Galaxies and Life; why not all galaxies are created equal

The Milky Way Galaxy, our home (in a very broad sense), is what's called a barred spiral galaxy, with something like 300 billion stars. When I took Astronomy 101 in college more than 35 years ago, that sentence would have left out the word ‘barred’ and would have said ‘100’ billion stars, but knowledge is always changing, and in the field of Astronomy, understanding has progressed in the last hundred or so years literally by leaps and bounds.

300 billion is a, well, astronomical, number, so large that we can hardly imagine it, even though we use the same kind of numbers for dollars… which we don’t really grasp either. The mind fogs at the prospect of such numbers. But despite this huge number of stars, a galaxy is almost entirely empty space. Typically there are only one or two atoms per cubic meter on average. All those stars are set amidst an incredibly tenuous gas, which in some places is a bit denser, less so in others, but nowhere, other than in actual objects like stars, comets, and planets, anywhere near as dense as air, just as an example. And the stars are almost unimaginably far apart. Around here (out in the disklike plane of the Galaxy, about 30,000 light years (~250-300 quadrillion kilometers) from the center), stars are typically roughly 3 to 5 light years apart (and this is a slightly denser than average region). A typical star is smaller than the Sun’s roughly 1.4 million kilometer diameter, and the typical distance separating typical stars translates to something like 50 trillion kilometers.That's still an almost unimaginable distance. At the escape velocity of a rocket leaving the Earth, it would take over 100,000 years to get to the nearest star.

M31, the "Andromeda Galaxy;" about 2 million light years distant

That’s hard to imagine. So picture this. If the Sun were a basketball, the next nearest star, which happens to be roughly the same size, would be about 10,000 kilometers away (Alpha Centauri A, ignoring its slightly smaller companion and much smaller distant companion, which just happens to be a shade closer, Proxima Centauri). That's Los Angeles to Eastern Europe. The Earth, in contrast, would only be about 50 meters away. So, you realize that on the interstellar level, the universe is very, very empty, and stars are very very far apart. Two galaxies can pass right through each other without a single stellar collision; in fact it happens all the time, in the grand scheme of things. The Milky Way is in the process of swallowing up a medium small dwarf galaxy right now, and will eventually swallow up its companions the Clouds of Magellan, and in turn be swallowed up after colliding with the Giant Spiral M31 in Andromeda (commonly referred to as the "Andromeda Galaxy"). But don’t worry, that’s billions of years in the future.

Galaxies are gravitationally bound systems of stars, with lots of gas and dust typically, although there are significant differences in their forms and histories that are very important for questions such as the origins of stars like the Sun and planets like the Earth, and, by extension, the origin of life as a sort of scum clinging to the surface of a few particularly situated such planets. Of course, there are all kinds of complications to all that. Galaxies all formed at about the same time, when the universe was cooling and expanding, and knots of density coalesced into, well, galaxies. Almost all galaxies have massive black holes in their central regions, which swallow huge amounts of matter and make the central regions not particularly hospitable. Galaxies, like everything in the universe, are actually mostly dark matter, the specific nature of which no one really knows, but for a basic understanding of what a galaxy is, and why some galaxies are likely abodes of living beings, including possibly, complex biospheres and intelligent creatures somewhat comparable to ourselves; and some are not, this will do as a basic description. They are all but unimaginably vast systems of stars, which can be categorized by their form or shape.

Galaxies are typically found in clusters, which form clusters of clusters. In the center of clusters, collisions are common, and most of the galaxies have already experienced collision and being swallowed up or swallowing up their neighbors. This has an unfortunate consequence for the eventual origination of life. Colliding galaxies, it turns out, typically expel a lot of their interstellar gas back into intergalactic space, where nothing much happens. This gas, however, is the stuff that stars are made out of. And so, galaxies near the centers of clusters typically stopped forming stars a long time ago. This is typical of what are called Elliptical galaxies (whether found in cluster centers or not). Ellipticals range from roughly spherical to elongated ovoids, and range from rather small galaxies to the very largest, in some cases hundreds of times as massive as the Milky Way (these kind have generally absorbed many other galaxies in the process of growing to this size over billions of years). This latter kind of galaxy is common near the center of clusters. Typically, Ellipticals (large and small alike) consist almost entirely of what are called Population II stars… older, very poor in metals (because they formed from what the universe was made of at the time, almost pure hydrogen and helium), and really kind of boring. Such stars can’t have rocky planets like Earth. They probably could never support complex biospheres because all the interesting elements; carbon, nitrogen, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus, oxygen, etc., etc.; necessary for life are pretty much absent. And since whole galaxies consist of these kinds of stars, with little or no gas and dust, and no new star formation, it’s a safe bet that these types of galaxies are essentially devoid of living worlds and life altogether. Wow, boring.

Then there are zillions and zillions of tiny dwarf galaxies, which are common in huge numbers in the general vicinity of other galaxies. These little dwarf galaxies, too, mostly consist of older, boring stars lacking complex chemistry, and almost certainly not capable of being the nursery of living worlds or life. (It turns out the universe is kind of like suds… the galaxies form the soap, and there are big voids where there’s pretty much nothing, but that isn’t really important. We’re talking about the volumes of space where there are galaxies in appreciable numbers. Our galaxy is located on a sort of tail end of a moderately large cluster, called the Virgo Cluster).

So what’s left? The spirals (and some of the irregular small but not tiny galaxies like the Large Cloud of Magellan). These include the barred spirals, more or less shaped like “S”, with a bar in the middle, like ours (this fact about the Milky Way has only been known for a few years). These galaxies are mostly quite flat and disklike, except for their spheroidal central regions and great clouds (haloes) of older stars and clusters that surround the entire galaxies in rough spheres. Picture a pair of CD's glued together, with a marble in the hole surrounded by a tenuous sphere of haze. That's the approximate proportion. Much of the mass is in the central regions, which are a lot like elliptical galaxies themselves, with energetic black holes in the centers of very dense regions, a lot of radiation, almost all Population II stars, and no star formation going on. The haloes of old star clusters and some individual stars are also old, Population II, and therefore lacking complex chemistry. So what’s interesting is the disk regions, which are where the spiral arms are, but also where there is a sort of general “disk population” of stars. The Sun is a disk star, located smack in the Milky Way's galactic disk, about 30,000 light years out from the center. (The disk is a bit over 100,000 light years in diameter).

Here, in these galactic disk populations, is we find active new star formation, and the enrichment of the interstellar medium from recycling of old exploded stars. This is where all those interesting elements beyond helium on the periodic table, which make life possible, come from. Stars which have formed later than the original formation of the galaxy in which they find themselves, and which incorporate this residue (these are referred to as Population I stars). These stars, of which the sun is one, are the kinds of stars that can have rocky planets, and, which, at least in the case of the sun, are capable of providing a suitable location for the evolution of life.

Spiral galaxies (including barred spirals, which are roughly half of them) together only make up about 20% of all galaxies, so right off the bat 80% of the galaxies seem to be unsuitable for the formation of living beings like ourselves anywhere in their vast reaches. There are probably some exceptions to this, since the morphology of galaxies is actually extremely complex, and many galaxies may have no new star formation but still have some Population I type stars, with metals (meaning everything heavier than helium) in their makeup. But however you look at it, not all galaxies are equally likely to be homes of living creatures. The beautiful flat spirals like our galaxy are the best candidates.

Origin Questions and First Special Post: Rare Living Worlds

Most people don’t seem to have any real interest in what I think of as origin questions. I’m not talking metaphysics here… that’s a whole different area of human inquiry and understanding, and I’m definitely not dismissing it, but I’m talking about physical origins here. Questions about why there is something and not nothing, whether the universe exists amid myriad other universes, and what is the ultimate nature of reality, I will set aside. I’m also not talking about the ultimate physical origin of the universe as a whole, which is also a fascinating topic, about which much more is known than even twenty or thirty years ago. 

If you accept as a given that the physical universe had an origin, the Big Bang or whatever it was, and that a milieu of (all but innumerable) galaxies and clusters of galaxies, having certain composition and reasonably well understood dynamics, came into being some twelve or thirteen billion years ago and has been undergoing a sort of evolutionary process (including the accelerating expansion of the space containing them), ever since, that leaves a great deal to talk about in terms of how that milieu led to the here and now on planet Earth, and similar circumstances elsewhere. (The fact that there are an almost unimaginably vast number of elsewheres  is of course relevant, but this, too is a given).

Anyway, this is what I’m focusing on: the physical origin of the environment we live in, given the existence of the universe. This planet; its origin and history, in general terms, leading to the existence of a complex and relatively stable biosphere. Its star, the Sun, on which life on this planet unquestionably depends. The milieu from which the star and its system of planets arose: how, when, where, and what particular processes were involved. How probable it was for this process to have happened the way it did, which has obvious implications for how often something similar has happened elsewhere. The origin and potential alternative developmental histories of life on this planet, or on similarly situated planets. The fact that intelligent animals evolved, capable of manipulating their environment to the extent of possibly even escaping from the surface of their world of origin and going to live elsewhere, potentially replicating the essentials of their original biosphere in new locales (not happened yet, beyond a baby step, on this world). Necessarily related to these questions are questions of whether and how often the universe has produced conditions that have resulted in the evolution of beings comparable to ourselves: the Are we alone? question, and its corollary, first posed by Enrico Fermi more than 60 years ago: [If not], Where are they?

(The “Where are they?” question will be a whole post coming up).

So anyway, if you are one of those folks, the majority of humanity, clearly, whose eyes glaze over when these topics are brought up, and who prefer to simply take the world more or less as it is for granted, (since, quite sensibly, you conclude that there’s nothing we can do to change any of this anyway, so we might as well ignore it), then these rambling thoughts are probably of no interest to you, and you may as well break off right here. But I have been casually interested, as a lay person,  in these subjects for my whole adult life, and have read widely in the popular scientific literature on this subject. While I am hardly an expert, I do have a pretty good understanding, descriptively (as opposed to quantitatively), of the scientific consensus on the most important factors giving rise to the current state of knowledge and understanding in this area.

Of course, this is a huge topic, and serious students of its various aspects have written massive amounts touching on every aspect of it. But what I’d like to talk about is what it seems to me every intelligent person should know about it, particularly since a lot of what was and remains conventional wisdom on these subjects, as embodied in the mythos of the Space Age and Star Trek, turns out to be pretty much entirely wrong.

So bear with me, if you find this at all interesting. Watch this spot, as they say. When I get a chance, haphazardly, over some period of time coming up, I plan to post a series of what I hope will be thought-provoking ruminations on topics related to these questions, which I hope will be interesting and informative, starting with this one (below): Rare Living Worlds and the Origin and Special Characteristics of the Solar System and our World, and Implications for the Formation of Similar Worlds.

Some others I’m thinking about:

Why this is not (yet) the Space Age; what a Space Age might actually be like (and why the 'Star Trek' Universe does not and cannot exist).

Where are they? Are we the first (around here)?  

How and why not all galaxies are likely abodes of living beings (but don’t worry, there are lots of the kind that are).

œ

Rare Living Worlds and the origin and Special Characteristics of the Solar System and our World, and Implications for the Formation of Similar Worlds.

The Sun is what’s referred to as a ‘Main Sequence’ star. All this means is that it’s still in the phase of its existence where it is stable, and cooking along doing what stars generally do for most of their lifetimes: fusing hydrogen nuclei (also called protons) into helium nuclei (also called alpha particles) in their core regions (a process that produces a lot of energy, in the form of radiation). As it happens, the Sun is about halfway, maybe a little more, of the way through this phase, which commenced shortly after its formation from interstellar gas (and some “dust,” which just refers to other stuff, i.e, not hydrogen and helium)— that was present in the Milky Way galaxy in the region where the Sun formed. That was about 5 billion years ago, or something like 35–40% of the age of the universe. So the Sun is relatively old.

So what are stars? This is important to understanding what our world is and where it came from. Astronomy textbooks often just skip over this, but it’s actually not all that obvious. Why are there such things as stars anyway? The simple answer is that stars are great globes of incandescent plasma, consisting of the same thing as the universe is mostly made of, about 90% hydrogen, and 10% helium (with some contamination). Plasma is just is ionized gas. Meaning the electrons are stripped off the atoms because they’re so hot, and the electrons and nuclei are floating around in giant hot, very brightly shining, dense sphere, held together by gravity, not attached to one another. Of course it’s more complicated than that, but that serves as a basic picture. These globes form in the first place from gravitational collapse. Clouds of gas (contaminated with a tiny bit of other stuff— we’ll get to that)… in the vastness of space coalesce; they begin to collapse inward, as a result of various processes, not all that well understood. Eventually most of the gas in a particular region of space ends up in a particular place, and forms a roughly spherical ball of hot plasma. Turns out the question is, why doesn’t it collapse all the way to a point and just disappear? And the answer is radiation pressure (although, in most cases there wouldn’t be enough mass there for that to happen anyway, because it takes enormous pressure to actually dissociate protons into neutrons, or, even further, to dissociate them entirely, but it does happen when there’s enough mass collapsing: they’re called black holes).

Yes, light exerting pressure (it does, it’s just not noticeable in the environmental conditions we live in); that’s what holds stars together, preventing them from collapsing into even smaller bodies, which when they use up their fuel, they do (white dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes; but that’s a whole different topic). When enough gas, now plasma, collapses to increase the temperature and pressure to about million degrees Celsius (~Kelvin), nuclear fusion occurs. Protons fuse to become helium nuclei, releasing huge amounts of energy as radiation, which is where the star’s light comes from, after filtering up from the core to the surface. This was all worked out by Fred Hoyle and Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge (among other people) back in the 1940s. Anyway, without focusing on the details, if there’s enough mass of hydrogen and helium for this nuclear fusion to occur at the core of the collapsing ball of plasma, a metastable state results. The pressure from the intense radiation of the fusion going on at the core holds up the outer layers of the ball, and before long a relatively stable, brightly shining star comes into existence. Later, the star leaves the main sequence because it’s ‘burned’ a lot of its hydrogen and it starts burning other nuclei, but that, too is a different topic. Stellar evolution is fascinating, but only its preliminary phase, the origin of normal, mid-life, hydrogen burning stars, is relevant to our topic.

Main-sequence stars vary, based mainly on mass, and to some degree on composition. The collapsing regions of interstellar gas that form stars vary from quantities not big enough to form shining stars at all (not hot enough for nuclear reactions), which form dully glowing bodies called brown dwarfs, glowing mainly only from the energy of their collapse itself (more like big Jupiters than stars at all, really)— all the way up to very massive, intensely bright stars that shine like beacons over whole vast regions of the Galaxy. More or less, though, the time that the star spends ‘burning’ hydrogen normally is inversely related to how massive it is. In other words, these bright beacons, these massive blue stars we see in our sky (like Rigel, for example), don’t live very long, and end up in spectacular explosions, sometimes after only a million or a few million years, in contrast to the Sun, which is already 5 billion years old.

You often hear the Sun referred to as a “garden variety” or “average” star. This isn’t actually true. Most stars (about 75% or more) are small, red dwarf stars, ranging from about a tenth to about 40% of the mass of the Sun. As noted, the lifetimes of stars are also more or less inversely related to their mass. So these small, very dim stars (much, much dimmer than the Sun), live a very, very long time. Far longer than the universe has even existed. They range from ten or eleven billion years old to recently formed, but all of them are young in terms of their own lifetimes, which can range up to over 100 billion years… again, far, far longer than the universe has existed. More below on whether life-forming worlds can exist in Red Dwarf systems, but for now, let’s talk about stars more or less like the Sun.

There is a class of stars (Class K) between Red Dwarfs (Class M) and yellow dwarfs like the Sun (Class G). These are what you might call Orange Dwarfs, and they live longer but are significantly dimmer than the Sun. It’s pretty much a continuum, although age of the star (stars grow brighter continuously as they age in the main sequence), and its composition (how much and what other stuff, other than hydrogen and helium, which astronomers confusingly refer to as “metals”) also affect its brightness and other characteristics. The Sun is most of the way to the brighter (and rarer) end of the “G” category, after which (brighter, shorter lived, and rarer as you go along), come “F” and “A”, and finally “B” and “O.” The latter two classes are extremely rare blue giants, so we can pretty much forget about them. They probably never have planets, and they live such a short time that life-bearing worlds could never form in their orbits, and together they constitute less than 1/4 of 1% of stars.  

So the Sun is somewhere around the 90th percentile of brightness, short-livedness, and rarity, of all stars. Hmm. So much for the mediocrity hypothesis of the Copernican worldview. Turns out our Sun is minimally exceptional. (We knew we were special all along, didn’t we? Just not too special).

Why is this important to understanding our world? Obviously, a star, to be the home star of a living planet like Earth, has to exist in a stable form long enough for that planet to evolve life, and there has to be a reasonable probability that a planet capable of supporting life will have formed at a spot where it receives, like Goldilocks, just the right amount of sunlight. Not too hot, not too cold. The sun fits this bill… it’s medium-bright, and it has a planet just where liquid water can exist, Earth.

Very bright stars don’t live long enough. Very dim stars have such small zones where the temperature is right that planets are actually quite unlikely to form there, and if they did, they are likely to be locked with one hemisphere facing the star all the time, like the Moon in relation to the Earth. That would be not too good for life. Also, red light is low-energy. It’s not inconceivable that life could evolve in a red-star system, but Earth life wouldn’t do too well there. Photosynthesis doesn’t work well in red light. Also, red dwarf stars typically flare a lot. Meaning their atmospheres throw out prominences that increase their brightness by a factor of two or even more. The sun does this too, but the prominences are trivial compared to the overall brightness of the sun, and at 150 million km. away, they are no danger to us. A planet a few million km. from a red dwarf could be cooked by a stellar flare. On the other hand, little red stars are really really common, and they live a long, long time, so life may very well exist on some worlds orbiting red dwarf stars, where conditions have turned out to be just right. Certainly, if life gets started, it should have plenty of time to evolve solutions to its environmental challenges. We shouldn’t expect, if we ever mature enough to explore such things, to find such life to be all that similar to life on Earth.

So, the sun is a medium bright, middle aged star. All these things appear to be pretty much necessary for the evolution of a living world like earth. Such stars are still quite common. What else about the Sun is favorable to life, and if such a factor were absent, life might be less likely, or, perhaps more specifically, complex multicellular life like Earth’s might be less likely?

First, it turns out that the Sun, compared to other stars of similar age (enough time for life to have evolved to a high degree of complexity), is very rich in ‘metals’ (stuff beyond helium on the periodic table). This is important, because it’s precisely this stuff, in which the cloud that formed the Sun was much richer than average, that formed the Earth, with all its trace elements necessary for life. Before I get to what is believed to have caused this unusual richness, we have to consider at least the possibility that it is a necessary prerequisite for complex evolved life. We don’t really know this, but it seems at least plausible. The formation of a rocky world with oceans and atmosphere just right for life, like Earth, would seem likely to be critically dependent on particular composition of the cloud of stuff from which it formed. We now know, from research into planetary detection, that other stars have systems of planets that do not at all resemble the Solar System. Many have massive hot planets very close to the stars. We can’t yet detect planets the size of Earth in orbit around other stars, so there are a lot of questions, but right now it looks like past assumptions that the Earth is quite typical may not be correct. It seems likely that planets similar enough to Earth (oceans, stable climate over long periods of time, nontoxic atmospheres, etc.) for complex life to form, may be rather rare. I’ll get to some additional reasons to believe this to be true later.

What caused the Sun to be rich in metals? Current thinking goes something like this. Stars often, maybe even always, form in clusters. The cluster that included the Sun was probably relatively small, because it has spread out to the point that we can’t really tell which stars in the star stream of the Galaxy formed with it, indicating that the cluster was small enough that in 5 billion years it's drifted into a diffuse population embedded in the general star stream of the Galactic disk. But the cluster in which the Sun formed was not too small, which we know because there is strong evidence (radiation effects on meteorites) to suggest that the cluster that formed the Sun experienced a number of supernova explosions prior to the formation of the Sun. These explosions probably actually triggered the collapse of matter from which the Solar System formed, and the explosion of stars enriched the medium with metals. (That’s where metals come from: other than water and organic materials that contain hydrogen, almost everything we’re made of and that exists around us came from the interiors of stars that blew up and disgorged this stuff back into the interstellar medium… before the Sun and Earth even formed). Supernovas result from very bright, very massive stars that end their lives in spectacular explosions. These still occur, about once a century or so in a Galaxy like the Milky Way, but it’s thought they were more common billions of years ago, when star formation was a bit more ramped up than at present (a lot of the matter has been used up). 

An interesting aside here. While the Sun is unusually rich in metals for a star of its age, stars more recently formed, due to the continual enrichment of the interstellar medium over time, are somewhat more likely to be similarly rich in metals. What this implies is that to the extent that metal richness of the formative medium is a necessary prerequisite for complex life, and intelligent life in particular, we may be pioneers. The universe may be very young from this point of view... complex worlds may just be getting going, and ours is a forerunner. Most of the stars that will ever form in the universe have already formed (another topic!), but it may well be that most of the complex forms of life that may one day evolve have yet to do so. (Good, we'll get on the ground floor of the greatest real estate grab ever!) 

Anyway, the particulars of the cluster that formed the Sun may also account for the presence of comets in the Solar System. There’s a current school of thought that says that comets are not typical of stars in general, but form when there is interaction between stars in close proximity during their formation stage in a relatively (but not extremely) dense cluster. This is important because it’s also now generally thought that the origin of the Earth’s oceans may well have been bombardment by millions and millions of comets, especially early in its history. (Comets are mostly water). If a star more or less like the sun had a rocky world more or less like Earth, but no comets, that world might remain dry and uninhabitable forever.

These characteristics of the formation of the Sun were not unique, but neither were they universal. Most stars of comparable age and brightness are different. They have lower levels of metals, and may well have very different histories and planetary systems. So you can’t blithely assume that earthlike worlds will be common orbiting such stars. They may well not be. On the other hand, there’s no reason to believe that conditions have to be exactly like Earth for complex life to form. A star may be quite a bit dimmer or brighter, and conditions on the planet of life-origin could be rather different. We don’t have a clear picture what the parameters are. Some think that Mars may have had an ocean early in its history, and may have developed some kind of life, although that remains speculative. So it’s at least plausible that conditions could vary quite a bit from what we have here and still result in living worlds.

What are some of the other factors? Robert Brownlee and Peter Ward published a book in 2000 called Rare Earth which discusses a number of factors that they contend make the Earth virtually unique as an abode of complex, multicellular life. (See here). They talk about a ‘galactic habitable zone’ (you need to be the right distance from the center of the Galaxy to have the right kind of stars and no disruptive cosmic events in the necessary time). They talk about the need for a Jupiter like planet to shepherd the colliding asteroids of a forming solar system, and keep a planetary surface relatively impact free for long periods of time (look at the Moon… big impacts were common in the early Solar System). They talk about orbital stability, and reasons to believe it may be more or less fortuitous in our case. They talk about mass and composition of an earthlike planet, which may be more or less coincidental. The Earth, it turns out, formed from the collision of two planets, which then formed the Earth/moon. The presence of the moon may have affected mantle convection, plate tectonics, axial tilt stability, and other factors that may or may not be crucial for complex life. It’s also just not known how likely the origin of life itself is; and how likely some of the other steps in the evolution of a complex biosphere may be. Optimists tend to assume that these things are inevitable, given the right conditions, but we just don’t know. All this may add up to the conclusion, as Brownlee and Ward argue, that while simple unicellular (bacterialike) life may be rather common where temperate liquid-water environments form, complex multicellular life, and intelligent life in particular, may be spectacularly rare in the universe.

Of course, the universe is enormous. There’s at least one such world in the Milky Way (Earth), so it seems inevitable that somewhere out there in the vast sea of galaxies, there are others. But maybe Carl Sagan’s (and others’) assumptions that there were billions of civilizations in our Galaxy alone were, well, wildly overoptimistic. None of this rises to the level of certainty, but it’s a safe bet that the truth is not exactly what people like Sagan thought, although it may also not be quite as bleak as the Rare Earth folks think either.

One factor that is quite puzzling is the way the Earth has maintained a habitable (water liquid) temperature for a long, long time, despite the fact that the Sun, like other stars, has grown brighter during that time. (About 20% since the formation of the oceans). Somehow, atmospheric conditions have changed, possibly in a Gaia-like global feedback system, so as to keep global temperatures relatively stable, within a range where life is possible. How likely is that? No one really knows, but it’s another possible pitfall in the evolution of a stable living world like ours.

So what does this all add up to? If you read or watch science fiction based on the tradition dating back to Buck Rogers, there seems to be a conventional assumption that outer space, (realistically, the stars around us in the galaxy), are teeming with living worlds somewhat like Earth, and that alien intelligent beings are common. But from what we actually know, the Sun is not unique but also has a number of uncommon characteristics; and the formation of the Earth has some unusual circumstances as well. There are reasons to believe that some of the characteristics of the Earth that make it habitable may be rather unlikely to develop. So, I think it’s a pretty reasonable assumption to say that complex life, especially intelligent life, has arisen on Earth through a series of at least somewhat unlikely events, and that worlds similar to Earth, with complex biospheres and intelligent inhabitants, are likely to be relatively rare in the universe, and those that do exist, necessarily, are likely to be not too close to us.

Sobering thoughts, contrary to a sort of unspoken conventional wisdom of the past half century or so, at least among those whose minds have tended to even consider these questions. To me, because life like that on Earth may well be rather unusual and rare, is all the more reason why we, as stewards of the biosphere we have evolved the ability to destroy, must be all the more careful to preserve it and protect its richness and complexity. We are unlikely in any foreseeable future to encounter its like. 


•••
To anyone who actually read this whole post, I am glad to assure you that follow-on posts will be substantially shorter. Thanks for your interest.

E-mail to Fox News re Brit Hume's outrageous religious commentary on l'affaire Tiger woods

I exaggerated my real degree of offense a bit, perhaps, in this e-mail to Fox News Sunday regarding the silly and stupid, as well as hateful and bigoted, remarks of Brit Hume urging Buddhist Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity. In reality, I think the man's an idiot and I give his opinions essentially no weight, so it's hard to be genuinely offended by anything he says. What is offensive is that this all-propaganda-all-the-time network exists at all and, its existence a fact, that it gives this blowhard air time. Here is the clip (with Andrew Sullivan's take), for those interested.

As a Buddhist, I was deeply shocked and offended by the increasingly incoherent Brit Hume's outrageous denigration of Buddhism and his shameless proselytizing of his religion, in connection with the essentially trivial and greatly over-emphasized Tiger Woods affair, on the most recent airing of Fox News Sunday.

Opinion is one thing, and is appropriate on an opinion show like Fox News Sunday, although in my view no opinions regarding Mr. Woods's supposed need for redemption are appropriate or necessary and time spent on this affair on air is time wasted that could be better put to much more pressing matters. But in any case, in this context or any other, to dismiss and openly disrespect one of the world's oldest and most perennial religions in this manner is simply unacceptable, and well beyond the scope of reasonable on-air discourse. Mr. Hume should either apologize on air or be fired. Buddhists are obviously a minority in America, but the notion that this kind of open disregard and denigration is acceptable must be put to rest firmly and immediately.

I do still say, pass the bill

Here's Ezra Klein on why the bill, flaws and all, should pass. Lest my other posts here, which are highly critical of the bill and the White House, create an impression otherwise, I still basically agree with Klein, although I very much take exception to his calling Jane Hamsher, whom I regard as a progressive heroine, "deceptive," even implicitly.

I agree with Jed Lewison, who makes the same general case, writing on Daily Kos.

Obama disingenuous on health care bill

Obama:  "every single criteria [sic] for reform I put forward is in this bill."

See, this is the problem. That's just not true. There are no meaningful cost controls. There is no real option in the bill for purchase of truly competitive health insurance. There is an individual mandate, but no real cost relief for ordinary middle class people. There's a tax on health plans that for some will amount to welching on the pledge of no new middle class taxes. Further, to quote Jon Walker writing on firedoglake:

"the public option was clearly part of his campaign plan. His campaign plan also promised a national exchange, drug re-importation, an employer mandate, direct Medicare drug price negotiations, to let you keep your current plan if you like it, and to bring down health care costs by $2,500 per year for a family. The Senate bill will do none of these things.¶ Obama did promise to not do two very important things with health care reform. He promised to not include an individual mandate and not tax employer-provided health insurance benefits. This Senate bill breaks both of those promises."

Obama can call a turkey an eagle all he wants, but the people see through that, and if he thinks he will gain the trust of the American people by lying to them, or however you want to characterize it, he's just wrong. The people who voted him into office aren't so easily fooled.

If he were to honestly say, "we tried, and this is not quite what we hoped for, but it's the best we could do," I would say, at least he's truthful about the at-best partial success. But instead he insists that this crappy legislation is what he wanted all along. Which is scary, because it begs the question, what if it is?

Bye-bye, Blue Dog Griffith, and Good Riddance to You

I welcome the news that notorious Southern Blue Dog Parker Griffith has switched to the Party of No. I think we Democrats are better off without these people. If the President would make clear that he stands for the interests of ordinary people, and lobby and pressure members of Congress in the Democratic caucuses to do likewise, I believe the disaffected Independents would in large measure drift to the Democratic column, and the loss of right-wing and even some Corporatist Democrats would be offset. Combined with an all out effort culminating in ditching the 60-vote for Cloture rule in the Senate, the Democrats would then be in a position to build a majority that is actually based on some coherent principles, and then turn those principles into actual progressive policy -- and Legislation.

Today's Missive to the White House: Time to Change Course

The fact that Rahm Emmanuel did not even bother to lobby Lieberman on the Medicare Buy-In or Public option is a tell. The White House, i.e., the President, just doesn't get it. He was elected by an electorate that was sick and tired of not having their interests represented in Washington, when the interests of Health Insurers, Wall Street, Banks, Military Contractors, the War Machine... on and on... all have powerful constituencies. But instead of fulfilling his promise to be a Champion of the interests of ordinary Americans, which is the traditional role of great Democratic Presidents, this president has proven to be a "New Democrat," i.e., a dealmaker-in-chief, ever-ready to make deals to subvert and compromise away those interests. He isn't even TRYING to prevail on the policy changes that actually benefit ordinary people.

This is a recipe for disaster. Already disaffected Democrats are telling pollsters they will likely stay home next year, and much of the uptick in opposition to so-called health care reform (what a pathetic disappointment that turns out to be) is, again, from disaffected Democrats, who see no real cost controls, no real options other than mandated private insurance. This is an albatross around the neck of the party that may mean defeat in many districts.

It's not too late for the President to change course. Call up Matt Taibbi, who explained the situation very clearly on Bill Moyers the other day. Listen to him, because the present strategy is exacerbating the disaffection not only of Progressive Democrats, but millions of Independents who believe, quite rightly, that no one in Washington has represented their interests in a very long time.

Thank you.

David Studhalter

I agree with Krugman: Pass the Bill

Although I am as frustrated as anyone by the legislative shenanigans that have all-but ruined health care reform and the entire Democratic legislative agenda, I completely disagree with Moveon.org's attempt to kill the legislation, and I agree with Paul Krugman's op-ed today: Pass the bill. Please follow link and read this piece, if you haven't already.

To the White House: It's just not working

The health care bill is a debacle. It is a testament to the failure of the Senate leadership, and the White House's failure to marshal the support of its own party. This is simple historical fact.

The White House must now do a postmortem and figure out what to do about it, if it hopes to make any progress in the future on a Democratic legislative agenda.

HERE are a few ideas:

Have the courage of convictions. Pres. Obama should have loudly lambasted Joe Lieberman early in the debate, and made clear that he expected Democrats to be Democrats. By not doing this, he was effectively giving them permission.

The President needs to realize that his future support will NOT come from the Republicans or the right. It is the disaffected Independents, who are not ideological, but who have not believed for YEARS that anyone in Washington represents their interests, who are the margin of future victories. The president must reach out to these people with a message not of hopes and dreams but concrete programs that he asks for  their support for. He needs to ASK the people to MAKE the special interest addicted members of his own party in Congress vote for an agenda of principle.

People like Nelson, and especially Lieberman, need to be called out. We Democrats aren't stupid. When a Democrat isn't voting like a Democrat but is allowed to hijack the whole program, it's frustrating. It makes people stay home and not vote, while the party out of power is marshaling its base.

The president needs to lay out some specifics of what he wants to do and make clear that he needs the support of the people to see to it that the Congress does its job. Otherwise, it won't, and the Democrats will fail. It really is that stark.

Some major rethinking needs to be done, because whatever you in the White House are telling yourselves: IT'S JUST NOT WORKING.

Thank you.

David Studhalter

E-mail to Reid: Fire Joe Lieberman tout de suite

I wrote this to Sen. Reid's website today: 

Dear Sen. Reid,

I wrote to you in the past urging that you hold the threat of effective expulsion from the Democratic caucus... particularly including loss of all chairmanships... over that outrageous and obnoxious hypocrite Joe Lieberman's head if he failed and refused to support... or at least allow a vote on... the most important Democratic initiative in this era. This, after all, is a TEST OF YOUR LEADERSHIP.

Well, Sen. Reid, it happened. The man did what he said. He is not a Democrat. He is a right wing Republican, an unprincipled toady of the rich and the moneyed interests, and a complete traitor to the Democratic party. He is useless to Democrats, and not really a member of the caucus anyway, for all intents and purposes.

It is time for whatever procedural steps necessary to remove him from all his chairmanships and disgrace him publicly to be taken. There MUST be consequences for his total betrayal of the vast majority of Democrats, or party discipline will mean nothing at all.

This is more than just Senate internal politics. The whole country... everyone who voted for Change by electing Obama.... we are watching, and we are frustrated by the Senate's abject failure to overcome the resistance of a handful of phony Democrats, ESPECIALLY Lieberman. This man must feel the pain of the consequences of his action.

I have contributed to DSCC and DCCC in the past, but now, it's ActBlue and MoveOn for me, and I will actively support the challenge of all Democrats who fail to vote like Democrats in the future. The party must stand for something, and its members must stand for that, or they should not be supported. There must be courage of convictions, and that means courage to face defeat. Only by taking the risk of losing a seat here and there by calling out Democrats who aren't really Democrats will the millions and millions of disaffected voters, who just don't believe anyone in Washington represents their interests, be attracted to vote for Democrats in the future. The sad truth is, in this disaffection, those voters are NOT WRONG.


I honestly believe that if the President and you had lambasted Hypocrite Joe publicly early in the game, the outcome would have been better. And if Democrats were willing to say, this is the BOTTOM LINE, if you don't stand for this, you're not a Democrat and we won't support you, the party would ATTRACT wavering Independents, and, possibly after a rocky transition, would end up with a stronger majority, a majority that actually supported the agenda that the people voted for.

I can't say this outcome is a success. I'm not even sure it's better than nothing. For sure, if Joe Lieberman keeps his power and privileges after this, it's all up for the Democratic legislative agenda, and the sad, inevitable consequence will be that large numbers of disaffected progressive Democrats and Independents will stay away in droves from the polls next year, and the Republicans will win back many seats. This can be avoided, but the way forward is strength of conviction and discipline in the party, not endless compromise and backing down.

You and the other Democratic leaders had better wake up and pay attention, because the way this has been handled has JUST NOT WORKED.

Start by firing Joe Lieberman. He may be your "friend," but we the people who elected a Democratic majority consider him an enemy. Then move on to making clear that if you want to call yourself a Democrat, (or in Joe's case have the privileges without even doing that), you have to be a Democrat, or the party won't support YOU.

Thank you.

David Studhalter

E-mail to Hypocrite Joe Lieberman

Not that it'll do any good, but it made me feel better. I sent this to Sen. Lieberman's contact e-mail site:


I wrote to Sen. Lieberman several times politely requesting that he pay attention to the majority of his constituents both in CT and in the rest of the nation and support the Democratic health care initiative.

We now know that Sen. Lieberman is in truth a right wing Republican. He has virtually single handedly destroyed the most important Democratic initiative of this era. I have contributed to Move-on.org's effort to ensure that he is defeated in the next primary, and I am urging Sen. Reid and the White House to see to it that he is removed from all privileges of the Democratic caucus as soon as possible.

Anyone who refuses to support core Democratic initiatives, who supported the Republican candidate for president and Republican policies, and who is much of  total, unprincipled hypocrite as Sen. Lieberman cannot be considered a Democrat, is useless to the Democrats anyway, and should be for all intents and purposes expelled from the caucus, including, of course, his chairmanships.

Joe Lieberman is a shame and a disgrace to the American people. He would be doing us all a favor if he retired in disgrace as soon as possible.

David Studhalter

It's not working, Barack

Some Democrats, who cling to a belief in a political system of horse trading and attempted "bipartisanship, will disagree with me on the failures of the Obama administration and the Congress to actually deliver on "Change We Can Believe In." But I gotta tell them that those of who think so highly of this president are going to have a difficult time convincing a very large number of Democrats who feel betrayed by the virtual collapse of health care, and who look down a long list of things they thought President Obama stood for and see just not enough in the way of accomplishment. Financial re-regulation, compromised to a shadow of itself. Infrastructure investment, weak. New Renewable Energy projects, not much. War, escalated. Constitutional rights infringed by the Rightist government of Bush, nothing much: they even defend Torture Memo Guy Yoo. "Enemy Combatants" still being held. 4th Amendment still being ignored. Climate Change, little hope. Traditional Democrats may think me naive, but I believe I am representative of many millions of people who just aren't willing to accept a Center-Right Democratic party any longer, and who find this list of not-enough-Change we can believe in really frustrating. 

Sure, you can say the administration brought us from the brink of financial collapse, and I do recognize that the previous president booby trapped both the economy and two wars, but this just isn't good enough. People, ordinary people, who voted for Obama out of hope that things would be really different, are very, very tired of all this compromise. What's needed from President Obama is some righteous anger, and some "kicking butt." For example, why has he not publicly lambasted Lieberman, who is nothing but a right-wing Republican at this point? Why is Lieberman still allowed to keep his chairmanship after virtually singlehandedly derailing both the Public Option and the Medicare Buy-in, both of which had the support of a majority of Senators?

It just isn't cutting it, and they are going to have to do better if they expect to keep, let alone build on, House and Senate majorities. Because, illogical though it may be, when people are frustrated (and ordinary people, not just progressive Democrats are frustrated, believe me), they tend to vote for the party not in power. Or else, they'll just stay home. Polls show 80+% of Republicans intend to vote in 2010, but only about a quarter of Democrats say this. Of course it does more harm than good. But this is so often-repeated in history that it's become a truism of politics.

What I'm doing is supporting Harkin's call for an end to the filibuster, and not contributing to DNC or the House or Senate campaign committees... not until they promote only Democrats who are real Democrats. I support ActBlue, which will support primary challengers to Democrats who vote Republican. It's time for Democrats to have the courage of their convictions, which means being willing to take the risk of losing, so as to move the party to a place where it actually stands for something. I truly believe that if the party leaders did that, expelled Lieberman, criticized and pressured Lincoln, Landrieu, Pryor, Nelson, and others, to come around to a generally progressive viewpoint, then the party would start attracting  a lot of disaffected Independents, who basically don't believe that any politicians represent their interests. And, the sad truth is, the way things are now, they're not wrong. 

Roosevelt used to tell his critics on the left to "go out and make me do it." Obama seems to be saying, shut up, don't rock the boat, let's just compromise this compromise of a compromise and maybe the Republicans will give us a crumb or two. It's not working, and it's time for some Big Change. 

Disgusted with Democrats, Disgusted with Obama

I am just speechless with disgust. Lieberman has hijacked the entire country and destroyed health care reform, and the jackasses in the White House, including the President, and the Senate "Leadership," who can't lead a kindergarten parade, have just let it happen.

If they don't kick Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus, they might as well forget it. They will lose big in 2010, and people like me will be even more than ever thinking, "What exactly do these people stand for?" Big fat nothing, mostly.

Obama has failed to reverse the Bush Constitutional infringements. He is failing to secure meaningful climate change legislation. He failed to endorse and push through real financial regulation, while renominating the guy (Bernanke) who presided over the greatest financial debacle since the Great Depression without a peep and appointing others equally up to their necks in the failed system as his main economic advisers (Summers, Geithner). He has failed to deal with the embarassing politicization of the top military brass or find a way to start bringing the reckless and foolish war in Afghanistan to an end.

I'm finding very, very little to celebrate in having a Democratic president and supposedly Democratic Congress right now.

Wrong side of history

I saw on TPM where Sens. Thune, Hatch, and Coburn pretended to be offended by Reid comparing Republican obstructionism on health care to those who blocked an end to slavery, Jim Crow, etc. I wrote the following to each of them:

As Rep. Grayson put it, Mr. xxxx, we the American people do not care about your FEELINGS. You are, indeed, obstructing progress in just the same way as rightists of old attempted to block the end of slavery, the end of Jim Crow, and any number of other progressive changes. You are very much on the wrong side of history, and if the criticism stings, it is because it is TRUE.

Anti-Imperialism and a paradigm shift vis-a-vis Israel

A friend commented as part of an ongoing discussion that if the U.S. were more virtuous in its policies, maybe the Muslims wouldn't hate us, although the Chinese invasion of Tibet looks like a counterexample of the principle. I made a comment about collective karma, but what really got me going in response is the concept, widely believed (although probably not by my friend, he was just using shorthand), that "Muslims" want to kill us. Here's part of what I wrote in response: 

I wouldn't say that "Muslims," without qualification, do want to kill us. It's probably fair to say that the most extreme Wahabists basically want to kill all non-Muslims who refuse to convert, but most Muslims in the world aren't nearly as fanatic as that. (I do have some problems with even some of their mainstream tenets, but let that go). 

I also believe that if the U.S. stopped prosecuting an Imperial policy in the World, and especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, and stopped asymmetrically supporting the extreme Right Wing government of Israel, the anger and resentment of "street" Arabs and other Muslims (of whom, after all, there are about 1 billion in the World) would evaporate fairly quickly. At the same time, we would be demanding that Israel participate in good faith in negotiations to bring about a two state solution in Palestine. We should never underestimate the intensity (never mind whether justified) of the anger and resentment most Muslims feel towards what they perceive to be the oppression of Palestinians, with what is perceived to be biased support from Western nations, especially the U.S. This, along with the fanatic resentment of U.S. troops having ever been stationed in Saudi Arabia, is the main fuel of radical Islamist hatred of the U.S. I'm referring to perception, not just reality, although there is a reality there too. None of this is argument to justify horrendous crimes of terrorism, but you have to look at causes, in order to find solutions.

Israel is a nonsignatory to the Nonproliferation treaty and a nuclear power. It refuses to stop colonizing the West Bank. It recently waged an asymmetrical punitive war in Gaza, and another a few years ago in Lebanon. (Of course there was some justification, but the response was radically asymmetrical; and punitive wars against civilians have been recognized to be war crimes for decades). All of these are reasons, in my view, to pull the plug on U.S. financial and military support for that government. They will not cease to exist without it, don't worry.

Sure, there would remain a small group of lunatics among the Islamist terrorist factions, but what they wouldn't have is the tacit support of millions of others, including some governments. The wild card being the House of Saud, which I believe it is provable is totally duplicitous and actually finances terrorism. But we can only take care of our side of the street.

Unfortunately, AIPAC, and even the more moderate pro-Israel lobbies, have tremendous influence in Washington, all out of proportion to a country that is about the size of Switzerland. Changing U.S. policy with regard to Israel would (will) be almost as difficult as shifting away from an imperialist foreign policy everywhere else. 

I really believe, however, that it is absolutely necessary for us to make both of these major paradigm shifts in foreign policy. The conflict over Palestine has consumed far too much of the world's resources, especially when you consider all the repercussions in the broader region. We are facing major climate and economic crises in the whole world which it now appears will be the primary focus of the first half of this century. It is long past time to put these 20th century disputes to rest; and if the parties will not cooperate, they must be left to fend for themselves.  

Snowe and Collins in play?

It's being reported that Olympia Snowe and (possibly) Susan Collins are "back in play" for the Health Bill, with the assumption that the public option is going to be converted into some sort of bullshit "trigger" option. Bleah.

It will, however, be ironic if Snowe, and maybe even Collins, end up voting for a bill that Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu and/or Lincoln vote against.

Maybe as actually elected Democrats, Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln should be left alone if they vote no. But I still say that Lieberman, who made an all but public promise not to block the Democratic legislative agenda in exchange for being allowed to keep his chairmanships (especially of Homeland Security), an agreement he has already reneged on, should be stripped of his chairmanships if he fails to vote for cloture, and even if he does vote for cloture but fails to vote for the final conference bill.

The hell with him. He is in no meaningful sense a Democrat, so why pretend he is?

Obama's Fateful Mistake: committing more than 30K additional troops in the Graveyard of Empires

I have made clear here before my strong belief that there is no winning strategy, and no compelling national interest, justifying American presence in Afghanistan. I simply do not buy into any of the arguments that sending in more troops will have any positive effect whatsoever; quite the opposite. Andrew Bacevich has written about this, as have numerous others with direct experience in the region, including Robert Baer. In a nutshell, there is no way to "win" this war, and there is no longer any realistic casus belli based on suppression of radical Islamist terrorism. The Taliban is not al Qaida, as everyone who knows the region admits, and there is no significant threat of attack on American territory from Afghanistan. Our relations with Pakistan, a nuclear power with 165 million people, are of far greater import, and are only being made worse by continued American military action in Afghanistan.

Of course, one can always focus on the differences, but this escalation is very disturbingly reminiscent of Vietnam, circa 1965, with the same beltway/Pentagon vision of a plan that can't work, and prospects for ever-increasing demands from the military for more and more escalation, until eventually the total failure of the policy becomes so onerous and so manifest that the people will demand that the plug be pulled.

One big difference: in 1965 the majority of the public still supported the president's getting America more deeply involved in a war with no coherent US interests at stake. This time, they don't. So, although fewer American lives are likely to be lost, in some ways the situation is worse from a political viewpoint. I see this as a very dangerous and potentially devastating mistake on President Obama's part, which may very well sink his presidency, unless this apparent policy trend is reversed soon.

With each passing month, it becomes clearer. Withdrawal is the only reasonable option. General Petraeus himself acknowledged that there is no Qaida in Afghanistan. There is also no opportunity to bribe Sunni tribesmen to stop cooperating with those attacking us, as there was in Iraq. (The so-called "surge" had very little to do with it, and some of the money came from Saudi Arabia; but in any case there's just nothing comparable in Afghanistan). This is a very poor, tribal country, where we have already spent far more than the GDP of the country propping up narco-gangsters and corrupt pseudo-government officials (just like in Vietnam), and waging a war that can never be won. The only effect has been turning a population that once welcomed us against us. This has happened already.

President Johnson agonized over Vietnam, and he worried that the American people would stop supporting the effort, which of course they did, eventually. Bill Moyers recently broadcast an entire hour of Johnson's taped conversations from that formative time, and the parallels with the present dilemma jumped out. President Obama should pay attention to the fact that the American people already have withdrawn majority support for this war. This is not a minor consideration: our country has no business fighting wars the people do not support.

Which brings me to another point. Congress has no business continuing to tolerate the Executive making the decision as to whether war will or will not be prosecuted. President Obama is acting with Congressional authorization, as far as it goes. But it is time for the Congress to take its constitutional responsibilities seriously and direct that this war be brought to a close. The framers gave the warmaking power to Congress for a very good reason. If there is one overriding lesson to be learned from the entire postwar era, it's that giving the Executive de facto power to wage war is a huge mistake. It makes no difference whether the presidency is Republican or Democratic; carte blanche authorizations to commit or engage U.S. troops or war materiel abroad must not be forthcoming going forward: every decision to commit to military action beyond a brief emergency window must be under the control of the legislative branch. This is what our constitution requires, and the longer we tolerate deviance from it, the less our government resembles the representative system the framers of the Constitution intended.

This war is heading for nowhere but disaster, at a time when far more pressing needs present themselves for attention from our limited resources here at home. We must bring this fiasco to an end. The President should ask Gates, Mullen, Petraeus and McChrystal for a realistic plan to extricate us from this country as soon as humanly possible consistent with protection of American lives and reasonable conservation of resources. Any of them who fail to comply or publicly obstruct the president's intentions should be summarily dismissed. I think particularly McChrystal (who unquestionably lied about the Pat Tillman affair and was insubordinate in publicly calling for troop increases before a decision was made), should be eased into retirement as soon as practicable anyway.

What else can we do? We can and should ask the Saudis to step in and offer financial aid to their fellow Muslims, and contribute to humanitarian aid for a time. We can try to convene a U.N. sponsored Peace Conference, and enlist the aid of countries in the area, including China, in offering development aid to Afghanistan. We have done a lousy job, due mainly to corruption both of contractors and the so-called government there, at building schools, hospitals, and economic infrastructure, which are the very things that could bring the people of that unfortunate country out of the desperate poverty and universal unemployment that makes them see the Taliban as a better option. Other countries may have greater success in offering to fund and carry out development projects, which we can support to some extent. But regardless of the success of such an effort, we must announce the intention to withdraw, and carry it out in an orderly and reasonably rapid manner. Ultimately, the building of a nation in Afghanistan is not our responsibility. Moreover, given the lack of support for the effort here at home, is not a good enough reason to maintain a military presence in that country any longer than is necessary to bring that very presence to an end.

UPDATE 12/1;   In a nine-minute Special Comment on 11/30, Keith Olbermann expressed views similar to mine.

Lou Dobbs's coming political career

Report: Lou Dobbs mulling run for the White House or Senate.

I think Lou Dobbs's career will make Harold Stassen look like a Lion among Politicians. I predict 4-5% vote in whatever election he foolishly runs in, and an abrupt and permanent end to his career almost before it begins.

McCain predicts success. Oh oh.

Reports: McCain predicts "success" in Afghanistan in 18 months, if only Obama OKs more troops.

Why, WHY, would anyone take seriously anything John McCain says about foreign policy or military prospects? Can anyone's record of accuracy in making such predictions be worse, other than, perhaps, Dick Cheney's? or Donald Rumsfeld's?

Cheney 2012! (!)

I offer as Exhibit A in proof that the entire Cheney family is completely divorced from reality the report that daughter Liz (tell me again why anything she says is news?) floated a trial balloon on (where else?) Fox News to the effect that Pops may run for President in 2012.

Earth to Cheneys: Pops's approval rating remains in the teens. He remains the most unpopular vice-president ever. (And for very good reason).Yes, worse than admitted bribe taker Spiro Agnew.

I hope he does run. A little public humiliation is good for the soul. Oh, wait, soul and Dick Cheney are kind of mutually exclusive, aren't they?

Thoughts on Afghanistan

Discussing Afghanistan with a friend in an e-mail exchange, I wrote this:

I'm not big on invasions and wars in general, but do you realize that if the US had, in December, 2001, chosen to set up a "Occupation Government of Afghanistan" modeled on the Occupation of Japan from 1945-51, we could very well be leaving right now, having transitioned to a stable sovereign parliamentary government and a grateful population? Instead of installing an arch criminal whose brother is a drug kingpin as a "government," while switching focus and resources to an entirely unnecessary war in Iraq. Remember? They were ecstatic when the Taliban was overthrown and Qaida expelled. Sure, things could have gone wrong, but we didn't even try. Afghanistan is a really poor country. Only $50B GDP. Even if the US had just paid every adult over the age of 20 $1500 a year in cash to grow wheat and barley, not opium, and do whatever else they were already doing, we would have spent far less than we have, and the Taliban would have no foothold, because the economy of the country would be starting to function.

Oh well, I always was a utopian dreamer. But it's totally clear to me that sending in more soldiers will only make the situation worse, keep US involvement there longer, cost more, and make the world and even the US itself a more dangerous place. (And, of course, cause huge suffering and loss of life). It will increase the number of young Muslim men from the Mahgreb to Indonesia who are convinced that we are waging the 10th Crusade against their religion and civilization. (Which I'm not totally sure isn't true; check out Mikey Weinstein's http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/voices.html ).

Afghanistan Options and Gen. McChrystal

It's being pretty widely reported that President Obama is demanding revisions to the "options" presented to him for changing the course of the Afghanistan war, in the wake of the strongly worded public disagreement by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry (a former military commander) with the request by Gen. McChrystal for more troops.

First, I gather from what's been reported that orderly full withdrawal is not one of the options being presented to the President. I have to ask, why the hell not? Even if you disagree with that course, it must be considered, since the whole rationale for our being in Afghanistan has come under widespread question. The option to pull the plug and get out just has to be one of the possible courses the President gives consideration to. (I've made clear that this is the option I think best for our country).

Second, I gotta ask: why the hell hasn't McChrystal been fired? He was openly insubordinate in giving a policy speech in London. Any high level military officer who presumes to do an end run around the chain of command and tries to pressure decisions by the President should be cashiered immediately and ignominiously.

Yet another disgusting comparison of the President to Terrorists

This report of a comparison by a State Senator from Colorado Springs, CO of Obama to terrorists hijacking Flight 93, is so disgusting that it appalls me that someone like this can hold elective office in this country.

I have relatives in Colorado Springs, with whom I generally disagree politically. I certainly hope they have enough just plain decency to vote this thoroughly objectionable human being out of office permanently.

Four Options for Afhghanistan ?

It's now being reported that President Obama has narrowed the options for going forward in Afghanistan to four options. I sure as hell hope one of those options is to draw down and subsequently withdraw from the region altogether, concentrating instead on a diplomatic strategy with Pakistan. And that this is the option he chooses.

It's become crystal clear to me that there is no compelling US interest in Afghanistan. Period.

It also can hardly be clearer that Afghanistan has a huge potential, even an overwhelming likelihood, of becoming and remaining throughout the President's term(s) of office a catastrophic quagmire, comparable in many ways to Vietnam. 

GOP Reform = No Reform

How can that mentally deficient idiot John Boehner keep a straight face? The CBO report says the Republican's ridiculous health care "reform" bill will reduce the deficit by less than the Democrats' bill, will insure very few if any people not currently insured, and will not reform any of the abusive practices (rescission, pre-existing condition exclusion) that have caused this crisis. Good, goin' Repubs. Introduce a reform bill that reforms exactly nothing.

What I don't understand is how can they, or their Fox News cheerleading section, expect anyone to fall for this claptrap?

Some provisions I'd like to see in a New Constitution

I have offered a Modest Proposal (admittedly utopian), for a Constitutional Convention to rewrite our Constitution to make government actually work for the people. Here's a laundry list of provisions I'd like to see. 

•  Preservation of the basic structure, with three branches of government, a President serving no more than 2 four-year terms, and two houses of Congress, House and Senate, elected for 2 years and for 6 years, respectively, as at present, and a court system consisting of a Supreme Court and subsidiary courts subject to regulation, establishment and organization by the Legislative Branch, as at present. The New Constitution will preserve everything in the old constituiton that isn't explicitly changed, the existing amendments to the old constitution will be incorporated into the main body of the document except where moot or superfluous due to new provisions
•  Direct popular election of the President (ending the Electoral College system)
•  Explicit and specific provisions to ensure fairness in vote-counting and election rules nationwide, both Federal and other jurisdictions
•  Automatic runoff in all elections (national and local) where a candidate fails to garner 50%+1 (possibly incorporating or permitting "second choice" voting enabling the run-off and election to occur simultaneously)
  
•  One senator per state, with the same number -- the other half -- of the Senate elected by proportional representation by population, except that all Senators to be elected at large within each State entitled to that number of Senators by population
•  Limited Debate in both houses of Congress by explicit constitutional requirement; no filibuster
•  An end to gerrymandering, affecting not only House Districts, but all state government districting as well, by imposing a rational mathematical scheme to ensure unbiased representation by population, to prevent incumbent bias and control of government by special interests; the executive charged to faithfully execute this requirement, including through use of the justice department to sue the states where necessary
•  Term limits for Congress: 2 Senate Terms; 5 House Terms (this would also have the effect of removing most of the disadvantages and bias of the Seniority System); with or without, as the Congress may decide, the right to run again after sitting out a certain period (with loss of all seniority)
•  Term limits for judges, including Supreme Court Justices: ten years, with one term only; no reappointment (this in recognition that judges are not elected, and have a great deal of arbitrary power; no one should hold this power indefinitely)
•  A New Bill of Rights, in part modeled on that of the European Union, that guarantees voting rights, employment assistance, health care, non-discrimination on the basis of sex, race, age, sexual orientation, religion, immigrant status, or ethnicity; workplace safety, clean environment, compliance with the Geneva Conventions (including no torture or coercive interrogation): this spelled out, not incorporated by reference; rules of evidence, no surveillance of citizens or legal residents without court order (including electronic surveillance), habeas corpus. Freedom of Information and access to information. Modification to the 2d amendment to allow localities to ban assault weapons, handguns, etc. Non-citizens present in the United States or subject to US legal process shall have enumerated due process rights and may not be held without judicial process. Complete separation of Church and State explicitly enumerated, with public education prohibited from presenting religious viewpoints as fact; freedom to worship or not to worship as citizens see fit; no public prayer or religious ceremonies in public institutions, with a carefully crafted exception for cultural displays of religious art or symbols in public places without the intent to promote any particular religion; right to old age security; right to collective bargaining; and other fundamental rights, in addition to the rights currently enumerated (and clarified to account for changes in technology, etc)
•  Congress or the States may tax property or income of non-profit organizations or religious institutions, at their discretion
•  A statement of principle whereby the US will not engage in preemptive war, or attack or invade other nations except in self-defense, and shall not seek territorial expansion by force
•  War powers clarified: the president may not commit US troops or war materiel to hostile action or presence on foreign soil for more than, say, 45 days for any reason without a Declaration of War or other specific authorization, which if passed by both houses of Congress, must be renewed at least every 180 days
•  A statement of principle whereby the nation will support and promote self-determination and democracy by peaceful means, and not act to assist (financially or militarily) dictatorships, nor states which the Congress, or if the Congress makes no such finding, the President, shall find do not adhere to generally acceptable standards of human rights and self-determination and representation of all citizens
•  A statement of principle whereby the United States must cooperate with other nations to preserve a habitable world, but must also conduct its trade policies to give priority to its own peoples' welfare
•  Explicit rules of economic democracy, to prevent corporations or other organizations (including labor unions) from buying and selling influence, and subject them to ultimate control, as chartered entities of the several states, to serve the public interest (as was the case before laissez-faire court decisions in the 19th Century); Congress to have the power to revoke the charter, or prohibit the activities, of any interstate or multinational corporation for unlawful conduct or conduct found by the Congress to be "not in the public interest."
  
•  Statement of Principle that the Congress shall set public policy in general substance, and not delegate "proper" powers of the Legislature to the executive branch or agencies
•  Explicit changes to Article II drastically restricting the power of the President to ignore the law, or to act outside of it; explicitly stating that any statements appended to laws signed by the president shall be deemed surplus and void of effect
• Presidential veto preserved, but no line item veto 
  
•  A statement of principle that it is a legitimate purpose of the Federal Government to promote the welfare of the citizens of the nation, and to regulate finance and commerce to prevent injustice or unfair advantage
•  Detailed Clarification of the powers now appropriated to the Federal Government under the Commerce Clause
•  A new provision to make it easier for states with more than a certain percentage (say 6%) of the population of the country, as established by the Census, to split into two states, if that state's own electorate or representatives shall decide to do so, according to each such state's own laws, without requirement for approval by the other states or by Congress
•  Explicit rejection of the notion that political money equates with political speech; enabling and requiring, but not specifying the details of, real public financing and spending limits on election campaigns
•  Provision that the Congress may impeach the president or any official of the executive, including any military officer, or any Federal judge, for any reason or no reason, but with a fairly high hurdle to actually do it; essentially the system now in place apart from the grounds
•  Explicit restrictions on legal requirements for supermajorities, to those few spelled out in the constitution • these to be specifically and explicitly applicable to the States as well as the Federal government, so that State governments are ensured functional representative government too
•  Federal Referendum, but not Initiative or Recall
•  Any bill that fails to pass both houses, but receives at least 45% of the vote of both houses, shall, on motion receiving that same margin, be submitted to the people as a Referendum; with certain exceptions, notably no declaration of war or authorization for military action by referendum
•  Referenda, when passed, become law, and are not subject to presidential veto
•  No law enacted by referendum may be repealed or amended within ten years, except by at least 55% vote of both houses, subject to presidential veto 
•   Provision to make it slightly (not too much) easier to amend the constitution or to call another Constitutional Convention
•  Ratification of the new constitution shall be by referendum to the people; if simple electoral majorities of 2/3 of the states adopt the constitution, it is ordained. 
• The constitution would prohibit secession explicitly, but might make provision to permit any state that did not wish to join the revised union to withdraw rather than ratify. (This could create logistical nightmares, but would be worth considering at least). 
  

Yet another letter to Reid about Lieberman off the reservation

Dear Sen. Reid:

I've written about this before, but it bears repeating. Sen. Lieberman is WAY, WAY off the reservation on the public option.

If he follows through with his whining threat to vote against cloture on the final bill, he MUST suffer the consequence of losing his committee chairmanships, in particular Homeland Security.

If this is made perfectly clear to him in advance, it may influence him to support the Democratic party, for once. If not, then he is no Democrat and should not be entitled to the privileges appurtenant to "caucusing" with the Democrats. It can hardly be clearer than that if he votes to kill this historic opportunity, the most important reform of President Obama's first term in office, he is for ALL intents and purposes a Republican, not a Democrat. If he were to openly declare himself as such, he would lose his privileges. This vote, if he follows through on it, AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING as declaring himself a Republican.

This man may be a friend of yours, but he is no longer a Democrat in any meaningful way. Gov. Dean and Sen. Harkin are right: if he fails to follow the unwritten rule requiring him to support YOU on this critical procedural vote, he must suffer the gravest consequences possible.

I sincerely hope that the very real threat of those consequences will cause him to change his mind, but that threat MUST BE REAL, and must be followed through on if it fails to change his vote, to show others that there are consequences to sabotaging not only the agenda of the party but the clear will of the majority of Americans. In this case, it is particularly disgusting for Sen. Lieberman to take the position he is taking, in view of the fact that over 2/3 of his own state constituents disagree with his stance on this issue.

Thank you.

Dysfunctional Government: My Modest Proposal

I live in a state, California, which is paralyzed by probably the worst Legislative Institutional Blockage in American History, thanks in large measure to the preposterous rules requiring 2/3 votes for tax or budget changes. These all date to what I believe is the single worst law ever enacted in the United States, in this case a ballot proposition changing the State's constitution, 1978's Prop. 13. Former Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg has proposed a State Constitutional Convention to effectively repeal the worst provisions of this damaging law, and to make other needed changes in the way California is governed. (Incidentally, it is not the 1% ad valorem property tax cap provision which is so harmful; it's the provisions for supermajority requirements for both initiative and legislative votes to raise any taxes, or to pass a budget, which are so crippling).

Which brings me to my actual topic. I regard the dysfunction that has gradually settled over the U.S. Senate, with its effective supermajority to pass any affirmative legislation, and its gross institutional bias in favor of the party of No!, as comparable to the blockage which has paralyzed California. To me, while there are other serious institutional problems in our government, this one is so bad, and so harmful, that it alone justifies the ultimate solution which I have come to believe is necessary. And since this solution is sweeping and all-encompassing, it would give our generation of Americans the opportunity to make historic reforms to our entire system of government, for the benefit of all Americans.

Our country is being gravely harmed by the inability, despite a strong majority on all levels, to pass meaningful reform legislation that actually works. I offer the mess that is the drawn-out process for enacting Health Care Reform, as proof by example. After months and months, and countless hours of stupid debate and nonsensical media ranting and raving, mostly about side-issues and non-issues (as in, lies about what the bills would do), it looks like the entire effort will result in a pitiful, not-even half measure. Dennis Kucinich decried, Is this the best we can do? Because if it is, it isn't good enough. 

He's right, of course. It isn't nearly good enough. And not because the majority of Americans don't support robust and efficient reform. They do, and the polls prove it. It's because of the institutional dysfunction, primarily in the Senate, which makes it easy to block any action, but requires near impossible majorities to accomplish anything. Other countries don't have this problem. In most European countries, where the majority votes for something, it becomes law. A party that can only muster 20 or 30% to call themselves adherents could never block reform. But here, they can, because they can effectively prevent the Senate from acting on legislation.

This has been played out over and over, as instead of rational and efficient legislation, we end up with stupid, ineffective, inefficient, and counter-productive government on every level. No Child Left Behind, but no funding. Medicare Prescription Drug Reform, but no ability to negotiate prices, and one of the most confusing and irrational schemes ever for actually providing the benefit (the "donut hole.") Not to mention the institutional bias that makes ridiculously wasteful military industrial spending virtually impossible to oppose, due to the power of regional and corporate interests to impose their priorities, regardless of what the electorate wants or thinks. Next on the Agenda? Watered down and ineffective financial re-regulation, and inadequate and ineffective Climate Change Legislation. Count on it. If anything is passed in either area, it will not be enough, will not be rational or efficient, and will not reflect the demonstrable will of the electorate.

Examples of the essentially dysfunctional nature of the Legislative Branch in general, and the Senate in particular, are virtually endless. 

My Modest Proposal?

I believe the only way around this historic paralysis is to finally do what Thomas Jefferson assumed we would do once in every generation or so: we must revise the Constitution by holding, for only the second time in our history, a National Constitutional Convention. 

I think it's safe to conclude that a proposed constitutional amendment to change the way the Senate is constituted, and change its rules by Constitutional provision, could never get the support of 3/4 of the State Legislatures required to enact a constitutional amendment. They would be too determined to preserve the undue influence they now have.

But maybe, just maybe, as the harm to our economy, our ability to effectively provide the kinds of services that most people in the world regard as the very purpose of government, and our standing in the world, all deteriorate progressively, it will become possible to prevail in a political movement for a National Constitutional Convention.

I used to be opposed to any such notion, thinking the tripartite government, with its various checks and balances, that our 18th century forbears created, was so valuable, and so protective of our rights, that we could not risk losing it. But it seems to me, that system has largely failed. Our rights are not being preserved. The Bush administration effectively abrogated many of them, and even the Obama administration has been slow to see to their robust restoration. Moreover, the system just doesn't work. Look at the way health care has gone: it's a total mess, despite strong support from a large majority in almost every state.

Of course, it's risky. Special interests control politics very effectively in this country, and we could, one might argue, end up with a sort of fictitious democracy, with oligarchy institutionalized once and for all. But I have enough faith in the force of the will of the people, who will demand fairness and functionality, to believe that wouldn't happen. And I have come to believe that our system of government, our military/industrial/Congressional complex, as Dwight Eisenhower warned, and in particular the institutional flaws that make it possible, are in fact so very bad, that whatever emerges from a full scale Constitutional Convention is unlikely to be worse. The reality is that we have oligarchy now, with government by and large bought and paid for by special interests.

I think it's possible to raise the consciousness of the people, so to speak, till they demand that the system of government itself be changed, so that the will of the people is more effectively reflected in the output of, in particular, the Legislature, and so that such dangerous concepts as Dick Cheney's theory of a "unitary executive" are disposed of once and for all. Moreover, many of the rights and principles that have evolved since 1789 as essential elements of the "American Way," but which are not explicit in the Constitution, could be made so. Further, some of the more dubious and harmful elements of our political system, many of them derived from questionable judicial precedents, such as the concept that Corporations are persons without particular responsibilities to act in the public service, could be changed to make our whole political/economic system work more effectively to not only create prosperity for all, but with essential fairness and equity as hallmarks of the law on all levels.

I will post further on this topic as time goes on.