Thursday, April 5, 2007

Why We Can't See the Bushes for the Trees

In his speech on Tuesday, President Bush asserted that despite the Supreme Court ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency does indeed have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, he does not intend to seek any further regulations beyond his proposal for more fuel-efficient cars. Critics of this stance are many, and Mr. Bush has certainly taken a lot of heat on global warming.

Despite the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community concerning the reality of climate change and the very serious threats it poses, it may nonetheless be judicious to entertain the possibility that on this matter, Bush’s critics, and even Supreme Court Justices, might nonetheless not be in the best position to judge. It is undeniable that, as President, Bush has access to information far beyond what any individual, organization or institution can ever know despite the fact that his ostensibly limited intelligence may often preclude his intelligent use of Intelligence.

It is not entirely unreasonable to believe that the notion that regulated commercial emission cuts would offer no more than a band-aid solution may in fact not be an entirely scabrous idea. As shocking as it may sound, particularly to those whose judgment is sound, the president may, in fact, actually have it right and know something that the scientists do not and cannot know. It is not often that President Bush is referred to as realistic. Still, with Gonzales soon to speak before Congress to defend the Department of Justice against allegations that eight US attorneys were allegedly fired for purely political reasons and the president himself having just two days ago insisted that attempts by Congress to link financial support for the war with timetables for withdrawal would undermine the troops, it is no doubt irrefutable that any attempt to limit hot air emissions at this time would in fact be hopelessly futile. Only Bush Administration officials may know the full extent to which, since 2001, not American industries but the White House itself has been the overwhelming source of toxic hot air released into our environment.

15 comments:

Robert said...

Joking apart how green is the White House?

(!)

Baby Jewel's Aunt said...

Just read, "Why We Can't See the Bushes..." and particularly liked the reference to all of the hot air coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Also, the little Lucy Play was adorable. The references to IRA and Brit at first had me thinking it was the IRA of Northern Ireland vs. Britain. Then I suddenly thought, "How
perfectlly silly of me, IRA, of course meant IRAN!

Blue Genes said...

How green is the White House? Well it isn't the Green House though its policy contributes much to green house effect.

Robert said...

Isn't there something about throwing stones and green houses? I know the Queen is trying to make Buckingham Palace zero carbon emissions, I am sure the bushes in the Whitehouse garden help a bit, no?

Our politicians are trying to "out do" each other on green issues.

Please forgive me asking who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? Is that the proper postal address? Well I have learnt something today! I suppose if one has never written to him one wouldn’t know!

You will forgive me for saying this but I could feel nervous about visiting the USA. It seems one can't bring a gun into the country in an aeroplane even though everyone is allowed to own one, once one gets there! Does this mean that the first and last stop is a gun shop? I know this sounds both flippant and sanctimonious but you can see my point I hope.

I am sensitive about the UFV and the IRA. I am quarter Irish Catholic, quarter Scottish Kirk and half English! I served in Northern Ireland genuinely risking my life to genuinely try to stop others killing each other, I had no other axe to grind. I found the problem a financial one, poverty and bigotry on both sides quite shocking. Having to walk around with a side arm was not natural to me then or now.

We dropped the death penalty when I was 14, old enough to understand why. With a country of 300 million people there is bound to be a variety of opinions. I share many but not all the values of the American constitution when it come to weapons and capital punishment.

I am horrified that any elected representative can be so "controlled" by big business and religion, or have I got that wrong? I am horrified by the concept that some factions believe in the Old Testament "literally" to the extent that they do not allow others to make up their own minds upon the available evidence.

Our own system is fraught with horrors too. Generally, I applaud the rule only 2 terms of 4 years. I think the time is probably right for a loosening of rules for same sex relationships. I think society should favour traditional different sex marriages but only because I think we are likely to be a mixed sex society for the foreseeable future and if we are to co-exist we are better off loving each other in both senses of the word! Humans would have to change their fundamental nature to move away from that.

Now Blue Genes you may wonder why I am ranting on like this; well it could be that I have just had 3 glasses of a rather good bottle of red wine, (left over from my Birthday, thank you for the good wishes), and “she who must be obeyed” is away for a couple of nights so my son and I are making the most of our “freedom” which is what I should be talking about!

I have been, and still am, very busy with lots of work now perioulously close to being overdue. I have also had a pupil who has worked very hard at producing a first “head”. We are both rather please with the way things are going especially as school has started again!

Inevitably, traditionally I must talk of the weather. You seem to be having snow in Virginia! Here is hot, very hot for April and we have had no rain for probably a month. Everything is very advanced "plant wise" and there is no grass growing for my two very ancient ponies so we have to continue to feed them twice a day. The horse chestnuts are opening their leaves and some of the beeches are coming on too. The bluebells are out, watchout on my blog tomorrow!

The advance party of swallows has arrived from Africa and the main party are due any day. It will not be long before the Cuckoo will be sounding off again and the Nightingale will be keeping us awake at night.

I am sure you can spot the growing problem of “grumpy old man syndrome” catching up with me.

Any way how are you? I seems to have been a very long Easter break.

I wonder if you have got this far! So sorry!I can recommend the wine too!

Blue Genes said...

You are more than welcome to rant here esp. as you are ranting with me, not at me. Wine whine as much as you please.

The trees at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave (the Address of the White House) probably mostly serve Bush's deplorable secrecy and are innocent accessories to tree-son.

Pres. Carter had actually installed solar panels on the White House and granted a tax credit to people doing so. When Reagan got into office he had the solar panels removed and the tax credit annulled. Ah, Republicans...

I am absolutely against the death penalty. I don't however, support revocation of the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms). I don't own a gun and hope I never ever come to feel that I have to. Not all Americans own guns but a shitload of them do. As long as gun ownership is a govt. granted right it can also be subject to govt. regulation, tracking of serial #s etc. If we were to abolish the 2nd Amendment we'd only be giving the trade over completely to the black market. The guns in circulation wouldn't just evaporate into thin air.

I pretty much agree with all of your ranting points so you can just re-read your message and add "yep" after each point to confirm my endorsement. I haven't posted in ages and probably won't be around much for a bit. I do my "mysterious" work from home in our one-bedroom NY apt. and my brother's girlfriend to whom he was about to propose just dumped him so he is now a homeless wreck (they were living together) and here wailing on my couch. I love him and am sorry he's suffering but it's not helping my productivity...Just a heads up b/c I don't want you to think I'm unresponsive. I always appreciate our exchanges.

Robert said...

Thanks, so sorry about your brother, best I can say, and it is not very helpful when you are the victim feeling sorry for yourself, but.. "been there..." things usually work out for the best and a better girl will turn up! Soon he will be on the hunt again and life will move on! You may even like the next one! (plenty of fish in the sea- cliche)

I see your point about the problems of banning guns. I think a long period of education backed by all political parties is probably the only effective way. I am not sure that doing nothing is an option though. One could then argue that we need not ban anything, for example we could agree that Iran can own the bomb! After all that has happened I think we need to be very worried. I can't ever imagin Israel sleeping soundly any more. Your next President has a great opportunity to sweep away the horrors of the Middle East with the support of the rest of the world.

It is a very complex issue. Our police do not carry weapons without special permission for a particular situation although those situations are increasing and sensitive places like airports and embassies have become perminant fixtures despite the ban on firearms here.

We lived in Hungerford, a small country town where a young man went mad killing 11 people about 20 years ago. Fortunately my wife and three of my children walked home from the centre hearing the shots but not knowing what was going on. He was a member of a gun club and had a licence!

Blue Genes said...

As for my brother, I liked this one too. We'll see...

I completely agree that education is the best solution. But I don't follow your leap from if we argue against banning guns then why not argue against banning anything. I think gun bans would be ineffectual and dangerous b/c guns a go-go are already in circulation. However, Iran doesn't yet have the nuclear bomb.

How traumatizing your family's Hungerford experience must have been! I'm so sorry.

Robert said...

He claims to have joined the Nuclear club, what ever that means.

So if you have it you can keep it; providing of course you never use it.

After the second world war we had lots of guns in circulation, most households could have had one if they wanted.

Every household in Switzerland has a rifle in the attic, results in all sorts of family killings, they keep the statistics underwraps a bit.

In my opinion the USA needs to drop the gun culture. It will take time but like the death penalty it's got to go.

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree for the time being!

Blue Genes said...

Fundamentally, I don't think we disagree, Robert. I don't own a gun, I've never touched one (that didn't shoot out water) and never want to do so. I'm just saying that there are way too many in circulation for an all out ban to be effective and that it would even be dangerous b/c this action would greatly bolster the black market whereas keeping guns legal also keep them subject to govt. regulation and tracking. Unfortunately, saying that guns "just have to go" in the many regions of the US (like my beloved Texsucks, for example) is like saying "tea just has to go to" an Englishman. It just wouldn't happen. Just look at what Prohibition did for the mafia, then imagine prohibition of guns. Yikes! But don't mistake this pragmatic position for an approval of "gun culture" on my part. Another analogy is like when twisted Republican pundits try to frame those who object to the Iraq War as supporters of Hussein saying "Saddam was a genocidal dicatator, he had to go." Well, okay, but our military actions (predictably) made the situation far, far worse nonetheless--just like I think a gun ban would do, even if I despise guns. Like you said, it's education that is key. Here we agree 100% (and on the death penalty as well).

Siganus Sutor said...

But I don't follow your leap from if we argue against banning guns then why not argue against banning anything.

Yeah, let's abolish Tuesdays!

Some people say that kitchen knives too should be banned if guns were to be banned. It's true that you can kill somebody with a knife, but what about going on rampage with it?

Moreover, if it is true that the useful tool that a knife generally is can be turned into a weapon, I fail to see what else a gun can do than wound or kill people. Having one with you puts you in the mindset in which you already accept the possibility of using it sooner or later. And it gives you a false sense of security, for if you are not a professional and if you are not used to the disturbing circumstances in which you have to use it and you nonetheless pull it out when threatened by an determined armed criminal, you are the one who is likely to end up wounded or killed, despite what may be seen in some movies where the lady, pointing a handgun at the burglar, tells him to bugger off, which he reluctantly does with a venomous glare.

Some have said that if someone had a gun on campus he could have stopped the mad gunman by shooting him. Maybe, but to me it's seems more likely that things wouldn't have happened this way. And if we follow this line of thought, what kind of campus (or society) would it be where everyone is going along with a gun in the pocket? You'd rather avoid any kind argument with anybody in such an environment, never know what might happen.

Therefore I would agree more with Robert than with Blue Genes on this point. (Sorry BG.)

Siganus Sutor said...

and you nonetheless pull it out when threatened by a determined armed criminal
You'd rather avoid any kind of argument with anybody in such an environment
Sorry — already half asleep...

And, by the way, Blue Genes, I hadn’t read your 11:47 comment before posting mine at 12:32. Somewhere I feel reassured by what you say there, ’cause I was starting to think that you too may be another advocate of self-defence and of the need to bear arms.

Blue Genes said...

What, me an advocate of the *need* to bear arms?! Well, I'm for polar bear arms if we're talking about slowing global warming (as well as for the rest of the animal's body as I am not a practicing appendage discriminator). I'm glad you saw my subsequent posting on the matter to understand where I was coming from. Most simply put, I'd rather have gun control, that is laws and regulations concerning gun use and ownership, than an all-out ban as you can't regulate what is completely illegal. I believe an all-out ban would make the situation here far more dangerous for lack of govt. oversight and b/c it would bolster the black market etc. as I said above.

Blue Genes said...

I'm with you on abolishing Tuesdays, by the way. Where do I sign the petition?

Robert said...

Hope you don't ban Tuesdays, I like Tuesdays, better than Mondays or have I missed something?

I know the Boom Town Rats say a song based on a girl killing people because she didn't like Mondays!

As for guns why would a civilian need a gun?

What few fire arms that are owned by members of the public here are regulated by government and are used in competition target shooting and for control of animals numbers such as deer.

No one can own a hand gun now.

Shot guns are also regulated heavily and only used for shooting game birds and rabbits etc. (and cut off ones used in bank robberies)

We still have a problem with young gangs in major cities though so it is not 100 per cent by any means.

Blue Genes said...

As for guns, peering into the heads of people who do not at all think like you (i.e. me) is never completely accurate. But it's just the wild, wild west mentality, I guess--desire for what I would qualify as a false sense of security and being in control.

I liked Sig's idea of abolishing Tuesdays b/c if we abolished Mondays, then Tuesdays would become the new Mondays so why not go straight to the source! ;)