John Holdren is a science/climate change advisor of the Obama Administration. Naturally he, like everyone else having anything to do with global warming and climate change is under attack.
What he is currently under attack for is his opinion expressed 40 years ago that global cooling -- a new ice age, for example -- is a threat to human survival. Which to be precise is a misleading conclusion about what Holdren said all those years ago. Here's my response to an attack on Holdren from the far right.
Always looking for the quick sound bite, huh, Mr. _____?
You got that from Prison Planet. http://www.prisonplanet.com/john-holdren-in-1971-%E2%80%9Cnew-ice-age%E2%80%9D-likely.html
If you'd read farther down, you would see that this guy Holdren was saying even then that the ultimate threat was global heating and not cooling. He thought cooling was the most immediate threat at the time; plainly he was wrong, about that.
What he was really saying is that we thrive in a narrow window of temperature here on earth. Dead right. Cool things down a few degrees and it's a catastrophe. Warm things up a few degrees and it's a catastrophe. What about that do you not understand?
You are trying to manufacture an inconsistency when there wasn't any. You may be okay as a Tea Party spin-doctor, but you get an "F" as a scientist or informed citizen.
Holdren was also wrong about the source of global heating. Then, around 1970, he was expecting more reliance on nuclear power than has been the case.
See, with nuclear power, or thermonuclear, you are creating heat from matter. When you burn fossil fuels -- or non-fossil fuels like wood or peat or dry grass, for example -- you are (1) releasing solar energy that had been stored up as chemical bonds, sometimes for hundreds of milions of years, and (2) releasing CO2, which, when it accumulates in the atmosphere traps heat on the earth's surface and keeps as much heat from radiating out into space. You get a twofer by burning hydrocarbon, capice?
Holdren thought nuclear energy would heat the earth more than the burning of hydrocarbons -- and he might have been right, if nuclear energy were politically acceptable and widespread. In 1970 and before, it looked like most of man's energy would soon come from nuclear reactions. Didn't happen.
Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl and the movie "China Syndrome" and worries about third world nations going nuclear sure cooled down nuclear energy.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Gomes
The Rev. Peter Gomes has died. He walked a long path in his life, most recently from conservatice Republicanism to the Democratic Party and his own crusade against homophobia and intolerance.
From today's New York Times obituary at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/us/02gomes.html?src=twrhp, quote:
“I now have an unambiguous vocation — a mission — to address the religious causes and roots of homophobia,” he told The Washington Post months later. “I will devote the rest of my life to addressing the ‘religious case’ against gays.”
He was true to his word. His sermons and lectures, always well attended, were packed in Cambridge and around the country as he embarked on a campaign to rebut literal and fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. He also wrote extensively on intolerance.
“Religious fundamentalism is dangerous because it cannot accept ambiguity and diversity and is therefore inherently intolerant,” he declared in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times in 1992. “Such intolerance, in the name of virtue, is ruthless and uses political power to destroy what it cannot convert.”
From today's New York Times obituary at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/us/02gomes.html?src=twrhp, quote:
“I now have an unambiguous vocation — a mission — to address the religious causes and roots of homophobia,” he told The Washington Post months later. “I will devote the rest of my life to addressing the ‘religious case’ against gays.”
He was true to his word. His sermons and lectures, always well attended, were packed in Cambridge and around the country as he embarked on a campaign to rebut literal and fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. He also wrote extensively on intolerance.
“Religious fundamentalism is dangerous because it cannot accept ambiguity and diversity and is therefore inherently intolerant,” he declared in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times in 1992. “Such intolerance, in the name of virtue, is ruthless and uses political power to destroy what it cannot convert.”
Wikileaks and World Revolution
To what extent did Wikileaks' exposure of the contents of U.S. diplomatic cables set off the demonstrations that have since occurred? I think there is some relationship, and would be most curious to hear from anyone with an opinion or information.
Did any of the demonstrators read Wikileaks' material? There was a lot there, on Mubarak, Qadaffi, Adbullah and others.
Also. I think Wikileaks had an influence on the stilling of the latest crisis between North and South Korea. Why? How would you feel if you read that your ally and bulwark of strength was anticipating extinguising your regime and merging your country with South Korea? Like a deer in the headlights? Like a dinosaur as the meteor comes down near Yucatan? Shoot, yeah.
The internet is not just a meeting place, or a bulletin board for relaying messages and organizing demonstrations. It's prime function is to allow unrestricted access to information, which is exactly what Wikileaks purports to do.
These demonstrations in North Africa, the Arabian peninsula and the Middle East mainly involve the young. One reason for that is that the young are more into technology and the internet than their elders.
So I see a sequence:
Youth => Internet => Access to Uncensored Information => Demonstrations => Revolution => Change
I do not agree with George W. Bush's boycotting an affair because Julian Assange would speak by teleconference. It is quite possible that Assange has had more of a salutary effect on the world than George Bush did. (I do agree that one is a criminal, however.)
Did any of the demonstrators read Wikileaks' material? There was a lot there, on Mubarak, Qadaffi, Adbullah and others.
Also. I think Wikileaks had an influence on the stilling of the latest crisis between North and South Korea. Why? How would you feel if you read that your ally and bulwark of strength was anticipating extinguising your regime and merging your country with South Korea? Like a deer in the headlights? Like a dinosaur as the meteor comes down near Yucatan? Shoot, yeah.
The internet is not just a meeting place, or a bulletin board for relaying messages and organizing demonstrations. It's prime function is to allow unrestricted access to information, which is exactly what Wikileaks purports to do.
These demonstrations in North Africa, the Arabian peninsula and the Middle East mainly involve the young. One reason for that is that the young are more into technology and the internet than their elders.
So I see a sequence:
Youth => Internet => Access to Uncensored Information => Demonstrations => Revolution => Change
I do not agree with George W. Bush's boycotting an affair because Julian Assange would speak by teleconference. It is quite possible that Assange has had more of a salutary effect on the world than George Bush did. (I do agree that one is a criminal, however.)
Healthcare Act Unconstitutional?
I'm not discussing whether it is or is not here. I am responding to the comment of a slavering dog of a Tea Party goer who is drooling over the possibility that the act will be struck down.
80-90% of federal government activities are unconstitutional. 95% of the federal code and cfr. So what? You want to bring down social security and medicare? Require that war be declared before the president has authority to start mustering an army, navy and AF? Fire all those legions of federal workers and soldiers and see unemployment jump up?
Whether you or I like it or not, all sides including those claiming to practice strict interpretation (such as the arch-hypocrite Scalia), have been "growing" the Constitution to meet modern needs. So it is here. 5 of 9 may see it one way, or another. Who knows?
Now personally, I'd rather see the states enact health insurance programs, like Gov. Romney has done in his state. Reduce the feddies' share of taxes to about 5-10% of the total tax haul by all governments, and let states lead the way in social programs. Supreme court judges like to talk about "the laboratories of the states" in referring to the way states can initiate and experiment in different ways. But what do you think are the chances of all that happening?
As a practical matter, something has to be done to insure that all Americans are covered by some kind of health system. A majority of Americans agree on that much.
What would you suggest? Why are you so enthusiastic at burning our bridges ahead of us by setting up a Supreme Court legal blockade?
[As an academic exercise, consider this in connection with States' Rights and the Xth Amendment and that "laboratory of the states" idea. What would happen if some states had excellent programs in one thing or another? You would see an influx into that state of those benefitting from those programs. States whose programs were austere and ungenerous would lose that segment of population. And this doesn't apply just to welfare for the poor--it also applies to policies to attract and protect the rich. SO! What you would get would be osmosis: a movement across a boundary that eventually works to negate anything a state did that stood out from the herd. Think about it. Some things are necessarily done by the federal government, or they don't get done. Plus there is the matter of treating all U.S. citizens equally, regardless of place of residence.]
80-90% of federal government activities are unconstitutional. 95% of the federal code and cfr. So what? You want to bring down social security and medicare? Require that war be declared before the president has authority to start mustering an army, navy and AF? Fire all those legions of federal workers and soldiers and see unemployment jump up?
Whether you or I like it or not, all sides including those claiming to practice strict interpretation (such as the arch-hypocrite Scalia), have been "growing" the Constitution to meet modern needs. So it is here. 5 of 9 may see it one way, or another. Who knows?
Now personally, I'd rather see the states enact health insurance programs, like Gov. Romney has done in his state. Reduce the feddies' share of taxes to about 5-10% of the total tax haul by all governments, and let states lead the way in social programs. Supreme court judges like to talk about "the laboratories of the states" in referring to the way states can initiate and experiment in different ways. But what do you think are the chances of all that happening?
As a practical matter, something has to be done to insure that all Americans are covered by some kind of health system. A majority of Americans agree on that much.
What would you suggest? Why are you so enthusiastic at burning our bridges ahead of us by setting up a Supreme Court legal blockade?
[As an academic exercise, consider this in connection with States' Rights and the Xth Amendment and that "laboratory of the states" idea. What would happen if some states had excellent programs in one thing or another? You would see an influx into that state of those benefitting from those programs. States whose programs were austere and ungenerous would lose that segment of population. And this doesn't apply just to welfare for the poor--it also applies to policies to attract and protect the rich. SO! What you would get would be osmosis: a movement across a boundary that eventually works to negate anything a state did that stood out from the herd. Think about it. Some things are necessarily done by the federal government, or they don't get done. Plus there is the matter of treating all U.S. citizens equally, regardless of place of residence.]
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Wisconsin and Unions
I don't think Obama's support of general collective bargaining rights is a matter of going by polls -- the USA Today/Gallup poll showing 61% of respondents oppose the changes in the law proposed by Gov. Walker was only released this week. There is a principle involved here.
Remember "slippery slopes"? How if we didn't assemble an army in Southeast Asia the commies would take over all Vietnam, Thailand, Burma, India, Malaysia, the Phillippines, and move on to Hawaii and California? A/K/A domino theory?
There is a "slippery slope" argument that if we allow collective bargianing rights on the part of public employees to be curtailed by law, then it is only another step to passing laws against all collective bargaining rights.
Remember too that if you are a member of a union, or have a member in your family, then you are brother and sister to those in any other union. You stick together, because sticking together is the heart and soul of unionism. Solidarity. The only way to stand when faced by the combined power of juggernaut business interests and the government that they bought and paid for. You break ranks and you are trodden underfoot by the warhorses and elephants. Think pikemen and Greek phalanxes.
Just as Americans look with pride at the blood shed at Breed's Hill and Concord, so do union members remember those shot down by national guardsmen and Pinkertons in the pay of America's biggest corporations. When you think "Union" you stand, remove your cap, and stand in respect. People were beaten and died for your union rights.
For your right to work an eight-hour day, with time off on weekends, for overtime, for the right to take coffee breaks, for the right to not have your job taken by a starving 13-year old kid who would earn half as much as you do. For your right to not get fired on the spot if you are injured. For each of these rights, a war was fought, a literal war of bruises and blood and hunger and imprisonment.
That's how it was. A long and bloody struggle of David against Goliath. Unfortunately "history" is a subject that goes in one ear and out the other, assuming your particular history teacher even covered the history of labor and class in America.
So don't demean anyone supporting union rights, any more than you would jeer at someone crying in front of the Vietnam war memorial. In the union movement, a lot of blood and sweat was shed, and there, unlike Vietnam, something lasting was accomplished--unless we allow those gains to be eroded!
My thinking about government employees is this: in a climate of high unemployment, employees generally have no tool or weapon except to strike, to boycott, to bargain collectively. Even if a big company is a "publicly traded corporation," there is nothing an employee can do except strike. With government employees, there is something. They and their family and friends can vote. They can lobby their congressperson. Therefore, IMO, the case for union rights for government employees is thinner.
Should the military be allowed to unionize? If not, should the police? Firemen? Any public employees?There are a lot of issues here that I haven't studied and don't understand, but I do think there is a possible dividing line where it comes to government employees -- if th line can be held there.
Remember "slippery slopes"? How if we didn't assemble an army in Southeast Asia the commies would take over all Vietnam, Thailand, Burma, India, Malaysia, the Phillippines, and move on to Hawaii and California? A/K/A domino theory?
There is a "slippery slope" argument that if we allow collective bargianing rights on the part of public employees to be curtailed by law, then it is only another step to passing laws against all collective bargaining rights.
Remember too that if you are a member of a union, or have a member in your family, then you are brother and sister to those in any other union. You stick together, because sticking together is the heart and soul of unionism. Solidarity. The only way to stand when faced by the combined power of juggernaut business interests and the government that they bought and paid for. You break ranks and you are trodden underfoot by the warhorses and elephants. Think pikemen and Greek phalanxes.
Just as Americans look with pride at the blood shed at Breed's Hill and Concord, so do union members remember those shot down by national guardsmen and Pinkertons in the pay of America's biggest corporations. When you think "Union" you stand, remove your cap, and stand in respect. People were beaten and died for your union rights.
For your right to work an eight-hour day, with time off on weekends, for overtime, for the right to take coffee breaks, for the right to not have your job taken by a starving 13-year old kid who would earn half as much as you do. For your right to not get fired on the spot if you are injured. For each of these rights, a war was fought, a literal war of bruises and blood and hunger and imprisonment.
That's how it was. A long and bloody struggle of David against Goliath. Unfortunately "history" is a subject that goes in one ear and out the other, assuming your particular history teacher even covered the history of labor and class in America.
So don't demean anyone supporting union rights, any more than you would jeer at someone crying in front of the Vietnam war memorial. In the union movement, a lot of blood and sweat was shed, and there, unlike Vietnam, something lasting was accomplished--unless we allow those gains to be eroded!
My thinking about government employees is this: in a climate of high unemployment, employees generally have no tool or weapon except to strike, to boycott, to bargain collectively. Even if a big company is a "publicly traded corporation," there is nothing an employee can do except strike. With government employees, there is something. They and their family and friends can vote. They can lobby their congressperson. Therefore, IMO, the case for union rights for government employees is thinner.
Should the military be allowed to unionize? If not, should the police? Firemen? Any public employees?There are a lot of issues here that I haven't studied and don't understand, but I do think there is a possible dividing line where it comes to government employees -- if th line can be held there.
Monday, February 21, 2011
More on the Demonstrations Across the Arab World
Fascinating to follow, too long in coming, a light that the wind threatens to blow out.
Like those of Tiananmen Square, a demonstration is poised on a knife edge of destiny. The movement can either take off in a chain reaction or falter and fail, with the light of dissent forever extinguished. It is so risky to go out on a limb that way, staking your life and future on success or failure.
Has the undercurrent reached critical mass? Will it flame up and burn out its fuel and die, leaving nothing but darkness?
Demonstrations against a powerful state unafraid of world opinion are so dangerous.
We on the outside can only watch.
What happens will affect us, in small ways. We are not the titans seen silhouetted by the flames, dancing in the ire, arms and voices raised. Those with the real stake in the outcome, those gambling their lives out there, are like the heroes of books and movies. Do they see themselves that way, as characters in a drama of real life and death?
Armchair pundits from safe homes and offices a world away warn about the outcomes of successful revolution. And sure, when an American ally is overthrown, it is unlikely that any successor government will be as friendly toward us. But that is in the nature of freedom. Freedom means the freedom to choose, and to choose to be our enemy. If we act to alter that, then we are acting to limit or to control freedom, which is a contradiction in terms, a contradiction of our own history.
Like those of Tiananmen Square, a demonstration is poised on a knife edge of destiny. The movement can either take off in a chain reaction or falter and fail, with the light of dissent forever extinguished. It is so risky to go out on a limb that way, staking your life and future on success or failure.
Has the undercurrent reached critical mass? Will it flame up and burn out its fuel and die, leaving nothing but darkness?
Demonstrations against a powerful state unafraid of world opinion are so dangerous.
We on the outside can only watch.
What happens will affect us, in small ways. We are not the titans seen silhouetted by the flames, dancing in the ire, arms and voices raised. Those with the real stake in the outcome, those gambling their lives out there, are like the heroes of books and movies. Do they see themselves that way, as characters in a drama of real life and death?
Armchair pundits from safe homes and offices a world away warn about the outcomes of successful revolution. And sure, when an American ally is overthrown, it is unlikely that any successor government will be as friendly toward us. But that is in the nature of freedom. Freedom means the freedom to choose, and to choose to be our enemy. If we act to alter that, then we are acting to limit or to control freedom, which is a contradiction in terms, a contradiction of our own history.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
On Obama's Handling of the Egypt Situation
Republicans have been trying to make hay of Liall Ferguson's criticisms of the way the Egyptian situation was handled by Washington. Can the administration be blamed for not being prepared for all this? Probably.
But remember, the best intelligence in the Middle East comes from ... the Mossad. Which was blindsided. The speed at which demonstrations are mobilized via facebook can take intelligence services by surprise. There can be chronic discontent, but in an instant it can boil over into mass action that was not forseen or forseeable, except in hindsight.
And what kind of policy is it to fund dissenting/revolutionary groups when you are allied with the guy they want to rebel against? Playing both sides is a dangerous game. You end up as the enemy of whoever wins out.
What is almost humorous is that Obama would have been criticized whatever had been done. Fund Egyptian dissent and you get blamed for the fall of a long time ally. Don't fund dissent and you get blamed for not preparing for Mubarak's exit. Support Mubarak's rule publicly and you are exposed as a damn fool and a friend of dictators when he falls or dies. Whatever you do there will be carping and second guessing.
Sure there are what we from our point of view deem undesirable elements that are going to have more voice in Egyptian government. But that is in the nature of democracy. If you shut out selected groups from the democratic process, then what you end up with is not democracy.
But remember, the best intelligence in the Middle East comes from ... the Mossad. Which was blindsided. The speed at which demonstrations are mobilized via facebook can take intelligence services by surprise. There can be chronic discontent, but in an instant it can boil over into mass action that was not forseen or forseeable, except in hindsight.
And what kind of policy is it to fund dissenting/revolutionary groups when you are allied with the guy they want to rebel against? Playing both sides is a dangerous game. You end up as the enemy of whoever wins out.
What is almost humorous is that Obama would have been criticized whatever had been done. Fund Egyptian dissent and you get blamed for the fall of a long time ally. Don't fund dissent and you get blamed for not preparing for Mubarak's exit. Support Mubarak's rule publicly and you are exposed as a damn fool and a friend of dictators when he falls or dies. Whatever you do there will be carping and second guessing.
Sure there are what we from our point of view deem undesirable elements that are going to have more voice in Egyptian government. But that is in the nature of democracy. If you shut out selected groups from the democratic process, then what you end up with is not democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)