 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They Thought August 28, 2005 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
|
Editor's Note: This week, Alan Caruba effectively replaces himself with the following column by David Rothbard and Craig Rucker. Given its topic, it fits right in with Mr. Caruba's usual "National Anxiety Center" offerings. Global
Shifts on Global Warming In the weeks leading up to the July G-8 meeting in Scotland, environmental activists and analysts predicted the heat would be turned up on President George Bush to sign the UN Kyoto Protocol on climate change. It didn’t turn out that way. The G-8 meeting and new initiatives such as the Methane to Markets (M2M) and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, strongly suggest world leaders appear to be moving away from Kyoto and towards Bush’s climate change position. Long before the Kyoto Protocol came into force in February 2005, the M2M agreement was signed in July 2004 by the United States, United Kingdom, India, Ukraine, Mexico, and Italy. The agreement between these six nations alone would reduce the total global greenhouse gas emissions by one percent and is estimated to remove 50 million metric tons of methane by 2015. By contrast, Kyoto will not remove any methane from the atmosphere. By the United Nations own admission, Kyoto would reduce global warming by less than 0.015oC by the 22nd century. It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually to achieve this insignificant result. M2M would be the equivalent of taking 33 million cars off the road annually, eliminating 50 coal-fired electric plants or foregoing the energy use of 7.2 million homes a year. In the United States this is estimated to cost only $53 million over five years. Reducing methane emissions is far more effective than carbon dioxide (CO2) because it is 20-to- 30 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. Moreover, it is relatively easy to control and offers financial paybacks to factories by eliminating lost production. The geopolitical significance of the M2M initiative wasn’t apparent until July's G-8 meeting. The joint statement issued at its conclusion acknowledged, "uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate change." Although the statement diplomatically reaffirmed the goals of the UNFCCC and the work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it did so with restrained moderation. The G-8 leaders pledged "to put ourselves on a path to slow and (to) stop, and then (to) reverse the growth of greenhouse gases," but only "as the science justifies." This is in sharp contrast to previous proclamations of the immediate need to implement the Kyoto Protocol regardless of cost. Even more striking, the G-8 joint statement doesn’t mention the scientifically-dubious predictions of worsening weather conditions that have included catastrophic claims of drought, increasing storm frequency, famine, and other "catastrophes" global warming adherents have cited. Instead, the joint statement emphasized the promotion of “innovation, energy efficiency, conservation; [improving] policy, regulatory and financing frameworks; and [accelerating] deployment of cleaner technologies, particularly lower-emitting technologies.” This is precisely what President Bush emphasized when he removed the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 and focused our nation’s attention instead on free-market approaches like the M2M initiative. Another shift from the Kyoto Protocol by the G-8 is the need to stress adaptation technology. "Adaptation to the effects of climate change due to both natural and human factors is a high priority for all nations," the statement reads. Finally, the G-8 acknowledged that no climate policy would be successful if it does not include the rapidly growing nations of China and India. These nations are currently second and third in the world in terms of greenhouse gas emissions today and will soon be the leading emitters of greenhouse gases as the seek to keep pace with population and economic growth. Efforts are already underway to include China, India, and other nations in a more coherent, science-based climate change program. M2M already includes India and more nations will likely join the agreement. The full magnitude of the geopolitical shift away from Kyoto did not come, however, until July 26th when the U.S. led a six-nation partnership of Pacific states in a new agreement on global warming. The U.S., Australia, China, India, South Korea, and Japan comprise the group. Called the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, the six-nation plan emphasizes the need for increased access to affordable and reliable energy in the developing world, and flexibility in reaching its environmental goals. The “vision statement” for the new initiative reflects the G-8 Action Plan. The Partnership’s vision is to cooperate and share “existing and emerging cost-effective, cleaner technologies and practices.” These technologies include, but are not limited to: “energy efficiency, clean coal, integrated gasification combined cycle, liquefied natural gas, carbon capture and storage, combined heat and power, methane capture and use, civilian nuclear power, geothermal, rural/village energy systems, advanced transportation, building and home construction and operation, bio-energy, agriculture and forestry, hydropower, wind power, solar power, and other renewables.” The emphasis, as it should be, appears to be on “cost-effective” solutions. M2M, of course, fits perfectly within this vision. Although the statement diplomatically states that the Partnership effort runs in “parallel” with Kyoto, it is in fact a radical departure from Kyoto. Many thought the Kyoto Protocol was dead several times in the past, only to have it resurrect itself like the fabled Phoenix. Although Kyoto is diplomatically included in the language of the G-8 Plan of Action and the Asia-Pacific Partnership, the new approach differs radically, suggesting that Kyoto may finally be left to wither on the vine. It is encouraging that positive, free-market alternatives, based on sound science, are actually making their way into the public policy arena, particularly at the international level. David Rothbard is C-FACT’s president and Craig Rucker is executive director. C-FACT is a public interest organization based in Washington, DC, that promotes free market and technological solutions to concerns about environment and development. |
||||||
Reading Steve Vincent’s "In The Red Zone" has been an interesting experience. He offered some unfiltered Iraqi viewpoints that were quite refreshing. One of them was that the people don’t like our liberals either. They call them the people of the slogan. Those are the people that have some idyllic idea of how the world should work that differs from reality, and in ways that only they can explain. He said most of our reporters sit around in coffee houses and wait for people to give them information they can comment on. They usually stay in what is known as the Green Zone. Steve was also present for a celebration that hasn’t been allowed since Saddam took over the country. That celebration was called Ashura. He managed to get a cab driver to take him for all of the festivities. He had some interesting notes regarding the celebration. He said that the Shia celebration was not an uplifting celebration at all. But he also said that it offered some interesting insights into the Arab mind. At the very end of the celebration he had to ask himself, "Is this it? There is no uplifting spiritual message here? No thought of the sacrifice for things of the other world?" He concluded that it was a celebration of misery and death. It was a reenactment of a slaughter from times past. He also mentioned that dying leaders have twice cursed the people for being impossible to rule. This is part of the Iraqi legacy. I suspect that observation may have been the reason for his murder. He made some other observations that were probably a camel spider in the underbelly of the locals, too. He spent a lot of time listening to the locals and some of the people with United Nations NGO’s, one of which was a guy named Ali. The subject of free speech came up and Steve asked him some rather pointed questions regarding freedom of speech. It became clear that the UN people are going to put the same system back into place that has caused the area to fail miserably in the past. But that isn’t really news for anyone now, is it? The liberals have been saying this whole thing will fail and now they are doing their best here and over there to ensure it. His other observations were that tribal relations trump anything that even borders on a national identity. Saddam tried to break up the tribal relations, and in the process made it worse by causing them to regroup and tighten those relationships so that they would survive. Part of Iraq’s problem is the lack of a national identity. If you need to get something done you go to the local tribal authority. Maybe by not attacking that, it may slowly dissolve. Time will tell. It is obvious that trying to beat that system into dissolution only makes it get stronger. Maybe for once the UN people are accidentally getting one right. That would be a first. There was one point on the book where he was asked to speak on freedom of the press. He lectured them on the need to dig deeper than people want you to dig when researching a story. He said the object of freedom of the press is to get the real story out. When he finished his discussion a man approached him and told him that it’s easy for him to say things like that because he lives in America. He thought about it for a moment and told him he had been a little arrogant in his choice of words when he spoke. He said that because the man had told him that if one digs too deeply for anything in Iraq they will die because there a re a lot of people that aren’t interested in telling the truth on anything. They feel it is important to hide the truth at all costs. He exposed much of the hatred and the basis for it between the various people over there. His observations on the Shia probably went too deep for their comfort. It will take a long time for that place to know freedom and we must stay the course because it will turn the Mideast into what it has the potential to be. That will cause many of the despotic regimes to be toppled in the long run. It will mean the end of radical Islam because it will no longer be tolerated. For me, the best part of the book was reading the comments about the people of the slogan. That tells me those people see things as we do for the most part. It means there is a chance if we learn to ignore our own people of the slogans. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
Let me tell you something. I’ve heard a lot of dumb questions in my time. Hell, I’ve asked a lot of dumb questions in my time. But, by far, the dumbest question I’ve heard all summer—and maybe all year—is this: Should George Bush meet with Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother of a slain Iraq war vet who’s set up camp outside his Texas ranch? The answer to this question is, of course, yes. But whether he should or shouldn’t isn’t what makes this the dumbest question I’ve heard all summer. No, what makes it the dumbest question I’ve heard all summer is the idea that Americans think he has a choice. As far as I’m concerned, this issue has nothing to do with the Iraq war, nothing to do with Cindy Sheehan’s relative leftness, and everything to do with the general ineffectiveness of the presidency. Simply put, it’s an office which more and more looks to have outlived its use. People are all sorts of enamored with the presidency. Oh, sure, we may say such and such a president “tarnished” the office with his free-wheelin’ antics and zany, implausible wars. But we still respect it, don’t we? Don’t we still believe someone can bring “dignity” back to the White House at the end of the day? Of course we do. People like the presidency. People like to tell their kids that if they work hard enough—if they brush their teeth and hand in their homework—they, too, can grow up to be president. In America, being president is considered the pinnacle of personal success. It’s much easier to admire the so-called leader of the free world—perfect as he seems, thanks to his spin machine—than one’s own imperfect mom and dad. The presidency wasn’t always revered, though. Our first president, George Washington—you may have heard of him—didn’t even want to be president. They practically had to trick him into doing it. (By “they,” I of course mean his fellow Founding Fathers and Bugs Bunny dressed in traditional lady’s attire.) Even after becoming president, Washington wasn’t terribly interested in holding the office. After two terms, he set the most fantastic precedent in American political history by simply stepping down. Can you imagine that happening with any of the presidents we’ve had the last 25 years? If not for term limits, Reagan and Clinton might’ve ruled us indefinitely. And as for George Dubya, there’s still no telling how many terms he’ll serve. Of course, Washington wasn’t perfect. In the 1790s, he hopped on his horse and rode into Western Pennsylvania to collect—of all things—whiskey taxes. That’s pretty extreme. To date, he remains the only president in American history to personally lead an army against American citizens. But just think about how things have changed since then. Is the office of the presidency even an office anymore? To me, it seems like a position of unmatched status and celebrity—like a star on Hollywood’s walk of fame. Presidents travel around the country in armored limos and airplanes now, tucked safely away from their constituents. You can’t access these people. Not unless you buy a $1000-a-plate dinner. Back in the day, an American citizen could walk into the White House uninvited, without even knocking. Today, the streets outside the White House are shut down for “security purposes.” What I wouldn’t give for a president willing to ride into battle to collect my taxes. If you think a policy’s worth dying for, at least put your life on the line for it. God forbid these guys should rule with a personal touch. I know what you’re going to tell me. You’re going to say, “Things have changed since Washington was president. You can’t just walk into the White House. There really are security risks.” Well, no kidding. But if things have changed since Washington was president, then maybe the presidency should change, too. Maybe the days of having a single, unassailable, savior-like president are over. Maybe it’s time for multiple, regional presidents, who are under less threat of assassination because they piss fewer people off. Or maybe it’s time for no presidents at all. I don’t know what the answer is. But I do know this: We live in a country of nearly 300 million people now. We live in a technological era, where seemingly everything is personalized. That shouldn’t stop when it comes to politics. Why does personalization count for something when it comes to watching OnDemand, but not when it comes to picking the people who invade foreign countries in our name? Most Americans will never sit down and have dinner with a president. Few will spend quality time with their senators. And even fewer can name their own congressmen. Someone needs to change this. These people are in charge of a lot of important elements in our lives. They decide how much money needs to be taken from our paychecks. They decide where we should go to war. That’s why I think George Bush should meet with Cindy Sheehan. Not because he owes it to her, but because she asked him to. I don’t care if it’s a slippery slope. He should meet with the mother of any dead hero who requests his presence. He should meet with their widows. And he should meet with their kids. In fact, he should meet with Americans who don’t even know any soldiers. He should meet with you, and he should meet with me. He should spring from his bed at three o’clock in the morning to fix us some goddam hot chocolate. These politicians like to say they’re “public servants.” Well, let’s see ‘em serve us already. Maybe I’m being unreasonable. To be quite honest, I don’t even care. Washington, D.C., is so far away and meaningless in the everyday lives of most Americans that it’s probably only by default that we go along with what they say anymore. As Thomas Jefferson wrote of King George: “He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.” Yep. That sounds about right. I don’t know what Cindy Sheehan’s true political motives are, or whether those motives derive from some place real, but I’m glad she’s decided to camp out in front of the president’s house—whatever the case may be. It just goes to show you the chasm between our leaders and American citizens. There isn’t a politician alive with the gumption to go door-to-door, saying, “Look, there’s a war that I’d like you to fight halfway around the world for me.” If they did that, they wouldn’t be having such wars to begin with. Instead, they just hide behind their tinted windows, smiling for the crowds. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
More than one person is credited with the quote, "A nation which forgets its past is condemned to repeat it." Even more dangerous is the idea of rewriting a past because we've forgotten the context in which the events took place. The Reason for War GW: "Nothing short of Independence, it appears to me, can possibly do. A peace on other terms would, if I may be allowed the expression, be a peace of War. The injuries we have received from the British Nation were so unprovoked—have been so great and so many, that they can never be forgotten. —Our fidelity as a people—our gratitude, our character as men are opposed to a coalition with them as subjects, but in case of the last extremity. Were we easily to accede to terms of dependence, No nation upon future occasions, let the oppressions of Britain be never so flagrant and unjust would interpose for our relief, or at least they would do it with a cautious reluctance and upon conditions most probably that would be hard, if not dishonourable to us." GWB: "Time is passing. Yet, for the United States of America, there will be no forgetting September the 11th. We will remember every rescuer who died in honor. We will remember every family that lives in grief. We will remember the fire and ash, the last phone calls, the funerals of the children. All of us want peace. The threat to peace does not come from those who seek to enforce the just demands of the civilized world; the threat to peace comes from those who flout those demands. If we have to act, we will act to restrain the violent, and defend the cause of peace. And by acting, we will signal to outlaw regimes that in this new century, the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected." The Greatest Military in the World GW: "No history, now extant, can furnish an instance of an army's suffering such uncommon hardships as ours have done, and bearing them with the same patience and Fortitude—To see men without Cloat<hes> to cover their nakedness—without Blankets to lay on—without Shoes, by which their Marches might be traced by the Blood from their feet—and almost as often without Provisions as with; Marching through frost & Snow, and at Christmas taking up their Winter Quarters within a days March of the enemy, without a House or Hutt to cover them till they could be built & submitting to it without a murmur, is a Mark of patience & obedience which in my opinion can scarce be parallel'd." GWB: "The dangers are real, as our soldiers, and sailors, airmen, and Marines fully understand. Yet, no military has ever been better prepared to meet these challenges. Members of our Armed Forces also understand why they may be called to fight. They know that retreat before a dictator guarantees even greater sacrifices in the future. They know that America's cause is right and just: liberty for an oppressed people, and security for the American people. And I know something about these men and women who wear our uniform: they will complete every mission they are given with skill, and honor, and courage." Fulfilling Their Destiny GW: "But, as it has been a kind of destiny that has thrown me upon this Service, I shall hope that my undertaking of it, designd to answer some good purpose—You might, and I suppose did perceive, from the Tenor of my letters, that I was apprehensive I could not avoid this appointment, as I did not even pretend <t>o intimate when I should return —that was the case—it was utterly out of my power to refuse this appointment without exposing my Character to such censures as would have reflected dishonour upon myself, and given pain to my friends—this I am sure could not, and ought not to be pleasing to you, & must have lessend me considerably in my own esteem. I shall rely therefore, confidently, on that Providence which has heretofore preservd, & been bountiful to me, not doubting but that I shall return safe to you in the fall—I shall feel no pain from the Toil, or the danger of the Campaign—My unhappiness will flow, from the uneasiness I know you will feel at being left alone—I therefore beg of you to summon your whole fortitude & Resolution, and pass your time as agreeably as possible—nothing will give me so much sincere satisfaction as to hear this, and to hear it from your own Pen." GWB: "We did not ask for this mission, but we will fulfill it. And I pledge to you that America will never relent on this war against terror. There will be times of swift, dramatic action. There will be times of steady, quiet progress. Over time, with patience, and precision, the terrorists will be pursued. They will be isolated, surrounded, cornered, until there is no place to run, or hide, or rest. Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen." You're either with us or Against us GW: "It cannot be fairly supposed, that she [France] will hesitate a moment to declare War, if she is given to understand, in a proper manner, that a reunion of the two Countries may be the consequence of procrastination. An European War, and an European alliance would effectually answer our purposes. If the step, I now mention, should be eligible, dispatches ought to be sent at once by different conveyances, for fear of accidents. I confess it appears to me, a measure of this kind could not but be productive of the most salutary consequences." GWB: "And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice. We're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans." Intelligence Measures GW: If possible, I should also suppose it absolutely necessary, to obtain good intelligence from England—pointing out the true springs of this manuvre of ministry—the preparations of force they are making—the prospects there are of raising it—the amount, and when it may be expected. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ): “I feel compelled to point out three obvious facts: One, an intelligence failure is not synonymous with a misuse of intelligence. Two, this intelligence issue does not fundamentally change the case against Saddam Hussein. Three, since Iraq itself had provided documentation to the United Nations on its production of chemical and biological agents, the question is not whether but what happened to the stockpiles." The Ring must be destroyed GW: "Men are naturally fond of peace and there are symptoms, which may authorise an opinion, that the people of America, are pretty generally weary of the present war. It is doubtful, whether many of our friends might not incline to an accomodation of the grounds held out, or which may be, rather than persevere in a contest for independance." GWB: "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch." Troops Must Come First GW: "The necessity of putting the Army upon a respectable footing, both as to numbers and constitution, is now become more essential than ever. This will conduce to inspire the Country with confidence—enable those at the head of affairs to consult the public honor and interest, notwithstanding the defection of some and temporary inconsistancy and irresolution of others, who may desire to compromise the dispute; and if a Treaty should be deemed expedient, will put it in their power to insist upon better terms, than they could otherwise expect." Congressman Harold Ford: "More than two years after the start of the war in Iraq, it is distressing to hear yet again that our troops, who are risking their lives on behalf of American security and freedom, lack the basic equipment needed to carry out their mission. In addition, I have long believed that with the numerous challenges faced by our military - including the war in Iraq and our presence in Afghanistan and elsewhere as part of the global war on terror - now is not the time to close military bases. I know vacation is important, but I am writing to urge you to get back to Washington to get this armor issue resolved, hear out your generals in Iraq who want more troops on the ground and postpone the implementation of BRAC recommendations." Volunteer Army GW: "I refer you to my Letter to yourself & Colo. Lee, which accompanies this, upon the subject of money for such of the old Virginia Troops, as have or may reinlist. In respect to the Volunteer plan, I scarce know what opinion to give at this time. The propriety of a requisition, on this Head, will depend altogether, on our operations. Such kind of Troops should not be called for, but upon the spur of the occasion, and at the moment of executing an enterprize. They will not endure a long service, and of all Men in the military line, they are the most impatient of restraint and necessary government." ' Col. Oliver
North: "Current reenlistment rates indicate that those
who are serving today -- and those who are volunteering to serve tomorrow
-- still believe that this country is worth defending. Thankfully, in
this war where every American is a terrorist target, there are still
enough bright, tough, young Americans willing to stand up and fight."
GW: The Enemy are beginning to play a game, more dangerous than their efforts by arms, tho these will not be remitted in the smallest degree, and which threatens a fatal blow to American independence, and to her liberties of course: They are endeavouring to ensnare the people by specious allurements of peace. It is not improbable they have had such abundant cause to be tired of the war, that they may be sincere, in the terms they offer, which tho far short of our pretensions, will be extremely flattering to minds that do not penetrate far into political consequences; but whether they are sincere or not they may be equally destructive, for to discerning men, nothing can be more evident, than that a peace on the principles of dependance however limited, after what has happened, would be to the last degree dishonourable and ruinous. It is however much to be apprehended, that the idea of such an event will have a very powerful effect upon the country, and if not combatted with the greatest address, will serve at least to produce supineness and disunion." Knight Ridder Newspapers: "Bedeviled by the mounting casualties in Iraq and increasingly confused by the mixed messages emanating from war leaders, Americans in large numbers are losing confidence in the mission. New polls report that for the first time, a majority of Americans reject President Bush's contention that the war over there is making us safer over here. Indeed, barring major immediate progress in Iraq, some suggest that 2005 may well be remembered as the year when public opinion went south and never came back - a mood shift roughly analogous to 1968, when domestic confidence in the Vietnam War began its irreversible slide." GWB: "The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression -- by toppling governments, by driving us out of the region, and by exporting terror. They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty, as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world. The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take." It is not a stretch to say that the motivation and circumstances leading up to our entering, and continuing throughout our involvement in the Revolutionary War aren't much different than what compel us to fight terrorism today. We want to preserve our liberty. Furthermore, many of the traits that qualify the father of our country a patriot define President Bush as a patriot today. People who buy into revisionist history -which teaches us that the founders of our country were not virtuous or to be honored for their courage and tremendous foresight, are likelier to believe President Bush responsible for putting our military and citizenry in harms way. Most assuredly, if George Washington were alive today, he would affirm it is exactly this kind of thinking that will lead to our demise. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
|
No column this week.
|
||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Monday, September 5, 2005 4:30 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||
