DragonFlight

Listening to John McCain, and previously Mitt Romney, as well as various other Republicans of all shapes and sizes, go on and on with “I’m more conservative than you are” is enough to make one nauseous, or worse. I myself haven’t known what a “real” conservative is for almost a decade. It used to be somewhat easy to define one, using a few trusty key concepts like small government, fiscal responsibility and states rights. And then, we were suddenly informed that there was something called a “compassionate conservative,” but that didn’t last very long, most likely because nobody could find many anywhere. What makes this even more confusing is that recently, Republican politicians seem to be dancing to the drum of some form of conservatism that only they can hear.

One must take it on trust that many religious extremists are conservative, only because they say they are. I don’t agree it’s a given that someone who is very religious is by nature conservative. It’s not my opinion that traditional values of any sort automatically qualify as being conservative. Yet even so, those on the religious right don’t seem to require anything from their politicians other than that they talk about religion a lot, as if that in itself means much of anything in general, nonetheless confirms their conservatism.

I’m not sure which annoys me more about John McCain, calling everyone “my friend(s),” or his constant blathering about how conservative he is. It doesn’t seem to matter that those who consider themselves staunch conservatives, look at McCain in horror when he makes such claims. Even that self-proclaimed, loud-mouthed, BSing archconservative Rush Limbaugh has been filling the radio airways with volumes of hot air refuting McCain’s claim. He also claims that McCain and Huckabee can destroy the Republican Party. Funny, I'd thought Bush et al had already accomplished that! But what made me laugh the most, and still does, was Ann Coulter arguing with Sean Hannity about it on his TV program, saying she would campaign for Hillary Clinton before she’d support the “liberal” McCain. Check out this video clip from the show for yourself if you want a hardy laugh: Who Would Reagan Vote For? The Shocker of the Republican Primary. Of course, Alan Colmes won the day when he raised his hands in victory and claimed, “my work is done,” and then asked Coulter, “could you fill in for me next week?”

I listened to McCain recently warning a crowd of the dangers of allowing those evil Democrats to win the Presidency. He warned them of irresponsible spending, large government, and less protection from Islamic radicalism. I got very confused, because I would have sworn he was referring to the Republican leadership of the past seven years. What really blew my mind was when he mentioned the horrors of higher taxes, if the Democrats were elected. I don’t recall any of the Democratic candidates talking about raising taxes, so I can only assume he meant the desire of some to discontinue the Bush tax cut for the mostly obscenely wealthy, something McCain himself voted against twice.

It’s interesting how often we are expected to believe what comes out of the mouths of politicians who change their positions because they are in an election.

So, what am I missing? Someone please help me! I thought the Right Wing/GOP/Republican Party was supposed to represent true conservatism, as they repeatedly claim. Am I wrong, or under this “conservative” regime (Executive/Congress/Supreme Court) of the past seven years has our nation not gone from a surplus to a $trillion deficit, and hasn’t the national debt risen through the roof, while the dollar is being destroyed on the world market, with all likelihood that we are entering into a serious recession? Has not President Bush borrowed more foreign money than all other presidents combined, and increased the size of the government to the largest it has ever been?

Yes I know we are at war, so what can we expect, unless we ask ourselves the question: who started the war and why? One begins to suspect war is one of those conservative values I am trying to define; after all, it’s almost a mantra from the right wing candidates and base. Helluva thing when the one conservative value you can rely on is war!

Posted by Stephen at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Most people get the importance of present global warming concerns, and to most of us this is old news. However, there are still many who really don’t understand its nature, what it is about, and what the ultimate consequences are, or might be. Instead of really attempting to grasp the reality of this phenomenon, many of these individuals, for some strange reason, talk themselves into believing it’s a political issue. There will no doubt always be some who will turn any controversy, whether it concerns climate, religion, war, economics, defining what life is, or “whatever,” into a political issue. But that is another story.

The only real issue is that humankind can only exist on this planet in a very narrow range of conditions, and the planet is quite capable of altering those conditions in a relatively short time when stressed!

The consequences of not getting this potential crisis, in the event it is real, are too irrevocably horrible to contemplate, and that is why everyone should be paying close attention! If global warming turns out not to be a threat (and most reputable scientists agree it is), the worst we might do is clean up the planet. If it is real, we as a species are toast! One doesn’t have to be a scientist to grasp the ramifications.

There are those who believe gradual warming won’t be so bad (great for that sun tan, and summer vacations in northern latitudes), and others have noticed that some places are actually cooler than normal. Getting sidetracked by local anomalies, instead of focusing on the true long-term trend, is simply a form of denial concerning the eventual consequences.

Global warming refers to the process of planetary temperature change triggered by a long process of atmospheric warming, resulting from the gradual and/or precipitous build up of greenhouse gases trapping heat in the atmosphere, rather than allowing it to radiate back into space. It’s all an ecological balancing act. While some areas might get temporarily colder, the overall and final planetary direction will be generally towards warming, until the next cycle; ironically, hot can lead to cold, and vice versa. Some areas will face major droughts, while others will experience extensive flooding. In spite of all kinds of seeming local contradictions, the ultimate effect will remain the same.

There is a steadfast correlation between continual rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and increasing global temperatures. When sustained for a long period of time, they have historically foreshadowed much greater and infinitely more serious global events. Almost every major climate change in Earth’s history was preceded by some variation of this phenomenon.

Some of the immediate results of this global warming are obvious. Warming at the poles causes polar ice to melt, and might eventually precipitate the loss of ice in Greenland, raising sea levels by feet instead of inches. The more polar ice that melts, the less sunlight is reflected back into space, resulting in temperatures rising exponentially at the poles, thus causing even more ice to melt. This can result in relatively minor disasters like polar bears losing their homes and becoming extinct, and insect and disease vectors migrating further north and higher up mountainsides following warmer temperatures. Sea levels around the globe will rise, gradually displacing tens or hundreds of millions of people. Holland, a nation already below sea level, has already alerted engineers to work on new solutions to safeguard the future of their nation. California Delta, look out!

(Some additional information regarding polar ice and potential sea levels is presented as part of a dialogue at Global Warming Update. )

But even these are not really the dire consequences that many fear. A disrupted ecosystem is a time bomb. In actuality, global warming is a misnomer. Even though the process triggered by the greenhouse gas/temperature link will accelerate as even more methane and carbon dioxide are released from sedimentary rock as it gets progressively warmer, the potentially disastrous and even catastrophic long-term effects of global warming don't really have much to do with warming by itself. The real danger is the climate change that can and will eventually be triggered by that warming.

Rising sea levels forcing mass migrations are only the proverbial tip of the iceberg (pun optional). All that melted ice will end up as fresh water diluting the oceans by billions or trillions of gallons. This will greatly change the salinity and density of the ocean layers, which will itself have a huge effect. In the Atlantic Ocean, it could very well shut off the "conveyer belt" that pumps the warm waters of the Gulf Stream up to northern latitudes. This has occurred in the past, and could easily happen again in the future, with the resultant effect of sending Europe into a premature Ice Age, just for starters. A worse case scenario could be a major ice age that could last for thousands of years -- not good for Homo sapiens and most other species.

Changing the salinity and density dynamics of the oceans can also create climate changes that will eventually have negative effects all around the globe, such as extreme summers and winters, droughts, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, tornadoes, earthquakes and every natural event these in turn will trigger. It often takes a long time to throw an ecosystem out of balance, but once the balance has been tipped beyond a certain point, it can rush onward like an out of control freight train. Once set in motion, the resulting climate changes have the potential to end civilization as we know it.

Many people fall into complacency about natural and historical Earth changes because they seem distant and unreal, something we learn about on documentaries. Warming and cooling cycles, and climate changes, have been normal occurrences on Earth over its 4.5 billion year history. (I highly recommend viewing a History Channel DVD entitled, “How The Earth Was Made,” when it is available). Without natural global warming, this planet would be a ball of ice in frigid space. There was a long time period when it was exactly that from pole to pole. What’s different now are two things: humans have created an industrial/technological civilization and, as a result, we have for quite some time been spewing billions of metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere on a daily basis, thus accelerating natural cycles.

This is not a political issue, or even an economic one. This is something that should have everyone’s attention. Those demanding absolute proof might discover that by the time such evidence can be confirmed without a doubt, it will be way too late to affect any change.

The time to get off the fossil fuel standard with all its greenhouse gas pollution is NOW! The time for alternate fuel options is NOW! The time for the world to get together, and real quickly, to reverse this trend (if even possible), is NOW! Tomorrow will be too late, and yesterday would have been better.

Personally, if our presence on Earth has to be terminated, I’d rather we went the way of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, when it is surmised the planet may have been hit by a huge comet or meteor. At least this would save us the embarrassment of having destroyed ourselves with a nuclear war, or by irresponsibly and irrevocably altering our climate on a world held together by a delicate ecosystem. Sometimes it is better to be overcome by fate than utter stupidity!

Posted by Stephen at 02:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)