"new approach to solving global warming"

A "new approach to solving global warming": that's the description of an interview shown yesterday on Fareed Zakaria's weekly CNN news program: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.zakaria.gps/ http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2009/12/20/gps.climate.change.cnn.html The basic idea is to actually reduce the stuff that is causing the earth's climate to change. No, not reduce the amount of stuff that we continue to add to the problem but to actually reduce the amount of bad stuff in the atmosphere that causes climate change. This is a radically different approach to all the nonsensical tinkering like "cap and trade", which allows entities to pollute. We could outlaw polluting. That would work but even that would not reduce the amount of bad stuff in the atmosphere. The real question, especially after the huge disappointment of the U.N. climate change meeting that just ended with a giant thud in Copenhagen, Denmark, is whether world leaders, particularly U.S. President Barak Obama, are truly interested in solving the problem or whether they are like Jerry Lewis. Yes, Jerry Lewis, the ancient comedian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Lewis_MDA_Telethon The Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon (also known as The Jerry Lewis MDA Labor Day Telethon) is hosted by actor and comedian, Jerry Lewis to raise money for the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA). It has been held annually since 1966. Many years ago I heard Jerry asked why he didn't simply appeal to Congress to allocate the money needed for muscular dystrophy. He brushed it off as unacceptable. I realized that Jerry was more concerned with making himself feel good than with solving the problem. So, is Barak Obama like Jerry Lewis, more interested in making himself feel good than with solving the problem of global climate change? Or is Barak Obama willing to accept ridicule by considering a radically different approach, one with which his science advisers must now be familiar, even if they were not before they let the president travel to Copenhagen and submit himself to the indignity of chasing the head of the Chinese government to be included in the only meaningful dialog that mattered, that between the planet's two leading polluters: the U.S. and China. President Obama, be radical. You're already holding your nose when you read that embarrassment of a health care bill that your former colleagues in the U.S. Senate just passed. It has become what I expected all along: legislation but not reform. As mentioned previously, we simply need to extend Medicare to all American citizens. The solution to global climate change may be just as simple. Are you willing to embrace the simple direct approach to solving a problem? It's a simple question. _________________________________________________ Note: The link to this message and most of its content was sent to the president through the form at the White House web site. See the auto response below. A formal response was requested and will be published at this blog web site. http://www.whitehouse.gov/thank-you Thank You! Thank you for contacting the White House. President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history. That begins with taking comments and questions from you, the public, through our website. Our office receives tens of thousands of messages from Americans each day. We do our best to reply to as many as we can, but please be aware that you may find more information and answers to your questions online. We encourage you to visit WhiteHouse.gov regularly to follow news and updates, and to learn more about President Obama's agenda for change. For an easy-to-navigate source of information on Federal government services, please visit: www.USA.gov Thank you again for your message. The Office of Presidential Correspondence

Afghanistan: some common sense.

Six days ago President Obama formally announced his policy on the war on terror in Afghanistan. He did it to the corps of cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY. This address should have been made from the oval office in the White House. The president should not have used the cadets as political props. As I have written previously, Barack Obama is incapable of taking a firm stand. He cuts issues into halves and half again and again, until there is very little substance in the final position. Obama wants to win but not pay for the surge in troops by raising taxes, much as Obama does not want to pay for increased health care coverage with extra taxes. Obama wants to stay the course but have a deadline. Obama wants the 27 other member countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to also increase the number of troops that they have in Afghanistan. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm Obama intends to place 30,000 more U.S. troops in Afghanistan. NATO apparently may place 7,000 more troops in Afghanistan. It would seem that those 27 other NATO nations could easily match the U.S. commitment soldier for soldier. A principle tenet of NATO is that an attack on one member is regarded as an attack on all. That is what kept the old Soviet Union (Russia) from swallowing up Germany after World War II. On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by Muslim terrorists sponsored by the group known as Al-Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan. NATO rightly took military action to destroy this terrorist base. Unfortunately, that military effort failed. Whether the U.S. overthrow of the dictator in Iraq undermined the action in Afghanistan is debatable. The fact is that after eight years no substantive goals in Afghanistan have been met. Further efforts are folly, especially the typical half measures that Obama is doomed to repeat on all his issues. My position, as stated previously, is that NATO should immediately withdraw from Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan eventually drove out the Russians in the 1980s by themselves. The U.S. supplied some weapons, primarily shoulder mounted stinger missiles. Neither the U.S., nor any other nation supplied any troops. If the people of Afghanistan could defeat the Russians, why can't they defeat some of their own: the Taliban ... a radical Sunni Islamist movement that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until late 2001, when they were removed from power by NATO forces during Operation Enduring Freedom? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban Dependence on the U.S. government should be removed with strong incentives and deadlines. Both major U.S. political parties agree on that. They just disagree on the issues where it should be applied. Republicans think it makes sense on social welfare programs. Democrats think it makes sense on war and occupation. Both are correct. We Americans never seem to learn. Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968 based largely on his secret plan to get us out of Viet Nam. His ad agency phrase once in office was to VietNamize the war, i.e., turn over responsibility to the people of that country. It never happened. Sound familiar? Remaining in these backward countries never works. Never. Corrupt politicians in the occupied country have no incentive to let the U.S. leave. The U.S. is the source of their power and wealth. No matter how well intentioned American policy is, it never works in these situations, which by definition involve relationships of dependency.