Centerblue.org

“When is the predicted cataclysm?”

–Asked by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as arguments opened today in the carbon dioxide/global warming case before the Court.

How a Supreme Court Justice could be so ignorant, so callous, so disdainful of a reality agreed to by most scientists, and have his head stuck so far up his ass that he’d ask this question is beyond me.

Just when you think the news can’t get any worse from Iraq, it does.

The Washington Post reports on newly disclosed details of a classified Marine Corps intelligence report, which says the US military is no longer defeat the bloody insurgency in Iraq’s western Anbar province, or counter al-Qaeda’s rising popularity there. An updated assessment in mid-November also said the situation had not improved.

Iranian influence bears a role on the situation:

True or not, the memo says, “from the Sunni perspective, their greatest fears have been realized: Iran controls Baghdad and Anbaris have been marginalized.” Moreover, most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability.

Between al-Qaeda’s violence, Iran’s influence and an expected U.S. drawdown, “the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point” that U.S. and Iraqi troops “are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar,” the assessment found.

Sunnis in the province are desperate, and all levels of government have either collapsed or been completely infiltrated by Al-Qaeda:

Read as a complete assessment, it paints a stark portrait of a failed province and of the country’s Sunnis — once dominant under Saddam Hussein — now desperate, fearful and impoverished. They have been increasingly abandoned by religious and political leaders who have fled to neighboring countries, and other leaders have been assassinated. And unlike Iraq’s Shiite majority, or Kurdish groups in the north, the Sunnis are without oil and other natural resources. The report notes that illicit oil trading is providing millions of dollars to al-Qaeda while “official profits appear to feed Shiite cronyism in Baghdad.”

As a result, “the potential for economic revival appears to be nonexistent” in Anbar, the report says. The Iraqi government, dominated by Iranian-backed Shiites, has not paid salaries for Anbar officials and Iraqi forces stationed there. Anbar’s resources and its ability to impose order are depicted as limited at best.

“Despite the success of the December elections, nearly all government institutions from the village to provincial levels have disintegrated or have been thoroughly corrupted and infiltrated by Al Qaeda in Iraq,” or a smattering of other insurgent groups, the report says.

There are just no words to describe the depths of my scorn for Bush. It is profoundly ironic that it is the president who began the so-called “war on terror” that will be responsible for establishing an Al-Qaeda state in Iraq and making Osama Bin Laden’s dream of a new Muslim Caliphate come true.

Good job, Dubya.

In what is likely to be the most important environmental case ever decided by the Supreme Court, several states and environmental groups are pushing for the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emitted from cars as a pollutant on the basis of it being a threat to public health because of global warming. The Bush administration is predictably arguing that carbon dioxide does not meet the definition of a pollutant and should therefore remain free of EPA control. It fears, of course, that allowing EPA regulation of automobile carbon dioxide will open the door to regulation of carbon emitted by the energy industry that is so cozy with the administration.

In the face of overwhelming evidence that global warming is a reality here and now, and that many species of wildlife and even economies and businesses are desperately trying to adapt to climate change, the Bush administration continues to keep its head stuck in its collective ass about something that poses an extreme danger not just to public health but to all of civilization as we know it. This has led individual states to take the lead in the global warming fight–by enabling carbon trading, imposing industrial restrictions, and by using the courts to get the federal government to do something, anything, to begin reducing US emissions.

My hope is that the new Democratic Congress will be much more environmentally aware, and that it will exert much needed pressure on the President to stop living in la-la land as usual and begin taking concrete steps to fight this problem. The Supreme Court case could also force Bush’s hand. The case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, is scheduled to be handed down next year.

The EPA has announced it will begin regulating the use of nanosilver as a germ-fighting agent. This decision is long overdue and I really hope it is expanded to the entirety of the burgeoning nanotechnology industry.

Nanoproducts take materials like gold and silver and manufacture them at the nanometer level. When this happens, previously inert materials acquire unusual properties. In the case of silver, nanosilver has germ-fighting qualities.

The problem is that nobody really knows how these nanomaterials will interact with the environment or with human health. Nanosilver’s use has exploded in everything from band-aids to shoe liners. These materials eventually make their way back into the environment, and insufficient research exists to show what happens next.

Nanotechnology is an extremely important emerging industry that will probably revolutionize many aspects of modern life. But we can’t make the same mistakes of the industrial revolution, where we dumped material into the air, ground and water without giving thought to the long-term consequences. While I think that over-regulation of industry is a bad idea, evidence abundantly shows that market forces alone do not protect the environment, and we have a duty to do so through regulation instead.
The FDA plans to require that the use of nanosilver as a germ-fighting agent be accompanied by research that demonstrates no deleterious effect on the environment. This is a good solid step forward and will hopefully serve as precedent for other regulatory agencies to take a good hard look at the pervasiveness of nanomaterials in everything from suntan lotion to clothing.

For those who think that global warming still has distant consequences for the Earth’s life, think again. A recent review of 866 studies shows that animals and plants are already going extinct at a rapid pace.

The wildlife at most immediate risk are cold-dwelling animals that have nowhere to go as the climate warms. This includes mountain-dwelling frogs (70 species of which have already gone extinct), penguins, and polar bears. Animals from warmer climates are migrating to colder latitudes if they can as warming disrupts their habitats.

We have seen the future and the future is now. It’s time to stop talking about it and time to do something about it.

I’m not a big fan of hunting or hunters–I find it to be a cruel and unnecessary sport that cheapens the respect for life on our planet. However, I’m even less of a fan of people going hungry.

Iowa, where almost 11% of families couldn’t afford to feed their families at some point in 2005, has found an innovative solution, quickly spreading nationwide, that meets the needs of both hunters and the poor.

The nation’s population of deer has exploded in recent decades with the easy availability of food from farms and annoyed gardeners’ patches (Iowa’s population alone is over 450,000 compared to 10,000 in the 50’s). Hunters have made only a small dent in the population, often because they are limited by licenses in the number of deer they can shoot and because they really only want one or two per season so as to mount their heads as wall trophies. As cute as deer may be, they can also be a pest and account for a good number of accidents on the nation’s roads.

Iowa’s Help Us Stop Hunger (HUSH) program allows hunters to donate any excess deer they hunt, which is then donated as venison to the state’s soup kitchens and food banks. These kitchens and their customers, which rarely see donations of beef, are grateful for a tasty and nutritious meat that can be used from making meatballs to stroganoff. Donations of venison have exploded–last year HUSH was estimated to accept donations of over 250,000 pounds of venison, which equated to about 1 million meals. At the same time Iowa loosened its licensing restrictions for hunters, allowing them to purchase multiple licenses.

Another organization, Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry (FHFH), now operates in 30 states.

While hunting is an unpleasant subject, it has also been essential in feeding mankind throughout its history. While not much purpose is served in hunting as sport, a definite need is met when the sport is combined with feeding needy people. This is one of those rare instances where interests across the entire political spectrum are met in a way that makes everyone happy, so I applaud it.

An upcoming Pentagon review of what to do in Iraq is likely to report on three major options, dubbed “go big,” “go long,” or “go home.” It is a review separate but likely to feed into the bipartisan Iraq Study Group review being put together by Congress.

The Pentagon review’s Option 1: Send in more troops. Option 2: reduce troops but stay longer. Option 3: pull out. The overall recommendation will be a short-term increase in troops and a long-term commitment to advise and train Iraqi forces.

There are no good options left in Iraq (even Henry Kissinger, architect of the Vietnam War, says Iraq is not winnable). Any of the three options will be met with harsh consequences. If we increase troops, we put more of them in danger with no guarantee that they will successfully stabilize the country given its current state. There’s also the question of where the troops would come from given the severely strained resources of the military (which is leading to Democrat Charles Rangel to call for re-instatement of the draft.) If we reduce troop numbers but stay longer we are likely to be totally ineffective, and the situation will become even more dangerous for the troops that remain. If we pull out we are ceding Iraq to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in Iraq and possibly to ambitious neighboring countries. Put together it’s a disaster of unimaginable proportions.

Given the available menu of undesirable options, I agree with the overall recommendation likely to be given by this review. We have to try preventing Iraq from getting into the hands of Iran or terrorist groups, but we also can’t stay there forever. I would favor a temporary increase in forces, said increase to be accompanied by a definite timetable for complete withdrawal and by a clearly defined set of goals. No more of this giving a blank check to the President to send any number of troops for an indefinite duration and with no clear purpose.

Does such a proposal have to be accompanied by a draft? It’s a disturbing thought, especially for our 18-21 year olds. But Rangel is right: our country has sent our nation’s poorest kids into war without really thinking through the consequences, while the rest of American society goes on living blithely without having really been asked to sacrifice anything. If members of Congress had stood to have their own kids sent to Iraq they might have thought twice about endorsing this war, and we would not be where we are today.

Time will tell if such an option is necessary in light of the military’s current needs. The question of the draft may also shed light on the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy of gays in the military–as it seems illogical to expel fully qualified men and women from serving on such an irrational basis especially when the military needs every body available.

Regardless, now that the election has passed it is time to come up with a definitive answer of how to get out of Iraq–and based on a preliminary understanding of the facts I think the panel is right in its recommendation. I suspect its findings will be mirrored by the Iraq Study Group as well.

This is another round up of recent news in science and technology that promise (threaten) to change the world we know, solve many of humanity’s problems, and maybe create new ones.

Drug under development doubles physical endurance in mice and expands their lifespan 30%. Scientists believe the drug, based off an ingredient in red wine, will have the same effect on humans. It “makes you look like a trained athlete without the training.” Soon, everyone will be a superhero.

Cell transplants restore sight in mice. Using immature retinal stem cells, scientists were able to restore sight to mice with types of damage similar to what causes blindness in humans. Blindness may become a thing of the past for everyone.

Researchers develop DNA switch that can connect living organisms to computers. This bio-nanotechnology breakthrough promises eventually to seamlessly interface human beings with their marchines. That drumbeat towards Kurzweil’s Singularity just got louder.

Appliances may soon be powered wirelessly. MIT researchers have devised a scheme for allowing appliances to be charged or powered with the need for messy wires or batteries.

Concentrated solar power may soon make it as cheap as fossil fuel electricity. Cheap solar power is one advancement that just can’t come soon enough to our overheated fossil fuel-powered world. The answer may be on the horizon.

“Nanoporous” material can safely absorb hydrogen fuel. One of the biggest challenges to rolling out hydrogen-powered cars is how to get them to safely store hydrogen fuel. This material could provide the answer.

British scientists grow human liver in a laboratory. One of the miracles of stem cell research will be the ability to grow new organs to replace damaged ones. While a full transplant is still probably a decade away, partial transplants could take place as soon as five years from now.

Researchers teach computers to think. Pictures scanned into a computer caused it to come up with highly accurate “tags” or key words that applied to each picture in question. The technology can also be used in other areas such as art collections and satellite images. Pattern recognition is a fundamental component of developing intelligence.

The ink is barely dry on the Democratic majority in Congress and already both the far Left and the Right are spinning the numbers, statistics, and what it all means into a dizzying array of contradictory “facts.”

On the Right, you have the so-called “Architect” Karl Rove saying that the election landslide was really just “typical” for an election six years into a President’s term….and that other than a few relatively “minor” factors like Iraq the conservative movement remains on track to cementing a permanent majority. After all, he says, if just a few thousand votes had gone the other way the Republicans would still be in control. He foresees the resumption of Republican dominance in two years.

On the Left, you have folks like Atrios trying to claim that there is no “Center” in politics, and that what people have been hoodwinked into calling “the Center” is in fact the Left. He can’t think of anything that belongs to a “radical left” agenda that isn’t considered “centrist” by the pundits who say that centrism ruled the day in the election.

What a bunch of spin.

To Karl Rove: you can twist and massage numbers all you like. Don’t forget that the backbone of your “Republican hegemony,” Bush himself, was elected by a mere 300 or so votes in Florida. The fact is that this country is not interested in your twisted, bigoted brand of conservatism–and the last six years have demonstrated the Republican party’s incompetence in adhering to its own ideals of limited government, balanced budgets, and a strong and sensible national defense.

To Atrios and the Kos folks claiming a Left-driven mandate in Tuesday’s election: I can think of PLENTY of liberal ideas that if done by this Congress would cause voters from all those conservative and moderate districts we won to send their freshmen Democratic congressmen packing in two years:

• Tax increases on anyone except the most wealthy, especially if coupled with any spending increases.
• Over-regulation of business on issues that don’t affect the life and health of consumers.
• Unconditional granting of citizenship to illegal immigrants.
• Codifying gay marriage into law or re-opening the gays in the military debate.
• Immediate full withdrawal of troops from Iraq, as some liberals are demanding.
• Messing with the death penalty.
• A complete gutting of the Patriot Act instead of balancing the liberty compromised in each provision of the Act with the security benefit obtained (a balancing exercise never contemplated in the current version that consists merely of rights-limiting mandates.)
• Nationalization of health care with an accompanying tax increase (at least without a very clear explanation of how people would actually pay less than they do under the current system.)
• Outlawing the Pledge of Allegiance (or striking its references to God) in schools or any other such nonsense, as advocated by some liberals.
• Making abortion substantially easier to get than it already is.
• Radical environmental reforms (at least without a strong justification of how it relates to global warming, a fact which I think people of all political persuasions are beginning to accept.)

Now folks like Atrios and my friend Boztopia can claim that the Center is gone if they like, and that it’s really just part of a “sea of blue” that was theirs all along. Or they can claim that the Center simply moved Left. More likely, it’s the Left realizing the futility of some of its more radical ideas and understanding that in order to govern in this country they’re going to have to lurch somewhat to the Right whether they like it or not. The Center hasn’t gone anywhere–the Left has.

Look at other topics that were once considered conservative or centrist and are now all the rage among the Left: a strong national defense, a phased solution in Iraq, a balanced budget, cutting taxes such as the Alternative Minimum Tax, cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens.

Folks, you can claim these were your ideas all along if you like, if they will help the new Congress govern from the “sensible middle.” (I personally don’t believe that’s the case, although I’m delighted that the Left finally got serious about the realities of what it takes to become a majority.) But it would be a sad and highly incorrect conclusion to assume that because people chose the ideas espoused by this “new Left,” if you will…that they by transitive property also signed on to all of the radical, batty, or even idealistic but unrealistic ideas that come from the far Left. It just isn’t so.

The Left can govern on a platform of sensible ideas that span the political Center, or they can go back to being an impotent minority. They can’t have both in a country that leaned Right after 9/11 without a lot of gentle nudging back to the Left that will take place only in small steps over time. Push too hard and too fast, and all those new Democratic districts will go right back to being Red in two years.

It came as too little, too late. Our tone-deaf Commander in Chief, who as late as last week insisted Rumsfeld would remain through the end of Bush’s term, announced Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down as Secretary of Defense after facing the humiliating loss of the House and (probably) the Senate.

Rumsfeld was responsible for the disastrous prosecution of the war in Iraq and its aftermath. His insistence on running the military like a corporation and refusing to listen to the truth of the reality on the ground helped ensure that the US got stuck in the dreadful quagmire in which it finds itself. His only answer to criticism of his handling of the war was to tell critics to “back off” and essentially “trust him” as US soldiers and Iraqis continue to die by the scores.
Good-bye and good riddance. He will not be missed.