Centerblue.org

Conservative Australian Prime Minister John Howard has suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of his left-leaning Labor opponent Kevin Rudd, ending over a decade of conservative rule. His party also scored a clear majority in the lower house of Parliament.

Like Bush, Howard had refused to join the Kyoto Protocol and had maintained troops in Iraq. Both factors led to his historic ouster. Rudd intends to join Kyoto immediately and also plans to withdraw Australia’s troops from Iraq.

In so doing he leaves the US as the sole remaining industrialized nation to reject the Kyoto Protocol–and with even Britain withdrawing its troops one has to wonder who remains of Bush’s “coalition of the coerced” in Iraq. More and more, Bush stands completely alone in the world as he deserves for having governed this nation as a rogue state for seven years.

US Republicans must also have a sense of foreboding about next year as a result of this election. The same issues that sent Howard to his political grave are looming front and center for the 2008 contest–and those issues are turning out to be poison pills for anyone associated with conservatism, Republicans, and Bush’s failed policies.

Today there is news that scientists in the US and Japan have successfully created stem cells from regular human skin cells instead of relying on politically and ethically touchy embryos. In doing so they have accomplished a rare feat: they have managed to make everyone happy on all sides of the stem cell issue.

Personally it’s hard to see the ethical problem in using embryos to derive life-saving stem cells, especially if those embryos were destined for a dumpster in the back of a fertility clinic anyway. The “right to lifers” who object seem not to blink an eye at placing more importance on protecting a potential-but-unactualized human being than providing life-saving treatments to actual human beings who are desperately in need. So for me, this new discovery conjures a sigh of relief more than anything, knowing that these revolutionary treatments can now happen unimpeded.

For those on the other side of the issue, though, it must seem like a vindication. And you know what? They’re right, though perhaps not for the reasons they’d prefer.

Whatever anyone thinks of those who opposed embryonic stem cells, they were correct in insisting that we take a step back and ask ethical questions about revolutionary science. In that sense, they were vindicated because they forced the ethical discussion and ultimately the discovery of a stem cell solution that posed no ethical dilemmas to anyone.

The pace of technological change continues to accelerate at an exponential rate, leaving less and less time to ask–and more urgently, answer–fundamental moral questions about the technology we are unleashing.

Here are some examples of questions that must be answered in the next couple of decades, and some of them quite soon:

Some people find our slowness in facing these and other looming ethical questions so alarming that they have urged that we relinquish broad areas of technology lest we face destruction, the most famous example being Sun Microsystems founder Bill Joy’s seminal article in Wired magazine named “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us.”

I think no such thing–the potential benefits of all these technologies vastly outweigh their risks, and in any case it’s impossible to put any technological genie back in its bottle. But it’s imperative that we ask these questions and come about these technologies in a way that is as safe, sane, and ethical as possible.

Score one for people who questioned the ethics of stem-cell technology–not because I agree with your stance about human embryos, but because you encouraged asking the right questions.

Seven years. That’s as long as we have left to prevent a climate calamity by stopping the growth in carbon emissions entirely, according to the conclusions derived from thousands of studies by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Doing that, along with cutting emissions 50-85% by 2050, will stabilize the climate at a 3.5 degree Fahrenheit increase, which will “merely” cause seas to swell, a reduction in water supplies from glaciers and icecaps with millions of people going thirsty, acidification of the oceans, the dying out of most coral reefs, and increases in flood and storms. Again, ladies and gentlemen, this is what we get if we meet the impossible goal of stopping emissions growth in 7 years.

What if we do not? Well then things go downhill from there, don’t they. If instead we fail to stop emissions growth until 2030, the planet’s temperature will increase by 6.3 degrees F. That would result in the widespread extinction of species, slowing global currents that would wreak havoc on climates all over the developed world, decreases in food production, 30% global loss of wetlands, flooding of millions of people, and many more deaths from heat waves.

To say that these are “extremely serious findings,” as the chairperson of the IPCC said, is an understatement. They are stunning and depressing in their immediacy, inevitability, and seeming impossibility of doing anything in our political world in time to prevent catastrophe.

Seven years is also, by the way, the amount of time the US has wasted in doing absolutely NOTHING about climate change under our current Chimp-in-Chief, who refused to join most of the rest of the world in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Even now, when confronted with these dire warnings and mindful that they can no longer play the part of ostriches with their heads stuck in the ground, US climate delegate Sharon Hays had the gall to defend our non-action, saying that “what’s changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is happening”–with no promises that Washington would change its reliance on “voluntary” (aka non-existent) reductions given the “new evidence.”

No Sharon, we knew fully well in 2001 what was happening, which is why Kyoto came about. What hadn’t happened then was Katrina, and Atlanta going dry of water, and Al Gore, and other evidence so clear that even a monkey could understand it. In insisting on evidence as certain as cogito ergo sum, all we have done is waste seven valuable years while allowing the oil industry and other polluting interests increasingly free reign to pollute with impunity. We now have the result–our backs are against the wall with only 7 years left to avoid a worse calamity.

I’m not sure anything CAN be done in 7 more years, despite the good intentions of a few. Our world is just too fragmented politically, with too many competing interests. I also wonder whether the exponential nature of technological advancement is being accounted for in these findings–futurist Ray Kurzweil is severely critical of Al Gore for supposedly failing to account for technological advancements in areas like nanotechnology that could prevent carbon emissions or even suck already-emitted carbon out of the air.

I sure as hell hope Kurzweil is right, because that may be our last best hope. In case he is not, however, we still have a moral obligation to do everything possible to lessen the damage and destruction as much as we can. If we can’t or won’t, then I question whether we even deserve to be on this third rock from the Sun, given our disgraceful stewardship of the planet.

A new report by Congressional Democrats estimates the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars at around $1.5 trillion, almost double the $800 billion “officially” requested by the Bush administration. The report estimates the conflict’s hidden costs, including the drastic rise in the price of oil, the expense of treating wounded veterans, the interest payments that have to be made (primarily to foreign central banks) since the war is being financed by debt, and the costs to US employers of having reservists deployed overseas.

$1.5 trillion amounts to $20,000 per household. How do you feel about your family paying $20,000 to fund the deposing of a dictator who had no weapons of mass destruction, to liberate a country that clearly did not want our Abu Ghraib-stained brand of “liberation,” to financially support the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis and Shiites that has taken place because of our lack of a post-war strategy?

I do not agree that Iraq is solely responsible for the skyrocketing cost of oil–it has nothing to do with dwindling wells in Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and other locations, a frightening topic all on its own but one that is unrelated to Iraq. Of course oil production has been disrupted in the war-torn country so Iraq does contribute somewhat to the higher cost of oil, but it’s impossible to say how much. Nevertheless, even the conservative commentators in the article agree that the war’s cost is far higher than what Bush has tried to feed the public, especially in his attempt to hide costs by using “supplemental” appropriations and not counting the war costs when calculating deficits.

Speaking of outrageous costs, the Boston Globe and National Priorities Project inform us of what we might have purchased (from a uniquely Bostonian perspective) with a “mere” $611 billion out of what the war has cost (thanks to my friend angry-biscuit for the heads up):

Not saying we should be giving free gas to everyone–but some of those stats hurt, such as what we could have done to curb global warming, poverty, lack of educational opportunities, and the like. Not mentioned is how we could have sunk the money into nanotechnology and its promise of millions of future jobs, into increasing energy efficiency and reducing our addiction to fossil fuels, into solving the soaring costs of health care, into desalination plants to address the impending water crisis being felt from Atlanta to Tennessee, and a host of other really urgent matters that would have been a far better use of that money.

The price of seven years of the Bush regime keeps mounting.

Bush confronted the horrors of his war legacy today, as he visited soldiers severely maimed by his misadventure in Iraq.

The rest of the sad gallery depicting his visit can be found here.

I feel so bad for these soldiers, horribly maimed in the name of a meaningless war without purpose.

There is no end to the horror that this president has inflicted on this nation. How can he live with himself?

“Happy” Veteran’s Day.

In an era of $100/barrel oil with no end in sight to our energy problems, and with climate change growing increasingly alarming, the League of Conservation Voters has put out a chart that shows the energy policy positions of each of the 2008 presidential candidates. I’d love to reproduce it here, but it doesn’t fit the blog’s margins–so you can see the whole chart here.

Here’s a sample from the top candidates.

Dems

Clinton: wants 80% carbon reduction by 2050, 55 miles per gallon standards by 2030, 25% energy from renewables by 2025, reduce energy consumption (increased efficiency) 20% by 2020.

Obama: wants 80% carbon reduction by 2050, 50 MPG standards by 2025, 25% energy from renewables by 2025, reduce energy consumption 50% by 2030.

Edwards: wants 80% carbon reduction by 2050, 40 MPG standards by 2016, 25% energy from renewables by 2025, reduce electricity consumption 15% by 2018.

GOP

Giuliani: no articulated position on anything except supporting liquefied coal.

Romney: cap carbon emissions only if the entire world does so, opposes fuel economy/MPG increases, generally supports efficiency but has no stated goals, has no renewable energy goal, supports liquefied coal.

McCain: lead author of bill to reduce carbon emissions 65% by 2050, wants fuel efficiency increase but no goal specified, wants 25% of energy from renewables by 2025, 50% reduction in energy use via efficiency by 2030.

What strikes me is how pathetically small-minded the GOP candidates are on this issue (with the exception of McCain, who at least “gets” it about global warming and somewhat “gets” it about the energy crisis). It’s as if the rest of the GOP candidates forgot that a lot of middle class people are stretching to the breaking point in the wake of $3.00+ gas and multi-hundred dollar winter heating bills–or maybe they just never bothered thinking about it in the first place. It’s also as if they have no idea about the freight train of fossil fuel scarcity headed our way that even our own Bush-led government has warned us about, preferring instead to continue blithely on in ignorance.

Well, the rest of us “get” the energy problem every time we go to the gas pump, and a majority of us now see the light on global warming. Whether the GOP candidates like it or not these issues will be front and center in this campaign–and they will be bludgeoned to a bloody pulp by their Democratic opponents if they don’t get their heads out of their asses and address the obvious.

Thing is, we can meet the energy goals outlined by the Democratic candidates–but we need someone at the helm willing to provide the leadership necessary to make them happen. The process will be painful, and will require an adjustment to the thinking of many Americans with feelings of entitlement to cheap energy, but it CAN be done and it MUST be done if we are to keep our nation (and indeed our civilization) moving forward.

Well, all those dead embryos the “pro lifers” make a squawk about must be turning over in their graves today. Pat Robertson has endorsed pro-choice GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani, saying Rudy is “more than acceptable to people of faith.” Rudy enthusiastically accepted the endorsement as he tries to get the Religious Right to forget his liberal stances on social issues like abortion and gay rights.

This must be a sad, sad day for all the fundies out there. I mean, Robertson endorsing Rudy must be kind of like it would be if Jesse Jackson endorsed David Duke: a huge slap in the face to the constituency.

It also goes to underscore the point made by Alan Greenspan in his recent book: that Republicans care more about power just for the sake of power than they do about principles. I mean, do these people really care about abortion, or are they using images of cut up embryos just to get elected? Seems more like the latter than the former to me. I also had no idea faith could be “relative”–that it’s ok to “kill babies” as long as you think your guy has the best chance of getting elected.

It will be interesting to see the reaction from the evangelicals.

Today is Election Day in Virginia, where all seats in the state legislature are up for grabs. While I might ordinarily sit out an off-year election cycle, this year there is a strong chance that the razor-thin GOP majority in that body will be booted out of office. Virginia has been trending strongly blue in recent years because of the increase in Northern Virginia’s influence–we have elected two popular Democratic governors and threw the vile George Allen out of his US Senate office. People are sick and tired of the horse-and-buggy Republicans in Richmond continually getting in the way of social and economic progress. People are also very upset over the outrageous “remedial” traffic fees passed by the legislature (which can be up to the thousands of dollars), and are holding the GOP majority accountable. I sense a scalping!

I always feel kind of weepy on Election Day, even on one as relatively minor as this one. I am always reminded that this is still America, however much it may have been diminished under the thumb of a rogue regime for the last seven years–the land of the free and the brave. So many people have put their lives on the line and died so that I can push that little button at the voting booth. The images of outrage coming out of Pakistan in the wake of the Musharraf dictator’s suspension of the constitution there only serve to remind me of just how precious and fragile the right to vote is, and why I so strongly feel that every single person of every political persuasion has a moral obligation to go to the polling booths on Election Day.

Today is also one year (minus two days) away from Election Day 2008, the next chance we have of permanently repudiating the darkness of the Bush years and rejoining the community of nations. I still fume over Election Day 2000 and what might have been, and again over Election Day 2004 where we could have booted the bastard out of office. But no, it took six years of war, invasions, torture of prisoners, a collapsing dollar, a looming energy crisis, a city destroyed by the forces of global warming beginning to take hold, a burst housing bubble thanks to a negligent Fed, and more for people to finally come to their damned senses and boot the scandalized GOP out of Congress. The White House is next.

After giving a lot of thought to it, I am throwing my support behind Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President. Here are a couple of reasons why:

–She gets the climate crisis, the energy crisis, and the economic interplay between the two. They feature prominently on her campaign page. These two are the most important issues of our time, bar none except possibly nuclear proliferation. Iraq is up near there in importance, but only because of the nexus between our involvement there and our addiction to foreign oil. The predictions of climate calamity are becoming increasingly dire, and we have wasted seven years of doing nothing. As of this writing, Atlanta is a few short weeks away from running out of water, providing a second harsh reminder of how climate change could bring our civilization to its knees. Right along with that is our addiction to fossil fuels that we absolutely must break as we enter a period of increasing scarcity (oil approaches $100 a barrel even now). Making our society more energy efficient and moving to alternative sources of energy could create millions of jobs and take the country out of its economic hell-hole. Out of all the candidates, I believe she presents the best hope of implementing meaningful climate change and instituting something akin to a “Manhattan Project” to wean America off its fossil fuel addiction.

–Bill Clinton. There can be no question that, as opposed to the current Monkey-In-Chief, Bill left the country a far better place than when he arrived at the White House (despite his personal scandals). He has thrown his heart into the Climate Change Initiative, doing things like working with cities and Wal-mart to make urban locations much more energy efficient more cheaply. He will be one heart-beat away from the Oval Office, providing valuable advice to Hillary on areas in which she may be lacking a bit such as in foreign policy.

Three years ago I didn’t think she was electable. Now I think she is, or at least is the strongest and most electable of the Dem candidates. I have never really fallen for Obama’s spell. He struck me as inexperienced, and while his words are eloquent they seem tailored so that each side of an issue thinks he’s on their side. The recent brouhaha with the anti-gay preacher kind of sealed his fate with me. As for Edwards, maybe he deserves a chance. But he comes across as rather fake to me, talking about Two Americas of rich and poor at the same time he gets $400 haircuts and made millions in attorney litigation fees. If either of these two win the nomination I will support them, but for now I believe Hillary has the best shot.

Starting today I’ll dedicate a lot of my centerblue.org blog to trying to deliver Virginia for Hillary one year from now. It’s an exciting time to be a Virginia resident, a place where you can really make a difference.

Happy Election Day! (and you better vote if you live in Virginia!)