Last week’s commentary on global warming elicited a stream of responses, some scolding me for being gloomy; one reader expressed gratitude for being 88 years old. I wish the news was better, but I’d rather know that not know, so hold on: this week the other shoe drops.

The other shoe is peak oil, a concept familiar to folks who read these commentaries. Through foolishness or just bad luck, we are beginning to pay attention to the effects of global warming at the same historical moment that our increasing demand for fossil fuels is beginning to outstrip our finite supply.

Global warming is a slow-moving disaster. All the carbon we’ve burned for the past 200 years has raised the planet’s temperature by slightly more than half a degree centigrade. Half a degree? Not so bad, eh? Bad enough to trigger the record floods, storms and heat waves we discussed last week. Global warming is like a boulder rolling downhill – slow to start, almost impossible to stop. Author Tim Flannery, citing research by the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, writes that if we stopped using fossil fuels now, we’d see another two degrees of global temperature increase in this century. If we keep burning carbon at the rate we are now, we (our children, really) will likely see an increase of five or six degrees. We need to cease all unnecessary uses of carbon-based fuels, stop cutting forests, implement stringent conservation and efficiency policies and switch – as fast as possible – to alternative sources of energy.
Continue reading »

If Bill Clinton’s contribution to the American political dictionary was a redefinition of the word “adulterer,” because what he did with “that young woman” wasn’t really cheating, then George W. Bush’s contribution is a redefinition of “totalitarian,” because he claims his lying to and spying on citizens, is really all in our best interest. (Come to think of it, that’s the same excuse all the totalitarians use.)

The NSA/phone tracking affair is a wonderful opportunity for novice DC watchers to learn a raft of definitions about the way policy is conducted in our nation’s capital.

The Al Qaeda Burka – USA Today reported a week ago that the National Security Agency has been tracking the numbers, times and durations of billions of phone calls placed by Americans and compiling the information into what has been described as the biggest database in history. When the story broke, Mr. Bush found a podium and defended the actions as necessary to protect the homeland from further attacks by Al Qaeda. You can tell when Mr. Bush has been caught breaking the law or violating the Constitution, because these are the only times the words “Al Qaeda” or “Osama bin Laden” come from his mouth. Usually Osama’s the man we can’t find and Al Qaeda’s the group we can’t stop and the less said about them the better, unless we need an excuse. This maneuver mused to be called the “Al Qaeda Fig Leaf,” but that provided too little coverage, so it was traded for a burka, which as we know, covers absolutely everything.
Continue reading »

I don’t know what America’s policy should be toward immigrants. Clearly, “days without immigrants” would cripple our economy, but how do we keep from being overwhelmed? How do we establish a policy that’s fair?

Perhaps the way to find the answer is to begin at the extremes and work our way in, eliminating the unworkable options until we arrive at a ground that feels comfortable.

One extreme says we should deport all aliens in the country illegally, we should build impermeable barriers along our borders and we should make it a felony to aid illegals. That would be a practical and philosophical disaster. Practically, the absence of immigrants would deprive the U.S. of much of its low-wage work force. True, it would force employers to pay decent – or at least minimum wage – salaries, but an economy predicated, as ours is, on an available work force, would suffer significant dislocation before adjusting. Philosophically, a border lockdown would repudiate of 200 years of history. The “deport, wall and felony” option is, however, part of the debate; it’s been put in play by folks like Colorado Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo.

The other extreme would be to open the borders, welcoming all citizens of the world to move here – or leave here – as their desire for a better life for themselves and their families dictates. No one in Congress or the punditocracy is advocating an open-border policy – for people.
Continue reading »

The United States now stands at one of the lowest points in our 230-year history. Everything is broken, what should we fix first? (We could fire Don Rumsfeld, but the only person who can do it is the only person who doesn’t get it.)

We have some influence over the process that got us into all these messes in the first place. In 2000, election tampering in Florida gave the White House to George W. Bush. In 2004, election tampering in Ohio kept him there.

After the 2000 debacle, any number of citizens realized we need to 1) wrest control of our elections from the Republican-aligned makers of computer voting machines and 2) every citizen’s ballot must be recorded on a voter-verified paper ballot.

Those types of ballots are now required by 26 states, so if there’s a question about the outcome of an election in those states, an accurate recount can be made. No such guarantee is available in other states (mostly states that went for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Hmmmm…) In Congress, Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) introduced the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (HR 550) in February 2005. Mr. Holt’s bill would set a national requirement for verifiable ballot technology. Good-government groups across the country have called the bill the “gold standard” for electoral transparency.
Continue reading »