Also see December 2009
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
also see: www.no-villageatwolfcreek.blogspot.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Last week the Durango Herald was filled with news about the reawakened push for the Village at Wolf Creek speculative development. First Red McCombs hires Michael Dino a heavy weight Democratic lobbyist. His mission - bring in the money cannons. Dino knows where to aim them for greatest effect in developing political channels for side stepping public review.
As the week unfurled we learned the new plan was hinged on a new land swap effectively moving the development a few hundred yards. Also, ‘Hal Jones Development’ is now proposing a resort merely three-quarters the size of the original ten thousand person conception.
The key ingredient to this new strategy would be Congressman Salazar sponsoring a land-swap bill. As Clint Jones, of HJD, says John Salazar is the only one who could credibly carry the land-exchange act through Congress. This may be true, but credibility is hard won and easily lost.
It seems difficult to believe Congressman Salazar could be swayed into compromising his credibility to join this speculative real estate scheme. Should you oppose the idea of developing Wolf Creek, now would be a good time to drop Congressman Salazar a line at http://www.house.gov/salazar/contact.shtml. or (202) 225-4761 or (970)-245-7107 or (719)-543-8200.
In another article US Senator Bennet speaks of “serious concerns about the potential impacts” and “We need to keep a close eye on the matter and get answers to a number of questions...”
Here are some starter questions: How viable is this eighties pipedream of building a small village at 10,000 elevation to begin with? Look at today’s economic reality and outlook. Consider the under appreciated future ripple effects our continuing rising chronic unemployment will have.
Look at the lower elevation areas around Wolf Creek Pass, Colorado ~ they have a frightening saturation of unsold vacation homes, as documented in a Pagosa Sun article by James Robinson (7-8-9). Why add to the glut?
Also see March 5, 2009 Durango Herald's story "(Luxury) Resorts morph into "toxic" real estate assets."
Why risk that high value fresh water resource?
Remember we are talking about source waters to the Rio Grande River. Any digging and construction will disrupt, even destroy portions of an exquisitely tuned biological super-organism, one that produces any number of priceless services for all down stream inhabitants. Moving the project a few hundred yards one way or another doesn’t change that.
When will developers appreciate that some places deserve to be left alone because they are of a caliber that warrants being considered National Security Resources?
There is also the matter of the original “dirty land swap.” Documented in Mike Soraghan’s 2-5-6, Denver Post article: “Wolf Creek development tangled with political ties.”
B.J. Red McCombs may hold legal title but, he does not possess ethical or moral title to that land. Therefore some of us continue to beg Mr. McCombs, and now his daughter, to please revert that land to some Nature Conservancy status, protecting that irreplaceable resource for the greater national good.
The solution really is that simple. Leave that parcel alone to remain an unmolested portion of an indescribably important biological super-organism. It would be a fitting gesture for someone who recently received the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars award for “corporate citizenship.”
If you agree, please encourage Red McCombs to reconsider his priorities. He can be reached through http://www.redmccombsmedia.com/us/contact-us .
Sincerely, Peter Miesler
Durango, Colorado
PS. Mr. McCombs doesn’t “The Billy Joe “Red” McCombs Fresh Water Biological Preserve” ~ dedicated to all down stream children yet to be born, have a nice ring to it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information visit Friends of Wolf Creek at http://www.friendsofwolfcreek.org/
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
An Essay Concerning Our Weather
Printed in The Humanist,
Nov-Dec, 2005
“Katrina and Rita in Context”
There has been something missing from the recent news coverage in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina's and Rita. No one seems to be reporting on the real story ~ namely the weather.
These most recent storms should encourage U.S. citizens to recognize that we are facing a powerful entity that has only begun to barge into our American way. Look up into that beautiful sky overhead and consider its substance, dynamics and might. Our atmosphere is the product of more than four billion years of ongoing evolution ~ geological as well as biological. It's a tenuous veil of gases that lays upon the surface of our earth, thin as the finest silk upon your skin. This veil has a most interesting structure, one that's worth thinking about.
Our atmosphere is composed almost totally of nitrogen and oxygen. Interwoven into this medium is a gossamer thin admixture of everything else: thousands of different compounds that can be grouped into almost two hundred distinct families. Combined, these compounds make up less than one percent of our atmosphere's volume. Most of this volume is made up of inert compounds and noble gases, so called because they don't react with their surroundings very much, if at all. Within this matrix of nonreactive molecules is another, yet thinner community of reactive compounds. By volume, these reactive components total less than four hundred parts per million. This is where the action is. These chemicals are always reacting with each other: they combine, split up, mutate, affect neighboring molecules, change characteristics ~ and they do this at nonstop hypervelocities. This is the scaffolding over which energy, moisture, and heat perform their weather ballet.
What's new is that, over the past two hundred years or so, humanity has been injecting a third category of ingredients: human-made and human-generated. By volume, this new genre consists mainly of substances already present in the atmosphere, only now they are being added to in unfathomable quantities ~ and they belong to the reactive families. Then there are the "exotics": creations of science and industry that make up a small but usually highly reactive percentage. Many of these compounds are totally new to our atmosphere. All told, society has been injecting millions upon millions upon millions of tons of these gases and particulates into our atmosphere at ever-increasing rates. So much so that the very composition of our atmosphere ~ the weave of our atmospheric veil ~ has been significantly and verifiably altered.
This is cause for concern because our atmosphere is in actuality a heat engine. Its matrix of gaseous and particulate components are the valves and pistons. This engine is powered by the sun’s energetic rays and the result is our weather: the global distribution of energy, heat, and moisture. But each compound we've introduced interacts with the sun’s energy according to its own unique thermo-hygroscopic-chemical profile. Recent weather fluctuations are little more than a physical reflection of our atmosphere's composition.
Remember all those environmentalists whining about pollution, global warming, and all that? Well, it isn't mere delusion. Scientists have been discovering and recording these changes since the end of World War II. For more than forty years now, satellites have been visually recording the stains, rips, and acid burns that we continue to inflict upon the veil of our atmosphere. The increasingly sophisticated information they gather continues to have ominous implications for the future as well as the present.
While the media discusses global changes in terms of global averages, keep this in mind: there is no "average" patch of ground or water on this planet. Pollutants aren't added as amorphous averages. They are injected into the fabric of our atmosphere as ribbons of varying concentrations and volumes. It's true that today scientists have convincing evidence that some global areas are experiencing a warming trend, while others are experiencing a cooling trend. There is nothing reassuring about this.
Think about our atmosphere as the heat engine whose role it is to seek a globally balanced distribution of energy, heat and moisture. This engine has evolved to a delicate state of dynamic equilibrium. Remember, it is the profile of temperature gradients and barometric differentials that provide the throttle behind this engine's drive to maintain its equilibrium. Inject extremes and it will react in kind ~ it makes no difference to the engine. It does, however, make a difference to humans and the biosphere as we know it.
Science has consistently shown that nature is always vastly more complex, interwoven, and unpredictable than the human intellect is capable of imagining. Why won't we allow this lesson to sink in? Why be surprised when weather continues to become more chaotic? Admittedly, no one can accurately predict how weather will change. But who can deny that it will continue to change, and at an accelerated rate? We can kid ourselves, but we can't fool nature.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{Note: A previous version of this article was printed in the November/December 1995 issue of The Humanist.}
Nov-Dec, 2005
“Katrina and Rita in Context”
There has been something missing from the recent news coverage in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina's and Rita. No one seems to be reporting on the real story ~ namely the weather.
These most recent storms should encourage U.S. citizens to recognize that we are facing a powerful entity that has only begun to barge into our American way. Look up into that beautiful sky overhead and consider its substance, dynamics and might. Our atmosphere is the product of more than four billion years of ongoing evolution ~ geological as well as biological. It's a tenuous veil of gases that lays upon the surface of our earth, thin as the finest silk upon your skin. This veil has a most interesting structure, one that's worth thinking about.
Our atmosphere is composed almost totally of nitrogen and oxygen. Interwoven into this medium is a gossamer thin admixture of everything else: thousands of different compounds that can be grouped into almost two hundred distinct families. Combined, these compounds make up less than one percent of our atmosphere's volume. Most of this volume is made up of inert compounds and noble gases, so called because they don't react with their surroundings very much, if at all. Within this matrix of nonreactive molecules is another, yet thinner community of reactive compounds. By volume, these reactive components total less than four hundred parts per million. This is where the action is. These chemicals are always reacting with each other: they combine, split up, mutate, affect neighboring molecules, change characteristics ~ and they do this at nonstop hypervelocities. This is the scaffolding over which energy, moisture, and heat perform their weather ballet.
What's new is that, over the past two hundred years or so, humanity has been injecting a third category of ingredients: human-made and human-generated. By volume, this new genre consists mainly of substances already present in the atmosphere, only now they are being added to in unfathomable quantities ~ and they belong to the reactive families. Then there are the "exotics": creations of science and industry that make up a small but usually highly reactive percentage. Many of these compounds are totally new to our atmosphere. All told, society has been injecting millions upon millions upon millions of tons of these gases and particulates into our atmosphere at ever-increasing rates. So much so that the very composition of our atmosphere ~ the weave of our atmospheric veil ~ has been significantly and verifiably altered.
This is cause for concern because our atmosphere is in actuality a heat engine. Its matrix of gaseous and particulate components are the valves and pistons. This engine is powered by the sun’s energetic rays and the result is our weather: the global distribution of energy, heat, and moisture. But each compound we've introduced interacts with the sun’s energy according to its own unique thermo-hygroscopic-chemical profile. Recent weather fluctuations are little more than a physical reflection of our atmosphere's composition.
Remember all those environmentalists whining about pollution, global warming, and all that? Well, it isn't mere delusion. Scientists have been discovering and recording these changes since the end of World War II. For more than forty years now, satellites have been visually recording the stains, rips, and acid burns that we continue to inflict upon the veil of our atmosphere. The increasingly sophisticated information they gather continues to have ominous implications for the future as well as the present.
While the media discusses global changes in terms of global averages, keep this in mind: there is no "average" patch of ground or water on this planet. Pollutants aren't added as amorphous averages. They are injected into the fabric of our atmosphere as ribbons of varying concentrations and volumes. It's true that today scientists have convincing evidence that some global areas are experiencing a warming trend, while others are experiencing a cooling trend. There is nothing reassuring about this.
Think about our atmosphere as the heat engine whose role it is to seek a globally balanced distribution of energy, heat and moisture. This engine has evolved to a delicate state of dynamic equilibrium. Remember, it is the profile of temperature gradients and barometric differentials that provide the throttle behind this engine's drive to maintain its equilibrium. Inject extremes and it will react in kind ~ it makes no difference to the engine. It does, however, make a difference to humans and the biosphere as we know it.
Science has consistently shown that nature is always vastly more complex, interwoven, and unpredictable than the human intellect is capable of imagining. Why won't we allow this lesson to sink in? Why be surprised when weather continues to become more chaotic? Admittedly, no one can accurately predict how weather will change. But who can deny that it will continue to change, and at an accelerated rate? We can kid ourselves, but we can't fool nature.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{Note: A previous version of this article was printed in the November/December 1995 issue of The Humanist.}
Friday, August 14, 2009
Reflections On Justice Sotomayor’s Confirmation Process
About two weeks after the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearing finished, I began writing about it and was immediately kidded: It's an obsolete topic, no one cares any more, people have moved on.
Now, months later, Justice Sotomayor sits on the bench listening to arguments - so why visit what went on last summer? Because it needs to be pointed out that her questioning exemplified a favorite Republican tactic in dealing with people who have a more progressive, rational world outlook.
Since the same tactic is being used today to combat medical-insurance reform efforts, I believe examining Republican and media behavior during the Sotomayor confirmation hearing is relevant today.
The hearing highlighted the all-too-familiar right-wing "politics by evasion and attack," which take small tidbits of truth and morph them into deceptive, emotionally supercharged PR bludgeons. Then, the proponents justify their evasive and hostile tactics by reaching back to self-serving faith-based dogma. Unfortunately, religious absolutism, absolutely distorts all attempts at examining the real challenges facing our future.
When President Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor for the US Supreme Court she sounded like a real ‘Mensch’ to me. I remember going on the web and doing some biographical searches on her. They reinforced my original ‘feel good.’ After that I scanned some of the usual right wing suspects to hear their take. Then, I listened to Sotomayor speeches that were available on YouTube.
I noticed the Republicans had no dirt on this lady. Thus, was surprised by the viciousness of their attacks and distortions. Attacks manipulating a very few quotes from speeches that to rational thinkers should have been starting points for a genuine discussion.
Ironically, the most vocal “anti-Sotomayor” Senators supported nominee Roberts who had a mere two years of judicial experience, having previously built his career on steam-rolling his extremely partisan goals. (something reflected in his demonstrably corporate loving approach to running the high court) Yet, today, a nominee with more court room experience than any nominee in a century and no political involvement, someone with overwhelming positive support from her knowledgeable peers ~ is told she’s not worthy because she is willing to recognize and discuss complex aspects of being a person? Whatever happened to ‘fair-play’?
When the Judiciary Committee Hearings began, the News reporting was dismal. Typical of the coverage was WNYC’s ‘On The Media’ which said: “As for the nominee, Slate Senior Editor Dhalia Lithwick says the hearings served as an elaborate calculus of 19 different ways to answer a question at length, without saying anything.
“ 'You can say the question is too broad so you can't answer it, you can say the question is too specific, so you can't answer it. You can say that was so far in the past I can't talk about it, or it’s so far in the future I can't talk about it, and so on. You know, there’s this whole formulation of how you don't answer questions, so why do we spend four days watching this with bated breath is actually the better question.”
Such media reporting inspired me to look up Cspan and listen to some of the Hearing for myself. It was a revelation! Not only did Judge Sotomayor do way less evasion than reporters and Republican Senators were peddling, but her answers were actually interesting. Interesting enough that over a couple weeks I managed to listened to the entire Judiciary Committee Hearing. I also rediscovered what a fantastic resource Cspan is, check it out on the Web. I myself gained a whole new level of appreciation for what a judge is, how the job & process works, and even why circumspection is a necessity in a quality judge. I also learned about why some cases proceed following channels created by the rule of law, even though we on the outside may disagree with that direction.
As for Lithwick’s question, may I suggest reporters should have been “listening” instead of only half watching with distracted minds. This hearing didn’t, and wasn’t supposed to, contain fireworks - instead it was a slow careful examination of the questions asked then answered by an exceptional jurist who wasn’t going to be bullied into dramatizing for the camera.
Mr. Lithwick, a worthier question would have been: Why did Senators Sessions, Grassley, Kyl and Hatch act as though they never heard a single Sotomayor answer? Why did they read through their questions like some sort of preordained scripture, never pausing to consider her words?
These Senators acted more like Officials Brooking No Decent, than men on a fact finding mission. Why does our media allow such Senatorial misbehavior to go unchallenged?
Another question should have been: Why couldn’t Republican Senator’s come up with more meaningful questions? Why where we subjected to cynical simplistic ideological monologues, which were more reminiscent of old plow-horses endlessly plodding the same field with no conception of anything beyond their own furrow. (OK, there where some Republican exceptions, but not near enough.)
Another question for the media's Litwicks: Why couldn’t any reporter put Judge Sotomayor’s reticence into perspective? The right wing and reporters act as though they expected Sotomayor to expound like some crony at a bar. But, she is a long standing honorable intelligent Judge. Weighing every word is second nature to her and has nothing to do with evasion. We expect nothing less from our judges. Tragically, our politically motivated Republicans would rather label this fine jurist an “enemy” and trash her ~ than allow her to share some refreshing insights.
More and more, Republicans are coming across as though they believe only they have “worthy” answers and anyone who thinks differently must be demonized no matter how many lies need to be fabricated to do so.
Why? By what right or justification? Haven’t Republican senators and media cheerleaders been culpable enough in heinous, astronomically costly mistakes of judgment these past few years that have harmed our country and future? What gives Senator Sessions, et.al., the gaul to act so condescendingly - if not destructively?
For me, watching Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor traverse the political mine-field during those months of her nomination these past months has put new substance behind the old adage: “Don’t Trust Anyone Over Thirty!” Kids, it has never been more accurate!
I say this because if the level of questioning and thinking by Senators Sessions, Kyl, Grassley, Hatch, along with all too many others, including reporters, is any indication of how these people will meet our oncoming challenges, boy oh boy are you younger generations in trouble.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Reflecting upon the moon landing and how far we have come
or as the editor to the Four Corners Free Press put it:
"The Dark Side of the Moon Landing" ;-)
At fourteen I got permission to camp out in the living room for three days running, no school, no play, little sleep. Seldom leaving the couch and then only for a quick pitstop frigstop & occasionally going outside to meditate on the actual crescent moon up there in the sky, then back to the TV.
Something fantastic was happening and I didn’t care how many times I listened to repeated news-flashes gone stale because I was determined to hear every next world premiere news-flash as it happened. Besides, the repetitions echoing on the TV networks gave me a chance to digest the story. Even better there were these great side-stories about mission details that never made the news shows.
Come Neal Armstrong’s small step for a man, but big leap for mankind and it was my Dad’s Birthday. The living room was full of family and a few hours of celebration infused with the profoundest aura: For the first time ever! People were actually standing on that midnight orb of my imagination ~ while the whole world watched!
After the party I remained glued to that TV until Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin blasted off from the moon to rejoin Michael Collins and begin their return to earth. My, and I dare say humanity’s, gaze upon the moon has never been the same. It was a fantastic achievement, exemplifying America’s ingenuity, can do and promise.
Yet, even at my tender age there was also an unshakable sadness about the moon landing. The man who made it all possible had been taken from us by forces unseen but resented ever after. It felt as though along with Kennedy a certain attitude of solidarity, (or was it just civility?), with the rest of humanity was systematically being abandoned.
Championed by Ronald Reagan and his driven economics ~ along with all the dirty-tricks needed to make it happen. Before our eyes the rest of the world was becoming nothing more than a potential profit point.
I believe it’s this evolution in our collective outlook that has step by step and season by passing season, ushered in today’s reality of a world full of intensely pissed off people running amok. Nor to be forgotten is the creation of uncountable masses of dispossessed refugees huddled in destitute pockets throughout the world. For what? So westerners can pretend living has no limits?
For nearly fifty years I’ve listened to the beautiful promises made by politicians, businessmen and scientist. Great strides have undoubtedly been made, but I’ve noticed there has been a tremendous cost attached to everyone of our successes. Disaster after disaster the battle cry remains: “Move along; don’t look back; let’s not dwell on it (read “think” about it); put the past behind you; move along now.” All these years watching “solutions” consistently creating more “unanticipated” problems than anyone of 'em solved is really disheartening.
All the while the masters of the universe continue selling each other more weaponry and ideological garbage, and our major religions continue playing their role of turning “God’s Will” into bludgeons for beating everyone who makes them uncomfortable.
The moon landing was a political act meant to prove we could do it, thus awarding us a feeling of invincibility. Why than, have our ‘quality of life’ issues imploded?
As much as I loved it back then, today I can’t help but think people would be far better off pulling their heads out of their heavens and refocusing their attention back down here, to this incredible little battered blue gem of a planet.
The one and only speck in the vast void of our Universe that can claim to be the cradle of all life. And, incidentally, the only home our future has.
"The Dark Side of the Moon Landing" ;-)
At fourteen I got permission to camp out in the living room for three days running, no school, no play, little sleep. Seldom leaving the couch and then only for a quick pitstop frigstop & occasionally going outside to meditate on the actual crescent moon up there in the sky, then back to the TV.
Something fantastic was happening and I didn’t care how many times I listened to repeated news-flashes gone stale because I was determined to hear every next world premiere news-flash as it happened. Besides, the repetitions echoing on the TV networks gave me a chance to digest the story. Even better there were these great side-stories about mission details that never made the news shows.
Come Neal Armstrong’s small step for a man, but big leap for mankind and it was my Dad’s Birthday. The living room was full of family and a few hours of celebration infused with the profoundest aura: For the first time ever! People were actually standing on that midnight orb of my imagination ~ while the whole world watched!
After the party I remained glued to that TV until Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin blasted off from the moon to rejoin Michael Collins and begin their return to earth. My, and I dare say humanity’s, gaze upon the moon has never been the same. It was a fantastic achievement, exemplifying America’s ingenuity, can do and promise.
Yet, even at my tender age there was also an unshakable sadness about the moon landing. The man who made it all possible had been taken from us by forces unseen but resented ever after. It felt as though along with Kennedy a certain attitude of solidarity, (or was it just civility?), with the rest of humanity was systematically being abandoned.
Championed by Ronald Reagan and his driven economics ~ along with all the dirty-tricks needed to make it happen. Before our eyes the rest of the world was becoming nothing more than a potential profit point.
I believe it’s this evolution in our collective outlook that has step by step and season by passing season, ushered in today’s reality of a world full of intensely pissed off people running amok. Nor to be forgotten is the creation of uncountable masses of dispossessed refugees huddled in destitute pockets throughout the world. For what? So westerners can pretend living has no limits?
For nearly fifty years I’ve listened to the beautiful promises made by politicians, businessmen and scientist. Great strides have undoubtedly been made, but I’ve noticed there has been a tremendous cost attached to everyone of our successes. Disaster after disaster the battle cry remains: “Move along; don’t look back; let’s not dwell on it (read “think” about it); put the past behind you; move along now.” All these years watching “solutions” consistently creating more “unanticipated” problems than anyone of 'em solved is really disheartening.
All the while the masters of the universe continue selling each other more weaponry and ideological garbage, and our major religions continue playing their role of turning “God’s Will” into bludgeons for beating everyone who makes them uncomfortable.
The moon landing was a political act meant to prove we could do it, thus awarding us a feeling of invincibility. Why than, have our ‘quality of life’ issues imploded?
As much as I loved it back then, today I can’t help but think people would be far better off pulling their heads out of their heavens and refocusing their attention back down here, to this incredible little battered blue gem of a planet.
The one and only speck in the vast void of our Universe that can claim to be the cradle of all life. And, incidentally, the only home our future has.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
why is the right wing scared of Sonia Sotomayor?
I've submitted the following letter to the Durango Herald editor:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regarding Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination
~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regarding Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination
~~~
Those damning words keep ringing in my ears: “ A wise Latina woman would do a better job of judging than a wise white male.” Quite the affront against those powerful white guys who were always convinced they alone possessed omniscient judgement.
On the other hand, one of the hallmarks of a judge is an internalized sense that they, personally, do indeed possess clearer judgement/responsibility skills, along with a greater sense of obligation and duty. Makes me wonder why the right wing knocks Sotomayor for her healthy confidence, when balanced confidence is part and parcel of being a successful judge, let alone Justice of our US Supreme Court.
What’s below the surface? Why are right wing extremists so angry & scared of this confident little lady? Are the likes of Senator Sessions, Coulter, Limbaugh, et. al, too unprepared for allowing a Sotomayor to sit as an equal in this ultimate establishment Club of nine?
Are they worried because they don’t want the like’s of a Sotomayor having a chance to present her perspective directly into the high court? And, what would be wrong with that? Looking at the demography of this country it is hard to understand how people who trumpet “democracy” can despise someone who’s only sin is recognizing who she is and being proud of it.
Sotomayor’s public record reflects decades of honorable, very competent judicial service to her country. Our Supreme Court needs a good shot of main street reality. Left wing, right wing, and all who are in between, need this person, judge Sonia Sotomayor, to take her rightful place at the “round table” of nine respected elders, for all her merits, glowing achievements, intelligence, humanity & pride.
*****************************
Monday, June 15, 2009
Cheney's May 21st American Enterprise Institute speech examined
In May ex-Vice President Cheney went on a publicity offensive against the Obama Administration. Within a few weeks he seemed to give more press interviews and speeches than during his entire tenure in the White House. Thanks to the wonder of the internet & YouTube one can listen to his crowning AEI speech, and I have, a few times over. Being on the internet I was also able to fact check some of Mr. Cheney’s telling along with my own memory of events.
The speech was given May 21, 2009 at the American Enterprise Institute and what I found was that Cheney defended his entire case like a great novelist. Building and weaving his story and its substance to fit his chosen solution to his plot’s dilemma. Though that works great for writers of fiction who are welcome to use artistic license to move their story along, it’s not how to run a government, build a sustainable future, or trumpet a policy.
During his speech Mr. Cheney radiated incredible conviction and even stronger ego, but, he also showed himself incapable of admitting to any short coming or mistakes. That begs the question: what good is his judgment if he is incapable of honest introspection?
Reflecting this is a remarkable anecdote regarding the ex-Vice President. Cheney was describing the Bush Administration’s doctrine on dealing with terrorism. He is quoted saying, “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It’s not about our analysis ... It’s about our response.”
Cheney’s speech reaffirmed his unwavering commitment to that mindset. It makes me wonder: How can this man remain oblivious to the astounding negative consequences his actions have had for our United States of America? (Ron Suskind’s book “The One Percent Doctrine,” documents how this world view effected Bush Administration actions.)
The trouble is, the world’s full of potential disasters and conceivable threats lurk in every direction. If one is going to put all their energy into every imaginable potential threat that comes to mind they’ll drive themselves insane... while missing actual incoming threats. There needs to be some intelligent evaluation, prioritizing and careful planning. Otherwise you’re just falling prey to one’s own paranoia and unrestrained pipe dreaming.
For instance, Cheney claims “You can look at the facts and conclude that (our) comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued.” What has worked? Where is America any better off? Where are things being resolved constructively?
If there’s any comprehensive strategy to be teased from events, its a strategy of pursuing war for war’s sake. Only then do Bush Administration neocon actions fall into place and make sense. Their own New American Century documents support such an interpretation. Projecting power and exercising military options is an end in itself for ex-Vice President Cheney. But, is that what America needs? Didn’t Washington and Eisenhower expressly warn against such folly?
Cheney claims success because al-Qaeda hasn’t struck our homeland since 9/11. That conceit is filled with too many flimsy assumptions. Did al-Qaeda actually try again? Did they have to? After all American’s were ,... are, doing a pretty good job of tearing itself down - from damaging our own economy, to vandalizing our world position, to damaging our own military, to how Americans are being encouraged to distrust and even despise one another. This seems Cheney’s true legacy.
When we get to the Abu Ghraib torture scandal Cheney is quick to throw military personnel off the cliff. Where’s the man’s honor or sense of loyalty as he lectures us? Furthermore, his words are directly contradicted by reams of official documentation and the tenor of his own words back then. Cheney championed going to extremes but now condemns the soldiers who were carrying out his orders. It’s Cheney-speak at its ugliest.
Cheney says, “(Obama) can project values, and that’s fine, but we need to project strength and that has to rule in certain situations.” True enough. But, only when it makes sense! What’s the sense behind projecting strength in the form of vengeance-lust inspiring shock and awe, while leaving the heart of the real perpetrators to enjoy the successes of their terror?
So far as on the ground happenings - we have invaded & demolished a nation that was not a strategic threat to our nation. While the Administration’s half hearted attempts to track the true perpetrators of 9/11 have only served to train and harden al Qaida and bring in a huge fresh young generation fired-up by the atrocities they experienced at the hands of Cheney’s “projection of strength.” Yet, Cheney still doesn’t recognize that might & military strength must be handled with wisdom - and acts of wisdom require an ability to admit to mistakes and to learn from them.
I do agree with Cheney that documents relating to intercepted plots should be released. (But, here again, he lies in that it is the CIA not Obama who’s holding back those documents.) Cheney believers constantly refer to their facts, facts that upon closer examination too often turn out to be smoke, mirrors and ideologically motivated deceptions - therefore, it would be valuable to see those documents. Then Americans can decide for themselves how well they can believe Cheney’s boast of thousands, even hundred’s of thousands of lives saved.
Another dishonest aspect of Cheney claiming facts support him is that he steadfastly ignores the huge body of documented contrary facts as reported on sites like www.bushlies.net or www.bushwatch.com and others.
Solutions won’t be found in ratcheting up the paranoia and encouraging yet more faith-based hostility. Seems to me, the tenor of the myopic absolutism Cheney preached in his recent fear mongering tour displays an approach that in the cold glare of reality once again acts more as al-Qaeda’s booster than America’s protector.
One of the tragic hallmarks of faith-based reasoning is that only the facts fitting ones ideology are acknowledged, and a blind eye to all else is considered a virtue. Sadly, such thinking will only further damage our children’s future.
Shouldn’t we, as a nation, do better?
Sincerely, Peter Miesler
Durango, Colorado
The speech was given May 21, 2009 at the American Enterprise Institute and what I found was that Cheney defended his entire case like a great novelist. Building and weaving his story and its substance to fit his chosen solution to his plot’s dilemma. Though that works great for writers of fiction who are welcome to use artistic license to move their story along, it’s not how to run a government, build a sustainable future, or trumpet a policy.
During his speech Mr. Cheney radiated incredible conviction and even stronger ego, but, he also showed himself incapable of admitting to any short coming or mistakes. That begs the question: what good is his judgment if he is incapable of honest introspection?
Reflecting this is a remarkable anecdote regarding the ex-Vice President. Cheney was describing the Bush Administration’s doctrine on dealing with terrorism. He is quoted saying, “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It’s not about our analysis ... It’s about our response.”
Cheney’s speech reaffirmed his unwavering commitment to that mindset. It makes me wonder: How can this man remain oblivious to the astounding negative consequences his actions have had for our United States of America? (Ron Suskind’s book “The One Percent Doctrine,” documents how this world view effected Bush Administration actions.)
The trouble is, the world’s full of potential disasters and conceivable threats lurk in every direction. If one is going to put all their energy into every imaginable potential threat that comes to mind they’ll drive themselves insane... while missing actual incoming threats. There needs to be some intelligent evaluation, prioritizing and careful planning. Otherwise you’re just falling prey to one’s own paranoia and unrestrained pipe dreaming.
For instance, Cheney claims “You can look at the facts and conclude that (our) comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued.” What has worked? Where is America any better off? Where are things being resolved constructively?
If there’s any comprehensive strategy to be teased from events, its a strategy of pursuing war for war’s sake. Only then do Bush Administration neocon actions fall into place and make sense. Their own New American Century documents support such an interpretation. Projecting power and exercising military options is an end in itself for ex-Vice President Cheney. But, is that what America needs? Didn’t Washington and Eisenhower expressly warn against such folly?
Cheney claims success because al-Qaeda hasn’t struck our homeland since 9/11. That conceit is filled with too many flimsy assumptions. Did al-Qaeda actually try again? Did they have to? After all American’s were ,... are, doing a pretty good job of tearing itself down - from damaging our own economy, to vandalizing our world position, to damaging our own military, to how Americans are being encouraged to distrust and even despise one another. This seems Cheney’s true legacy.
When we get to the Abu Ghraib torture scandal Cheney is quick to throw military personnel off the cliff. Where’s the man’s honor or sense of loyalty as he lectures us? Furthermore, his words are directly contradicted by reams of official documentation and the tenor of his own words back then. Cheney championed going to extremes but now condemns the soldiers who were carrying out his orders. It’s Cheney-speak at its ugliest.
Cheney says, “(Obama) can project values, and that’s fine, but we need to project strength and that has to rule in certain situations.” True enough. But, only when it makes sense! What’s the sense behind projecting strength in the form of vengeance-lust inspiring shock and awe, while leaving the heart of the real perpetrators to enjoy the successes of their terror?
So far as on the ground happenings - we have invaded & demolished a nation that was not a strategic threat to our nation. While the Administration’s half hearted attempts to track the true perpetrators of 9/11 have only served to train and harden al Qaida and bring in a huge fresh young generation fired-up by the atrocities they experienced at the hands of Cheney’s “projection of strength.” Yet, Cheney still doesn’t recognize that might & military strength must be handled with wisdom - and acts of wisdom require an ability to admit to mistakes and to learn from them.
I do agree with Cheney that documents relating to intercepted plots should be released. (But, here again, he lies in that it is the CIA not Obama who’s holding back those documents.) Cheney believers constantly refer to their facts, facts that upon closer examination too often turn out to be smoke, mirrors and ideologically motivated deceptions - therefore, it would be valuable to see those documents. Then Americans can decide for themselves how well they can believe Cheney’s boast of thousands, even hundred’s of thousands of lives saved.
Another dishonest aspect of Cheney claiming facts support him is that he steadfastly ignores the huge body of documented contrary facts as reported on sites like www.bushlies.net or www.bushwatch.com and others.
Solutions won’t be found in ratcheting up the paranoia and encouraging yet more faith-based hostility. Seems to me, the tenor of the myopic absolutism Cheney preached in his recent fear mongering tour displays an approach that in the cold glare of reality once again acts more as al-Qaeda’s booster than America’s protector.
One of the tragic hallmarks of faith-based reasoning is that only the facts fitting ones ideology are acknowledged, and a blind eye to all else is considered a virtue. Sadly, such thinking will only further damage our children’s future.
Shouldn’t we, as a nation, do better?
Sincerely, Peter Miesler
Durango, Colorado
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)