Equity or nothing at UN climate talks. Still valid. And Obama knows what this is about. And the importance. He has Stephen Chu on staff. That guy reads books. He didn't get elected by oil companies. They supported Old Man and Alaska Crazy Lady. We have Obama in office now. And this is the best we can get? The US, once again blocking progress at the international climate talks? Continuing to refuse to set targets and timetables? Jonathan Pershing used to work at World Resources Institute, but he is a "realist" as EcoEquity says. What is so realistic about resigning ourselves to a fiery future? Does the climate of Venus sound appealing to you?
American negotiators in Durban: Drop all your pre-conceptions about what is "realistic" and what Eric Cantor will say yes to. Contraction & Convergence is the only way forward. Per capita equity is the goal. Obama can push for a Cap & Dividend climate bill that allows him to sign a future climate treaty without 66 Senators. Bohner's grandchildren will thank you in 20 years.
Thank you Occupiers and 350.org folks for being vocal when we need you most.
Friday, December 09, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
An Occupy Ask to Obama: Fire Geithner Hire Warren
Here I was, with what I thought was a great original idea, for the Occupy Movement (of which I am not a spokesperson): Tell Obama: Fire Geithner, Hire Elizabeth Warren for Treasury Secretary!
This other person had posted the exact same thing back in 2010. Nice job, Mosquito! Here's another one from last month. Is that a chorus I hear?
Now is the right time to do it, before the Repubs have selected Obama's opponent. Obama could seize the headlines, and make a statement. If he does it later, he may miss this moment when the Occupiers have the media's attention, despite the media's attempts to focus on police evictions and tent bans rather than on the 99% and the 1%.
Naysayers will say, yeah, and then he can hire Van Jones back too. This is 2008 neverland hope and changey stuff. It won't happen in the cynical late-2011 post-debt ceiling world of crushed hopes and dreams. But I reply, yes we can? No, but like the Green Party it's still a good idea.
The last time I had an idea like this, it was 2003 and I suggested that Colin Powell resign over what he knew was faulty intelligence (pressure from Cheney on the CIA to say there were WMDs in Iraq - as Rick Perry would say, "oops") and change his party affiliation to independent and run against Bush in 2004. I still think it would have worked. A few weeks later Powell went to the UN and flushed his reputation down the toilet. That's what you get for hangin with Dubya Cheney and Rumsfeld. And that's what Obama will get for stickin with Geithner at a moment when America is waking up.
This other person had posted the exact same thing back in 2010. Nice job, Mosquito! Here's another one from last month. Is that a chorus I hear?
Now is the right time to do it, before the Repubs have selected Obama's opponent. Obama could seize the headlines, and make a statement. If he does it later, he may miss this moment when the Occupiers have the media's attention, despite the media's attempts to focus on police evictions and tent bans rather than on the 99% and the 1%.
Naysayers will say, yeah, and then he can hire Van Jones back too. This is 2008 neverland hope and changey stuff. It won't happen in the cynical late-2011 post-debt ceiling world of crushed hopes and dreams. But I reply, yes we can? No, but like the Green Party it's still a good idea.
The last time I had an idea like this, it was 2003 and I suggested that Colin Powell resign over what he knew was faulty intelligence (pressure from Cheney on the CIA to say there were WMDs in Iraq - as Rick Perry would say, "oops") and change his party affiliation to independent and run against Bush in 2004. I still think it would have worked. A few weeks later Powell went to the UN and flushed his reputation down the toilet. That's what you get for hangin with Dubya Cheney and Rumsfeld. And that's what Obama will get for stickin with Geithner at a moment when America is waking up.
Monday, June 06, 2011
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Mr. Panetta, Please Change the Military's Mission to Saving the Oceans - Declare War on Climate Change
Before Rumsfeld invaded Iraq, he chaired a commission that advocated the militarization of space. Hence, Rumsfeld Invaders (a take-off of the Atari video game for those of you who didn't grow up in the 80's).
Now, Obama has appointed Leon Panetta to be the next Secretary of Defense. Panetta chaired a commission that advocated saving the oceans. Wow. What a stark contrast. The next Secretary of Defense, arguably the 3rd most important person in government (look at the size of that DoD budget!), cares about something other than guns and explosions? Not only that, but he just helped knock off bin Laden. He's an enviro, and he's got cojones too? Now that's an American hero!
If you think I'm gushing too much here, let's get specific: (sources 1 2) For much of his life, Leon Panetta has been a passionate advocate for our nation’s oceans. While a member of the House of Representatives, Panetta authored numerous successful measures to protect the California coast, and was a major factor in establishing the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Panetta also served on the board of the Monterey Bay Aquarium and is a National Marine Sanctuary Foundation trustee.
Panetta was Chair of the Pew Oceans Commission, which called for reforms in U.S. ocean management and ocean governance, preserving and protecting coastal habitat, and fisheries, creating sustainable marine aquaculture, and preventing the collapse of ocean ecosystems, and served as Co-Chair of the Joint Ocean Commission.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative grew out of the ocean advocacy work done by Panetta’s Pew Ocean Commission and Admiral Watkins’ US Commission on Ocean Policy.
OK, so what does saving the ocean have to do with the military?
Easy. Climate change is turning the oceans to acid. The oceans are absorbing the CO2 put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and the resulting acidity is eating away at the species that rely on calcium carbonate for their shells, and the acidity is bleaching the coral reefs, the very things that make the ocean sanctuaries - the ones that Secretary-designate Panetta loves - so beautiful.
Mr. Panetta arguably won the War on Terror by getting bin Laden. We are avenged. Sure, there is still evil in the world. Sure, some Amurkins will want to keep invading countries and blowing stuff up. But seriously, we need to win hearts and minds and the dudes with the guns and the macho mentality are not really helping the cause out there anymore. Let's build some schools and give out some laptops and teach women in those countries how to read. Pull out the troops, and then, Mr. Panetta, here is where you get to take leadership:
Declare War on Climate Change!
You can do it! Amurkins love to go to war. And in the 21st century, the information age, we love to go to war against ideas. Well, unfortunately, climate change is real. But it's also a concept that connects to how Amurkins live their everyday lives. And we're going to need the $700 billion a year in the military budget to take on this challenge of remaking our energy and transportation infrastructure, upgrading our homes and building stock, and learning how to do things locally and organically.
Who better than the troops, those guys that we support, to help us make this difficult transition?
Let's save the oceans, let's take on climate change. And the guy in the seat of power in the Pentagon could actually make this happen. Yes we can...hope...for change!
Now, Obama has appointed Leon Panetta to be the next Secretary of Defense. Panetta chaired a commission that advocated saving the oceans. Wow. What a stark contrast. The next Secretary of Defense, arguably the 3rd most important person in government (look at the size of that DoD budget!), cares about something other than guns and explosions? Not only that, but he just helped knock off bin Laden. He's an enviro, and he's got cojones too? Now that's an American hero!
If you think I'm gushing too much here, let's get specific: (sources 1 2) For much of his life, Leon Panetta has been a passionate advocate for our nation’s oceans. While a member of the House of Representatives, Panetta authored numerous successful measures to protect the California coast, and was a major factor in establishing the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Panetta also served on the board of the Monterey Bay Aquarium and is a National Marine Sanctuary Foundation trustee.
Panetta was Chair of the Pew Oceans Commission, which called for reforms in U.S. ocean management and ocean governance, preserving and protecting coastal habitat, and fisheries, creating sustainable marine aquaculture, and preventing the collapse of ocean ecosystems, and served as Co-Chair of the Joint Ocean Commission.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative grew out of the ocean advocacy work done by Panetta’s Pew Ocean Commission and Admiral Watkins’ US Commission on Ocean Policy.
OK, so what does saving the ocean have to do with the military?
Easy. Climate change is turning the oceans to acid. The oceans are absorbing the CO2 put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and the resulting acidity is eating away at the species that rely on calcium carbonate for their shells, and the acidity is bleaching the coral reefs, the very things that make the ocean sanctuaries - the ones that Secretary-designate Panetta loves - so beautiful.
Mr. Panetta arguably won the War on Terror by getting bin Laden. We are avenged. Sure, there is still evil in the world. Sure, some Amurkins will want to keep invading countries and blowing stuff up. But seriously, we need to win hearts and minds and the dudes with the guns and the macho mentality are not really helping the cause out there anymore. Let's build some schools and give out some laptops and teach women in those countries how to read. Pull out the troops, and then, Mr. Panetta, here is where you get to take leadership:
Declare War on Climate Change!
You can do it! Amurkins love to go to war. And in the 21st century, the information age, we love to go to war against ideas. Well, unfortunately, climate change is real. But it's also a concept that connects to how Amurkins live their everyday lives. And we're going to need the $700 billion a year in the military budget to take on this challenge of remaking our energy and transportation infrastructure, upgrading our homes and building stock, and learning how to do things locally and organically.
Who better than the troops, those guys that we support, to help us make this difficult transition?
Let's save the oceans, let's take on climate change. And the guy in the seat of power in the Pentagon could actually make this happen. Yes we can...hope...for change!
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Osama's Dead, and Thoughts on the Military-Industrial Complex
Osama bin Laden is dead.
This marks a turning point in the War on Terror, as it was originally conceived, but more on that later.
In the 9 years leading up to today, we spent trillions of dollars on the War on Terror. Some of those billions were on tracking Osama, but much of it was on militarism that did not really make us safer – invading Iraq, groping elderly people at airports, building lots of bombs, etc. The Military Industrial complex had quite a windfall during those nine years, and the Republicans exploited 9/11 for all it was worth politically. But in the context of laying off teachers and police officers, and cutting local govt budgets to the bone and beyond, those trillions could sure come in handy now. Is that a bit too apples and oranges for you? Those tradeoffs of guns and butter are basic Econ 101. I'm just saying that our country has been all guns and no butter, and the guy whose face was on the most wanted poster that justified those choices is now dead.
The past 9 years of foreign militarism set off by 9/11 came without any real time on introspection. We could have spent more time thinking about what 9/11 was all about. Why did the evil doers pick the WTC and the Pentagon specifically? The answer is typically, because they are evil. And they do evil. But seriously, was it an attack on the whole country of America? Sounds silly to even ask the question, right? But my answer may surprise you. No. It was an attack on the military-industrial-corporate complex. That is different from America. I still haven’t heard any major politician or leader say this. It is interesting to consider for a moment how our country would have responded if we had been told that the corporate-military complex was under attack, but not the American people. Not that attacking things by killing civilians is at all justifiable no matter what your target. But when something big happens to you, usually it is smart to understand why it happened, and what they were trying to say. We never did that. A big part of the problem was that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (and to some extent Giuilani) were the only ones given the microphone in the months after 9/11. After that, the course was set. Invade countries. Shoot, kill. Team Amurka. And after all these years, and with Osama bin Laden now dead, I am still annoyed that the Dems (Feinstein, Kerry, and other blue dogs) went along with the Republican-Rumsfeld plan, and later didn't do anything when hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters were in the streets. I have been meaning to write a blog comparing the anti-war movement in 2003 with the tea party movement in 2009. I think there may have been more anti-war people than current tea partiers, someone should do a study or a count to see if that is true. But a major party, the Repubs, embraced the tea party. The tea party has no head, but a bunch of shadow fronts appeared and claimed to speak for them, next thing you know there are all these candidates, and someone like Palin tries to capitalize on them. The Dems did nothing for the 2003 anti-war movement, and no one capitalized on anything, and it took 4 years, trillions of dollars, and Bush and Rumsfeld running the country into a ditch before the Dems even seemed to do something about it. And even now, after all these years, and Iraq supposedly winding down, but with trillions of dollars of financial commitment still on the line, I still can't really tell you what Obama did about Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, Osama bin Laden being killed is a victory. But he wasn't even in either of those two countries. Sure, the Taliban suck, and Saddam used to hang out Rumsfeld in 80's (say no more). I'm telling you though, Osama was in Pakistan, our supposed ally in the War on Terror. I guess they were allied enough to not tip off Osama, at least this time. Curious to know how many previous attempts there were. But give these guys credit for this one. They seem to have accomplished the mission.
So, what does Osama bin Laden's death mean for the War on Terror? There are still crazies in Somalia and parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But it seems like the main figurehead is gone. I wonder if he was still the financing hub, or if there are other Saudi-Mujahedeen types in the background? The question is: can we convert more of those crazies by building schools for them, and handing out free laptops and educating their women? Do we still need to be wedded to this testosterone and frankly childish warpath that Dubya and Rummy sent us down? Can we, at long last, close Guantanamo? Can we wean ourselves off of Middle East oil, so that we aren't sending billions to despots (who recently were suddenly put on notice by an exciting youthful pro-democracy movement from Tunisia to Bahrain and even Syria) or supporting Islamist movements. This means renewable energy, electrifying transportation, hydrogen, smart growth, trains, sustainability - Renewable Energy is Homeland Security. Maybe Obama (spelled with a "b") can be the adult in the conversation and articulate a real mission. He can start putting the Military-Industrial Complex in its rightful place in the federal budget. Sure, it would still be there. But maybe 1/2 or 1/8th the current size. And that money could be redirected toward domestic issues, and fighting climate change (a much bigger threat to our country and to civilization and the biusphere as a whole). Let's deploy those troops to fight climate change. They may need to invade a few corporate board rooms. Exxon, BP, Chevwrong. (Note: the "invasion" could be in the form of a carbon tax, or cap and dividend, etc.)
We got Osama. But the country is still not safe. Let's roll!
This marks a turning point in the War on Terror, as it was originally conceived, but more on that later.
In the 9 years leading up to today, we spent trillions of dollars on the War on Terror. Some of those billions were on tracking Osama, but much of it was on militarism that did not really make us safer – invading Iraq, groping elderly people at airports, building lots of bombs, etc. The Military Industrial complex had quite a windfall during those nine years, and the Republicans exploited 9/11 for all it was worth politically. But in the context of laying off teachers and police officers, and cutting local govt budgets to the bone and beyond, those trillions could sure come in handy now. Is that a bit too apples and oranges for you? Those tradeoffs of guns and butter are basic Econ 101. I'm just saying that our country has been all guns and no butter, and the guy whose face was on the most wanted poster that justified those choices is now dead.
The past 9 years of foreign militarism set off by 9/11 came without any real time on introspection. We could have spent more time thinking about what 9/11 was all about. Why did the evil doers pick the WTC and the Pentagon specifically? The answer is typically, because they are evil. And they do evil. But seriously, was it an attack on the whole country of America? Sounds silly to even ask the question, right? But my answer may surprise you. No. It was an attack on the military-industrial-corporate complex. That is different from America. I still haven’t heard any major politician or leader say this. It is interesting to consider for a moment how our country would have responded if we had been told that the corporate-military complex was under attack, but not the American people. Not that attacking things by killing civilians is at all justifiable no matter what your target. But when something big happens to you, usually it is smart to understand why it happened, and what they were trying to say. We never did that. A big part of the problem was that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (and to some extent Giuilani) were the only ones given the microphone in the months after 9/11. After that, the course was set. Invade countries. Shoot, kill. Team Amurka. And after all these years, and with Osama bin Laden now dead, I am still annoyed that the Dems (Feinstein, Kerry, and other blue dogs) went along with the Republican-Rumsfeld plan, and later didn't do anything when hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters were in the streets. I have been meaning to write a blog comparing the anti-war movement in 2003 with the tea party movement in 2009. I think there may have been more anti-war people than current tea partiers, someone should do a study or a count to see if that is true. But a major party, the Repubs, embraced the tea party. The tea party has no head, but a bunch of shadow fronts appeared and claimed to speak for them, next thing you know there are all these candidates, and someone like Palin tries to capitalize on them. The Dems did nothing for the 2003 anti-war movement, and no one capitalized on anything, and it took 4 years, trillions of dollars, and Bush and Rumsfeld running the country into a ditch before the Dems even seemed to do something about it. And even now, after all these years, and Iraq supposedly winding down, but with trillions of dollars of financial commitment still on the line, I still can't really tell you what Obama did about Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, Osama bin Laden being killed is a victory. But he wasn't even in either of those two countries. Sure, the Taliban suck, and Saddam used to hang out Rumsfeld in 80's (say no more). I'm telling you though, Osama was in Pakistan, our supposed ally in the War on Terror. I guess they were allied enough to not tip off Osama, at least this time. Curious to know how many previous attempts there were. But give these guys credit for this one. They seem to have accomplished the mission.
So, what does Osama bin Laden's death mean for the War on Terror? There are still crazies in Somalia and parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. But it seems like the main figurehead is gone. I wonder if he was still the financing hub, or if there are other Saudi-Mujahedeen types in the background? The question is: can we convert more of those crazies by building schools for them, and handing out free laptops and educating their women? Do we still need to be wedded to this testosterone and frankly childish warpath that Dubya and Rummy sent us down? Can we, at long last, close Guantanamo? Can we wean ourselves off of Middle East oil, so that we aren't sending billions to despots (who recently were suddenly put on notice by an exciting youthful pro-democracy movement from Tunisia to Bahrain and even Syria) or supporting Islamist movements. This means renewable energy, electrifying transportation, hydrogen, smart growth, trains, sustainability - Renewable Energy is Homeland Security. Maybe Obama (spelled with a "b") can be the adult in the conversation and articulate a real mission. He can start putting the Military-Industrial Complex in its rightful place in the federal budget. Sure, it would still be there. But maybe 1/2 or 1/8th the current size. And that money could be redirected toward domestic issues, and fighting climate change (a much bigger threat to our country and to civilization and the biusphere as a whole). Let's deploy those troops to fight climate change. They may need to invade a few corporate board rooms. Exxon, BP, Chevwrong. (Note: the "invasion" could be in the form of a carbon tax, or cap and dividend, etc.)
We got Osama. But the country is still not safe. Let's roll!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Judgement Day
Fighting to save the world from climate change can be tiring. This is how I relax in my spare time.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Known Idiot
Hi Rumsfeld watchers,
I've been blogging about Rumsfeld since 2001. Tens of thousands of people have played a fun video game called Rumsfeld Invaders that is based on the famous Atari game Space Invaders that involves shooting a Darth Vader helmet wearing former Secretary of Defense who likes invading countries. Level 2 is PResident Evil (Cheney).
It is a known known that Rusmfeld is an idiot. We don't need him to write a book for us to know known this. You could read this blog instead. Here are a few links of some of our greatest Rumsfeld disses.
Rumsfelds-last-day-6-years-too-late.html
rumsfeld-and-chicken-feces.html
deep-iran-penetrator-use-viagra.html
now-its-personal-rummy.html
I've been blogging about Rumsfeld since 2001. Tens of thousands of people have played a fun video game called Rumsfeld Invaders that is based on the famous Atari game Space Invaders that involves shooting a Darth Vader helmet wearing former Secretary of Defense who likes invading countries. Level 2 is PResident Evil (Cheney).
It is a known known that Rusmfeld is an idiot. We don't need him to write a book for us to know known this. You could read this blog instead. Here are a few links of some of our greatest Rumsfeld disses.
Rumsfelds-last-day-6-years-too-late.html
rumsfeld-and-chicken-feces.html
deep-iran-penetrator-use-viagra.html
now-its-personal-rummy.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
