oceans. The Bush Administration, of course, insists that the science remains "uncertain" (scroll to ocean warming report). In that same program on The World, Rep. US Senator Chuck Hagel (previously mentioned in this blog for the funny way he got elected) has admitted global warming is human caused, but still has faith the free market will address it. Interestingly, a recent article in Science Magazine started out by saying American policy makers "frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain." The gist of the article was the overwhelming consensus on the subject, specifically that in 928 papers on the subject published in peer reviewed journals, 25% took no position on whether climate change was man-made, and the rest agreed it was. None disagreed.
If you want the evidence broadly laid out, here are "Signs From Earth" from a recent issue of National Geographic. Here are some of the basic facts from, interestingly enough, the Australian government, which is the only western government besides ours to refuse to ratify Kyoto.
February 18
The ironic thing about the acting president's sudden interest in Lebanon since the assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri is that if he and the neocons really were seeking to spread democracy in the Middle East when they fabricated reasons to attack Iraq, the best bet would have been Lebanon. I say that with no illusion that Bush's interest is anything other than an opening to go after Syria, widely blamed for the assassination including by the Lebanese. In fact, with all the saber rattling toward Syria right after Baghdad fell, the attempts to blame Syria for the foreign insurgents in Iraq, and the obvious groundwork being laid for an invasion of Iran, the Bush administration must be dividing into "attack Syria" and "attack Iran" camps (unless they're foolish enough to think they can go after both -- ouch).
The reasons Lebanon was the obvious place to spread democracy were:
- Lebanon has done a lot of rebuilding since the war, giving it a decent economy
- The government is considered legitimate by its people and already has a democratic structure
- Though the fundamentalists of Lebanon's religions would probably have little hesitation about resorting to civil war again, the sane people have so far managed to keep them under control.
Now imagine that Bush, thinking things through (yes I know, that's not the Bush we know) and really wanting to spread democracy, hadn't gone into Iraq. Even assuming he kept enough resources in Afghanistan, chasing Syria out of Lebanon doesn't seem that tough.
I wouldn't suggest for a moment that there would be no complications, but unless Bush really screwed up, and this hypothetical Bush is smarter than the real one, we wouldn't be occupying people who don't want us there. We would start with a legitimate government instead of trying to force one on a chaotic country. In short, building democracy in Lebanon would have been the cakewalk predicted for Iraq, at least by comparison to the war we actually have. Maybe the domino effect predicted for Iraq will still happen, but I like the odds better with this hypothetical Lebanon. It was quick, clean, everything Iraq wasn't.
Back in real life, it's hard to see that the resources are available for a third simultaneous war. If Bush tries it, the whole planet knows the potential targets are Syria, Iran, and North Korea, and he can attack only one. The other two would know they're off the hook. That's to say it might be best strategically to attack none and leave all three wondering, but if there is a third war, Lebanon might still be the opportunity. The factors that have changed since Bush invaded Iraq are that the Lebanese are much less likely to support an invasion by the US, and the Lebanese are very angry toward Syria and starting to actively demand they leave. Maybe those factors balance out. If the war is limited to removing Syrian forces in Lebanon, maybe the defeat brings down the Syrian regime. At worst, Syria remains what it is, but democracy gets a chance in Lebanon. So if we have yet another war, that's our best chance of producing an Arab democracy. Democracy was the goal, right Dubya? Not that I'm trying to do a Thomas Friedman and advocate for the war I would fight while failing to realize that's not all what what Bush has in mind. We work with the Bush we have, not the Bush we would like to have. So it's best not to let this guy get into any more wars.
February 17
The Bush administration is sort of doing the right thing, but even while doing that they insist on something tawdry. They have called for a war crimes tribunal for the war in Darfur. This is good. Whether anyone thinks the word "genocide" or not, there has been a massive campaign to kill and displace civilians. That it comes up to the level of war crimes should be obvious, so good for Bush for calling for trials. The tawdry bit is he wants a special court, not the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) which was started for just this purpose. Why? Because the US hasn't signed the treaty that created the ICC. This refusal is defended as coming from concerns Americans will be tried for political purposes. To accept this reasoning, you have to believe there is
something so special about Americans that no one else has to worry about a political trial. To see through this reasoning, you have to see a belief that Americans are so special that they're above the law. War crimes trials are fine for the little people (the rest of the world) but not for us.
In the case of the acting president and some of his top people, we know the real motivation for opposing the permanent court: they'll end up in front of it. Attacking a country that didn't attack you is a war crime itself, called in earlier trials "aggressive war". The non-combatant Iraqi dead constitute a crime since the war itself was illegal. The torture, having proved systemic, goes higher than some guards and interrogators. This is why the acting president will call for trials for Darfur, but not at the ICC.
Speaking of war crimes, going to an earlier war, one of the people associated with the Contras terrorist campaign against Nicaragua has been chosen by Bush to be the first intelligence director. John Negroponte was ambassador to Honduras during Reagan's first term when the Contras were built in Honduras near the Nicaraguan border, and the Honduran government cracked down on potential opponents lest the wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador spread. Ever notice one of the defining characteristics of the acting president is he keeps digging up people with histories of nefarious activities? It's almost like corruption or bloody hands is a requirement to be nominated.
This story links back to Iraq, since a paragraph in that story I linked to above caught my eye. Negroponte's deputy will be Lt. Gen. Mike Hayden, who runs the National Security Agency. The sentence that jumped out was, "He is the longest serving director of the secretive codebreaking agency and has pushed for changes, such as asking longtime agency veterans to retire and increasing reliance on technology contractors." Maybe this partly explains how intelligence on Iraq was completely wrong, besides the cherry picking. Longtime veterans were pushed out, which sounds like the removal of those not loyal to Bush as happened in the CIA, and the use of contractors suggests intelligence was outsourced. I found this article from 2000 about contracts that were expected to start in 2001. This was still during the Clinton administration, but the contract started after Bush, and the article doesn't say when the contracts were awarded. Somehow having systems supposedly vital to national security going to the lowest bidder, or to the most loyal to Bush --- sorry for the cynicism, but cynicism is rarely misplaced with this administration --- just isn't comforting. Remember that as they try to sell us the next war.
I'm no fan of Alan Greenspan, not a decade ago when I satirized him for seeing Wall Street as his only constituency, and not for what he said yesterday. Commenting on privatizing Social Security, he said, "When you have assets which you own, which you can bequeath to your children and which have your name on it, I think that is a highly desirable thing because you give wealth to lower- and middle-income people." Being a man who has never met a lower or middle income person who wasn't opening a door or taking his supper order, he may not realize how little these accounts will be to bequeath. Nor perhaps does he have any idea how vital the survivors benefit is when workers die before retirement. It's amounts to far more money and a reliable income. The money isn't just paid in and gone. If Greenspan could think beyond Wall Street maybe he wouldn't participate in Bush's deception.
February 16
The Kyoto Protocol took effect today. Unfortunately it doesn't include the US, which is firmly in the grip of corporate special
interests and adherents of an anti-environmental ideology. OK, that's mostly the same thing, except for some Republican grassroots who have bought the line that there really is scientific disagreement of global warming. To be sure, there are scientists who don't believe global warming is occurring or don't believe humans are causing it. There might even be a few of them who aren't on oil and coal company payrolls, though I wouldn't bet money on that. Then again, what I wouldn't do given a choice doesn't matter, because we're betting the planet on that.
George Monbiot had a good analogy to explain the attention given to global warming skeptics: it's as if coverage of every rocket launch had to include someone from the Flat Earth Society to deny it could happen. The media doesn't do that with rocket launches, but if the Bush administration took the Flat Earth seriously, then the media would too. It's part of that idea that being objective means giving equal time to nonsense.
Even without statistics and studies in hand, some things are common sense. Messing up your living space is a bad idea. Look, when you find food waste on your kitchen counter, do you wait for a study to tell you how much food waste has to sit for how long to grow how many bacteria causing how many health problems? Or do you have the sense to realize a clean kitchen will be healthier and the mess needs cleaning? Do you clean the mess or just whine about the cost? Maybe you do both, point being that you clean it. If someone else made the mess, you probably resent having to clean it, and whoever made it might resent being told to clean it or having to hear how they left it for someone else. SO why did they do it? Simple. Whoever left the mess behind got the benefit --- they got to eat the food that was made --- while the cost went to someone else --- you who had to clean it.
If you scale that up, you see the problem with greenhouse gas pollution, or any pollution. The polluter got the benefit --- the activity that produced the pollution also produced a saleable product or service that brought a profit. The pollution was left for someone else --- in the gas of greenhouse gases, all of us --- to cope with. Just as the time to clean the kitchen mess was real time, the cost of the pollution is real, but the polluter doesn't pay it, and so doesn't see the problem. They do just whine about the cost instead of cleaning the mess. They resent being told to clean it. In the real life example of greenhouse gases, they so far find it cheaper to lobby, give money to sympathetic politicians, fund junk science, and put on PR campaigns.
None of that denies the ideological elements of the global warming debate. Businesses really resent being told how to do things, even if other people think those businesses are blind to the effect on others. Some believe environmentalists oppose the capitalist system, and so have no credibility, and so anything they say must be the opposite of the truth. I'm sure many environmentalists do oppose capitalism and that's why environmental decisions must be based on science. Unfortunately, science is being thwarted not just by ideological opposition to science but by the economics I described above: the benefit of the pollution is concentrated with the polluter, and the damage is elsewhere. To the polluter, clean up and prevention seems like a new and unnecessary cost. At its core then, fighting pollution is to a large degree a matter of focusing the costs on those who enjoy the benefits.
See the archives for earlier entries.
