Another Global Warning

We recently found out that global warming is actually occurring at a pace more rapid than earlier anticipated. This is extremely alarming and while the administration focuses on keeping our economy from sinking away (while adding some measures that will invest in alternative energies), I hope that comprehensive legislation on this important issue becomes more of a priority soon.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE51D29E20090214?rpc=64

"The consequence of that is we are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously," Chris Field, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, told the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago.

Field said "the actual trajectory of climate change is more serious" than any of the climate predictions in the IPCC's fourth assessment report called "Climate Change 2007."

Regardless of political/religious ideology, it is imperative for us to act on the threat of rapid climate change. In many ways this is a moral issue. As the most intelligent beings on this Earth, and the only ones physically capable of the massive changes that have occurred and are occurring (at this point, the science is incontrovertible), isn't it our duty to protect it?

We have a Democratic President and Congress. I hope work is done on this soon. It shouldn't be a partisan issue (but it probably will be), but we must get started in our country in order to spur global participation and cooperation on solving climate change because we have 0 softpower (geopolitcal leverage) on this issue right now.

Paradigm Shift: Nationalizing the Banks

I turned on the Sunday morning talk shows today expecting to see some hardcore partisan bickering, and there certainly was a lot of it, but on This Week, there was a decidedly different dynamic going on regarding the issue of nationalizing the banks. The guests on the show, Rep Waters, D-Calif., Rep King, R-N.Y., Sen Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen Graham, R-S.C, generally talked about differences along party lines, but Waters, King, and Graham were in relative agreement on the possibility of nationalization prompted by a recent WaPo editorial.

Here's the link to the Op-Ed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/12/AR2009021201602_2.html?sid=ST2009021203365

Nationalization is the only option that would permit us to solve the problem of toxic assets in an orderly fashion and finally allow lending to resume. Of course, the economy would still stink, but the death spiral we are in would end. [...]

Nationalizing banks is not without precedent. In 1992, the Swedish government took over its insolvent banks, cleaned them up and reprivatized them. Obviously, the Swedish system was much smaller than the U.S. system. Moreover, some of the current U.S. financial institutions are significantly larger and more complex, making analysis difficult. And today's global capital markets make gaming the system easier than in 1992. But we believe that, if applied correctly, the Swedish solution will work here.

The clip is here: http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6882737

Senator Graham was especially surprising in his resignation to this finality; however, I feel I agree the most with President Obama and Senator Schumer - sound and targeted monetary and fiscal policies related to the banks can work without resorting to nationalization of the banks. Unfortunately, I am open to the nationalization talk that is occurring. I think that it's really important and interesting for us to talk about these somewhat radical alternatives and solutions, regardless of whether or not it happens. By analyzing all of these issues, we can create a better understanding of the stakes and what must be done.

Judd Gregg is horrible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/politics/13gregg.html?scp=2&sq=judd%20gregg&st=cse

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire abruptly withdrew Thursday as the nominee for commerce secretary, saying he had “irresolvable conflicts” with President Obama over his economic stimulus plan and a concern over what many fellow Republicans believe is the politicization of the 2010 census.

Actually, this kind of makes me mad. I admired Senator Gregg; he seemed like a pretty smart guy. However, changing one's mind about a job that you have already committed to seems untenable, especially in this important moment in our country's history. This nomination should have been the least of President Obama's worries, especially after the Republican opposition to the stimulus bill and the fallout after Tom Daschle's departure from his nomination. Bowing out for personal reasons then, seems like a move designed with heavy partisan influence to stymie efforts of the new administration to get to work at 100%.

The Republicans are playing Washington politics at its worst right now, and the democrats once again seem oblivious. What a shame. I hope that Obama will be able to communicate the state of urgency that the country faces. Hopefully we will be able to move forward together.

Obama's Press Night

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/politics/10obama.html?scp=3&sq=press%20conference&st=cse

Dear President Obama,

It isn't your fault that the Republicans have decided to use the stimulus as a way to politic their way back into power. However, your first press conference was a good one, at least better than the previous guy. Here are three reasons you should be happy.

1. Admissions of truth:

“The plan is not perfect,” Mr. Obama said in an eight-minute speech before taking reporters’ questions. “No plan is. I can’t tell you for sure that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hope, but I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis.”

Obama admitted that his plan was not perfect. While he believes strongly that only a dramatic stimulus package will work to stop the economy's slump into oblivion, this admission was in sharp contrast to the Bush adminsitration's policy of "see no wrong, do no wrong", while overseeing and committing some of the worst policies in American history (Gitmo, Iraq, Katrina, surveillance).

2. Distinctions with the previous administration:

As he has since the outset of his presidency, Mr. Obama sought to draw sharp distinctions between himself and his predecessor, on both domestic and foreign affairs.

He took a swipe at the economic policy championed by George W. Bush through good times and bad, saying that “tax cuts alone can’t solve all of our economic problems.” He also criticized President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, a close ally of Mr. Bush. Yet he echoed Mr. Bush when he said the most “sobering moment” of his adaptation to the presidency has been writing letters to families of fallen troops.

Mr. Obama’s tone was for the most part serious and businesslike, and he was pointed in rebutting Republican criticisms of his economic plan, saying he was not willing to take advice from “the folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt.”

We must continue to remind ourselves that Obama's problems now are largely because of the failed policies of the Bush administration. With this distinction in mind, Republicans actually should feel as if they have much, much, much less leverage. Hopefully the American people understand that Obama is trying to fix the problems that were not caused by him or the Democrats, but by the loose regulation and lack of oversight during the six years of Republican power.

3. No more nicknames!

President Bush was famous for his nicknames, calling the members of the press corps a variety of things instead of their actual name. President Obama has gone from kindergarten to Harvard in this sense then, calling on people in a professional, business setting in a professional, business manner. Well done.

Also of interesting note: Sam Stein of The Huffington Post asked a question. I was surprised that a blog was included and wonder if blogs were invited in the past.

Steroids and Baseball

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/sports/baseball/11orza.html?_r=1

I am admittedly not a huge baseball fan, but the recent news of Alex Rodriguez and his foray into steroids in 2003 was certainly another disappointment in a series of disappointments in the integrity of the game. After all, this is a person who has set the record for the richest contracts in baseball history (which is probably another issue entirely), and someone who is admired by millions of fans around the world. Much like the Michael Phelps issue, Alex Rodriguez has damaged his legacy forever.

However, what is more troubling, raised in the NY Times article, is the question of if there are other superstar players who took steroids.

Alex Rodriguez’s positive test from that year stands out as the only result that has been disclosed through a published report that cited anonymous sources. But what about the more than 100 other players whose positive tests from that year were seized in an April 2004 raid by federal agents?

Nearly five years after that raid, about a dozen other names from 2003 have been linked in some form or another to positive tests. Court documents, for instance, state that 8 of the 10 players who testified before the federal grand jury investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative tested positive in their 2003 samples. That group is headed by Barry Bonds, whose 2003 sample first tested negative before a subsequent retesting after the sample was seized revealed the presence of performance-enhancing drugs.

Bonds probably is also culpable, so some of the best hitters in the past era have taken steroids. This poses several problems in remembering otherwise some great decades of baseball history - a resurgence of sorts for MLB. It would be easy to just place an asterisk next to players who played during the steroid era, but certainly there were players who were honest and did not take steroids. We cannot just shun the stars of this age though - commercial requirements tend to trump ethics.

Perhaps the solution is, then, in the money. We should penalize severely these players (as has already begun happening as companies have withdrawn their endorsements from A-Rod). Then, we need to remember the greats of this era in a different light. With or without steroids, baseball players are amazing, and we need to appreciate the sport for what it is. Good, and bad.

Michael Phelps' Bellyflop

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/sports/othersports/02phelps.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Like most people, I was deeply disappointed when I found out about the pictures that surfaced of Michael Phelps smoking marijuana. It sets a bad example for children around the country and world who look up to him, and it reflects poorly on swimming and sports in general. As such, he apologized:

“I engaged in behavior which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment,” Phelps said. “I’m 23 years old and despite the successes I’ve had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public it will not happen again.”

This was a good first step, and Phelps has also been punished by USA Swimming and at least a few sponsors who have withdrawn from those deals.

However, I think that Michael Phelps is hardly affected by these pictures, and we should not expect ourselves to hold him much more accountable than what has already taken place - a sobering apology from a guy who could have afforded not to. After all, like it or not, and I like most of us would say that we do not like it, athletes smoke, drink, and participate in illegal activities (e.g. steroids scandals that have put a major shadow on professional baseball). While I am really disappointed that Phelps behaved in that way, it probably is a stretch to say that other 23 year olds wouldn't behave like he did. Any demonization then, should not occur.

Also, Saturday Night Live did a great segment on this for Weekend Update.

Dick Cheney, Terrorist?

Dick Cheney is horrible. While I am usually a pretty moderate, although admittedly oftentimes a left leaning moderate, Cheney continues to amaze me in the amount of heavy, deeply offensive and frankly anti-American rhetoric that he spews.

I saw this first on The Daily Show. I laughed. Then, I cried.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Why Are You Such a Dick? - Audio Tape

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Funny Political News
Joke of the Day

Threatening and causing fear. Isn't that terrorism?

I read more about the interview on Politico. Here's the link:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18390.html

I also read/watched some of the exit interviews he gave at the end of his term as Vice President.

In all of these interviews, like the Politico one that I am focusing on and quoting from here, Cheney was, unlike now former President Bush, unapologetic:

In the interview, Cheney revealed no doubts about his own course — and many about the new administration’s.

“If it hadn’t been for what we did — with respect to the terrorist surveillance program, or enhanced interrogation techniques for high-value detainees, the Patriot Act, and so forth — then we would have been attacked again,” he said. “Those policies we put in place, in my opinion, were absolutely crucial to getting us through the last seven-plus years without a major-casualty attack on the U.S.”

Cheney said “the ultimate threat to the country” is “a 9/11-type event where the terrorists are armed with something much more dangerous than an airline ticket and a box cutter – a nuclear weapon or a biological agent of some kind” that is deployed in the middle of an American city.

“That’s the one that would involve the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, and the one you have to spend a hell of a lot of time guarding against,” he said.

Dick Cheney is supremely confident that his course of action was the correct one, and perhaps some of his policies have worked. However, in this important moment in our country, is it really appropriate to assert that we are on the brink of "the ultimate threat to the country", toss out thoughts about nuclear weapons destroying American cities, and then imply that the current administration's actions of actually following the Geneva Conventions and not torturing its detainees at Guantanamo (not to mention reasserting habeas corpus) will lead to that catastrophe? After all, this is the guy who, along with his boss and the rest of the Bush national security team, overlooked the August 2001 memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack in US."

This interview underlines just how out of touch the neoconservatives this country has become. It's fine to participate in a two way, civil debate, but I think irrational fear-mongering is bad. We have more important problems, after all.