When the U.S. acts like a Chamber of Commerce with narrowly defined self-interests, then no, it's not showing leadership, it's merely taking advantage of reputation and position. In any case, given that the world is currently in a fast changing situation, narrowly defined self-interests are likely to backfire sooner or later (Trump thinks he shows leadership but deludes himself).
There are world interests, such as global warming, that need leadership, even if defined as a group of 3, 7 or whatever. I'm concerned that Venezuela and Syria are showing us too much of the future. Without leadership of some kind, things globally will get much worse.
Although it's a problematic list, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea are going to have to figure out how to work with China while the U.S. is AWOL. The critical issue is global warming, but there are other issues. I'm assuming the U.S. will return to its leadership role, but it's not guaranteed. For now, China will be proceeding cautiously. It's almost certain they're thinking of the long game and not just taking advantage of the situation.
Maybe other countries have to be put on the list but I'm surprised that it's not that easy to see who.
Trump will attempt to play power games but he's an idiot and is sometimes unhinged. And he truly does not understand what it means to be an American president. Despite his ego, he really has no clue how hard it is to be a world leader.
Excellent observations. And worrisome. But there are three issues that can't entirely be ignored. First, Trump is growing increasingly erratic, and is contradicting himself, which clearly suggests something is wrong.
The second issue is that Republicans in Congress have to decide how far over the waterfall they wish to go with an erratic president. For one thing, Republicans are finding it difficult to keep pace with Trump's lies and bizarre behavior.
Third, subpoenas are now starting to show up. Government officials and elected officials start acting different when they have to testify under oath. There are no guarantees about the scenario I'm suggesting. Things are fluid. But an elected official who begins to lie too much often starts losing support quickly.
Thanks for this. Chinese technology has become very strong and the U.S. is at risk of losing leadership. One thing I would note is that a lot of those patents are based on very sophisticated reverse technology studies that uses teams to handle each identifiable component of technology being studied. These team studies are much more sophisticated than what the Japanese and South Koreans used in their heyday. Because the Chinese are coming up with new technology on their own, their system is not to be ignored and will cost us if Trump is slack on science and new technologies, and that particularly applies to clean tech. But note that the U.S. still leads in Nobel Prizes, and even the Japanese do better than the Chinese.
Of course, Trump is an idiot. Despite his denials, he is anti-science. He also supports dying industries, just like the British did when they lost their technology lead to the U.S.
By the way, note that U.S. patents granted almost doubled in 15 years. Yes, there's trouble, but it's reversible.
The problem is that Vladimir Putin has lots more oil to sell and many more billions to make.
Putin is not driven by policy. Just by sheer greed. This has been his position for some time. I would note that the opinion of Russian scientists have been somewhat squelched since a few weeks before the Winter Olympics in Russia. It's about to get worse.
The irony is that the Russian economy will once again get short shrift and the average Russian will be left wondering why Russia's educated population and many resources will remain underutilized and the economy largely in shambles.
As I understand it, if an American politician takes a $10 million campaign donation from a foreigner, he's in deep trouble, and if it's the foreign government making the contribution, that's even a bigger problem. With the Russians, there's no distinct line between the oligarchs and Putin's government.
If an American politician receives $5 million of behind the scenes campaign help, that too is a big deal. Trump has too many Russian ties and too many ties to Eastern European banks not to dig into this further. There's a high probability that the investigations will go on, unless Republicans block them.
The big problem is that the Russians appear to have done some things that were too sophisticated to pull off without American help. Some of that has already been hinted at in the news. There's a high probability we're going to learn more.
Many people who are concerned about global warming and therefore follow what's happening to oil around the world are watching Saudi Arabia closely. The current government seems to be taking global warming seriously and adjusting accordingly. But there are questions about how many prominent Saudis are on board:
One must add that global warming has also been a factor in creating so many refugees.
When farmers drill for water and none is left to be had, they have no choice but to move. And if the cities where they go become overcrowded and violent, they tend to move on with their families.
Americans have similar histories. I grew up in S. California and my parents remember people moving in who lived through the years of the Dust Bowl. Two such families were neighbors when I was growing up.
Bill, can you summarize the point being made by Pilger? It struck me as incoherent.
All I know is that Trump and his Republican friends have ended rather early the usual honeymoon for an incoming president, and their incomprehensible behavior seems to include much of the world. Such behavior unfortunately defies an understanding of the usual transition process of an incoming president.
Dolan, there is no evidence whatsoever that Trump will follow through on some of his more popular promises. First, he has no record. Second, he has hired the most right wing officials he can find and their agenda is not about the majority of Americans.
In the meantime, he hasn't shown us his tax returns, he hasn't put his assets in a blind trust, and he's giving important positions to his family in spite of nepotism laws. And he appears to be already profiting from being president.
During most transitions, an incoming president mends fences and talks about working together and listening to the other side. And they do not tweet in the early hours of the morning insulting fellow Americans.
Trump still has time to start acting presidential. But he's quickly running out of time, and a large majority of Americans are getting impatient.
Whether the Russians had an actual effect on the election can be debated. That they were actively involved in hacking is fairly well established at this point. And it's fairly well established that the intent was to help Trump. Furthermore, Russian trolling, a different activity, has been going on at least since 2014.
I have seen reports that the trolling has been actively organized since 2013. It is highly probable that when a Russian missile system was loaned to Russian partisans in the eastern Ukraine and was responsible for shooting down the Malaysian airplane over Ukraine, the Russian Internet trolls tried to blame the Ukrainians despite the fact that Ukraine has no such missile system.
There's a further issue. Informed Comment, like most blogs, is on a server and most servers allow the user to see who's visiting the site. There's been a sharp increase in Russian and eastern European visits since 2014, even when there are no articles related to Russia or Russian interests.
First, it's important to remember that Clinton lost the electoral college vote by only 40,000 votes in three states. But there were so many bizarre things about the election that I don't think a conclusion can be drawn about Putin one way or another. Given the computer break-ins and the e-mail nonsense, we also don't know if James Comey was influenced by Putin's activity in a roundabout way. His decision had an almost an immediate negative impact on Clinton in the final two weeks.
As for Putin, it is a fact that we don't seem to have a way of dealing with someone covertly trying to influence our elections. And we don't seem to have a very secure Internet system (that may be on both Republicans and Democrats who support the NSA and its need to also get into other people's computers).
By the way, Putin's activities are not new. There's clear evidence Russians were playing games in the 2014 midterm elections. They had trolling operations in Eastern Europe:
Trump is the president elect, but on many levels we're in a different world now. Assessing where we are now is going to take time. The only real "winners" this election are the fossil fuel barons like Putin and the Koch brothers and perhaps Exxon. At the least, they get a few more years of big profits. Given the sharp jump in global warming in the last three years, this is the immediate real disaster of this election.
NOAA says it's virtually certain that globally 2016 will set a record high. But there's something not being mentioned much. Since 1950, there has been a couple of times when record highs have been set two years in a row. This time, 2016 will be the third record high in a row, after 2014 and 2015.
Not only is global warming getting more obvious, there are an increasing number of consequences. Changing weather patterns and droughts are the most obvious. But there is one story that is being neglected: scientists are currently bewildered by how fast things are suddenly changing in the Arctic. They are seeing things no one has seen before and they are not certain what the consequences will be These are very smart people and their puzzlement should be big news. Scientists will eventually catch up but they are acutely aware that global warming has consequences and that the pace of the consequences may be picking up.
In the meantime, TV journalists talk in a knowledgeable tone and yet basically know little (one exception is Chris Hayes of MSNBC, though his producers seem to dumb down what he presents). And the Grand Ostrich Party remains useless. Trump, of course, denies global warming.
In the meantime, no president has done more about global warming than President Obama, but he receives little credit. And it's not acknowledged much that Hillary takes global warming seriously. And Trump, who is basically a flamboyant demagogue, would be an historical disaster if elected.
Much of the Middle East has three things right now: lots of sun, lots of unoccupied land, and in varying amounts, lots of money (though the falling price of oil has hurt a lot of economies).
Oil cannot be burned much longer and frankly, oil has been burned at dangerous levels for several decades. In the time that is left before fossil fuels collapse (and they will), the Middle East countries with money need to install solar. They probably also need to set up desalination plants that are environmentally sound (I believe some of this is already happening).
There are clearly places in the Middle East where good agriculture land exists but where no water is regularly available and well water has dried up. That's just one of several possibilities that solar and desalination can provide.
I have no idea how much of this can be done. Columbia is already an oil country that was capable of seeing the future and refused to adjust to it. But for those who are capable of planning for the future, the time to transition is now, not after the money is gone. The rest of the world has profited from fossil fuels as much as the Middle East. So they may have to be involved in helping oil countries in the Middle East transition from fossil fuels.
Some readers have no clue how accurate the article is about Donald Trump and the need to make sure our democracy isn't completely derailed. Worst case scenarios have to be taken into consideration. There is also the issue that Donald Trump allows his strong obsessions to rule his thinking. This is not a healthy man.
We also literally cannot afford to take a break from working on global warming for four years, assuming we even get our democracy back if Trump is elected. I'm sorry to say it, but David Faris nails it.
Speaking of climate change, which should be one of the major issues of this campaign, the damage from two major storms in August in the Arctic is now very apparent. There's a detailed and startling picture of the damage to the Arctic in the Ice Forum (go to the link below and scroll down to the second picture which shows the Arctic at this time of year from 2012 to 2016):
It's ironic that Trump talks about stealing oil from Iraq when the oil age needs to end as quickly as possible. Nor does Trump understand that some of the turmoil in Syria and other places can be traced to the droughts almost certainly caused by global warming.
For all the arrogance of Bush and Cheney, one of the bizarre aspects of their war in Iraq is how often they miscalculated. For example, when Saddam Hussein decided to allow the UN inspectors in, Bush and his inner circle were not only caught by surprise but there was no Plan B. Within a few weeks, they quickly concocted something out of discredited intelligence, including a phony nonexistent uranium deal in Niger.
Allowing the UN inspectors in was a big clue at the time that something was seriously wrong. In the end, the American press was just as culpable as Bush for their failure to note the inconsistencies. I'm not a pacifist and thus I don't have a default position. I was disgusted in the fall of 2002 but it took Colin Powell's speech to realize how much of a fraud the whole thing was (ironically, Powell later became a major source for much of what went wrong; I guess even he had his limits).
Great cartoon! Yes, Donald Trump has the qualifications to attract attention and improve ratings. But given his temperament, his anxieties and his lack of suitable knowledge, he does not have the qualifications to be president, a little detail much of the media ignores.
George W. set a new standard on what a failed presidency is like. I can't imagine Donald Trump being an improvement on George W.
One failed presidency did a lot of damage to our country and our foreign policy. President Obama repaired some of the damage despite a Congress that was useless for six years. Another failed presidency so soon after George W. will not be good for the U.S., or good for the world.
Decades ago, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace and General Curtis LeMay were not shy about raising the stakes when discussing the use of nuclear weapons. Today, they seem almost dovish compared to Donald Trump, an angry, often incoherent neurotic that TV news shows have largely taken far too seriously as a presidential candidate, simply because his angry nuttiness improved their ratings. Trump has been bankrupt four times, many banks refuse to loan him money, he is held responsible for the failure of the U.S. Football League and is probably far less wealthy than he claims. He has never been elected to office and wishes to start at the top with his finger on the button. Meanwhile, as a party, the GOP also refuses to take global warming seriously, despite its many foreign policy implications. And their second choice is Ted Cruz. That is not leadership we need.
The range of the new electric cars makes a huge difference. Part of the issue is that cars now last longer than they did 20 years ago. In a sense, many potential buyers of electric cars are simply waiting for models with longer range. Affordable electric cars with longer range are now arriving. That's a game changer.
Republicans at the state and federal level have cut budgets to the bone and little money is being spent at the moment on roads, bridges, schools, water pipes, water projects, fire fighting in the west and flood control in the east. If Democrats win this fall, implementing just a normal budget will make people confident about the economy and the soundness of buying an electric car.
Sales for electric cars will be increasing but the big growth will probably begin in a year or two. This will bring down costs even further.
The time frame of global warming is becoming clearer but unfortunately many powerful people do not realize how little time we have to avoid the more serious consequences. The fact that the Saudis take it seriously should speak volumes.
One of the great advantages of solar and wind for developing countries is that solar and wind are scalable. That means they can easily be built to meet local energy needs, and when more power is needed, the right amount of additional power is easy to add. Before its famous demise, Enron was famous for trying to build a 1 billion dollar power plant in a poorer area of India that didn't know what to do with all the energy the plant provided, and couldn't afford to pay for the huge unused capacity (it was eventually cancelled).
Global warming should have been a sufficient reason to switch to alternative energy. But economics is now a big factor. Fossil fuels have pretty much reached rock bottom in prices. And yet the prices of various forms of alternative energy continue to fall. Experts believe the prices will continue to fall for another decade or two.
In the meantime, electric cars are only about two to four years from taking off. Given the rising level of global warming, the switch to electric vehicles can't happen soon enough.
American right-wingers are rushing to cameras, journalists and the Internet trying to make hay out of this. Ann Coulter (yeah, she's still around) is trying to declare Donald Trump the next president. It's disgusting.
Many people, including myself, will be turning to Informed Comment, for a clear-eyed perspective.
I have a couple of comments, but not necessarily facts. European countries taking in refugees has certainly been the right thing to do, but the chance of terrorists slipping in among terrorists seems very high (though it's likely weapons would have to come to the terrorists by other routes.)
Assuming the attack was by ISIL, they have had setbacks in recent days. If related to the attack, then the terrorists were pre-positioned and waiting for a signal.
Last point and I have no way to know at this time what the possibility is. Could this attack be regarded as a threat or message to the many refugees that have been going to Europe? For example, might the attack have had as one of its goals making it more difficult for refugees to be accepted?
Bill, I remember what Clinton did and also what many other Democrats did in 2002. I also remember the heavy propaganda campaign Bush and his crew put together just after Labor Day, and less than two months before the 2002 midterms, and in the post-9/11 climate of fear which was still going strong. Hillary has admitted to making a mistake.
Here's what I'm going to do. If Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for him and I will support him. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I will vote for her, and I will support her. I know too much now what a radical right wing Republican government will be like if Republicans are in charge of the House, Senate, White House and Supreme Court. No Republican now running is less radical and less incompetent than George W. was.
It took awhile, but Obama has made headway on the economy and on global warming. A Republican victory will almost certainly sweep that away. And that's before the neocons figure out what their next military campaign will be.
There's no question Colin Powell's low moment was his speech before the UN and he has admitted it several times. But its worth noting that he tossed out most of the so-called intelligence that was handed to him on Iraq. And most of the so-called "evidence" that Bush, Rice, Cheney and Karl Rove were peddling in the months before the speech was not used. For those paying attention, that spoke volumes.
In addition, over time, Colin Powell, and his assistant, Larry Wilkerson, were able to release considerable information that showed just how fabricated and incompetent the case for war was.
Even before the UN speech, in the fall of 2002, Collin Powell made a somewhat casual observation (that he may have allowed to be published) that the top Bush officials were caught off guard when Saddam Hussein agreed to allow UN inspectors to come to Iraq. They apparently had not analyzed what their response would be if weapons inspectors were admitted. Powell's comments suggest Bush and his top circle (which curiously never included Colin Powell) had to quickly improvise new scenarios.
One last somewhat unrelated point, and this was generally less known: comments by others suggest that Colin Powell was willing to take global warming seriously but was overruled by Bush's top circle. Powell's role under George W. was much more complex than most people realize.
I found this article a great summary of Chalabi's role in the Iraq war. I didn't know about the role Colin Powell may have played. One thing I remember back then was reading that someone in the Bush Administration was surprised that Chalabi didn't become the leader of Iraq. It was just one of dozens of pieces of evidence at the time that the Bush Administration was incompetent.
I wish you would keep this article up for awhile and then find a place to put a link to the Chalabi article somewhere in the side bar. It summarizes a lot about Bush's fiasco and is relevant in terms of the coming U.S. elections.
Great article. I remember Richard Clarke and several of his articles, but I didn't fully understand at the time his history and cabinet level position. Classic George W. bumbling.
I need to reread how we got into Afghanistan but I seem to remember an article that said Brzezinski lured the Soviet Union into Afghanistan. After all, Russia invaded in 1979. Then again, I've been rereading the oil history of the Middle East during the 1970s. When U.S. oil production started dropping in 1971, Nixon was president and Kissinger was Secretary of State. Both missed the implications of dropping oil production and the fact that it gave the Middle East enormous leverage on oil prices. Republicans conveniently forget a lot of their history — and bungling.
I didn't know about the drunken trees. That's new to me. And I'm still learning about the land erosion along the coast in Alaska. Land erosion along the west coast of the United States has been more noticeable in the last twenty to thirty years.
One new issue is catching attention in the Arctic. As the Arctic melts in the summer and the areas of open water get bigger and last longer, the chance of truly damaging storms increases. Why? Because waves now have room to build and they're powerful enough to destroy more ice. This is very dangerous for ships and oil platforms.
I oppose the Shell Oil platform but I understand the difficult politics and issues Obama has to deal with, including Russia. But there is a real risk of increasing the problems of global warming.
Alaska demonstrates a growing global truth that hasn't been articulated yet and that different scientists have expressed roughly in different ways. It's this: the science of global warming is sound but we can't truly know where we are if CO2 emissions keep increasing, and the potential for future problems keep increasing. A good analogy is a forest fire. In the first few hours, no scientist can tell you how destructive that fire is going to be. It depends on many factors, including how fast that fire is brought under control. We're not moving nearly fast enough. More important, as long as CO2 emissions continue to rise, we truly don't know where we are.
It's a small step but a step in the right direction. A growing number of groups around the world can see what is happening.
One advantage that the Saudis have besides the large amount of oil they possess is that they still produce oil at very low cost compared to other nations. So they'll be around as one of the last producers still selling oil as the transition to alternative energy continues. Much depends on what kind of reserves they have left and what plans, if any, they have in the future.
If I understand it right, the Saudi have installed a small amount of solar under the justification that it frees up more oil to sell to others. They can't be totally unaware of what is happening.
I assume their business realism will eventually kick in. Or is that taking too much for granted?
Robert Reich has an interesting take on Trump after talking with Europeans:
http://robertreich.org/post/160871844460
When the U.S. acts like a Chamber of Commerce with narrowly defined self-interests, then no, it's not showing leadership, it's merely taking advantage of reputation and position. In any case, given that the world is currently in a fast changing situation, narrowly defined self-interests are likely to backfire sooner or later (Trump thinks he shows leadership but deludes himself).
There are world interests, such as global warming, that need leadership, even if defined as a group of 3, 7 or whatever. I'm concerned that Venezuela and Syria are showing us too much of the future. Without leadership of some kind, things globally will get much worse.
Although it's a problematic list, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea are going to have to figure out how to work with China while the U.S. is AWOL. The critical issue is global warming, but there are other issues. I'm assuming the U.S. will return to its leadership role, but it's not guaranteed. For now, China will be proceeding cautiously. It's almost certain they're thinking of the long game and not just taking advantage of the situation.
Maybe other countries have to be put on the list but I'm surprised that it's not that easy to see who.
Trump will attempt to play power games but he's an idiot and is sometimes unhinged. And he truly does not understand what it means to be an American president. Despite his ego, he really has no clue how hard it is to be a world leader.
Excellent observations. And worrisome. But there are three issues that can't entirely be ignored. First, Trump is growing increasingly erratic, and is contradicting himself, which clearly suggests something is wrong.
The second issue is that Republicans in Congress have to decide how far over the waterfall they wish to go with an erratic president. For one thing, Republicans are finding it difficult to keep pace with Trump's lies and bizarre behavior.
Third, subpoenas are now starting to show up. Government officials and elected officials start acting different when they have to testify under oath. There are no guarantees about the scenario I'm suggesting. Things are fluid. But an elected official who begins to lie too much often starts losing support quickly.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/
Grand jury subpoenas for Flynn associates. What a coincidence.
Thanks for this. Chinese technology has become very strong and the U.S. is at risk of losing leadership. One thing I would note is that a lot of those patents are based on very sophisticated reverse technology studies that uses teams to handle each identifiable component of technology being studied. These team studies are much more sophisticated than what the Japanese and South Koreans used in their heyday. Because the Chinese are coming up with new technology on their own, their system is not to be ignored and will cost us if Trump is slack on science and new technologies, and that particularly applies to clean tech. But note that the U.S. still leads in Nobel Prizes, and even the Japanese do better than the Chinese.
Of course, Trump is an idiot. Despite his denials, he is anti-science. He also supports dying industries, just like the British did when they lost their technology lead to the U.S.
By the way, note that U.S. patents granted almost doubled in 15 years. Yes, there's trouble, but it's reversible.
The problem is that Vladimir Putin has lots more oil to sell and many more billions to make.
Putin is not driven by policy. Just by sheer greed. This has been his position for some time. I would note that the opinion of Russian scientists have been somewhat squelched since a few weeks before the Winter Olympics in Russia. It's about to get worse.
The irony is that the Russian economy will once again get short shrift and the average Russian will be left wondering why Russia's educated population and many resources will remain underutilized and the economy largely in shambles.
As I understand it, if an American politician takes a $10 million campaign donation from a foreigner, he's in deep trouble, and if it's the foreign government making the contribution, that's even a bigger problem. With the Russians, there's no distinct line between the oligarchs and Putin's government.
If an American politician receives $5 million of behind the scenes campaign help, that too is a big deal. Trump has too many Russian ties and too many ties to Eastern European banks not to dig into this further. There's a high probability that the investigations will go on, unless Republicans block them.
The big problem is that the Russians appear to have done some things that were too sophisticated to pull off without American help. Some of that has already been hinted at in the news. There's a high probability we're going to learn more.
Many people who are concerned about global warming and therefore follow what's happening to oil around the world are watching Saudi Arabia closely. The current government seems to be taking global warming seriously and adjusting accordingly. But there are questions about how many prominent Saudis are on board:
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/23/saudi-arabia-fossil-fuels-cleaner-wait-exclusive-video/
Then again, given the election of Trump, the Saudis may be positioning themselves for whatever comes.
One must add that global warming has also been a factor in creating so many refugees.
When farmers drill for water and none is left to be had, they have no choice but to move. And if the cities where they go become overcrowded and violent, they tend to move on with their families.
Americans have similar histories. I grew up in S. California and my parents remember people moving in who lived through the years of the Dust Bowl. Two such families were neighbors when I was growing up.
Bill, can you summarize the point being made by Pilger? It struck me as incoherent.
All I know is that Trump and his Republican friends have ended rather early the usual honeymoon for an incoming president, and their incomprehensible behavior seems to include much of the world. Such behavior unfortunately defies an understanding of the usual transition process of an incoming president.
Dolan, there is no evidence whatsoever that Trump will follow through on some of his more popular promises. First, he has no record. Second, he has hired the most right wing officials he can find and their agenda is not about the majority of Americans.
In the meantime, he hasn't shown us his tax returns, he hasn't put his assets in a blind trust, and he's giving important positions to his family in spite of nepotism laws. And he appears to be already profiting from being president.
During most transitions, an incoming president mends fences and talks about working together and listening to the other side. And they do not tweet in the early hours of the morning insulting fellow Americans.
Trump still has time to start acting presidential. But he's quickly running out of time, and a large majority of Americans are getting impatient.
Whether the Russians had an actual effect on the election can be debated. That they were actively involved in hacking is fairly well established at this point. And it's fairly well established that the intent was to help Trump. Furthermore, Russian trolling, a different activity, has been going on at least since 2014.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house
I have seen reports that the trolling has been actively organized since 2013. It is highly probable that when a Russian missile system was loaned to Russian partisans in the eastern Ukraine and was responsible for shooting down the Malaysian airplane over Ukraine, the Russian Internet trolls tried to blame the Ukrainians despite the fact that Ukraine has no such missile system.
There's a further issue. Informed Comment, like most blogs, is on a server and most servers allow the user to see who's visiting the site. There's been a sharp increase in Russian and eastern European visits since 2014, even when there are no articles related to Russia or Russian interests.
First, it's important to remember that Clinton lost the electoral college vote by only 40,000 votes in three states. But there were so many bizarre things about the election that I don't think a conclusion can be drawn about Putin one way or another. Given the computer break-ins and the e-mail nonsense, we also don't know if James Comey was influenced by Putin's activity in a roundabout way. His decision had an almost an immediate negative impact on Clinton in the final two weeks.
As for Putin, it is a fact that we don't seem to have a way of dealing with someone covertly trying to influence our elections. And we don't seem to have a very secure Internet system (that may be on both Republicans and Democrats who support the NSA and its need to also get into other people's computers).
By the way, Putin's activities are not new. There's clear evidence Russians were playing games in the 2014 midterm elections. They had trolling operations in Eastern Europe:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house
Trump is the president elect, but on many levels we're in a different world now. Assessing where we are now is going to take time. The only real "winners" this election are the fossil fuel barons like Putin and the Koch brothers and perhaps Exxon. At the least, they get a few more years of big profits. Given the sharp jump in global warming in the last three years, this is the immediate real disaster of this election.
NOAA says it's virtually certain that globally 2016 will set a record high. But there's something not being mentioned much. Since 1950, there has been a couple of times when record highs have been set two years in a row. This time, 2016 will be the third record high in a row, after 2014 and 2015.
Not only is global warming getting more obvious, there are an increasing number of consequences. Changing weather patterns and droughts are the most obvious. But there is one story that is being neglected: scientists are currently bewildered by how fast things are suddenly changing in the Arctic. They are seeing things no one has seen before and they are not certain what the consequences will be These are very smart people and their puzzlement should be big news. Scientists will eventually catch up but they are acutely aware that global warming has consequences and that the pace of the consequences may be picking up.
In the meantime, TV journalists talk in a knowledgeable tone and yet basically know little (one exception is Chris Hayes of MSNBC, though his producers seem to dumb down what he presents). And the Grand Ostrich Party remains useless. Trump, of course, denies global warming.
In the meantime, no president has done more about global warming than President Obama, but he receives little credit. And it's not acknowledged much that Hillary takes global warming seriously. And Trump, who is basically a flamboyant demagogue, would be an historical disaster if elected.
Much of the Middle East has three things right now: lots of sun, lots of unoccupied land, and in varying amounts, lots of money (though the falling price of oil has hurt a lot of economies).
Oil cannot be burned much longer and frankly, oil has been burned at dangerous levels for several decades. In the time that is left before fossil fuels collapse (and they will), the Middle East countries with money need to install solar. They probably also need to set up desalination plants that are environmentally sound (I believe some of this is already happening).
There are clearly places in the Middle East where good agriculture land exists but where no water is regularly available and well water has dried up. That's just one of several possibilities that solar and desalination can provide.
I have no idea how much of this can be done. Columbia is already an oil country that was capable of seeing the future and refused to adjust to it. But for those who are capable of planning for the future, the time to transition is now, not after the money is gone. The rest of the world has profited from fossil fuels as much as the Middle East. So they may have to be involved in helping oil countries in the Middle East transition from fossil fuels.
Some readers have no clue how accurate the article is about Donald Trump and the need to make sure our democracy isn't completely derailed. Worst case scenarios have to be taken into consideration. There is also the issue that Donald Trump allows his strong obsessions to rule his thinking. This is not a healthy man.
We also literally cannot afford to take a break from working on global warming for four years, assuming we even get our democracy back if Trump is elected. I'm sorry to say it, but David Faris nails it.
Speaking of climate change, which should be one of the major issues of this campaign, the damage from two major storms in August in the Arctic is now very apparent. There's a detailed and startling picture of the damage to the Arctic in the Ice Forum (go to the link below and scroll down to the second picture which shows the Arctic at this time of year from 2012 to 2016):
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1493.4700.html
It's ironic that Trump talks about stealing oil from Iraq when the oil age needs to end as quickly as possible. Nor does Trump understand that some of the turmoil in Syria and other places can be traced to the droughts almost certainly caused by global warming.
Firing 50,000 people in Turkey is equivalent to firing 200,000 people in the U.S. if an American president were to do the same. Not good.
For all the arrogance of Bush and Cheney, one of the bizarre aspects of their war in Iraq is how often they miscalculated. For example, when Saddam Hussein decided to allow the UN inspectors in, Bush and his inner circle were not only caught by surprise but there was no Plan B. Within a few weeks, they quickly concocted something out of discredited intelligence, including a phony nonexistent uranium deal in Niger.
Allowing the UN inspectors in was a big clue at the time that something was seriously wrong. In the end, the American press was just as culpable as Bush for their failure to note the inconsistencies. I'm not a pacifist and thus I don't have a default position. I was disgusted in the fall of 2002 but it took Colin Powell's speech to realize how much of a fraud the whole thing was (ironically, Powell later became a major source for much of what went wrong; I guess even he had his limits).
Great cartoon! Yes, Donald Trump has the qualifications to attract attention and improve ratings. But given his temperament, his anxieties and his lack of suitable knowledge, he does not have the qualifications to be president, a little detail much of the media ignores.
George W. set a new standard on what a failed presidency is like. I can't imagine Donald Trump being an improvement on George W.
One failed presidency did a lot of damage to our country and our foreign policy. President Obama repaired some of the damage despite a Congress that was useless for six years. Another failed presidency so soon after George W. will not be good for the U.S., or good for the world.
Decades ago, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace and General Curtis LeMay were not shy about raising the stakes when discussing the use of nuclear weapons. Today, they seem almost dovish compared to Donald Trump, an angry, often incoherent neurotic that TV news shows have largely taken far too seriously as a presidential candidate, simply because his angry nuttiness improved their ratings. Trump has been bankrupt four times, many banks refuse to loan him money, he is held responsible for the failure of the U.S. Football League and is probably far less wealthy than he claims. He has never been elected to office and wishes to start at the top with his finger on the button. Meanwhile, as a party, the GOP also refuses to take global warming seriously, despite its many foreign policy implications. And their second choice is Ted Cruz. That is not leadership we need.
The range of the new electric cars makes a huge difference. Part of the issue is that cars now last longer than they did 20 years ago. In a sense, many potential buyers of electric cars are simply waiting for models with longer range. Affordable electric cars with longer range are now arriving. That's a game changer.
Republicans at the state and federal level have cut budgets to the bone and little money is being spent at the moment on roads, bridges, schools, water pipes, water projects, fire fighting in the west and flood control in the east. If Democrats win this fall, implementing just a normal budget will make people confident about the economy and the soundness of buying an electric car.
Sales for electric cars will be increasing but the big growth will probably begin in a year or two. This will bring down costs even further.
The time frame of global warming is becoming clearer but unfortunately many powerful people do not realize how little time we have to avoid the more serious consequences. The fact that the Saudis take it seriously should speak volumes.
One of the great advantages of solar and wind for developing countries is that solar and wind are scalable. That means they can easily be built to meet local energy needs, and when more power is needed, the right amount of additional power is easy to add. Before its famous demise, Enron was famous for trying to build a 1 billion dollar power plant in a poorer area of India that didn't know what to do with all the energy the plant provided, and couldn't afford to pay for the huge unused capacity (it was eventually cancelled).
Global warming should have been a sufficient reason to switch to alternative energy. But economics is now a big factor. Fossil fuels have pretty much reached rock bottom in prices. And yet the prices of various forms of alternative energy continue to fall. Experts believe the prices will continue to fall for another decade or two.
In the meantime, electric cars are only about two to four years from taking off. Given the rising level of global warming, the switch to electric vehicles can't happen soon enough.
Error in middle paragraph: slipping in among "refugees" not terrorists. Sorry.
American right-wingers are rushing to cameras, journalists and the Internet trying to make hay out of this. Ann Coulter (yeah, she's still around) is trying to declare Donald Trump the next president. It's disgusting.
Many people, including myself, will be turning to Informed Comment, for a clear-eyed perspective.
I have a couple of comments, but not necessarily facts. European countries taking in refugees has certainly been the right thing to do, but the chance of terrorists slipping in among terrorists seems very high (though it's likely weapons would have to come to the terrorists by other routes.)
Assuming the attack was by ISIL, they have had setbacks in recent days. If related to the attack, then the terrorists were pre-positioned and waiting for a signal.
Last point and I have no way to know at this time what the possibility is. Could this attack be regarded as a threat or message to the many refugees that have been going to Europe? For example, might the attack have had as one of its goals making it more difficult for refugees to be accepted?
Bill, I remember what Clinton did and also what many other Democrats did in 2002. I also remember the heavy propaganda campaign Bush and his crew put together just after Labor Day, and less than two months before the 2002 midterms, and in the post-9/11 climate of fear which was still going strong. Hillary has admitted to making a mistake.
Here's what I'm going to do. If Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for him and I will support him. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I will vote for her, and I will support her. I know too much now what a radical right wing Republican government will be like if Republicans are in charge of the House, Senate, White House and Supreme Court. No Republican now running is less radical and less incompetent than George W. was.
It took awhile, but Obama has made headway on the economy and on global warming. A Republican victory will almost certainly sweep that away. And that's before the neocons figure out what their next military campaign will be.
There's no question Colin Powell's low moment was his speech before the UN and he has admitted it several times. But its worth noting that he tossed out most of the so-called intelligence that was handed to him on Iraq. And most of the so-called "evidence" that Bush, Rice, Cheney and Karl Rove were peddling in the months before the speech was not used. For those paying attention, that spoke volumes.
In addition, over time, Colin Powell, and his assistant, Larry Wilkerson, were able to release considerable information that showed just how fabricated and incompetent the case for war was.
Even before the UN speech, in the fall of 2002, Collin Powell made a somewhat casual observation (that he may have allowed to be published) that the top Bush officials were caught off guard when Saddam Hussein agreed to allow UN inspectors to come to Iraq. They apparently had not analyzed what their response would be if weapons inspectors were admitted. Powell's comments suggest Bush and his top circle (which curiously never included Colin Powell) had to quickly improvise new scenarios.
One last somewhat unrelated point, and this was generally less known: comments by others suggest that Colin Powell was willing to take global warming seriously but was overruled by Bush's top circle. Powell's role under George W. was much more complex than most people realize.
I found this article a great summary of Chalabi's role in the Iraq war. I didn't know about the role Colin Powell may have played. One thing I remember back then was reading that someone in the Bush Administration was surprised that Chalabi didn't become the leader of Iraq. It was just one of dozens of pieces of evidence at the time that the Bush Administration was incompetent.
I wish you would keep this article up for awhile and then find a place to put a link to the Chalabi article somewhere in the side bar. It summarizes a lot about Bush's fiasco and is relevant in terms of the coming U.S. elections.
Great article. I remember Richard Clarke and several of his articles, but I didn't fully understand at the time his history and cabinet level position. Classic George W. bumbling.
I need to reread how we got into Afghanistan but I seem to remember an article that said Brzezinski lured the Soviet Union into Afghanistan. After all, Russia invaded in 1979. Then again, I've been rereading the oil history of the Middle East during the 1970s. When U.S. oil production started dropping in 1971, Nixon was president and Kissinger was Secretary of State. Both missed the implications of dropping oil production and the fact that it gave the Middle East enormous leverage on oil prices. Republicans conveniently forget a lot of their history — and bungling.
I didn't know about the drunken trees. That's new to me. And I'm still learning about the land erosion along the coast in Alaska. Land erosion along the west coast of the United States has been more noticeable in the last twenty to thirty years.
One new issue is catching attention in the Arctic. As the Arctic melts in the summer and the areas of open water get bigger and last longer, the chance of truly damaging storms increases. Why? Because waves now have room to build and they're powerful enough to destroy more ice. This is very dangerous for ships and oil platforms.
I oppose the Shell Oil platform but I understand the difficult politics and issues Obama has to deal with, including Russia. But there is a real risk of increasing the problems of global warming.
Alaska demonstrates a growing global truth that hasn't been articulated yet and that different scientists have expressed roughly in different ways. It's this: the science of global warming is sound but we can't truly know where we are if CO2 emissions keep increasing, and the potential for future problems keep increasing. A good analogy is a forest fire. In the first few hours, no scientist can tell you how destructive that fire is going to be. It depends on many factors, including how fast that fire is brought under control. We're not moving nearly fast enough. More important, as long as CO2 emissions continue to rise, we truly don't know where we are.
It's a small step but a step in the right direction. A growing number of groups around the world can see what is happening.
One advantage that the Saudis have besides the large amount of oil they possess is that they still produce oil at very low cost compared to other nations. So they'll be around as one of the last producers still selling oil as the transition to alternative energy continues. Much depends on what kind of reserves they have left and what plans, if any, they have in the future.
If I understand it right, the Saudi have installed a small amount of solar under the justification that it frees up more oil to sell to others. They can't be totally unaware of what is happening.
I assume their business realism will eventually kick in. Or is that taking too much for granted?
But, but, don't Republicans believe in freedom?
Oh wait, this is about Republicans in the 21st century. They believe in freedom, but only for themselves.