A WaPo Editorial by Bill McKibben. Who?
Here's a story of two presidents, Barack Obama of the United States and Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives.
Both are young and charismatic. Both were elected last fall to replace discredited incumbents (Nasheed's predecessor ruled the island nation for three decades and kept him in a political prison for years). Both have troublesome legislatures (the opposition party controls the chamber in the Maldives).
But on the biggest question the planet faces -- if we'll take action in time to slow down global warming -- they couldn't be more different. One, Nasheed, is leading the fight. The other, as we saw last weekend when he announced that there would be no new treaty anytime soon, is only half in the battle. They both may go to the U.N.-sponsored climate conference in Copenhagen next month, but Nasheed will be there to say: Seize the moment. And if Obama makes it, he will be there to spin, to say, no doubt elegantly: Chill.
To understand the difference between the two men is to understand much of the politics of global warming, as well as the chances for an agreement on climate change -- this year or next -- significant enough to matter.
In Nasheed's case, geography almost requires him to be outspoken. His nation is what you picture when you picture paradise: 1,200 tiny islands, each ringed by a reef with a lagoon, white sand beaches and coconut palms. A small fraction have been turned into tourist resorts, but most are either uninhabited or home to fishing communities that go back thousands of years.
But the highest point on most of those islands is only a few feet above sea level. They can't cope with the rising oceans that every expert says global warming will bring, and they can't cope with the dying corals that come when seawater gets hotter and more acidic. And so, more than any other leader on Earth, Nasheed has made global warming his rallying cry.
He's versed in the latest science. He knows, for instance, that trying to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius and atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide to 450 parts per million is no longer a viable goal. That given what science now shows, the much tougher target of 350 parts per million represents his country's only chance for survival. As Rajendra Pachauri, the only scientist ever to accept the Nobel Prize for his work on climate, said this month: At 450 ppm, the Maldives and many other islands, as well as larger low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, "will be completely devastated."
So Nasheed has gone to work. Some of his actions have been symbolic: As part of a global day of climate action that I helped organize, he trained his entire cabinet to scuba dive so they could hold an underwater meeting on an endangered coral reef; they signed a resolution to be presented at the Copenhagen summit demanding that nations take steps to return the atmosphere's carbon level to 350 parts per million. And some of his actions have been entirely practical: To show its willingness to lead, the Maldives (a poor nation) has committed to being carbon neutral by 2020. There are lots of wind towers on the way, and I've seen plans for farming seaweed to make biofuels.
Contrast that with Obama. He too has acted; in fact, he's done more than his three predecessors combined. He's taken admirable steps on automobile fuel economy, put stimulus money into green job plans and surrounded himself with an excellent cast of scientific advisers. But doing more than George W. Bush on global warming is like doing more than George Wallace on racial healing. It gives you political cover, but the melting arctic ice is unimpressed.
So it's not good news that, internationally, Obama's spokesmen have stuck to the 450 ppm/2 degree target, calling it consensus science when it no longer is. And it's not good news domestically that Obama turned climate legislation over to Congress to produce, slotting it behind health care on his list of priorities. Since he'd just spent some years in the Senate, the president should have been able to predict what would happen: The already none-too-strong Waxman-Markey (House) and Kerry-Boxer (Senate) bills have been laden with ever more gifts to ever more special interests and ever more loopholes to undermine their targets. And now the Senate legislation has apparently been handed to Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) for some more tweaking, an exercise that, from a scientific point of view, seems unlikely to end well.
Obama's excuse is that the Senate won't sign tough climate legislation, so there's no use pushing for it. (And he's right -- the Senate is tough. At 350.org, an organization I co-founded that is dedicated to solving the climate crisis, we're working to organize candlelight vigils at senators' offices around the country.) But that's conceding the game without taking a shot -- he hasn't done any of the things Nasheed has tried to rally his nation and other nations. Much more at link, but why bother. You get the idea.
If President Nashid were truly serious, he would acknowledge that his small and poor country was not going to make a difference in humanity's contribution to global warming, and would be spending his county's small GDP on building boats and floating piers, and establishing lagoon fisheries. Or else purchasing higher altitude property in another country and preparing moving vans for the entire population. When the sky is really falling, one starts by acquiring a steel umbrella.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/22/2009 16:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ditto for PALAU/BELAU,and simil affected MICRONESIAN ISLES also.
* SPACE ARKS
* COMPUETR-CONTROLLED ENCLOSED SURFACE CITIES, ala "LOGAN'S RUN"???
* DITTO UNDERGROUND CITIES
* HONG-KONG- SHANGHAI-style living on CHIN JUNKS
= OCEAN CITIES
* FLOATING HOMES, VILLAGES e.g. built on pylons, piers.
SAN FRANCISCO'S "FISHERMAN'S WHARF" goes GLOBAL
= OWG-NWO.
Pragmatically, the only real question to ask vee GLOBAL WARMING = EX-POTUS DUBYA is what do our best PERTS + SOLAR THEORIES-MODELS have to say about the condition of the Sun, e.g. LACK OF SUNSPOTS = ENERGIES BUILDING UP INSIDE THE SOLAR ENGINEERING UNIT that are not able to be released???
Again, THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA > "DANCE OF THE SUN" > in FUTURE TIME, the Earth being knocked off its normal orbit by a catastrophic event [e.g. SPACE ROCK "X"]. IRONY > despite its horrors, the Earth is knocked off its orbit far enuff away to MINIMIZE EFFECTS FROM ANY POTENTIAL SOLAR EXPANSION, THUS ALLOWING HUMANITY'S SURVIVORS TO BEGIN ANEW.
MESSAGE > EVEN DURING "THE APOCALYPSE" PER SE, GOD GIVES HUMANITY = HIS CREATION A CHANCE TO REDEEM ITSELF.
#2
FYI, IMO in order for the SUN to expand, its own gravitational = Electro-magnetic fields must weaken. However, this in turn will also destabilz the normal or regular orbits of the entire planetary system includ INNER PLANETS, ETC.
* 1980s's MTV "B52'S" > "LOVE SHACK" > Oh, MERCURY, you've been thru every degree ...".
MERCURY = "WINGED HORSE" OF PEGASUS which IIRC PROPHET MOHAMMED rode to heaven upon his death
"THIRD SECRET" Vatican release > the WINGED HORSE was riderless, whilset the POPE was being shot at by people armed wid CROSSBOWS [Asia], + OLD-STYLE GUNS [Western "Red" Revolutionaries = Social Contracts].
#5
The Maldives have the most carbon (dioxide) intensive economy on Earth. Their economy is almost entirely dependent on long haul tourism in CO2 spewing jets.
Their hypocrisy is impressive.
Otherwise, sea levels around the Maldives are well documented and haven't risen for a 100 years.
Malalai Joya is an Afghan politician who has been called "the bravest woman in Afghanistan." As an elected member of the Wolesi Jirga from Farah province, she has publicly denounced the presence of what she considers warlords and war criminals in the parliament. She is the author of "A Woman Among Warlords: The Extraordinary Story of an Afghan Who Dared to Raise Her Voice"
Al-Shabab continues to stone men, women and children to death in Somalia. Recently a 13 year old Somali girl was stoned to death after being gang raped. The girl was buried in a hole up to her neck and then stoned to death by 50 men, while over a 1,000 spectators looked on.
Al-Shabab is a radical Islamist faction controlling much of the region in southern Somalia. Their brutal interpretation of Sharia law is responsible for multiple stonings in the last few months. Just last Tuesday Halima Ibrahim Abdurrahman, age 29, was stoned to death after having been convicted of adultery in a village called El-Bon. Earlier this month Al-Shabab stoned a man to death for adultery, but spared his pregnant girlfriend until she gives birth. After she gives birth, she too will be stoned to death.
Somalia's President, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, a living contradiction moderate Islamist, accuses Al-Shabab of spoiling the image of Islam by killing people and harassing women:
"Their actions have nothing to do with Islam. They are forcing women to wear very heavy clothes, saying they want them to properly cover their bodies but we know they have economic interests behind - they sell these kinds of clothes and want to force people to buy them."
#2
At least Al-Shabab is being consistent with actual Islamic law and stoning to death the men involved with adultery . . . except, of course, those guys involved in the gang-rape as the girl must have incited them to rape. No good Muslim man would ever rape a woman, we all know that!
Or would be that the adulterer got stoned because he wouldn't pay the squeeze money that Al-Shabab demanded?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/22/2009 10:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Recently a 13 year old Somali girl was stoned to death after being gang raped. The girl was buried in a hole up to her neck and then stoned to death by 50 men, while over a 1,000 spectators looked on
#2
ION NIPPON WMF > "SANKEI SHIMBUN" JAPANESE MEDIA: NORTH KOREA'S UN AMBASSADOR: JAPAN IS NOT QUALIFIED/NO RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS.NORTH KOREA'S ALLEGED STATE-ORDERED KIDNAPPING OF [13-17?]COLD WAR JAPANESE CITIZENS PALES IN COMPARISON TO JAPAN'S MANY CRIMES IN WAR, KOREAN-ASIAN HISTORY. UNO given NOKOR list of 20 allegations of serious Human Rights violations by Japan - NOKOR's Ambassador-Represen claims JAPAN must first answer for its forcible theft of 8.4MILYUHN KOREANS + 800,000 "Comfort Women" during WW2.
* SAME > US SWEAT OF FEAR: CHINA'S NEW H-6K STRATEGIC BOMBERS, 4-6 KH-55[YJ63] ALCMS PER BOMBER IS SUFFICIENT TO DETER US BASES IN PACIFIC/CHINA WILL NOT STOP OR DELAY IMPROVEMENT, MODERNIZATION OF ITS STRATEGIC MILITARY CAPABILITIES AGZ USA, MAJOR WORLD POWERS.
* SAME/BHARAT RAKSHAK > CHINA'S NEWEST "JIN" CLASS STRATEGIC MISSLE SUBMARINES ARE NOISIER THAN RUSSIA'S "DELTA-III"s DESIGNED OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO.
True enuff, but what matters is that the PLAN "JIN"s LR SLBMS-FBMS can suppos strike the US WEST COAST from CHIN'S LITTORALS. ARTICS > SCALPELIZES vee describing how the JIN'S SLBMS will strike water just offshore from US WESTY STATES, NOT COUNTING HAWAII ANDOR ALASKA.
So-o-o, TO BE SAFE FROM CHIN'S JIN-CLASS + FOLLOW-ON SUBS + NUKULAAR MAD SCENARIOS, IIUC OWG-NWO AMERICA = AMERIKA MUST SSSSSHHHHHHHHHH BE WILLING TO GIVE UP OR OTHERWISE LOSE/SACRIFICE ALASKA + HAWAII STATES???
Lets not fergot CANADA = MACKENZIE-LAND in between ALASKA STATE + DEM DAR "LOWER 48"!?
#4
Holy Moley. Industrial strength satire. It is gratifying that someone else somewhere in the MSM can expose the Big O. Wonder how long before they are forced to change management?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/22/2009 14:55 Comments ||
Top||
#5
You know, I live overseas, so I rarely watch American TV, and I always look forward to coming back home and spending a day or two getting to know an old friend called Television. I found SNL on, watched about five minutes of it to give it a chance, and changed the channel as it was painfully unfunny and about as edgy as a rodeo clown.
There's good news for Americans who believe in a smaller federal government: The law of unintended consequences is alive and well in the Obama age. The law's arm is long, its grip strong.
Take health care, for example. The intended consequence of the campaign for Democratic health reform has been to expand government into the most intimate, most consequential parts of our lives. 17 percent of the economy's a pretty hefty boodle.
But the unintended consequence has been to drive more Americans away from the idea of government-run health care and toward more personal responsibility. The latest polling data from Gallup show a stunning, 22-point shift among Americans away from believing that government is responsible for health care toward believing that individuals are responsible for their own health care. It's that "T" word: trillions. I can't recall ever having heard it used when discussing government projects. It's kind of a paradox that while a trillion is too big a number for people to get their minds around they also seem to constitute something that's finite: how many trillions do we have?
What's more, this shift against government health care has actually been fueled by the campaign to federalize it. In 2006, 69 percent of Americans believed government was responsible for health care. Today, that number is 47 percent. Lots of us are in favor of all sorts of nice-sounding things until we look at the details. The devil's always in the details, isn't it?
The unintended but nonetheless building backlash against big, centralized government isn't just confined to health care, and it isn't just confined to Washington. In Baton Rouge, La., last week voters by a wide margin rejected a tax increase to pay for more city spending. The entire Democratic establishment, the media and the business establishment tried to sell the higher taxes as hope and change for Baton Rouge, but the voters weren't buying. Thanks in large part to an opposition campaign mounted by the Baton Rouge Tea Party, 64 percent of voters rejected the new taxes. That's a phenomenon that I don't think the Publican party actually comprehends yet. People are still tired of them because they took power in 1994 using the Contract with America. They implemented most of it, but then they decided to act like Dems and "govern from the center." Nobody acts like Dems better than the Dems themselves do, so they took back power, which they're now proceeding to abuse -- they're not bothering to "govern from the center" or even from center left. But the only virtue the Publicans have is being not Dems. Rather than discussing the details of legislation they'd be a lot better off dicussing things like liberty and competetiveness, job creation, and national independence.
This comes on the heels of the historic rejection of higher taxes and bigger government that California voters delivered earlier this year. In a state that gave Barack Obama a 24-point margin of victory in 2008, California voters in May rejected a series of taxing and spending measures by 63 percent-plus majorities. Another initiative, which would limit elected officials' salaries in times of deficits, passed with 74 percent of the vote. Right. We'll see them in court on that one.
Add this all together and it points to a strong message being sent by the American people: At a time when politicians are telling us that only government can solve our problems -- a time when government itself seems to be the most important constituency of many politicians -- Americans are simply saying, "No." No more. They are a rejecting big, expensive, distant government. They're rejecting a grab at 17 percent of the national economy. If the entire U.S. GDP is $13.84 trillion and we're looking at a health care bill that's talking about anywhere from $1 trillion to $22 trillion depending on who's doing the presentation, even the dullards among us can comprehend it, and even the dullards can comprehend that even just one of those 13.84 trillions is a significant chunk that won't be available for other things, such as beer. The idea of a government program that costs more than our entire GDP is simply ludicrous.
I wouldn't take too much comfort from Caliphornia's rejection of their legislatures attempts to spend them into the ground. They've been rejecting ever since Proposition 13, but they've keep reelecting the same gang the San Francisco vigilantes were in the habit of stringing up or running out of town 150 years ago. Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer are from Caliphornia. So's Maxine Waters and so was Ron Dellums. Jerry "Governor Moonbeam" Brown is running for governor again and it's my guess he's got a real good chance of reoccupying the seat currently warmed by Arnold Schwartzegger.
The alternative to big government isn't no government, as critics of small-government conservatives would have you believe. It's something increasing numbers of Americans are calling "localism." Localism is federalism, but with the benefit of hard experience. America's Founders established federalism -- creating a federal government with clearly defined, and thus constitutionally limited, powers and reserving the remainder of governmental power to the states or the people -- to maximize individual freedom and prevent a central government from creating for itself ever expanding powers over the people. Much of that was dismantled in the wake of the Civil War, whether implicitly or explicitly. We're not going to repeal the 14th amendment, nor are we going to rewrite it even though it needs it.
But the political establishment in Washington and politicians from Sacramento to Albany to Baton Rouge don't like federalism. They have tried to sell the American people on the idea that today's challenges are too complex and too pressing to be left to the states or to the people. These challenges, we are assured, require bigger and more expensive federal or state governments. We always expect these big programs to be run with an efficiency that's to date been lacking. Parkinson's Law applies just as remorsely as the Law of Unintended Side Effects. The British Colonial Office in 1949 had more employees to administer fewer colonies than had pertained in 1898. The U.S. Postal Service charges more and more to deliver an ever decreasing volume of mail. Excluding junk mail and bills they may deliver none at all. Yet still we expect the gummint to administer health care with more efficiency and compassion than the insurance companies' utilization managers, most of whom are RNs.
Localism is a direct reaction to this. The past couple months have seen the most decisive shift in generations back to the original American view of the role of the federal government. It is a return to the constitutional understanding that powers not belonging to the federal government should reside in the most local possible center of responsibility. Sometimes that's individual Americans and their families. Other times it's local or state government. It's an idea that's inimical to the proposition that the common folk exist to create wealth for their betters.
In all cases, it's a decisive rejection of the notion being peddled in Washington that self-government in the 21st century is too complicated to be left to the people. The irony is that this great awakening of personal and local responsibility is in response to a concerted campaign to convince us that the opposite is true: That the hope and change we've been waiting for must come from enlightened politicians and governments, not from ourselves. It's the result of realizing that the Dems are corrupt to their hairlines and that they haven't the least concern for the "little people" they claim to represent. The Publicans are inept and generally lacking in principles, though only about a tenth as corrupt. That leaves We the People with nobody to represent us. Third parties are a lost cause, a haven for cranks and vanity campaigners.
Big government is being sold in Washington today as something new. The unintended consequence is that Americans are returning to something old: government of, by, and for the people. It won't happen. The best we're going to get is a transient improvement, something like we saw following the Contract with America. The Tea Party movement's not going to being going with the same fervor ten years from now, even five years from now. Once the improvement's been made many of the agents will be coopted by the Dem machines, some will pronounce themselves "mavericks" and get their pictures in the papers, others will turn into time servers enjoying their perks. 1994 was only 15 years ago and we can see how much of the Contract with America's still in force.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Last month, "60 Minutes" did an alarming report on the $60 billion-a-year Medicare fraud industry. Reporter Steve Kroft began by cautioning "that this story may raise your blood pressure" and "raise some troubling questions about our government's ability to manage a medical bureaucracy." The venerable CBS investigative news program spoke with an FBI agent who warned that Medicare fraud had become a "way bigger" problem than the drug trade in Miami.
While the prospect of Crockett and Tubbs kicking down South Florida nursing home doors might not appeal to Hollywood, taxpayers should take this matter very seriously. To put the $60 billion in fraud in perspective, Medicare loses seven times as much money in fraud every year than the combined profits of the 14 health insurance companies on the Fortune 500.
Earlier this week, the federal government quietly issued a report largely confirming "60 Minutes' " findings. The government report claimed Medicare lost "only" $47 billion, but that still means the government admits that 12.4 percent of all Medicare payments are fraudulent.
And it's not just Medicare either. The same report notes that 9.6 percent of Medicaid claims, amounting to $18.1 billion, are improper. Recall that the House-passed health care reform bill would greatly expand the number of Americans on Medicaid, while doing next to nothing to address fraud. The nation's chief health care actuary estimates that the House bill would save a meager $60 million. In other words, PelosiCare would reduce Medicare and Medicaid fraud by a whopping .0009 percent.
Approximately 90 million Americans receive health care coverage through Medicare or Medicaid. Some econometrics studies suggest that the "public option" that Democrats have been pushing for in health reform legislation would put the government in charge of administering health care for an additional 88 million people. More than doubling the number of Americans in government health plans would send the fraud problem through the roof.
Further, Democrats have repeatedly justified government-run health care by claiming the administrative costs would be much lower. They never mention that administrative costs for private insurers are higher because they do a much better job combating fraud. And critics of Democratic health reform have often wondered why they don't apply their proposals to Medicare and Medicaid first to see if they work, before inflicting them on everybody else. However, the unwillingness to deal with fraud shows the government can't or won't fix existing programs, so why should we expect them to do anything differently with new programs?
Posted by: Fred ||
11/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The prosecution team I led in 1995 convicted the notorious Blind Sheikh and 11 others for conspiring to wage a terrorist war that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and attempting (unsuccessfully) to attack New York City landmarks. Consequently, some observers seem puzzled that I'm a vocal critic of civilian trials for our terrorist enemies. But they are confusing litigation success with national-security success. So is the Obama administration in deciding to transfer Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 plotters to federal court in Manhattan.
We certainly can convict terrorists in civilian court. We've done it too many times for that to be a serious issue. It's also indisputable that the U.S attorney's office in Manhattan, where I was privileged to work for 18 years, is without peer in the expertise needed for such complex prosecutions. I have every confidence the Justice Department could convict KSM & Co. The problem on this ride is not the destination; it's the journey.
We are in a hot war, overwhelmingly authorized by Congress, against vicious enemies still plotting attacks that could dwarf the carnage of 9/11. To deal with war crimes, Congress in 2006 endorsed military commission trials, which have a rich pedigree in our history, are fully consistent with our Constitution, and better enable us to withhold intelligence methods and sources. Indeed, the Obama administration concedes that military commissions are sound: Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the bombers of the warship Cole will face one.
From a legal standpoint, it makes no sense to try the Al Qaeda quintet in civilian court. Eleven months ago, these men were prepared to plead guilty in their military commission and proceed to execution. Yet the Obama administration pulled the plug on that commission. This was a transparent sop to the left, which wants to judicialize war-fighting and is repulsed by the intelligence-centric, prevention-first counterterrorism strategy that has protected us for eight years from a reprise of the 9/11 atrocities.
Now, our enemies will be given a full-blown civilian trial with all the rights of the American citizens they are sworn to kill. They will get a year or more to sift through our national defense secrets. They will have wide latitude to turn the case into a trial of the Bush administration - publicizing information about anti-terrorism tactics that leftist lawyers will exploit in their quest for war crimes prosecutions in foreign courts against current and former U.S. officials.
In the military system, we could have denied them access to classified information, forcing them to accept military lawyers with security clearances who could see such intelligence but not share it with our enemies. In civilian court, the Supreme Court has held an accused has an absolute right to conduct his own defense. If KSM asserts that right - as he tried to do in the military commission - he will have a strong argument that we must surrender relevant, top-secret information directly to him. And we know that indicted terrorists share what they learn with their confederates on the outside.
Finally, as policy, the administration's decision is perverse. A half-century of humanitarian law, beginning with the Geneva Conventions, sought to civilize warfare. To receive enhanced protection, combatants must adhere to the laws of war and refrain from targeting civilians. Under Obama-logic, the Cole bombers get a military commission while the 9/11 savages are clothed in the majesty of the Bill of Rights.
So here's the message to terrorists: If you kill thousands of civilians, we will give you better rights than if you attack military assets. That is dangerously irresponsible.
#1
ION DAWN.PK > LASHKAR [LeT] DENIES LINKS WITH CHICAGO SUSPECTS. [LeT Group claims members are all local KASHMIRI MUSLIMS wid NO LINKS OR NETWORK IN AMERICA]???
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Al-Shabab continues to stone men, women and children to death in Somalia. Recently a 13 year old Somali girl was stoned to death after being gang raped. The girl was buried in a hole up to her neck and then stoned to death by 50 men, while over a 1,000 spectators looked on. 
There's good news for Americans who believe in a smaller federal government: The law of unintended consequences is alive and well in the Obama age. 
