Morning Fog

Enviropolitics - Making Things Clear

There are a lot of people around the country, some of them even actually pretty well-educated in traditional terms, who obstinately resist the teachings and predictions of science regarding the global environment, and equally stubbornly insist it's either unnecessary or too costly to do anything about it.

I think the evidence is pretty clear, but my thinking has always been, even if you seriously believe that the burgeoning amounts of carbon dioxide around the globe are not due to human activity, why would you NOT want to keep known pollutants to a minimum anyway?  Do you pour gasoline on your garden?  Do you add cleaning fluid to your mac'n'cheese?  Do you drain your washing machine into the fishpond behind your house? 

Well, regardless:  Before the air gets too cloudy for the doubters to see what's right in front of their noses, President Obama is promulgating some new rules by executive order.   These rules may have their shortcomings and loopholes, but some progress surely is better than none.  Political opponents, of course, have vowed to oppose these rules, and roll them back if the Republican Party reclaims the Senate.

That's why I think it's worth noting that politically, Obama's timing makes a lot of sense.  Going public now, with midterm elections looming, serves to highlight the urgency of the problem, may help to kick off a useful discussion, and should force opponents out in the open, where they will have to be public about the expressed and actual reasons for their opposition. 

This may or may not succeed in moving the matter forward.  There are, after all, a lot of people to whom GOP arguments about short-term negatives versus long-term positives (e.g., minor upticks in fossil fuels short term, against air we can breathe and a climate in which we can physically exist, long term).   But it will certainly help to highlight some of the key differences between the parties.

A Criminal's Education

It's a standard of our judicial and penal systems:  Rehabilitate the criminal, provide him/her some education, training, and socialization.  Help him become a reformed and useful member of society. 

There's not a lot of proof that this works, except in a few cases, and it's not universally accepted as appropriate policy.  But let's assume it's correct.   COULDN'T WE PLEASE WAIT UNTIL THE BAD GUYS ARE IN CUSTODY BEFORE WE EDUCATE THEM?

I've been struck by the recent case of the journalist James Foley, beheaded by ISIS (ISIL if you prefer).  Ever vigilant, our media, in a rare departure from their humdrum lives of reporting what celebrities are wearing at the Emmys, have taken to full and frequent reporting of how the murder is being investigated.  Experts will analyze the visible part of his eyes and run them against facial recognition software.  Other experts will analyze the bumps under his mask and use facial reconstruction.  Together, they have come up with a sketchy image of the executioner.

There are countless examples of this kind of thing.  On a simpler level, local news reporters love to tell tales of the "dumb crook" who burgled someplace and advertised the stuff he stole on Facebook. 

I don't understand why we do this to ourselves.  In an effort to prove that they're smarter than the crooks, or just to demonstrate that they are as hip as the tv shows we see, law enforcement authorities are releasing all sorts of details about techniques they use to combat crime.  Once such information is out in the public, the value of the technique is vitiated.  In efffect, we teach future lawbreakers how to be more successful.

It's silly and expensive.  Let's stop releasing this kind of information. 

Oh, For God's Sake!

Only yesterday I titled a piece "Give Me a Break," reflecting my exasperation with a few items culled from recent news that seemed indescribably moronic. 

But today is today, and it turns out that on a scale of idiocy, yesterday's items ranked no better than "silly," compared to today's psycho whopper, to wit:

Religious News writer David Gibson tells us that a group of 50+ conservative religious leaders have directed a petition to President Obama, calling for "nothing short of the destruction" of [ISIS] in order to save religious minorities in Iraq. 

How neat!  A war based on religious differences (in this case, an unholy coterie of western religions against Islam).  Why didn't somebody think of this long ago?  Well, actually someone did.  Several times.  Collectively, it was called the Crusades, and it didn't work out all that well. 

Of course, this gang would hardly propose the destruction of a militant religious group for mere reasons of religious difference.  Heaven forfend!  No, they say it's for humanitarian reasons. 

It's good of them to be concerned, I suppose.  But my take is that organized religion, with its long history of humanitarian violations in the name of orthdoxy, long ago forfeited its moral authority concerning humanitarianism.  

So please, guys (I'm not aware of any woman in this group, though there may be one) why not take a vow of silence on this one?  Really, if it is a religious matter, won't god provide? Maybe we'll get the chance to find out whose god is "right."

Meanwhile, if the U.S. determines further military action against ISIS/ISIL is warranted, let it happen based on our assessment of the military or economic threat to us; the broader threat to the region; or if necessary (which is probably isn't) on a sober, objective analysis of the humanitarian issues.  Let's leave religion OUT of it entirely.  

   

Give Me A Break!

"Give Me A Break!"  - a phrase that's a little bit out of fashion now, yet still valid as an expression of exasperation over hopelessly ridiculous or insignificant statements and views.  Recent examples:

Lately we've heard yet again people who claim to be serious political analysts complaining that in the midst of some crisis or other, the President of the U.S. is taking a vacation.  (In this case, Martha's Vineyard as we unleash air strikes in Iraq.) The best news is that these gripes are nonpartisan, arising whenever any President goes on any formally announced vacation.  But they're also ignorant.  There are those (I'm not one of them) who say that vacation is restorative, essential to mental health, blah blah.  But more important, as is frequently pointed out, modern Presidents are never out of touch, never away from the job; and equally important, there really is never a time when there isn't some crisis or pseudo-crisis going on.  Presidents probably can't really relax (I feel certain that I couldn't) but let's let them try, without all the fol-de-rol.

In Ferguson, Missouri, beyond the underlying tragedy that an African-American teen has died at the hands of police, under rather murky circumstances, we keep hearing about people's demands that the local fuzz release the name of the officer involved.  To what end?  For me, it's difficult to fathom how the release of the name, in the midst of a heated crisis, is really going to help anyone.  I suspect the police were correct to hold off, at least until the brouhaha had subsided a bit.  But this rather pointless demand became a rallying cry, and news this morning says they'll be making the name public today.  I suppose the dynamic of making the demand, and having the authorities refuse to respond to it, has served to highlight that the Ferguson police are out of their depth.  Yet the underlying issues -- the facts and disposition of the case -- will remain.

There's a new app available that enables the user to check out the political contributions made by the corporations that produce the items they buy.  It's called BuyPartisan.  Use it to check out that bag of potato chips in your hand - has the mother-corporation been giving heavily to Republican political candidates, and you're an over-the-top Democrat?  Put it back, and pick another brand!  There's an obvious tongue-in-cheek element in this, given the obviously annoying labor of tracking down dozens of brands and items while wandering through the grocery store or shopping for the kids' back-to-school items.  But:  Really? Does everything have to be about politics?  Give me a break! 

 

Meet The Coronal Mass Ejection

Terrorists, poisons in our food, senseless violence, poor air quality, email spam, cholesterol -- in case the multifarious threats that beset us these days aren't enough to keep up with, various media seem to have instituted a "threat of the month" (or maybe, "threat of the week" club) that you can join.

The latest, the "coronal mass ejection."  This, according to the Washington Post, is a form of "space weather" (like sunspots and meteor showers) that could blitz out every electrical device on the planet, causing immeasurable damage that could plunge us into a cave man existence (paleo dieters, delight!) and even deprive us of fresh water in many of our homes.  We know this because a CME hit the earth in 1859 when, after all, they barely HAD electricity, and it was quite a big deal even then.

I find all this fascinating.  It seems there's always something new to learn about our world.  Sometimes it seems a bit daunting, how little we really do know.

I suppose it would be smart of us to make a greater effort researching some ways to deflect or minimize the effects of a coronal mass ejection, should one occur (one barely missed Earth just a few years ago).  Smart, but not likely, given our track record on dealing with other "the-end-of-earth-as-we-know-it" threats, such as air pollution and climate change.  The best we can do is make a movie about it.  Besides, not to be a fatalist, but maybe these sorts of cataclysmic threats really are beyond our control?

Best to relax, kick back, and get a good glimpse of the "supermoon."

  

Room For Political Agreement

"In recent years, Republicans have generally moved farther right than Democrats have moved left."

Ever heard that assertion?  It's commonly said, and I think, generally true.  One good indication of its reality is that, contrary to the old political maxim that there are two sides to every question, for Republicans in the Obama era, there far too often appears to be only one side to any question.

But there are exceptions.  Two of those are quite current now:  The first is immigration.  The now standard narrative is that Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot with Hispanic voters by their [conservative wing's] insistence on strict border controls and other anti-immigrant measures that seem to deny obvious humanitarian and practical realities.  But it isn't black and white. 

I'm fairly liberal, and I hope we'll see progress on matters of citizenship and equality.  Yet I also believe we have a right - indeed, even a duty - to enforce our borders.  What, after all, is wrong with effective border controls,  especially with all the terrorist threats that are at large in the world?  I suspect a large majority of Americans feel that way.  So there are good arguments on both sides of the political spectrum; clearly, a balanced approach is called for.

Item Two:  I'm in full agreement with those who say the efforts by Republicans in some states to tighten voter identification rules are politically motivated.  That's unfortunate.  Yet I can't honestly object to the idea that every voter ought to be able to present an ID card.  That just seems like basic good government. Again, I suspect most Americans would agree with this point of view. 

If in fact more Democrats than Republicans might be prevented from voting, the answer would seem to lie in programs aimed at spreading the word and ensuring everyone has the requisite ID.  Republican-dominated state governments should heartily support such a program.

Here we have two issues on which room for political maneuver exists.  Eventually someone is going to seize the high middle ground.  Sooner, rather than later, let's hope. 

P.S. - Wouldn't a national identify card solve both these problems?