Vacation

I will be away from June 30 - July 16. The blog posting will continue after I get back!

Everyone take care.

What Would Jesus Do?

The New York Times has an article today entitled, "Christian conservatives to seek voters' support for government displays of Ten Commandments". Here's how it gets started:

Christian conservatives said they were taking their fight for government displays of the Ten Commandments to the polls, using the Supreme Court's bookend rulings on Monday for and against such exhibitions as a call to arms in the battle over judicial nominees.

Several lawyers and organizers for the Christian right said the most resonant part of the rulings was Justice Antonin Scalia's accusation, in his dissent defending one display of the Commandments, that the majority used the case to "ratchet up the court's hostility to religion."

"I am almost glad that it is so outrageous," Charles W. Colson, the evangelical Christian writer and Watergate figure, said of the ruling at a panel discussion on Tuesday on Dr. James C. Dobson's "Focus on the Family" syndicated Christian radio program. "People today now realize and can make no mistake about it that what happens in the court has profound effects upon religious liberty in America, and it comes in a week when there may be a resignation on the Supreme Court.

"People in churches across America had better get busy and demand the right kind of appointments to this court," he said. He added, "There is no bigger issue on the Christian agenda."

No bigger issue on the Christian agenda??? Funny, I don't remember Jesus saying anything about public displays of the Ten Commandments. I do remember rather a lot about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison and loving our enemies. I would think those things would be big issues on the Christian agenda. But hey, that's just me.

Eminent domain

The Supreme Court ruled that the government has the right to seize your land. And today Native Americans said, what else is new?

--Jay Leno

The polls

Well here's some more encouraging news from CNN entitled, "Poll: Disapproval of Bush at high point". Here are the highlights:

The number of Americans disapproving of President Bush's job performance has risen to the highest level of his presidency, according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

According to the poll, 53 percent of respondents said they disapproved of Bush's performance, compared to 45 percent who approved.

The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The 53 percent figure was the highest disapproval rating recorded in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll since Bush became president in January 2001.

The approval percentage -- 45 percent -- matches a low point set in late March. The 8-point gap between those who disapproved and approved was the largest recorded during Bush's tenure.

As Bush prepares to address the nation Tuesday to defend his Iraq policy, just 40 percent of those responding to the poll said they approved of his handling of the war; 58 percent said they disapproved.

Maybe the nation is finally waking up. No wonder Bush is trying to boost his numbers by a speech tonight against a military backdrop.

"I am Karl Rove"

Here is a bitter, scathing piece by Rich Procter entitled, "I am Karl Rove". It gets started this way:

My name is Karl Rove. 100% of American taxpayers pay my salary, since I'm an Adviser to the President. Last Wednesday, I used the status of my office as a forum to tell America that the 49% of those taxpayers - the just-under-half who don't love my boss, George W. Bush -- are traitors, preferring to "understand" (i.e. coddle) the psychopathic murderer Osama bin Laden rather than making war against him. This is my trademark as a political strategist - use the tools of anger, hatred and fear to destroy anyone in my way. My goal is to get (just over) one half of the voters to hate the other half. I will do whatever it takes to create this hatred - lies, slander, defamation, drive-by smears - whatever it take to use these tools to divide the country for my purpose.

My name is Karl Rove. I planned the roll out of the Iraq War to give my boss the maximum advantage in the 2002 mid-term elections. I supervised the whole-cloth invention of the WMD "evidence" issue against Saddam Hussein so that my party could brand anyone who opposed the Republicans as dupes, appeasers and traitors. I coordinated attacks against men like war hero Max Cleland, morphing their faces into those of monsters like bin Laden so my party could win more Senate and House seats. We won. That's all that matters.

My name is Karl Rove. Like my bosses, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, I had "other priorities" than serving my country during the Vietnam War. The 1700-plus soldiers who have died because of our little trumped-up war are a nuisance to me - that's why I insist the coffins not be shown coming home on television, and Mr. Bush never attend a soldier's funeral. It hurts my ability to market this war as a great, beneficial march to Middle East Democracy, and it takes some of the luster off the War President. Can't have that happen, can we?

It is really hard for me to imagine what could make a person so underhanded and vicious.

Click through and read the rest of the article. Then read the comments left by Smirking Chimp readers. You might want to leave a comment of your own. Just be sure to do that here on Child of Illusion!

The president's troubles

I really think I should call your attention to a Guardian article entitled, "Battered Bush watches as support ebbs away". This is how some folks in the UK are seeing what's happening to Bush. Here's an excerpt:

The polls are brutal. A survey by Gallup last week said 59 per cent of Americans now favoured US withdrawal. Polls by Pew and Zogby International also revealed that a clear majority of Americans believed they were on the wrong track in Iraq. Bush's approval ratings collapsed to 44 per cent in general and a paltry 39 per cent on Iraq. 'Iraq is at the front of Bush's troubles. Things are not going well and the American voting public sees that,' said John Zogby, head of the pollsters Zogby.

The talk in Washington is of the dreaded 'tipping point'. This is when Iraq's insurgency deepens into uncontrollable crisis at the same time as American public opinion collapses. That could spell the unthinkable: American defeat.

The tipping point has not arrived yet, but there are many Democrats, and some Republicans, who believe it is on the way if trends continue. '[Bush's] place in history will probably rest on Iraq becoming a stable democracy. Not too many historians, presidential watchers or political science professors believe that is a good bet,' said John Orman, who is professor of politics at Fairfield University in Connecticut.

Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel, who also hails from the Republican heartland, is speaking out. He recently angrily said the US was 'losing' the war. Hagel is one of the front-runners for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. For anyone with White House ambitions, distancing oneself from Bush is becoming a priority.

If you need a little lift, click through and read the entire article. It actually offers some evidence for a bit of optimism!

An open letter to Karl Rove

Kristen Breitweiser lost her husband in the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11. Here is her response to Karl Rove's outrageous claim that liberals only wanted to give the perpetrators "therapy and understanding". It's entitled, "Karl Rove's 'Understanding of 9/11'". Here's an excerpt:

It has always been America's policy that you only place soldiers' lives in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary and the absolute last resort. When you send troops into combat you support those troops by providing them with proper equipment and training. Why didn't you do that with the troops that you sent into Iraq? Why weren't their vehicles armored? Why didn't they have protective vests? Why weren't they properly trained about the rules of interrogation? And Karl, when our troops come home – be it tragically in body bags or with missing limbs – you should honor and acknowledge their service to their country. You shouldn't hide them by bringing them home in the dark of night. Most importantly, you should take care of them for the long haul by giving them substantial veteran's benefits and care. To me, that is being patriotic. To me, that is how you support our troops. To me, that is how you show that you know the value of a human life given for its country.

For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because, you and your friends with your collective “understanding of 9/11” seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too. First, we were told that we went to war with Iraq because it was linked to the 9/11 attacks. Then, your rationale was changed to "Iraq has WMD". Then you told us that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad man". And now it turns out that we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy."

Of course, the Downing Street memo clarifies many of these things, but for the record Karl: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed. America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq. Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world. Al Qaeda's recruitment took a nose-dive after the 9/11 attacks, but has now skyrocketed since your invasion of Iraq; and most importantly, nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed because of your war in Iraq. These facts speak for themselves. (And, they speak very little about effectively winning any war on terror.)

Karl, you say you “understand” 9/11. Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission? Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget? Why did you refuse to allow access to documents and witnesses for the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did we have to fight so hard for an extension when the Commissioners told us that they needed more time due to your footdragging and stonewalling? Why didn't you want to cooperate so that all Americans could “understand” what happened on 9/11?

Every word of this letter is good. I recommend that you read it all.

Speaking of hatred of the United States, did you know that anti-American setiment has turned so ugly that American students studying there are being overwhelmed by the harassment to the point that they can't take it and leave? Here's an article published in Australia about the problem entitled, "Students quit over anti-US slurs". This is simply tragic. I'm about to leave for Ireland and England later this week to visit old friends and I'm really concerned about my reception when I'm in public. I just hope I can pick up my old Irish accent quickly.

NYT editorial

I really recommend an editorial from this morning's New York Times entitled, "Three Things About Iraq". Here are the main points:

To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:

The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11....

The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism....

If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan....

Simply put. And important.

The case for impeachment

I really recommend that you click through and read this entire article by William John Cox entitled, "Twice fooled — shame on us: The case for impeachment". I can't possibly give you excerpts that will give you the true impact of what he has to say. But I can get you started with the way Cox starts:

George W. Bush stole the 2000 election and we let him get away with it. While the Democrats cried because Al Gore had won the vote, the Republicans counted their loot and planned the next heist. Crime does pay when the justices of the Supreme Court are in on the caper, and they can't be impeached if the crooks control the Congress.

At first, most of us (irrespective of politics) thought that, even though Bush was sort of a goofy guy, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other retainers from the reigns of Ronnie the Great and George I would be able to run things for four years. The world was at peace, the economy was good, and, much as he had done for the Rangers baseball team, Bush would play the part, lead the cheers and leave the big decisions to those better equipped to think deep thoughts. Sooner or later, the voters would catch on that they'd been had, and the doofus would be replaced with someone who could read, write and think for him (or her)self.

But, suddenly, on September 11, 2001, the game changed. At first, things appeared the same. While the president was flying around in circles, without a clue and out of touch, Cheney and the other grownups dealt with the emergency and scripted Bush's response.

It has now been proven that Bush was repeatedly warned that Osama bin Laden was planning suicide attacks on the country with hijacked commercial jets; however, we will never know if he intentionally allowed it to happen or was just too dumb and distracted to care. We do know that by 9/11 the U.S. economy was in the toilet, the Bush administration was in trouble, and all of its policies and decisions were being driven by what was best for big business, the oil industry and the Saudi sheiks. The neocons in his administration probably didn't plan the 9/11 attack; they may not have knowingly allowed it to take place, but it was certainly fortunate for their program. And, we quickly learned what that program was all about.

Within weeks, the constitutional rights of the American people were abrogated by the USA PATRIOT Act, and extraordinary powers were seized by the president, the Departments of Justice and Defense, and the CIA.

Soon, video games no longer held Bush's interest. He was given a new game and its name was war. The fight against terrorism was exciting, but, in Afghanistan, it was over all too quickly. It didn't matter that Osama got away; the new game was far too much fun to stop, and he was eager to advance to the next level.

The next step was to conquer Iraq, governed by Saddam Hussein, the ruthless dictator installed by the CIA and maintained in power by Ronnie the Great and George I. Saddam had become an embarrassment to the Bush family, and he controlled something very valuable–112 billion barrels of oil. The oil industry had bought and paid for the presidency and it wanted a return on its investment. Saddam had to go.

Cox then proceeds with a step by step account of what happened next. Do read it.

Cat blogging bonus

Today I'm "christening" my new digital camera. Here's another picture of Edgar - languishing in the heat.

Friday Cat Blogging!

Here's Edgar, sitting in the sunshine!

Photo by Cynthia Burgess

Karl Rove's insults

Surely by now you are aware that Karl Rove said that Democrats only wanted to give "therapy" to the people who perpetrated 9/11. Here are the quotes:

Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers...Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.... Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies.... No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

Democrats are calling for Rove to apologize or resign. Right. Don't hold your breath. The White House is saying that he is only pointing out the differences in "philosophy" of the two parties. Here's a snarky delineation of those differences found here:

Democrats
Believe capturing the person primarily responsible for the attack should be a top priority.

Republicans
It's been four years, and Osama bin Laden is still free, even though Bush's CIA chief says he knows where he is.

Democrats
Investigate the intelligence failures that led to 9/11.

Republicans
Do everything in their power to block the 9/11 Commission from doing its work.

Democrats
Propose creating the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans
Push tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Democrats
Believe we should have stayed the course in Afghanistan, not allowing the Taliban to resurge, the warlords to take power, and the opium trade to skyrocket.

Republicans
Ignore Afghanistan as the situation worsens.

Democrats
Believe that we should be honest with our troops about the reasons we go to war, give them everything they need to be safe, and make sure we go in with an exit plan.

Republicans
Manipulate intelligence to trump up reasons to go to war, don't give our troops the support they need, constantly mislead the public about the direction the war is going, and fail to make an exit plan. And turn Iraq into the ultimate terrorist training ground.

Posted by Jesse Berney

Enough said.

Oh, the lies - part 2

Mark Morford has published a scathingly cynical article in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled, "Downing Street Is For Liars". His point is that deep down we knew Bush was lying all along. Here are some passages:

Why is the major American media not swarming all over the Downing Street Memos thing? Why is the entire nation not just appalled and disgusted and aghast at finding seemingly irrefutable proofs about what we all already knew, which is that BushCo planned to invade Iraq long before 9/11 and needed to find a way to justify it?
...
The majority of the nation knows Bush lied like a dog to drive us into an unwinnable (but, for his cronies, incredibly profitable) war. The rest either refuse to believe it, or they claim, with equal parts ignorance and blind jingoism, that the ends (ousting a pip-squeak dictator who was no real threat to anyone and who had been successfully contained for 20 years) justify the means ($200 billion, 1,700 dead Americans, over 10,000 wounded and disabled U.S. soldiers, countless tens of thousands of dead innocent Iraqis, staggering economic debt, the open disrespect -- if not outright contempt -- of the entire international community).

Here is the American cynic's view: It is almost too late to care about the lies. It is almost pointless to scream and rant and point fingers of blame. We all know who is to blame, and it ain't Saddam, and it ain't Osama, and it ain't "terror," and it ain't our "freedoms." Bush has driven us so deep into the Iraq hellhole it serves almost no purpose to whine about the obvious deceptions and blatant whorelike pre-9/11 machinations that got us here.

We are now, instead, focused on endurance. On gritting teeth and getting through and getting the hell out of this new Vietnam Bush has imbecilically driven us into, all while surviving 3.5 more years of one of the most abusive, secretive cadres of warmongering leadership in American history.
...
Let's just say it outright: Of course Bush deserves to be impeached. But of course Bush will not be impeached, because impeachment requires a massive federal investigation and an act of Congress and the support of countless senators and representatives, and right now the GOP controls Congress with a little iron penis, and therefore any sort of uprising or scandal or suggestion of punishment gets immediately slammed down or scoffed away or buried under an avalanche of shrugs and yawns and neoconservative smugness. Isn't that right, Mr. Gannon? Mr. DeLay? Abu Ghraib? Gitmo? Saddam? Et al.

BushCo survived the illegal sanctioning of inhumane torture. They survived a gay male prostitute acting as a journalist. They survived Enron and Diebold and the rigging of the first election and they will survive Downing Street simply because all the people who should be on the attack about these atrocities all work for the guys who committed them.

My only disagreement with this is that Bush rigged the second election too.

The power of the blogs

I want to share an article with you by David Michael Green entitled, "HC-9: Where the Case for Impeachment Slipped into Gear". HC-9 refers to the room in which Congressman John Conyers chaired the hearing on the Downing Street Memo. Here's part of what Green has to say:

There, in the over-stuffed, windowless box known as HC-9, the case for impeachment slipped into second gear, and gave every indication of being a force beyond the ability of the sorcerers Rove and Cheney to control. This hearing had the distinct feel of history in the making, and I was proud and honored to attend. I went home that night more optimistic for the prospects of America and the world than I have been in a long time. Cindy Sheehan, one of the witnesses, said that Thursday was the happiest day she'd had since Mr. Bush's war of personal opportunism claimed the life of her son.

Presiding over it all was America's unlikely new hero, John Conyers. Closer to the end of his long career in American government than the beginning, the congressman from Michigan has established himself of late as a rare specimen within the hopeless and hapless party of the alleged opposition.

Green then has some harsh words for the mainstream media:

Nothing in the public life of this country has been more shocking and ominous to me in my lifetime than the complete abdication of the mainstream media in fulfilling its responsibility for covering the regressive right's exploits in government, especially all things related to the Iraq war. Bill Clinton, not even a liberal, was hounded mercilessly over bogus Whitewater allegations and a bit of oral sex on the side. George Bush tells incredible lies, makes policy choices of disastrous proportions, and produces death and destruction every chance he gets. Not only does the press give him a free pass (as some have even admitted to doing) by failing to critically assess his wild assertions, they are now willfully ignoring and distorting evidence of lies which have cost tens of thousands of lives.

For some, this will only serve as a validation of my naiveté, perhaps even -- as a political science professor -- inexcusable naiveté Still, I maintain that we've not seen in the post-WWII era abominations quite like those of the last years. It was horrendous enough that the Washington Post and New York Times both had to apologize for their complete failures to serve the American public as we were considering whether or not to go to war in Iraq. But to then, on top of that, to fail to report the atomic bomb of the Downing Street Memo (or even worse, to 'report' it snidely, loaded with bias) has taken my breath away.

Then he pays tribute to the power of the blogs:

When the story of the Downing Street scandal is written by historians, the Internet will play a crucial and indispensable role, providing the vehicle by which the political landscape was reshaped -- if it ultimately is -- particularly since the failures of other institutions left no other alternative. Twenty years ago such ominous conditions as we know today likely would have meant the death of a story like this. Today that is not happening.

The indicator which suggests this especially clearly is the bizarre anomaly of the mainstream media currently all chockablock with stories about how and supposedly) why they're not covering the DSM, while at the same time running few pieces anywhere on the actual issue. How is this to be explained? If they're not covering it, what makes the fact that they're not covering it newsworthy (as opposed to millions of other stories they also don't cover)? The answer is that the blogosphere is all over this thing, and is angrily taking the media to task for its failures. Were it not for that disconnect, it wouldn't make any sense to write stories about the absence of stories on this or any other topic.

What all this demonstrates is the nascent power of this still-youthful medium. It is a power which permits individuals to be heard like they have not otherwise been for perhaps centuries, and it is a power which gives citizens a fighting chance against the monolithic institutions that have dominated policy-making for so long. No longer do the Karl Roves or the Rupert Murdochs of the world have a monopoly on determining what is important, or what is acceptable to say or think. We are reclaiming that power for ourselves.

While acknowledging that we are still in grave danger as a nation, Green tentatively sounds a note of hope. Perhaps, given that at least one Democrat has grown some spine, things might be looking up.

Do you feel a draft?

Tom Friedman does. Or at least he's recommending one. Here's an article by Mike Whitney entitled, "The Friedman Solution: Reinstate the draft". Here's what he says:

When America's foremost political pundit and spokesman for the powerful CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), Tom Friedman, says its time to reinstate the draft, we should all pay attention. Friedman's comments appeared in his June 15 column where he reiterated his past predictions that the war in Iraq was still "winnable" if we "do it right". What's needed, Friedman postulates, is to "double the boots on the ground and redouble the diplomatic effort to bring in the Sunnis."

"Double the boots on the ground"?

Sounds like the draft to me.

Tom is no fool; he realizes he won't change the minds of Americans who've already soured on the war. A recent Gallop poll indicates that a whopping 59% of Americans are already sick of Iraq and want to see the troops withdrawn. Friedman's missive is directed to the slender 10% minority (according to Gallup) who think that we should increase the number of troops. Presumably, that figure includes a dwindling number of "die-hard" Bush loyalists as well as the .01% of elites who actually run the country behind the mask of democratic government.

Friedman's remedy is a straightforward call for a draft. He's well aware that that Iraq will not be "pacified" without a massive commitment of American troops. His logic supports the conclusions of General Shinseki who lost his job by telling Congress that America would need "several hundred thousand troops" to secure the country. Friedman's reasoning is at loggerheads with the recalcitrant Rumsfeld who admits no mistakes and is determined to continue the current policy despite its disastrous results. Embracing the idea of a draft would be an admission of failure; something that Rumsfeld's fragile vanity could never endure. This means that we should expect to see a steady decline in morale, severe recruitment problems, and the growing signs of an overextended and fractured military.
...
The Defense Secretary initiated what Friedman calls the "Rumsfeld Doctrine", that is, "just enough troops to lose". There's no mention of the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who lost their lives in a needless act of aggression, nor the 1700 servicemen who died to establish a beachhead in the Middle East for the Bush petrolocracy. Friedman's only concern is whether the boyish aspirations of global elites are carried out with some measure of success.

Friedman's article points to the cracks and fissures that are now appearing in the citadels of American power. It's clear that many in the ruling establishment no longer believe that the blundering Bush clan can win in Iraq. Friedman hasn't given up on Iraq, though. Instead, he's offering a last, desperate solution for pulling the entire debacle out of the embers; the draft.

Personally, I hope we do have a draft. Because that's when the war protests will start in earnest.

What the president said - part 2

Okay. This is just appalling. Here's what he said in a radio address:

We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens. Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror.

The people of Iraq didn't attack us! They had nothing to do with 9/11 -- even Bush admitted that when Kerry confronted him about a similar remark during the debates. And he's admitting that his unnecessary war has turned Iraq into a haven and breeding ground for terrorists. Good grief!

He also said this:

Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home.

The Iraqis were not going to come over here and attack us. They didn't attack us and they weren't planning to attack us so how can this statement make any sense at all? If anything, the war makes it more likely that we will be attacked in retaliation. You know, the Democrats need to take this stuff and run with it. But I'm not holding my breath.

The Iran election

President Bush criticized the election process in Iran. He said there are groups there who try and suppress the vote, power there is in the hands of the very few, and the whole thing is dominated by religion. Hey, that is our system!

--Jay Leno

While the planet burns

I wish I could somehow wave a magic wand and have George Bush read this article. It's simple enough that even he, with his limited reading ability, would be able to understand it, I think. And it let's us know that we have no time to fool around. The article - by Henry Porter - is published in the Guardian and is entitled, "Fiddling as the planet burns". Here are some pertinent passages:

The great lie in the climate debate is that there is still a debate worth having. Opponents of change insist that the human factors in global warming are not proven and that we must wait until we have hard evidence before taking drastic action, which is as about as silly as saying there are two equally valid views on the issue of whether paedophilia damages children.

What is so destructive about this stance is that it claims equal weight and equal airtime. The 'balance' in newspaper reports, especially in the United States, is, in fact, a bias against the truth and weakens the case for immediate action against emissions of C0<->2. And while we hum and haw, trying to persuade reluctant sceptics, the permafrost of the Arctic melts, sea levels inch up and the pH levels of oceans gradually drop because of the carbon that is absorbed from the atmosphere.

This has disturbed me about the mainstream press for some time now. They seem to think they're doing their job because they give time to "both sides". Their job, however, is to track down the truth. Why is it balanced to give both sides if one side is thoroughly bogus? Giving equal weight to two sides implies that the two sides in question are equally valid. If, however, one side has solid science behind it and the other is promoted by corporate profit interests, that ought to be reported as well.

Later Porter praises Tony Blair for his responsibility regarding the issue:

You have to hand it to the Prime Minister that he accepts the advice of his scientific advisers and has done all he can in Britain's presidency of the G8 to focus world leaders' attention on the problem.

But his chum Bush remains a delinquent simpleton in such matters. In the second draft of the G8 communique, the phrase 'our world is warming' has been placed in square brackets, which means that the statement is disputed by the US and is likely to be excluded from the final document. American officials also pressed negotiators to delete sections which tie global warming to human activity and emphasise the risk to economies.

Porter then continues by relating a personal experience:

Last winter, I attended the climate change conference at the new Met Office headquarters outside Exeter. In theend of the conference, there was an open session in which scientists talked about what they had heard over the previous days. I will never forget the solemn urgency of that session. Even the scientist were shocked by how advanced various manifestations of global warming were. I was sitting next to the woman who has done pioneering work on the pH levels of the oceans. Like the others, she had seen the abyss and it showed in her face.

What would happen if we all saw the abyss? Maybe we would demonstrate a willingness to make some changes. Here's how Porter concludes his article:

I wish we could all have that experience, because the conviction of the masses is the only way things will change. But here's the catch. It involves sacrifice and a loss of what we previously regarded as our rights to travel and consume freely. If I criticise the backwardness of Bush and his oil lobby, it follows that I must take action on a personal level - retire my ancient Volvo, use energy-saving light bulbs, switch off the computer at night, do away with the dishwasher, make fewer journeys by air, install solar panels, get a bicycle.

As yet, I have done none of these things.

I would add to his list to give money to environmental action groups, to lower the thermostat in the winter and raise it in the summer and simply to make fewer trips by car. Those things are relatively painless. Maybe Porter has "done none of these things" because he thinks he has to do them all at once. Why not pick one thing - just one thing - to do that will save energy. That is at least something. And then when the new behavior becomes a habit, pick one more thing. Otherwise we will all yield to inertia and just do nothing.

Mr. "I had other priorities" Cheney

This information on Cheney's draft dodging was posted in one of the comments sections on Eschaton. I thought it was interesting, to say the least:

1) Mr. Cheney enrolled in Casper Community College in January 1963; he turned 22 that month and sought his first student deferment on March 20, according to records from the Selective Service System.

2) After transferring to the University of Wyoming at Laramie, he sought his second student deferment on July 23, 1963.

3) Three weeks and a day after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed (giving President Johnson unlimited military force in Vietnam), Cheney married Lynn Cheney, thus qualifying for a third deferment.

4) Mr. Cheney obtained his fourth deferment when he started graduate school at the University of Wyoming on Nov. 1, 1965.

5) On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born. On Jan. 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. It was granted.

In January 1967, Mr. Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft.

On global warming

Here's another article from the Times of London - this one entitled, "Bush blows cold on global warming". It's the very last paragraph that is so disheartening:

[Sir John Houghton, a former chairman of scientific assessment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the UN] told the BBC: “It is very surprising that the White House is still seemingly listening to misinformation from vested interest lobby groups, rather than to their own leading scientists, and indeed to this shouting from all the world’s leading scientists that they have got to do something.”

It's hard to know what to say. I wish I had hope that Bush will wake up on this issue. But I don't.