08 June 2005
Bush Admin. Prevaricates on Global Warming
NYT: Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming -- This is an example of why I remain convinced that the Bush Administration is bent on the destruction of our environment, in flagrant disregard of America's laws. This rogue administration is out of bounds on almost everything, but on the environment they are nothing short of criminals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As an economic and social conservative, my kneejerk reaction is to dismiss you as an over hearted, misguided fool who believes that people can live in peace when, biologically speaking, we are incapable of doing so.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the part of me that loves my family and friends, the part of me that gives strangers the benefit of the doubt, the part of me that is firmly convinced that we are more and an accumulation of our genetic heritage and that we must strive to be better than what our flesh dictates agrees with much of what you have to say.
In many countries that produce pollutants on a large scale, environmentalists are hard pressed to approach their government with so much as a stern word for fear of physical reprisals, yet here in America, where a leader can be deemed evil for his opposing political view to our own, we not only can shout our villification at the top of our lungs as fact, but we can also shame others into agreeing with us by claiming our TRUE motivation lies in future generation.
You, however, have correctly identified the current leader of our fine nation as intellectually inferior to have the position, but you also have correctly identified your feelings as your belief, not a per se fact.
I must, however, disagree with your belief in the matter: Each side, no matter how misguided they are, are trying to better the nation. The current administration believes that unchecked economic development at the cost of the Earth is the solution, while the opposite view believes that if we slip on hemp sandals, eat tofu and be ashamed of everything the country was built on before WW2, then we will achieve happiness, letting those pesky "decisions" be made for us by those "society" decides is best for us.
Both sides are wrong.
Continuing to fail at understanding your opposition is what created the two party system, and is what will tear the country apart. No "unless"-es. The country is doomed: Started by religious freedom, and expanded as such, our current guilt and shame has lead us to rapidly decline.
The Star Spangled Banner is a dirge: Killed by those it was supposed to defend.
I'm not quite sure I took all of Thomas's point in the comment above, but I just have to take issue with the idea that our nation is doomed. I am not a hemp-sandals kind of person; I am a liberal, in the sense discussed by Robert Reich in his recent book, Reason. The basis for my opinions about the Bush administration with respect to its environmental record is that I have read a lot, both in economics and environmental literature, that leads me to believe that we are facing twin crises of major historical proportions in this century: the end of fossil fuel and the possibility of several catastrophic tipping points in the biosphere, of which the most dangerous is greenhouse gases. This administration is committed to big business as usual, which is a recipe for disaster. I admit, I get emotional about it, because it angers me that people like Bush and his cronies put their very narrow self-interest above the greater interests of the American people, not to mention the people of the World as a whole. (Incidentally, the Democrats are only marginally better... politicians seem almost constitutionally incapable of taking the long view of anything).
ReplyDeleteStill, I refuse to be cynical. The founders created a system in this country which is self-correcting, at least to some extent. When a political movement veers to far in a given direction, it will step on too many toes, and the great mystery of a shift in political winds just happens, and people start voting the other way. Our system is obviously inadequate to our problems, but it's the only one we have, and if we give up on it we guarantee failure, and risk catastrophe. Seems to me we shouldn't go there. I want to find common ground with fiscal conservatives, who believe in individual rights and privacy, but who also believe in the law of the Commons that dates back to Justinian's Code: no one has the right to ruin the environment, which belongs to everyone.