Republican Whiners Must Accept the Consequences of Their Many Failures

Paul Krugman comments in the New York Times that: "As the new Democratic majority prepares to take power, Republicans have become, as Phil Gramm might put it, a party of whiners... But most of the whining takes the form of claims that the Bush administration’s failure was simply a matter of bad luck — either the bad luck of President Bush himself, who just happened to have disasters happen on his watch, or the bad luck of the G.O.P., which just happened to send the wrong man to the White House." Its really a matter of the GOP's decision during the Nixon campaign in 1968 to develop a "Southern strategy" that gained electoral dominance by hatching a clutch of wedge issues, including the topic of "racial backlash" that set the party on a forty year course to where it happens to be today - facing the consequences of a "shrinking base." Krugman rightly points out: "If the Bush administration became a byword for policy bungles, for government by the unqualified, well, it was just following the advice of leading conservative think tanks: after the 2000 election the Heritage Foundation specifically urged the new team to “make appointments based on loyalty first and expertise second.” Krugman calls out the Republicans; who then went on to trump their: "Contempt for expertise, (which) in turn, rested on contempt for government in general. “Government is not the solution to our problem,” declared Ronald Reagan. “Government is the problem.” So why worry about governing well?" During their four decade run the GOP worked hard to diligently maintain a certain level of discreetness as they advocated the electoral benefits of racism. Anyone who dared to even infer that racism and republicanism formed significant chapters in the GOP's political playbook were shouted down with all the ferocity that the party and its corporate overlords could bring to bare. Even when Republicans were caught in obviously racist remarks or policies they praised their own moral superiority and never, ever admitted any wrong doing; it was that old public relations adage of deflect and deny that kept the GOP on the high moral ground. But now, as the most ideologically committed collection of conservatives attempt to assume control of the Republican National Committee, unapologetically stated, blatant racism is leading the way. It has to do with the efforts of "Chip Saltsman, currently a candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, (who) sent committee members a CD including a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” — and according to some reports, the controversy over his action has actually helped his chances... So the reign of George W. Bush, the first true Southern Republican president since Reconstruction, was the culmination of a long process... That’s why the soon-to-be-gone administration’s failure is bigger than Mr. Bush himself: it represents the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated the scene for more than a generation." The GOP stands today as a party without ideas and dominated by a small group of southerner conservatives who have "lost the rest of the country" because they believe they were not conservative enough. They believe bailouts and public works plans to infuse the economy with capital and jobs represent a turn to socialism that cannot be tolerated. It has come to the point that the conservative-dominated RNC; as demonstrated by a recent resolution penned by conservative constitutional law attorney and national vice chairman of the RNC, James Bopp, is now issuing direct orders warning its elected officials to toe the party platform to the letter by allowing bankruptcies to occur and stand for the free market to return the economy to greater prosperity. In fact, as Krugman explains, the GOP has achieved nothing more than leading itself into a political "cul-de-sac." It is not Krugman's intention to bury the GOP as he observes: "Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy." And I can't argue with the Nobel Laureate's observations.

Obama, Pelosi Set Economic Legislation Meeting

The Washington Post's Michael D. Shear reports that: " President-elect Barack Obama will meet with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Monday (January 5th) as Congress prepares to reconvene and debate a massive recovery plan for the nation's struggling economy, according to Democratic sources... Sources said Obama and Pelosi will discuss the scope and timing of the economic recovery package, which Obama has said will be his first priority upon being sworn into office. Pelosi has said her goal is to have the legislation on the new president's desk and ready to be signed on Jan. 20." Interference from some "Republicans and conservative Democrats" could cause delays in the Obama-Pelosi time table. Pelosi has informed Democrats "on the need to act with deliberate speed to safeguard as many as three million jobs by making needed investments in infrastructure, alternative energy, science and other emerging sectors and providing middle-class tax cuts to help make work pay... Obama aides said the president-elect and his team will help make an all-out push to convince Americans that the government must spend almost $1 trillion to create jobs, provide cash for spending and shore up the finances of the state governments... the package under development is likely to contain three broad categories: infrastructure investment, tax breaks and direct aid to states."

Climate Scientists Propose Need to Use the Latest Technology Against Global Climate Crisis

Steve Connor and Chris Green write in The Independent of the United Kingdom: "An emergency "Plan B" using the latest technology is needed to save the world from dangerous climate change, according to a poll of leading scientists carried out by The Independent. The collective international failure to curb the growing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has meant that an alternative to merely curbing emissions may become necessary. he plan would involve highly controversial proposals to lower global temperatures artificially through daringly ambitious schemes that either reduce sunlight levels by man-made means or take CO2 out of the air. This "geoengineering" approach ... would have been dismissed as a distraction a few years ago but is now being seen by the majority of scientists we surveyed as a viable emergency backup plan that could save the planet from the worst effects of climate change, at least until deep cuts are made in CO2 emissions...the failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions through international agreements, namely the Kyoto Treaty, and recent studies indicating that the Earth's natural carbon "sinks" are becoming less efficient at absorbing man-made CO2 from the atmosphere." The inability of the Earth to adequately absorb CO2 through natural processes means that CO2 levels "are now rising faster than even the worst-case scenarios" established by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global monitoring has determined that CO2 levels "increasing at a rate of 1 per cent a year" have created the need to develop an "emergency" approach that will bring greater pressure to bear "involving research, development and possible implementation of a worldwide geoengineering strategy." Increasing numbers of research scientists and other climate authorities believe that humanity faces nothing short of "the artificial manipulation of the global climate to counter the effects of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases." There is considerable agreement that geoengineering "must not be seen as an alternative to international agreements on cutting carbon emissions but something that runs in parallel to binding treaties in case climate change runs out of control and there an urgent need to cool the planet quickly... Professor James Lovelock, a geo-scientist and author of the Gaia hypothesis, in which the Earth is a quasi-living organism," explains his concerns: "I never thought that the Kyoto agreement would lead to any useful cut back in greenhouse gas emissions so I am neither more nor less optimistic now about prospect of curbing CO2 compared to 10 years ago. I am, however, less optimistic now about the ability of the Earth's climate system to cope with expected increases in atmospheric carbon levels compared with 10 years ago,.. I strongly agree that we now need a geoengineering strategy is drawn up in parallel with other measures to curb CO2 emissions." Some of the geoengineering plans include: "... inject(ing) artificial sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere – the stratosphere" to reflect the rays of the sun away from the Earth. A shortcoming with this approach suggested by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen is that it fails to "address ocean acidification caused by rising CO2 levels... which might cause side-effects such as acid rain and adverse effects on agriculture." Another idea "of increasing the Earth's albedo, or reflectivity to sunlight, is to pump water vapour into the air to stimulate cloud formation over the sea... The cloud cover would only affect the oceans, but still lower global temperatures." Another idea considers seeding the oceans with iron filings to increase the "phytoplankton bloom which absorbs CO2." An approach devised by James Lovelock and Chris Rapley is "a plan to put giant tubes into the seas to take surface water rich in dissolved CO2 to lower depths where it will not surface. The idea is to take CO2 out of the short-term carbon cycle, cutting the gas in the atmosphere." It has also been proposed by experts that "t would be possible to deflect sunlight with a giant mirror or a fleet of small mirrors between the Earth and the Sun." Each of these plans only represent initial attempts to employ geoengineering techniques that each have their own particular drawbacks and in some cases might exacerbate the climate crisis to even greater levels. To date, the only points of agreement among scientists and other experts lie with the greater than expected rise of CO2 in the atmosphere and the concerted effort that it will take to find solutions to the Global Climate Crisis.

Some Believers in Faith Choose Disrespect and Hatred When Discussing Atheism

I've recently had the opportunity to read an opinion written in the Los Angeles Times by Lisa Richardson entitled: "Atheists seek restraining order against God for the inauguration." The focus of the piece concerns a recent lawsuit filed by Michael Newdow, the American Humanist Association, and The Freedom From Religion Foundation that amounts to a total of 29 co-plaintiffs. The legal complaint seeks to enjoin the sponsorship of prayers by the Presidential Inaugural Committee at the presidential inauguration. In addition the lawsuit seeks to prohibit the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, Jr., from adding the religious phrase, “So help me God,” to the Presidential oath of office. In this commentary, I would like to focus on the use of the phrase “So help me God,” and how it relates to the presidential oath of office, discuss the tenor of Lisa Richardson's opinion piece and end with a brief discussion on the non-belief in God. The presidential oath of office is a part of the U.S. Constitution and is found at the conclusion of Article II, Section 1. A simple reading of that part of the constitution will show that the phrase "so help me God" is not included in the presidential oath. The phrase in question was first recited between the Chief Justice and the President in 1881 and was only included in presidential oath oaths of office on an irregular basis until 1933 when it began to be included on a regular basis. The phrase was never added to the Constitution as a legally required part of the oath; it was simply added ad hoc to the oath and was asked by the Chief Justice to the President who then responded to the question. The legal question raised by Newdow, et al is quite specific in its scope and "states no objection at this time" if it happens to be the decision of President-elect Obama. This is because Obama has the right to request the addition of the phrase. What is specifically objected to in the complaint is that the Chief Justice has "no such free exercise rights (that) come into play on the part of the individual administering the oath to the President." What this means, according to the lawsuit, has to do with whether Roberts includes the phrase "so help me God"by his own decision, in which case he would assume the role of being a government official who is endorsing religion. The lawsuit also points out that "It is well known that defendant Roberts is a Catholic" and that the administrator of the invocation, Rick Warren has expressed exclusionary remarks against atheists numerous times in the past. Thereby inferring that the invocation and a benediction, as a part of the inauguration, is "completely exclusionary, showing absolute disrespect to plaintiffs and others of similar religious views." The plaintiffs are addressing their contentions regarding the legal merits of their arguments; a right they are entitled to, as American citizens, regardless of their standing as atheists or members of a non-Christian religious group. As regards to the opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times, I am offended, by the inclusion of ad hominem remarks made by Lisa Richardson. She refers to atheists as irritating, anti-God types, and as cranks. In addition, Lisa Richardson's attacks against those who do not believe in God completely misses the legal questions raised by the lawsuit. To quote Richardson at length: "If you don’t believe God exists, then why doesn’t it follow that phrases like “so help me God” have no meaning? And if that’s the case, then why does something meaningless matter? I have news for Newdow -- even if he managed to bar all religious references from public life it wouldn’t matter. The Soviet Union tried that; all it did was send religious fervor underground until communism ended and it came roaring back Besides, what would Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts be expected to do if Obama were to defy a ruling in Newdow’s favor, snatch away the Lincoln Bible and swat him on the hand? Scott Walter, the executive director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, hit the nail on the head when he said in a statement: Newdow's lawsuit over the inauguration is a lot like the streaker at the Super Bowl: a pale, self-absorbed distraction. And anybody who looks at it carefully can see there's not much there." As a non-believer in God, I'm extremely troubled when any individuals' personal beliefs are disrespectfully attacked in a hateful manner that exceeds civil discourse. I believe it is my right to define and express my feelings when the belief in God question arises. Let me explain by paraphrasing the philosopher Bertrand Russell: once when questioned about his belief in God, Russell observed that philosophically, he considered himself an agnostic because philosophy is incapable of determining the existence of God; there is no philosophical method that can be employed to prove God's existence because God's existence is determined as a matter of faith and is thus unquestionable, something that philosophy, which seeks to establish proofs through rational thought and logical means. So from a philosophical point of view, I accept Russell's argument which defines my non-belief from a philosophic point of view as being agnostic. This point of view proves to be satisfactory to many non-believers. Atheism exceeds the philosophical view of god's existence that results in agnosticism and considers the existence of God from a civic or secular framework by making the claim that God does not exist and thus has no role in activities of the state. I believe if we would consider these divergent points of view and make every attempt to avoid disrespect and leave hatred out of public discourse we would all be better citizens for our efforts.

Happy New Year

Everyone deserves a day off. I'll be back tomorrow!