Most of us are under no illusion about politicians-from either party. We eye them cynically even as we hope that they will do the right things. We know they manipulate the facts, yet we still chance to believe in the things they promise. We want to believe even when experience tells us we shouldn’t. After all, politicians just aren’t like the rest of us regular folks.

Democracy was supposed to change all that. Government by the people and so on. Maybe once-not anymore. The average citizen-politician died out when the major parties came to be, way back in the 19th century. National politics became a new elite class, with the rich funding their lapdogs and the lapdogs delivering to the rich, all so the lapdogs could feel powerful and the rich could keep getting richer. This is the rule, even though the exception of an average Joe breaking in isn’t unusual. Once inside though, Joe gets a new collar, and a new lapdog is born.

That’s not to say that populist revolts haven’t turned the reins of power over from one party to another. They have. Often. That’s the part of democracy that hasn’t really changed. Just because the politicians decided to warp the concept didn’t mean the people gave up their stake in the game. When one party goes too far, the public gives them a nudge out of first chair for a while. And when that happens, the people expect to be heard and for changes to be made.

In November 2006, American voters had another of their revolts, although this one was somewhat timid in scope. In turning the Congress over to the Democrats after a 12 year Republican leadership cycle, a majority of Americans said that the War in Iraq was their main concern. In clear voices, they told the Democrats that they could steer the ship, so long as they steered it out of Iraq. Democrats campaigned strongly on doing just that and were rewarded with an opportunity to prove themselves.

P.T. Barnum (or whomever really said it) is proved right again. In spades.

Six months into their new terms, Congressional Democrats have apparently thrown in the towel on Iraq. After talking tough about “no more blank checks for the president on Iraq” and saying that any more troop funding would have to include specific targets for ending the war, the Democrats in the Senate have caved in to a spoiled man-child who thinks negotiations consist of him stomping his feet and plugging his ears until everyone gets so fed up they say “Fine! Have it your way!” and leave the room.

First they sent a war funding bill that mandated troop withdrawal dates. The Crybaby in Chief vetoed it and the veto held. The Democrats should have simply stopped there and told the American people the truth-that the president would rather leave troops without funding than agree to take steps to end the war. Instead they once again got caught up in politics, playing themselves as defenders of the troops while backing away from anything that would demand for the war to end. What happened to the Democrats who said they’d end the war on the electin trail? Oh yeah…they got elected.

So now the Democrats have tossed out any restrictions on the president and offered him the funding he wants anyway. After only six months, they’ve waved the white flag. What a bunch of cowards.

And what is it they are afraid of? A president with an approval rating lower than liver and onions? An administration so wracked with scandal that people are tripping over themselves to plead the 5th? A public so tired of politicians and their bullshit that they’re actually giving up on the system? Or are they afraid of being unpopular, losing a few financiers, or maybe even getting called names on a blog somewhere? Or are they just afraid of losing their precious closeness to the ring of power?

In giving in to Bush on Iraq, Democrats have proven where their interests lie. With themselves. They are more afraid of having to defend against right-wing namecalling than do what is right, what they promised.

And all this in only six months. Shameful. So now they’re complicit too. By falling away so early in the game, the ruling Democrats are now accomplices in Bush’s futile war, willing partners you might say.

And if that isn’t enough to make you abandon the parties completely, I guess democracy really isn’t such a vibrant form of government after all.

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

I always liked Jimmy Carter, even more so after he left the White House. Modern historians look at the Carter presidency as being not the best or the worst, but rather somewhere in the middle. Carter assumed the helm at a low point in American confidence. The national psyche suffered from PTSD brought on by over a decade of turmoil- from the JFK assassination to Vietnam to Watergate- and Jimmy Carter, with his honest smile and his downhome goodness, seemed like a good shot at boosting the happy meter, if nothing else. Embroiled domestically by surging energy prices and heavy inflation, Carter, the political outsider, had a hard time of putting any constraints on the ruling Democratic party, who after decades of control were heading towards their own implosion of sorts. But in foreign affairs, Carter proved his endurance and commitment to peace through the Camp David accords, the SALT II treaty, and a commitment to human rights. The Carter presidency is surely a mixed bag, but when compared to the current administration, America in 1978 was in a much better place- internationally, politically, and morally.

If Jimmy Carter never did another thing after his presidency, he would still be a good and honorable man. But he didn’t kick up his heels and retire. Partly out of need and partly out of desire, Jimmy Carter took hold of those things which mattered most to him in life- helping people and working for peace- and continues to this day to press for the betterment of humanity. Part of that includes building homes for those who need them through his Habitat for Humanity foundation. He even uses tools. This is a man who walks the walk.

So it’s even more knowing when he chooses to advance the human conversation through his books or words. Because of his own personal gravity, when Jimmy Carter speaks, people listen. As well they should. Which is why I was so proud of him the other day in his interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette when he had the cajones to say with some decorum what the rest of us say more robustly- that basically, Bush is an incompetant buffoon who has denigrated American prestige back to the mid 1800’s.

Naturally, the Dittohead Brigade went on a rampage, with the White House calling him irrelevent and the talking heads and pundits calling him other things-less than kind things. They belittled his adminsitration as a failure too, but they neglected to highlight some finer points. Like the fact that Carter didn’t go out declaring war on anyone. And Carter didn’t assert for torture. And he didn’t try to spy on the whole country. And he didn’t run the country into massive, overbearing debt. They can blame him for the rise of radical Islam- he helped arm and fund Islamic ‘radicals’ in Afghanistan against the USSR- but you could also blame the moon for the tides. Both have existed for a long time and Carter didn’t create Islamic radicalism, he just stirred the ashes up again. Apparently it seemed a good idea at the time.

But then Carter offered a retraction of sorts. And this, I think, is a mistake. And for that, I am somewhat disappointed in Jimmy Carter. So I have a few words I’d like to share with him…

Dear President Carter,

When you termed the Bush administration as the worst in American history, you were right. Even the Nixon administration pales in comparison to this cabal running our institutions of law and justice into the ground. Many of us on the left (Democrats, liberals, progressives) have been saying this for years now, but with the particularly partisan divide in this country, we’ve faced mute reaction for the last half decade or so. Finally, the presidents own failures and shortcomings are becoming so apparent that even his own party members are jumping ship. But like a man who buys unseen land in Florida, Republicans are fearful of admitting to being wrong, and I think your comments could have helped ease the ‘buyer’s remorse’ so many on the right have these days. And buyer’s remorse it is indeed. It’s guys like Bush that they made “Lemon Laws” for.

That said, you should not have retracted, rephrased, or repaired your comments in any way, shape or form. The truth sometimes isn’t pretty, but it has to be said anyway. To hear it from the mouth of a man of peace and a former president only solidifies how far down the ladder we’ve slipped. You never apologized for criticizing President Clinton when he pardoned that sleazy Marc Rich guy. And you shouldn’t have. (That really pissed me off too. I really liked BC, but that little stunt took him down a notch or two in my book.) And you shouldn’t be doing it now either.

Forget about what the 25 percenters say- America is with you on this one. And your words seem to carry a little more weight than ours do- after all, the White House actually responds to you. They pretty much ignore the rest of the country when we speak.

Sincerely,

Ken Grandlund

Who knows? Could be I’ll actually send this one off to him.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

John Ashcroft, for all his evangelical world view mentality, is beginning to look like some kind of Hall of Justice Superhero when compared with Alberto Gonzales. And that’s saying a lot about a man who needed to cover up a statue to obscure her nude breasts, a statue which would have gone mostly unnoticed had he not taken efforts to draw attention to its previous partial nudity.

In fact, in light of recent testimony in Congress, John Ashcroft looks like the only rational bulwark against an executive branch so drunk with power that it employed Mafia like tactics to keep one of its most controversial (and most probably illegal) programs from being identified or abridged.

I’m talking of course about the NSA “terrorist surveillance program” that the Bush Administration claims targeted international communications between terrorists abroad that originate or end within the US. The program, started covertly after the 9-11 attacks, operated outside the already established framework of the FISA courts that were in fact designed to address similar situations. And although the president insisted time and again that the program was directly responsible for saving the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of people and was responsible for preventing a terrorist attack on American soil, there is in fact no real evidence to back that up. And forgive me for not taking Bush’s word on this. The man hasn’t exactly proven himself to be a “truthteller.”

When the news of the program came to the public front in 2005, the Bush administration fought tooth and nail to keep the program going, arguing for its legality in the face of common sense (the opposition claiming that the program was a constitutional violation), but then abruptly abandoned the program in 2007, saying it would revert to the “old fashioned” FISA court program that granted much of the same authorities to conduct warrantless wiretaps in ‘emergency’ situations. This abandonment of the NSA program clearly wasn’t what the Bush team had wanted, but revelations about another domestic wiretapping program pretty much showed Americans that Bush wanted to know a lot more than just what the terrorists were up to. He wanted to keep an eye on everyone.

These revelations created a furor on Capitol Hill and around the country, especiallly among citizens who didn’t particularly enjoy their civil rights trampled in the name of safety. Most Americans didn’t think they were included in George W. Bush’s infamous “You’re either with us or against us” declaration. But as other scandals surrounding the Bush administration came to fruition, and with a Republican controlled Congress still at the helm, the NSA programs and subsequent backlash gave way to Abramoff, Plamegate & Libby, the US attorney firings, an ever-failing war in Iraq, energy gouging, and war profiteering, and finally a reversal in power in Congress.

Which brings me back to my (slightly) renewed opinion of John Ashcroft. Ashcroft’s number two man, James Comey testified before Congress recently about events surrounding the original renewal of the NSA program. It seems that a review of the program by the DOJ in 2004, a program that at that time had been in secret operation for about three years, concluded that it should not be continued. Ashcroft and Comey had decided not to recertify the program as legal and conveyed their rationale to the White House. Shortly thereafter, Ashcroft underwent surgery, leaving Comey in control of the DOJ. And it was during Ashcroft’s absence that the NSA program had to get recertification or end.

From PBS.org:

MARGARET WARNER: Under questioning by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, Comey said that, on the evening of March 10th — one day before the program’s
authorization was due to expire — he learned that then-White House counsel
Alberto Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card were on their way to
Ashcroft’s hospital room.

JAMES COMEY: … told my security detail that I needed to get to George Washington Hospital immediately. They turned on the emergency equipment and drove very quickly to the hospital. I got out of the car and ran up, literally ran up the stairs with my security detail.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), New York: What was your concern? You were in obviously a huge hurry.

JAMES COMEY: I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney
general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was
in no condition to do that. And it was only a matter of minutes that the door
opened and in walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card.
They came over and stood by the bed, greeted the attorney general very briefly, and then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there: to seek his approval for
a matter. And Attorney General Ashcroft then stunned me. He lifted his head off
the pillow and, in very strong terms, expressed his view of the matter, rich in
both substance and fact, which…

MARGARET WARNER: Comey said Card and Gonzales left, but within minutes he got a call from Card.

JAMES COMEY: … Mr. Card was
very upset and demanded that I come to the White House immediately. I responded that, after the conduct I had just witnessed, I would not meet with him without
a witness present. He replied, “What conduct? We were just there to wish him
well.”I was very upset; I was angry. I thought I just witnessed an effort to
take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney
general, because they had been transferred to me.

MARGARET WARNER: Comey pulled then-Solicitor General Ted Olson out of a dinner party, and the two met late with Card and Gonzales at the White House. The next day, Comey said, he learned the wiretapping program had been reauthorized without Justice Department approval. Comey drafted a letter of resignation.

JAMES COMEY: I couldn’t stay if the administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had said had no legal basis. I just simply couldn’t stay.

So to get this straight- our current Attorney General (Gonzales) who at the time was the White House counsel for the president (George W. Bush) was sent to strong-arm our former Attorney General (Ashcroft) while the latter was recovering from surgery to certify a (probably illegal) program he had already decided not to certify. Was Bush hoping that his buddy John would be doped up enough to acquiesce? And was Gonzo given his currrent post for his willingness to bully a sick man?

This entire episode, as revealed by James Comey’s testimony, a man who by all accounts only wanted to do what is best for this country and our system of Justice, is a shining example of the kind of ‘leadership’ that emanates from the White House since 2001. Take what you want. Bully those who oppose you. Ignore the laws. Lie to the people. And then reward the people who do the dirty work.

I never liked John Ashcroft much, but now that I know that even he believed Bush was going too far makes me dislike him a little less.

(A post yesterday touched on the Comey testimony but quickly devolved into a debate on the NSA program itself. If you want to continue that discussion, please do so there. If you’d like to share your thoughts on the mafia political tactics employed with regards to the NS
A program, this is the place to be.)

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

A study called “Looking Red, Voting Blue” released by the centrist Democrat think tank Third Way says that the Democratic take-over of Congress in the 2006 mid-term elections was driven in large part by defecting Republican voters who largely disapproved with President Bush’s scandal plagued administration, President Bush himself, and the Iraq War.

Using raw exit poll data, and a standard known as ‘normalizing’ the electorate (to account for differences between overall turnout between presidential and mid-term elections), the study found that Democrats garnered nearly 5 million new votes in 2006, mostly from higher income, white males.

“The conventional wisdom that economically dissatisfied, working class people –
those we used to call ‘Reagan Democrats’ – returned to the fold is wrong,” said
Jim Kessler, VP for Policy at Third Way, who co-authored the report with Middle
Class Director Anne Kim. “Two-thirds of new Democratic voters in 2006 earned
more than $100,000.This should make Republicans tremble.”

What’s more, the study found that turnout among traditional Democratic voters (lower income, minorities, and unmarried voters) actually declined in 2006.

Some other stats:

-The average voter was 13.4% wealthier than in 2004 – from $54,300 to $61,700 in household income.

-Every new Democratic voter rated the economy excellent or good.

-Every new Democratic voter disapproved of the War in Iraq.

-Every new Democratic voter disapproved of the performance of President Bush.

-Five of six new Democratic voters were White.

-Three of five new Democratic voters were regular church attendees.

-Democrats captured more votes from rural America than from those who live in cities with more than 500,000 people.

It’s great to see that so many people have shed the blinders about this administration, but there’s still a lot of work for the Democrats if they want to see this trend continue. Voter defection from one party to the other in one election does not guarantee that they will stay. If Democrats really want to keep the converted, they’ll have to do better to reform Congress and clean up the ethical messes that plague the political class. They’ll have to continue to confront the president on Iraq and push for a firm end to that conflict while pursuing a rational approach to fighting international terrorism. And they’ll have to figure out how to address the social and religious issues that have fueled the Republican base for the last two decades.

Still, this is heartening news. It’s not just Democrats and ‘loony liberals’ that are sick of the twisted politics of the Bush Administration. Increasingly, and especially in the 2006 elections, Red Voters are just saying no to the politics of greed, corruption, incompetence, and death.

I really couldn’t ask for a nicer birthday present. Looks like I’ll have another reason to cheer today.

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

Remember when George W. Bush was still a presidential candidate in 2000 and he decried the notion of nation building? Talk about your all time flip-flop. But I digress. With Bush, the destruction of Iraq and the subsequent efforts of his administration to make it a permanent vassal state for his oil CEO pals was never intended to fit into the ‘nation building’ mold. Unfortunately for George, all of his publically acknowledged rationale for the invasion of Iraq have fallen flat, from the imminent threat of WMD’s to deposing a really bad tyrant to spreading freedom throughout the Middle East. Only the most ardent of Bushite’s and myopic diehards can honestly say that this war is about anything except oil, control of oil, and transfer of wealth from the citizens of the United States into the pockets of the oil hegemonists. But because the president hasn’t come out and admitted what is obviously the truth, GOP pundits and their political herds can continue to claim some kind of moral ground to stand upon, insisting that our presence in Iraq is two-fold: uphold a fledgling democracy and root out terrorists. And as a result of clinging to the “support the new democracy” line, the Bush team is being forced into the game of nation building. But just like Arken Oil Company, Geroge W. Bush isn’t up to the task, so the whole damn thing is being run into the ground while the assets slip out the back door. Maybe Iraq will have a baseball team he can help ‘manage’ sometime soon.

So we’re in the nation building game, and since we’re the ones who blew the hell out of the place, I suppose that we have some responsibility to at least get the place fixed up a bit before we go home. Or do we? I mean, if the nation we are helping build is supposed to be a democracy (of sorts) then it seems only right that our presence should be limited to the extent that the majority of that country’s citizens (or elected officials as the proxy of the citizens) wish us to remain. Once the balance tips from one side of the scale to the other, we need to acknowledge that decision, pack our bags, and promise to stay in touch.

Guess what? We’ve been asked, more or less, to start packing our bags. According to a story that isn’t getting any play in the American MSM, an Iraqi parliamentary vote on Tuesday had more than half of Iraq’s elected lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal. The non-binding petition will be presented to the speaker of parliament with the request for a vote on a formal binding resolution that adopts the petition’s demand for a withdrawal timetable.Hey- we asked for a democracy, and we’re getting one. Can’t cry foul when it doesn’t go your way.

Unless, of course, you are George Bush or Dick Cheney. The White House Wonder Twins seem to have an almost superhero ability to ignore reality. (And their ability to lie is almost as powerful, but that’s another story altogether.) See, the administration is taking a somewhat different approach than the Iraqi’s seem to want. Rather than prepare to disengage, they keep sending in more US troops. Instead of listening to what the Iraqi’s are saying, they are telling the Iraqi’s how it should be. I guess that 6 years of telling the American public what to do and how to feel, they think that everyone is as gullible. Sorry Dubya- the folks in Iraq live with the bombs of your nation building every day. They don’t seem too keen to wait for you to act anymore.

The Alternet article goes into some detail about the factional problems in Iraq and the barriers that are keeping them apart. Chief among them is the future of Iraq itself- specifically whether Iraq should remain as a strong single entity or as three separate and somewhat autonomous regions under nominal federal controls. Increasingly, Iraqi’s seem to be choosing the strong single entity model over the tripartite solution now favored by the US backed Iraqi government. One sticking point in that discussion has been the sharing of oil resources under each plan. Under the tripartite plan (favored by Team Bush remember), oil controls would be privatized and decentralized, leaving the door open for all sorts of great deals for Big Oil. Under the strong state model, the Iraqi oil fields become state property, meaning other nations will have to play nice to get access.

No matter how many times we go around the bend it always comes back to who gets the oil. With the oil comes the money. With the money comes the power. You know the drill.
The thing is, no matter how (or if) Iraqi lawmakers vote on demanding a timetable from the Bush Administration, they’re never going to get one. Not from Dubya at least. As far as he’s concerned, the U S of A ain’t going nowhere on his watch. And if the Iraqi’s have a problem with that, then they may just find themselves on a watchlist too. Iraq is a really dangerous place these days, despite what John McCain thinks. Dissidents of US desires may find themselves at risk, if you get my drift.

Even though many in Baghdad acknowledge that when US troops leave, the violence will likely get worse before it gets better, a majority of all ethnic groups want the US to get out. And the sad thing is that just about everybody knows it’s time to hand Iraqi’s the keys to their new house and let them get busy with the unpacking.

(Oh, and for those of you who decide to turn the comments section into a debate about “Yes there are terrorists in Iraq you idiot” I suggest you get a grip on reality. There are terrorists in America too but we haven’t bombed the hell out of our own towns. Anyone here think the Pocono’s need a good bombing? )

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

On the day before Bush is set to veto a war funding bill that includes a withdrawal timetable for US troops, let’s examine some past remarks from our Dear Leader…

This post’s title words were said by current president George W. Bush, way back in 1999 when he was just a lowly governor from Texas and not the Decider-in-Chief.

The full quote, published in the Seattle P-I, and referencing the Clinton Administration’s actions and policies in Kosovo, is:

“I would strongly urge that if there are U.S. troops involved, they be under U.S. command or NATO command. I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn. If there needs to be a residual force, it is important that over time U.S. troops are withdrawn and our European allies carry the majority of the load.”

Bush also lamented Clinton’s “lack of an exit strategy” in this Houston Chronicle quote:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

(thanks to ThinkProgress for the articles.)

Yet in his very own war, Bush has turned around 180 degrees, much as Cheney did when he cautioned against going to Baghdad after Gulf War I only to aggressively pursue war with Iraq after coming aboard as Vice-President.

Recent quotes from Bush:

“I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal would be a mistake. … I will strongly reject an artificial timetable withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job. ” [President Bush, 4/23/07]

The double-standard is obscene, but the rationale is clear. Kosovo wasn’t an oil nation, nor did it fit into any kind of biblical end-times scenario. Iraq satisfies both of those criteria for far right evangelical foreign policy aims. And Bush is the most far right, evangelical, biblical literalist we’ve ever had sitting in the Oval Office.

Oh, and he’s also a dirty rotten liar, a double-talking politician, and a wannabe theocratic despot.

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

When I wrote three days ago that the president was insane, I had no idea that the First Lady was equally insane too.

In an interview yesterday on NBC’s Today Show, while talking about viewing television coverage of the Iraq war, Mrs. Bush shared this bit of information with Ann Curry and the rest of the American people:

Ann Curry: “You know the American people are suffering, watching —
“Mrs. Bush: “Oh, I know that, very much. And believe me, no one suffers more than their president and I do when we watch this. And certainly the commander in chief who has asked our military to go into harm’s way.”

AnnCurry: “What do you think the American public need to know about your husband?”
Mrs. Bush: “Well, I hope they do know the burden of worry that’s on his shoulders every single day, for our troops. And I think they do. I mean I think if they don’t, they’re not seeing what the real responsibilities of our president are.”

Ann Curry: “It must be hard for you to watch him in this.”
Mrs. Bush: “Well it’s hard, of course, it’s absolutely hard.”
(emphasis added)

Now that I’ve wiped the tears away from my eyes, all I can really say is WTF?!?!? What freaking planet does this woman live on? If we thought her husband was delusional, she is a strong second place. Hell- even Bush admits (time and time again) that he sleeps pretty good, and that he has remarkable peace of mind.

That doesn’t sound like a whole lot of suffering to me. And don’t give me that “brave face, look strong like a leader” crap either. Bush has never been able to wipe either the smirk or the snarl off his face since he left diapers. The man doesn’t give a shit about much beyond his immediate designs and the people of the world are mere pawns on his chessboard.

“No one suffers more” indeed! Mrs. Bush, you are an idiot of the highest order. Of course, I suppose some consideration can be given to you. After all, you started out marrying a pampered frat boy, taught him how to read, and now he’s become a brutish thug and worse, he’s set this country back in so many ways I’ve run out of fingers and toes counting them all. America has gotten a raw deal to be sure, but you’re getting the worst deal of all. You still have to live with him. But that does not excuse the slap in the face you’ve just delivered to every service man and woman, their spouses and children and other family members, and every Iraqi civilian caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. It does not excuse to complete disregard and lack of empathy you have for the people of this country who sit by watching the American dream slip farther away again. Your words are a disgrace, but with the example your mother-in-law set after Katrina I shouldn’t expect much better from any of you. Even the bookish ones.

See the clip at Americablog.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

(Author’s Note: This article was originally posted by me in March 2005 here. It was subsequently posted here at Bring It On! in August of 2006. Both times it was posted it enjoyed some good conversation in the comments section. Since today is Earth Day, and because of the increase in general discussion about the environment and man’s role in global climate change, I have decided to offer it up again in the hope that it sparks new thoughts or provides a renewed sense of stewardship between mankind and our planet.)

It is a uniquely human quality to destroy that which we depend on. Whether from a lack of knowledge, a lack of foresight, or a lack of caring, human advancement has exacted a heavy toll on the resources and species of Earth. To any rational person, that fact is indisputable. From the extraction of minerals to the deforestation of wild lands to the over harvesting of various animals or plants, the growth of humanity has brought great changes to our planet and has affected its previous balance. The question is not how much we have damaged the Earth, or even if the damage can be reversed. The question is not even whether or not we have the right to cause these changes. The question is why are we doing it so callously?

Our planet is the lifeblood of us all. Its resources sustain our lives, both physically and mentally. Each and every part of our environment is an integral piece of the puzzle that is nature. Nature is the trees and the lakes and the mountains. Nature is the bugs and the fish and the birds. Nature is the water and the air and the dirt. And we are part of nature too. All things, from the rocks to the whales to the daisies and the wind, have their place in the natural order. The difference between most things on Earth and humans is our ability to change our environment quickly and drastically and to adapt relatively easily. Add to that ability the fantastic success we’ve had with procreation and dispersion and you can see that humans leave a large footprint when we pass through the glen. For the most part, as a species, we don’t really seem to care. Yet, somehow, we still consider ourselves to be the most intelligent life form on the planet.

Before you start rolling your eyes back in your head, let me clarify that I am not a “whacko-environmental-extremist-tree hugging-spotted leopard-newt saving-protect nature at all costs” kind of guy. I can’t deny the fact that I love being out in the forest or in the mountains, listening to the sounds of birds and creeks and crickets. I relish a clear night in the warm spring desert gazing at the stars. But I also have no problem extinguishing the lives of mosquito’s and ants and weeds in my yard or cutting down a Christmas tree or digging for gold. I like things made out of wood, I like to drive my car, and I like to drink clean water too. Unfortunately, instead of living in a world where all these things can be found and enjoyed and exist compatibly, we have created one that pins the longevity of our species to our own ability to destroy the conditions that make our lives possible.

To be fair, on the other side of the coin, we must recognize that nature is a constantly evolving creature itself, as evidenced in the scientific records of historic climate changes, the extinction of species, and the geological malleability of land itself. The forces of nature have altered thousands of times during the billions of years Earth has been in existence. Humanity has only been around for a couple hundred thousand. Surely any damage that we cause is insignificant is the larger context, isn’t it? After all, humans are part of the natural order too, so the things we do are really just part of the natural progression of Earth, right?

Here’s the deal folks. Despite what most of us are taught, humans don’t own Earth. We share it. Only by accepting this very basic concept can both sides of the environmental issue come down from their fences so that we can begin to have policies that make sense. Tree-huggers must accept the fact that man has as much right as any other creature on Earth to adapt his environment to his needs. Forest burners have to accept the fact that our ability to cause great and rapid change comes with great responsibility to all those with whom we share our planet. Both sides have to learn to use common sense and humanity as a whole must choose to extend the life of our species through ecological intelligence instead of shortening it for short-term gains.

The concept of man being ruler of the Earth is shared by both science and religion, one of the few areas that they agree upon. From the scientific theory of evolution and natural selection to the audacious belief that technology can control nature, science places man ahead of all other species and conveys upon him the right to rule Earth. Religion gives man this same right through the words of gods, who offer the planet to man in exchange for his devotion. But religion and science are both constructs of mankind, so it’s only natural that we would give ourselves the right to control. I wonder what the other species on Earth would say if they had a voice in the matter. Would the snails vote for us? How about the rivers? They can’t talk though, and that makes it easy for us to forget that, from nature’s perspective, they are just as important as we are.

Still, human civilization exists on a different plane than other animals and plants, and to a large degree, we are the dominant species on the planet. We are the only ones with the ability to significantly change the planet, aside from nature itself. And because of that, we have a duty to consider the consequences of our adaptations to other species and to mitigate damaging effects through replenishment of renewable resources and good management of our industries and practices. We have this responsibility not only to the other inhabitants of Earth, but also to the future generation of our own species, the future children for whom we profess to make the world a better place for. And we owe it to ourselves.

Current environmental policy appears to be created in an effort to insulate governments and businesses from having to adopt practices that reduce or eliminate hazardous pollutants while over-regulating private individuals through impact analyses and other legal red tape. It is a sham effort to give the appearance of eco-responsibility while rewarding bad stewardship with financial profits and a blind eye. Rather than encourage and insist upon the development of cleaner technology with reduced pollutants, governments pass out waivers and suppress innovation to sustain old corporations with deep wallets. Rather than punish the largest spoilers of nature, governments nit-pick at the little guys dumping paint thinner in the dirt.

It is time to end the politics of pseudo-environmentalism that plagues government. It is time to end the extremist attitude that would prevent all human development of the planet or its resources. It is time to start using our brains with regards to construction and consumption. We need a policy that recognizes that natural diversity is not only healthy; it is essential to life on Earth. We need a policy that reduces junk studies and red-tape and that insists upon extraordinary protection of things like water and soil and air. We need a policy with the teeth to go after those who pollute, whether they are big business or the local tire shop. We need a policy that rewards innovation and shares new found knowledge. We need a policy that encourages reuse of existing development before building something new. We need a policy that puts the rights of humans in line with the needs of the rest of the world’s creatures and features.

We have the capacity to use what the planet has to offer and to ensure that we don’t abuse what ot
hers also may need. Nature makes life hard enough at times with her storms and droughts and earthquakes and temperature shifts. Why do we make things even harder? Just to put a few million bucks into the already stuffed pockets of our leaders? Our government must decide to be better than that. We must challenge ourselves to adopt real eco-reform measures that would make the world a cleaner and more useful place for all of us while preserving the ability to change our world when we must.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

I’m starting another book, American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century by Kevin Phillips. It looks to be a good, informative read, but as I’ve said, I just started.

I’m nowhere near the radical religion or borrowed money chapters yet- Phillips begins by talking about the oil, or more specifically he begins by taking a short walk back in history by looking at two other global giants of their time, Holland and England. He makes note of the fact that the periods of time in which each of these nations became global powers coincided with their access and innovation with the great energy resources of their times. In Holland, it was command of wind and water. With England it was coal. And in both cases, once an energy source was depleted or replaced by another energy source, those countries fell off their perches among the world’s nations and became former superpowers. Phillips notes that the same dynamics have occurred (are occurring) in the US, and predictably, the same fall awaits us- unless we do something about it.

It is no big surprise that US dominance has mirrored the dominance of oil and petroleum as the main energy source on Earth. Our nation lives and breathes oil. It is our lifeblood. Our entire society is based on the concept of cheap and plentiful oil. As such, it should be no big surprise that American government and corporate mentality is focused on maintaining as much control as possible over all the oil it can, including sending men and women abroad to die for access to oil. But what happens when the oil is no longer cheap or plentiful, as is rapidly becoming the case? For Holland, coal surpassed wind and water and left that nation with an infrastructure not ready to move forward. The coming of coal should have been the writing on the wall, but Hollander’s couldn’t or wouldn’t read it. For England, the same happened with coal, only more so, pushing England into dire straits as oil came online and their infrastructure was too totally coal based to convert. They were forced to play catch-up and lost their edge in world status.

America has had at least 30 years or more to prepare for the end of oil as a dominant energy source, but like Holland and England, the government, corporations, and general public are doing nothing, assuming that the oil will be there for us whenever we need it despite all indications to the contrary. And for 30+ years nothing has changed in any real way. We are still beholden to oil, we’ve made scant effort to find other sources of energy, and we’ve demonized some of the best practical alternatives available to us now-nuclear, solar, and hydro power- as too expensive, impractical, or tapped out. That’s not just myopic thinking, it’s a recipe for disaster.

America may still have a chance to keep hold of some of her world power, but only if we move aggressively into new exploration and development of energy. Regardless, our entire society and infrastructure, our power dominance and our financial prowess will soon end or at the very least suffer serious degradation, due to our continued reliance on oil and oil alone. And while this book isn’t about the use of oil and it’s affects on global climate, there are several lessons to be learned in correlation there as well.

Sadly, the other aspects of the book that I’ve not read will almost certainly show how the religious factions in this country have undermined our scientific-technological capability for at least a generation, further assuring our loss of dominance. I will also read more on how our financial policies (again centered around oil) have trapped us into a spiraling whirlpool of debt that will make any real transformations that much more difficult.

The bottom line is simple- America as a superpower will one day come to an end. Of that there can be no uncertainty. What remains then is to position ourselves in such a way as to benefit most from international cooperations and new discoveries and to turn inward and prepare our society for a massive retooling based not on an oil economy.

In the business world they say to be nice to people on your way up because eventually you may see them again on your way down, and maybe as your boss. Well, our government should take that to heart- we’ll not always be on top of the heap, globally speaking, so we’d better stop pissing so many people off.

More on this book as I read it.