What a victory for our Mennonite lad from Temecula, California, right? Floyd Landis, that is. That come-back kid must be an inspiration to you, Bush, now that virtually the whole world has written you off as a loser. I hope you don't take his victory the wrong way, though, and see it as a validation of that favorite--and mindless--Bush adage: Stay the course. I guess in a bicycle race it's a bit different than in international relations, where you sometimes have to modify your game plan in the light of new realities. Even then, you could argue that Landis changed his game plan after that disastrous day. Still not a good example for you to follow, Bush: he went on the attack.
So I wonder now, do you have any new game plans up your sleeve? You could yet surprise us all. Not likely, though. You'd need to do some serious rethinking, and I understand that's not your strong point. I do have a few suggestions for you, if you'll bear with me. They could be helpful:
1) Fire your Rumsfeld. That act alone could send a signal that you're ready to revise your thinking on Iraq. Oh, and follow the firing up with some actual revised thinking, including a willingness to listen to those with other views about how to resolve this dreadful mess you have created. They might just have a usefully new perspective.
2) Close down Guantanamo. Bring those against whom there is significant evidence to public trial, with adequate provision for defense. Find ways to release the others with proper safeguards for their humanitarian treatment. Tell the world you're, um, embarrassed to have been overzealous in your pursuit of terrorists and may have possibly made some mistakes along the way, and reassure the international community of America's commitment to established rules of civilized behavior.
3) Announce a serious nationwide initiative to counter global warming, and the intention to lead the world in funding green research and developing new industries that will serve to protect the panet rather than exploit it,
4) Open channels of international communication you have previously blocked. (Your Rice's visit this morning to Lebanon BEFORE going to Israel and meeting with the parliamentary leader who has close ties with Hezbollah is a good start in this direction: an important signal--assuming it's more than an empty gesture--that the US is not uncritically on one side of this conflict.) Find ways to address the root causes of terrorism as well as its symptoms. Show some understanding that your way is not always the right or the exclusive one; that you're willing and ready to listen to someone other than your small circle of advisors.
5) Hire some qualified and gifted scientists to provide you with sane, trustworthy information on such topics as climate change, evolution, and stem cell research. Listen to the established, factual data they present you with.
6) Start insisting on integrity in politics, even amongst your Republicans. Make a public statement of your intention to tolerate no irregularities in election technology or management, and to maintain a healthy separation between government, campaign funding, and corporate lobbyists. Kiss your Rove goodbye, hand him his pink slip, and bring in a person who values honesty and civility of debate above election victory.
7) Make a point of rewarding competence and efficiency rather than loyalty. Exercise some discretion and skepticism when consulting your gut, which has proved notoriously unreliable on several occasions in the past. Get some objective help when evaluating performance.
Oh, well, Bush, just a few ideas on which to base a comeback. Call me a dreamer, but I think at least one or two of them are promising. They might help polish your image in America and the world at large.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
excellent ideas all! Will he listen? Sigh....
I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...
Is that somewhere in Brooklyn, PK?
5) Hire some qualified and gifted scientists to provide you with sane, trustworthy information on such topics as climate change, evolution, and stem cell research. Listen to the established, factual data they present you with.
He's already halfway there. The federal government already has plenty of hightly qualified scientists providing the kinds of information you suggest. The problem is that instead of listening to them, he does everything he can to silence them.
Here's a story in MIT's magazine, Technology Review. "Jim Hansen may be the most respected climate scientist in the world. He's been director of NASA's premier climate research center, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for 25 years and a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for 10. And he more or less single-handedly turned global warming into an international issue...
...An attempt by the Bush administration to silence him early this year also helped turn global warming into one of the biggest news stories of 2006. It began on December 6, 2005, when Hansen declared in a talk at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco ..."
Full story:
http://www.techreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=oil&id=17057
g w/o b,
It's good to hear all sides. Interesting to note that this is a statement made to a US Senate Committee, in which he says "Scientists can be punished if they do not accept the current views of their funding agents. An honest and objective scientific debate cannot be held in such a political environment." Would this be like the control Bush and Cheney have tried to exert over Hansen's statements?
Also, as a "Professor of Atmospheric Science" who has "been studying and forecasting weather and climate for over 50 years" , he says "Restricting human-induced greenhouse gas emissions now, on the basis of their assumed influence on global warming, is not a viable economic option...We need to keep the western world economies vibrant..." Could he be advancing his own political agenda here? What are his credentials as an economist?
He talks about the flaws of various prediction and computer-modeling techniques, but a quick look at charts of temperature and atmospheric carbon cycles (Technology Review, p.40) shows that something (I'm not saying what) is causing both to rise beyond the normal range that we've seen for over 400,000 years. Seems this might at least be worth paying some attention to.
If you live here in L.A, have a nice day at the beach. Don't bother using sunscreen. After all, humans survived without it for thousands of years.
LOL;D, yeah, that one is in Brooklyn:). Sorry, but I just don't see him getting anything in that empty head of his real soon. Any thing he says is scripted, when it isn't, he doesn't know what to say, he gets all flummoxed. Listen to you? Don't think so, but you might try sending that portion of your blog to him for his consideration, see if it gets you anywhere. I've written him so much mail, never have gotten an answer. I know how to get one:D, but I won't go there... Gringo... I agree that the earth does it's thing all on its own, but there is a middle ground on this Gringo. Please do listen. Yes, the earth goes through phases, but please listen to what David has to say, and read the links he has given you. Please don't be like GWB and just ignore what is happening. You're not being fair to yourself my friend. Knowledge is a good thing, learn something new everyday...
Maybe the two corporate parties can compromise and use the term Armageddon instead of Global Warming. That way they can scare Bush's base...
Nah, that'll just make them salivate.
Interesting website with a lot of resources and detailed explanations.
»
I love your website. It has a lot of great pictures and is very informative.
»
Post a Comment