The AP reported yesterday that six former EPA chiefs -- that's five Republicans and one Democrat -- are accusing the Bush Administration of neglecting global warming. Here's a money quote from Christine Whitman, former N.J. governor and the first EPA chief under Dubya:

 "You'd need to be in a hole somewhere to think that the amount of change that we have imposed on land, and the way we've handled deforestation, farming practices, development, and what we're putting into the air, isn't exacerbating what is probably a natural trend," she said. "But this is worse, and it's getting worse."

A funny thing happens when you've essentially decided to retire, and your future income and employment hinge on having some credibility: You can be frank. While Whitman was suckling on the Bush Administration nipple, she had to drink their milk, too, so such candor was off-limits.

Another interesting tidbit from the article: The current EPA chief agreed that global warming was a real problem, and that humans bear significant blame. Of course he also says the Bush Administration is doing plenty about the problem, so you can see the limits of one's honesty while still in the employ of corporate masters.

11:52:42 AM    

A while back, Jason W. asked me if I had become addicted to Google Earth. I admitted I hadn't -- so far, I have escaped that particular addiction. But he showed me some of its features and I'm pretty fascinated by it. I feel dumb now for not grasping some of the implications of the technology sooner.

The New York Times has a great article out on why Google is making governments around the world nervous, and it's easy to see why. If little old ladies in Pasadena, or grade-school kids in Ann Arbor can take a peek into Guantanamo Bay, then there might be a security problem for old Uncle Sam, not to mention powers like India or tinpot dictators in Haiti.

So who wins when it's Google vs. India? Easy: Google. How would it be in Google's interest to leave a big black blob where India should be? And how is India's national defense a concern for the Google board of directors?

Nationalism, meet capitalism.

Military leaders in the article are concerned, of course, that "terrorists" or potential military enemies will learn about their defenses via Google. But the other side of the coin is that academics and the general public may learn something, too. Reporters will find innovative ways to use it as a freedom-of-information tool, and to pry open new truths. (That is, if the huge conglomerates who run so much of the media allow it. For example, GE, which owns NBC news, is a huge defense contractor. We may be talking about independent reporters here -- long live the Blogosphere!).

This is how technology is going to remake the world -- there will be a dozen issues like this one which force us to re-evaluate our relationships to government structures and our societal organization. Yes, it's that scale of a change. Not just Google Earth, of course, but other pressures like nanotechnology, the coming of Peak Oil, and the existing power of the U.S. government to monitor every phone call, fax, and Web connection in the world with its super-powerful information technology. (remember "Total Information Awareness?" I believe it's here, only it has a different name). They can find out in an instant what you've been talking about, and you'll never know.

It does all tie together... There's a moment coming down the pike -- and I think it's coming sooner rather than later -- when our society will realize that we've arrived at this new world we've been heading for. Orwellian nightmares are entirely possible right now, today. The only thing that can prevent this sort of power is if all of us, as citizens, grow up quick and learn to incorporate this new reality into our thinking.

It'll be good and bad, but it will be wrenching, and we'll be left with a world that looks and feels a lot different.

Disclaimer: By the way, if you steal this idea to write your doctoral thesis, that's cool. Just quote me somewhere in the paper, and send me a copy. I just don't feel up to writing one myself today.

3:32:56 PM    

I sent this letter to my Congressman today:

----------------------------------------

Congressman Bob Schwarz, R-MI 7th District

December 19, 2005

 

Dear Congressman Schwarz,

 I want to thank your staff and yourself for taking the time to read my letter. While I understand that it's difficult for a Congressman to write a personal reply, I do hope this note finds its way from your staff to your eyes, and that you have a moment to read and consider it.

 I think you are an honorable Representative for our district, and while I do not agree with all of your political positions or beliefs, I respect your integrity and effort. I know that, as a Republican, you must feel a certain loyalty to President Bush, and I understand that.

It must be very difficult for you to consider, then, that the President's critics may be right when they accuse him of abusing his power and using fear to try to enact his favored policies. But recent events -- including the very fact that Congress had to compel him to renounce torture (at least in name) and including recent revelations that the Department of Defense has been spying on American citizens within America -- must lead you to the same conclusion.

I appreciate the difficulty of your position. But you must act first as an American and a Congressman, and give regard to your party only as a third consideration. Though the President may share your party, I hope you are as deeply concerned with his autocratic actions as I am, and are prepared to act.

Congress must investigate the Attorney General and his support for the methods of torture. Congress MUST determine if any American citizen has been subjected to torture by this Administration. If so, the Administration would become a criminal enterprise.

Congress must investigate the CIA's secret use of allied soil for the extraordinary rendition of prisoners. This is a national-security issue, and it clearly puts the United States in a position where its may be violating its treaty obligations. Congress has an obligation to pursue this issue and do so with openness and candor.

I respect the beliefs that the Republican Party is based on, but it disheartens me to see a Republican Congress allow a President such sweeping powers by its inaction -- there is nothing Conservative in that. Now, Congress finds itself in the position of having to check those powers before the President decides he has the authority to spy on them.

Because of abuses like those I've discussed, people are losing faith in this government, Mr. Schwarz. We need to know the truth, even if it is painful to us as a country; even if it is painful to your political party.

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.

Please act.

Respectfully,
Scot Woods

1:02:56 PM    

This isn't apropos of anything, except that my dad sent me a rather silly picture of Hillary Clinton today as a contrast to the Bushfinger II picture below.

Let me state now that, if she enters, and if she wins the Democratic primary, I'll be happy to vote for her rather than any candidate the Republican Party will put forward. That said, I hope she doesn't run, and if she runs, I hope she doesn't win the nomination.

The reason is simple: I'm against aristocracies. If she should be elected president, over the course of 24 years, all of our Presidents would hail from just 2 families. And whether the connections are father/son or husbund/wife, I'm not comfortable with that degree of elitism in our government. And you just know that down in FLA, Jeb wants to be Bush III. THAT would have me scared, because from what I can tell, Jeb's the smart-ish one in the litter.

11:32:18 AM    

Because we're overdue for another candid look at our Resident.

1:21:34 AM    

So says the Washington Post. Agreed.

Juan Cole calls for Cheney's resignation. Agreed.

11:10:46 AM    

Our Constitution was created in such a way that, from time to time, as circumstances change, the document which governs our nation can also change. It is important that the law of the land always continue to respect the consent of the governed.

Much has changed in the past two generations. One of the more profound changes has been a deep shift in our regard for the bounty of nature and the fragility of our planet. We have (some of us) a much better appreciation for the ways man has changed and continues to change this planet in every respect, from the makeup of the air to the purity of the water. Man is capable of changing the ocean levels, extinguishing species, and ultimately, of making this planet uninhabitable for himself.

Now, with John Roberts sitting as Chief Justice and another Republican nominee presumably on the way (be it that hack Miers or someone else), the court will inevitably begin re-hearing cases about federal environmental legislation. To date, the Court has upheld the right of the federal government to regulate environmental issues, even when it applies, for example, to "hapless toads" who do not cross state lines. But environmental legislation has been justified on somewhat tortured definitions of "interstate commerce," and the party currently in power is not friendly to the existing interpretation.

It is time to amend the Constitution to clearly and unambiguously enshrine citizens' right to clean air and water, and to give the federal government the authority to enact environmental legislation. We need to begin this process now. The end result should be a much stronger national commitment to the environment than we had five years ago, when the Republican cancer began to metastasize in earnest.

11:47:18 AM    

If you've been following the Judith Miller story, you'll know why I've settled on this new nickname for her: "Flame-thrower."

3:42:04 PM    

Two Chinese astronauts have returned to Earth after spending 5 days in orbit. I watched a CNN report this afternoon on the mission, which showed spotless Chinese astronauts emerging from an airplane. It showed neat rows of terminals in their spotless mission control. There was a big "family photo" of their space program on the spotless tarmac of some giant base. It showed the grandiose launch of an enormous rocket reminiscent of America's giants of a generation ago. All of it, really, was reminiscent of America's heyday. But of course, the Chinese deny that they're trying to compete with us, emphasizing that their goals are all peaceful. (The Pentagon doesn't buy it.) But even if the goals are non-military, however, it's still obviously the way to show you've arrived, as these Chinese press reports collected by the BBC show.

It's impressive. China has clearly eclipsed most of the world's nations, and is ready to take its place among the truly great powers of the world. I've read reports about the growth of China's mega-cities, and the picture is of shiny, modern metropolises exploding out from the city cores, sweeping across the shanty towns and suburbs. China's infrastructure is newer than ours, designed for modern technologies, and well-maintained. It's a nation that thinks long-term. They don't intend to allow the sort of decay that has eaten away at America's infrastructure over the past 30 years like a cancer.

I think there will be a convergence. I'm worried about the anti-democratic, pro-capitalist trends in the U.S. And even as it is heartening to see private enterprise flourish in the formerly communist nation of China, it's clear that somehow, they've managed to contain the democratic impulses which normally attend that transformation. China and America are growing more alike each day. They have taken the American lesson of technology and corporate capitalism seriously, and intend to do us one better. In China, wealth is being centralized into the hands of the powerful, who have turned their backs on the peasants and poor who thrust the Communist Party to power. But I fear that the power in this country is increasingly being centralized into the hands of the wealthy, who are in turn profiting greatly from their surrogates' hold on government. The Bush Administration attempts to stifle dissent, and truly democratic ideals are shunned by both parties, as they rake in campaign contributions. A convergence of systems.

America currently retains its unmatched international power. But so many of us see the writing on the wall. My generation doesn't expect to live like our parents did. We expect to have to work longer, with less security in old age. We don't expect top-notch health care to be as easily attained as it once was. We don't expect long-term job security.

Our cities decay. Have you ever ridden the Amtrak through Chicago? It breaks your heart. Unlike the expressways, with their landscaped shoulders, lines of trees, and concrete barriers, the railways give you a second-story view into the backyards and living rooms of the homes you pass. And the poverty hits you. If you've seen "The Motorcycle Diaries," it's something like that, except that you can't stop the train to talk to these people. You just leave a little of your heart with Chicago's south-side poor and the once-grand homes that they inhabit.

But oil company profits are stratispheric, and most of Corporate America is reporting gangbuster profits. But that's mostly from cost-cutting -- moving or outsourcing operations to China and India, and using that threat to pressure remaining American employees to accept cuts -- not from huge productivity gains or new technology. Americans' wages arent' keeping up with the cost of living, which means you're not living as well as you used to. Chinese laborers, on the other hand, have millions of opportunities as American companies rush to expand there. Those (American) companies are tilting world power East as they help grow China's economy.

Hey, corporations have to act in their own self-interest, not the public interest. It's the law. The interests of these international companies are increasingly in conflict with the national interests of the nations they call home. American media companies have agreed to abide by Chinese standards of press freedom, and Chinese authorities have essentially banned bad news from the media. Can news from CNN or Reuters be trusted if they willingly agree to restrict their coverage because it's in the best interests of their shareholders to do business in China? Can our principles of press freedom or our expectation of truth hope to hold up when they stand in the way of access to China's 1 billion viewers?

The dangers to American freedom in the Chinese future are profound. What hope do America's citizens have of real freedom when the world's largest corporations realize that access to the Chinese market is more important than quaint American values or freedom and equality?

1:42:54 PM