With a debt of gratitude to a personal hero, Edward O. Wilson….


The Real Challenge of Global Warming….

Mny Americans have been misled to believe by their government and others that Global Warming is ‘no big deal”—that it is really nothing more than the ‘ebb and flow’ and natural change and that the pendulum will swing back at some future time. These people of parochial vision even try to suggest that the worst thing that might happen is that the temperature will rise by a few degrees….

Informed scientists seem generally opposed to such a view; that it is an attempt to put a happy face on something that could change our lives and our futures in significant ways; that global warming is a disaster in the making…

There are a host of different perspectives on the issues chronicling everything from rising tides to an marked increase in tropical diseases.

One very informed point of view is that of Edward O. Wilson, who sits among the seniors in my own personal pantheon of great scientists who have influenced our times, who sees global warming from a very different perspective: The loss of ecostructure and species.
Dr. Wilson sees as much as 25% of all species lost to us if global warming persists over the next five decades.

To put such percentages into a tangible perspective, consider that over the last 200 years, we have identified and classified a mere 1.8 million species of plant, animal and microorganism species out of what is projected at 10 to 100 million unclassified species to date.

That means that over the next fifty years, we could lose anywhere from 2.5 to 25 million species forever. Imagine what we stand to lose not only intellectually but also from the perspective of science. What we might stand to gain from such knowledge—including innumerable cures for disease, new medicines, new crops, new defenses against common maladies, new products for virtually every purpose and application that could be lost to science and humanity for all time. What a waste that would be.

What most of us fail to recognize that today most of our medicines are derived from natural products and species classified only within the last fifty to seventy five years….
.
Unfortunately, few understand or appreciate that each species is a unique study in complexity evolved over millions of years and each species not only contains unique information but also provides special insights as to how all of the human species fit together and how just the absence of a few species could affect or drastically affect the health or even survival of other species vital to our own survival.

In a few instances, the losses could be catastrophic.

Consider these words from “That’s Life” an essay by Edward O. Wilson:
“Normal classes of pharmaceuticals and future crops will be thrown away, ecological service likewater purification, soil renewal and pollination—which are approximately equal to the world gross domestic product, and given away by natural ecosystems—will be diminished. Environmental stability will be harder to maintain.”

Edward O. Wilson is trying to do something about it.

With the assistance of Harvard and a consortium of institutions, the Smithsonian to the Atlas of Living Australia, they hope to complete an electronic database of known species that will be available to all.


It is Doctor Wilson’s intent to promote the larg scale funding and support of such a prospect that aims to complete its goals within ten years.

It is also hoped that the new methods along with an increased commitment will speed up the discovery and analysis of all remaining species within a single generation which would not only be an amazing boon to science but a blessing to mankind.

It is a worthy goal to shoot for considering that much more is at stake with global warming’s threat than we are lead to believe by a government that is staunchly anti-science in its views.


Les Aaron

The Armchair Curmudgeon
Mr. Aaron is the author of Final Warning, an environmental thriller published in January by Lulu.com

We are approaching the anniversary of 9/11

The Twin Towers are down six years now and many people
Are already tired hearing about it; they are tired hearing about the death and destruction.
It seems that remorse and compassion and understanding may have run their course at least for some of the survivors….
Their expressed rationale: It didn’t touch them or they want to move on.

It was interesting to read the comments of those who want to put this horrific experience behind them. And I suppose some had legitimate reasons. They felt it ws time to look forwards; not backwards. It was time to be positive; not negative. Some felt that we have already spent much too much time dwelling on a disaster.

But can we put this aside so easily? And, more importantly, should we?

I don’t think we can as long as the specter of terrorism hangs over our head; nor do I believe we should want to; nor does it matter where you live or whether you had a personal friend or a relative lost that day…

….The WTC should remain firmly engraved on our consciousness as a reminder of many things. One of them, is our egocentricity that allowed us to ignore all of the vital signs; the belief that nothing can touch us. That we were invulnerable!

The “puddle” defense is long ended now; we are all vulnerable and we see just how naïve our belief system was that the ocean that divides us would keep us safe; no, all it did was reinforce our interest in not getting involved in the problems of the rest of the world.

Now, we have “grayed.” We have a better understanding of what the people of Europe had to contend with; we have had to face our own Battle of Britain and stood in the ramparts or underground wondering whether there would be a tomorrow.

Some of us took pride in the steel of our brethren overseas; many moved on with their own lives and didn’t concern themselves. But that is all over now. We are all brothers in a war against a form of madness that seems to target the “innocents” and we had better not forget the lessons of 9/11 now or forever.

Les Aaron

Note: Les is the author of A Blueprint for Winning: Taking Back the White House 2008 available from Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble.
Les, an editor for Democracy Chronicle helped chronicle the destruction of the WTC for the magazine through a series of essays.

Setting the Bar Too Low...

News&Views

THE ARMCHAIR CURMUDGEON

February 20, 2007



__________________________________________________________







Check out any career. There is always a standard that needs to be met to move up the ladder. If we need confirmation of that fact all we have to do is look back at history: From the pages of our own history it is either you perform or you get out of the way. We may be a land that touts ‘equal opportunity’ but we don’t cater to ‘slackers’ or those who don’t hustle. Therefore, it is not unfair to expect the same thing in government.



But in this government, we discover, the rules of survival, the rules of business seem to have been totally overlooked. : Our president hires people, not because of their sterling qualifications or their track records, but because they agree with him. For government, not so unusual; but in this administration when they fail in their job, they are given medals and a resounding endorsement from the president in mind-boggling display of anti-Darwinism. Survival of the fittest should have been rewritten for this Executive who considers loyalty next to Godliness….



Consider: CIA chief, Tenant. Tenant confirms that Saddam Hussein is guilty of WMD, buying Yellowcake in Niger, fomenting 9/11 and every other sin under the sun—which are all proven untrue; nevertheless, he retires with a rousing speech from the president and the requisite medal. One general after another, led by Tommy Franks, makes horrendous decisions in Iraq and they receive medals. The Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, who is expert at micromanaging, decides that technology will replace boots on the ground, receives a rousing retirement and a speech congratulating him for his good work. The man chosen to do the heavy=lifting, Paul Bremer, screws up big-time, writes a best selling book and is given a royal send-off.. In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the head of FEMA is patted on the back for doing a good job when he only admits to learning about the devastation caused by Katrina after watching NBC’s coverage of the Superdome.



What’s wrong with this picture?



Where is the performance? Where is the ACCOUNTABILITY?



Take for example, Condy Rice. As Secretary of State, she has been in this powerful position for more than two years and it is fair to raise the question: What has our illustrious Secretary of State accomplished in that time except for convincing everyone that she lies through her teeth. The fact is that someone would have to look far and wide to see any kind of progress on any front despite her travels far and wide at taxpayer expense. Wouldn’t it be fair to subject her to the same scrutiny as any other executive charged with a duty?



At some point in time, your average supervising executive might say where is the “payback?” and one would be hard pressed to find an answer to that question.



The fact of the matter is that loyalty seems considerably more importance than qualifications or competence. The fact is that this president expects little more from his staff than loyalty and that sends out the wrong message. We, the people, are entitled to better treatment than that. We understand the rules that govern business. Why is it asking too much to expect our president to demand that his staff perform up at least a minimum standard. Or do we have to wait ‘til the final drumbeat on January 2009?



Les Aaron

The Armchair Curmudgeon

www.lesaaron.blogspot.com

THE COMMITTEE FOR POSITIVE CHANGE

The Snub as Policy

NewsBlurbs

THE ARMCHAIR CURMUDGEON

February 18, 07

===============================================================



Question for the day:



Why does Bush look like he’s going to go forward with his program against Iran no matter what Congress says?



Answer 1; Congress has shown no-teeth and looks like no threat



Answer 2: The sharp-elbowed former cheerleader is used to getting his own way



Answer 3: He knows Iraq is going anywhere and he needs to look presidential





Answer 4: He needs to distract Americans from what’s going on and figures that his big successes have come from Shock and Awe scenarios before the reality sneaks in



Answer 5: He has an obligation to friends and family to keep republicans in office…





The answer is probably some combination of the above inasmuch as they all have some resonance considering Bush’s present predicament and the very real real prospects that “the surge” may just go crashing down as simply another failed policy; for, after all, if it were so necessary to add more troops to the mix, why wait ‘til now? .



Bush has also proven to be contemptuous of weakness and exceptionally stubborn in his ways. He sees in Congress’ attempts to hold him back with a “nonbinding resolution” something that might be considered laughable if so many of his own party weren’t engaged.



He also may truly believe that the Iranians are the cause of all of his troubles and that he seriously does need to consider taking them out to assure a better result from his new policy in Iraq.



However, according to informed military sources, this is misstating the case since the impact of the Iranians is estimated as much less than Bush suggests and that the real cause of American deaths is due more to Sunni attacks on Shia’ and vice versa…



In any event, what we are witnessing now seems more redolent of our four year old misadventure in Iraq and the reasons given for it.



In the end, the president does make the final decision and in the absence of a strong hand from congress can just ignore them until the clock runs out. And that may just be the case. The question then becomes will the democrats have blown their chances and fade again into the background.



Les Aaron

The Armchair Curmudgeon

Both Sides Now...

News and Views/Feb 17, 2007
The Armchair Curmudgeon
-___________________________________

Imagine Eisenhower having to pay for both sides of the War in Europe?


Sound crazy…but there’s enough evidence to suggest that’s exactly what’s happening in Afghanistan in our war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

A stepped up effort by the Taliban is expected after the
Spring melt, when the mountain passes between Afghanistan and Pakistan have thawed enough to permit the Taliban warriors to continue their war with the current regime.

Not only do we support the regime in power, we are asking for another fourteen billion dollars to support the War against the Taliban this year. We are also committing to another brigade of troops to engage Taliban forces; this is in addition to the contingents of English and Dutch who are willing to help with the heavy lifting.

So far, so good. But there is another dimension to the problem.
And it has economic underpinning. The bottom line: There’s a body of evidence to suggest that the Taliban’s efforts are being underwritten by Al Qaeda. Supporting this assertion is the fact that Taliban drivers on motorbikes have been seen escorting Al Qaeda paymasters to areas where Taliban units are supporting the attacks on the Afghan security forces and other incursions into Afghanistan. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that Al Qaeda has underwritten Tailiban expansionist plans.

This, of course, raises the question: Where does this economic support come from? This is where the wicket gets sticky. Here’s what we do know: Under the guise of giving to charity, a number of of Saudi princes support terrorist causes including Al Qaeda. The money flows from the princes to these causes. What that means indirectly is that America, with its impossibly heavy investment in fossil fuels, is providing the Saudis with the funding to support the War and that’s unsupportable.

If we needed a better reason to insist on conservation or to promulgate a switch to alternative energy, this has to be it. Good citizens, good patriots who send their progeny off to War should demand it. And it is unconscionable that the president who understands these facts has not taken strong action to limit our dependency on Saudi Arabia.

Les Aaron
The Armchair Curmudgeon

How High?

NEWS AND VIEWS

The Armchair Curmudgeon

February 17, 2007





How High?





For the last few weeks, we have been treated to a lot of talk but not much in the way of tangible actions. It seems that all of the Dems “Whirling Dervish” activity has not yielded much.

And while they postulate and prevaricate like a lot of toothless chickens yapping and yawing the fact remains that what we are hoping to produce is a non-binding resolution.

A non-binding resolution, mind you. The only problem is that a non-binding resolution does not demand anything from Executive and so the build up goes on…whether we like it or lump it…



It seems a case of the president snubbing his nose at his Congress including those who had supported him in the past. Now, there is rumor that perhaps sixty Republicans may cast their vote against the president in future elections…



But the loyal minions still respond as concerned toadies: Bush says jump. And the Loyalists ask, “ How high, Mr. President?”



And while many decent ideas have been advanced from withholding funding for the new troops to a Federalization of the Country, an idea bandied about by Joe Biden, the president is under no obligation to do anything.



And while additional lives may be tossed into the maelstrom there is serious reservations about whether this action will result in any positive gains since the numbers are too small to bring about significant change in this upside down city of some six million that has known no peace made up of mostly Sunnis and Shia’ who can’t seem to tolerate each other long enough to sit down and bring about peace.



On the other hand, we are witnessing moves being made by the Executive Branch to hype the rumors that Iran is moving closer to war and is responsible for stepping up its involvement in Iraq with technologically advanced weaponry.



One cannot help but see the parallel with what Americans faced in the build-up to the Iraq War….and it is cause for grave concern. Currently, there are two carrier combat groups in the Persian Gulf and, shortly, we expect the third with the arrival of the Vincent.



And while we preach for diplomacy, we have a president who doesn’t seem to respond to either the media or Congress and the danger is that we will shortly find ourselves in another War with Iran while Congress continues to strut around the barnyard moaning and groaning. The danger is that Bush thinks this is the way to build up his stock with red-blooded Americans and there is no way to dissuade him from this point of view; except, as I read it, most Americans have had it. And one suspects that if anything brings him down, it will be his amazing disconnect from the people who voted him in. But the question remains at what expense?



In the meantime, should you feel insecure because of the ratcheting up of the war machine you are not alone!



Les Aaron

The Armchair Curmudgeon

Hillary's Moral Conundrum

NewsBlurbs
The Armchair Curmudgeon
Feb 16, 2007


In a message dated 2/16/2007 6:02:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, Hubmaster writes:
Here's the moral conundrum...

A recent Marist poll showed that 47% of the electorate will not vote for Hillary under any conditions no matter what!

Think about that!

If Hillary is the acknowledged front runner, does not that raise a moral dilemna.

If you know that you cannot win with such odds against you, would it not be morally the right thing to do to back out and leave the high ground to someone else? And show that you are more interested in your party than you are in your own plans?

If Hillary understands that 47% of the electorate will not vote for her, and she is unwilling to accommodate the needs of her party for a "winner," is she not subverting the best interests of her party for her own ego needs, spearheading its destruction??? Can the Democratic Party even survive another loss?

Don't get me wrong: This is not subjective: The Marist Poll is legitimate with a small projectable error and is determined on voter attitudes and preferences . With 47% guaranteed "no's" where does that leave the candidate? Where does that leave the democratic party?.

Hillary may be good and great. But if she can't win, she should get out of the way and let somebody else try...

That's the view of the Armchair Curmudgeon...

Les Aaron
The Armchair Curmudgeon

Bush Vs. Congress

NewsBlurbs

THE ARMCHAIR CURMUDGEON

February 15, 07

===============================================================



Question for the day:



Why does Bush look like he’s going to go forward with his program against Iran no matter what Congress says?



Answer 1; Congress has shown no-teeth and looks like no threat to hs intentions...



Answer 2: The sharp-elbowed former cheerleader is used to getting his own way



Answer 3: He knows Iraq is going anywhere and he needs to look presidential



Answer 4: He needs to distract Americans from what’s going on and figures that his big successes have come from "Shock and Awe "scenarios before the reality sneaks in



Answer 5: He has an obligation to friends and family to keep republicans in office…





The answer is probably some combination of the above inasmuch as they all have some resonance considering Bush’s present predicament and the very real real prospects that “the surge” may just go crashing down as simply another failed policy; for, after all, if this were a legitimate rationale, if more troops are needed immediately, why did we wait 'til now?....



Bush has also proven to be contemptuous of weakness and exceptionally stubborn in his ways. He sees in Congress’ attempts to hold him back with a “nonbinding resolution” something that might be considered laughable if so many of his own party weren’t engaged.



He also may truly believe that the Iranians are the cause of all of his troubles and that he seriously does need to consider eliminating them as a threat in order to ensure a better result from his new policy in Iraq.



However, according to informed military sources, this is misstating the case since the impact of the Iranians is estimated as much less than Bush suggests and that the real cause of American deaths is due more to Sunni attacks on Shia’ and vice versa…



In any event, what we are witnessing now seems more redolent of our four year old misadventure in Iraq and the reasons given for it.



In the end, the president does make the final decision and in the absence of a strong hand from congress, he believes he can just ignore them until the clock runs out. And that may just be the case. The question then becomes will the democrats have blown their chances and fade again into the background.



Les Aaron

The Armchair Curmudgeon



If you would like to receive additional copies of the Armchair Curmudgeon, please email hubmaster@aol.com and ask to be added to the AC Newsletter

If he's a sheep herder, I will eat my woolen sweater...

Underestimating the Enemy...

Did anyone see 60 minutes last night.
It was something to see.
It was the first time I’ve seen Mike Wallace at a loss for words.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran oftentimes referred to as a lunatic gave his first
Interview to the media in perhaps six months or more.
He was charming in his fanatical way and he changed my opinion.
Originally, I thought he was some ignorant sheep farmer; someone who did
Not have a global outlook or an understanding of what was going on outside his country.
I was wrong on both counts.
Admittedly, his perspective is not my perspective, but make no mistake about it,
Anybody who can shut Mike Wallace up make him look at a loss for words requires a second look.
What I discovered was that this is a man who is woefully underrated.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in short no dummy.
He doesn’t get his words piped in over a digital system.
He doesn’t sound like he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
And he very clever and very slippery to boot. Plus, on top of that he has a PhD.
What’s more, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said a lot of relevant things even though I don’t agree with most of his arguments. What he does say happens to resonate with Islamic elements for the most part. What he did question was why Bush was always talking in war-like rhetoric; why doesn’t he engage in questioning in the pursuit of peace.
Wallace did pin him on Israel saying that if you are really for peace, why are you talking about destroying Israel. He then engaged in an answer that was something like twenty minutes forcing Mike to suggest to him that he needed to keep his answers short? And wondered why he couldn’t do that?
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested that it was a complicated question.
There is no doubt in my mind that if he had it within his power, he would eliminate not only Israel but the US as well.
The problem here is the American attitude which says if you’re not on my team, I’m not going to negotiate with you which, to this author, seems backwards since where diplomacy is required is with those who don’t agree with you so it seems we are caught between a rock and a hard place. We cannot exert diplomacy with Iran because they do not agree with us; yet because they do not agree with us is precisely why we need diplomacy.
The bigger point that we seem to fail to see is that Iran is a complex state that depends on free elections. There are more people of influence than the prime minister. Without representation, without dialogue, we are dependent on the hard work of others. However, with our bellicose attitude and our willingness to talk brute force with everyone, we have lost a good deal of the leverage that we may have at one time exerted in the world.
It is in this climate that we must take on the head of a country of 75 million people rich with oil money and intent upon getting nuclear energy. It has become a very dangerous world and we continue to underestimate the opposition believing that we can get our way through tactics deemed corrosive to the rest of the world.
In the end, it is we who is predictable facing a complex opponent who would love to see us wiggle on the line for as long as he can and we are more vulnerable than we imagine.

Might it not be the irony of ironies that while so many progressive and liberals point to Israel’s excesses in the war against Hezbollah, that the future was decided because Israel held back?
Les Aaron,
The Hubmaster

We are beginning to see proof of that coming out of Iran.

Iran is now seeming to bask in reflected glory as a result of Hezbollah’s survival and the good account they gave of themselves.

Israel had it wrong. They thought would be easy to eliminate Hezbolah.
It wasn’t.
And now Iran has become emboldened….emboldened enough to do two things:
Conduct tests of its weaponry—mainly its large missiles

And to announce to the world that it would proceed with the development of its nuclear capacity. Even the leading cleric seemed complicit by promising a “sweet reward.”

Iran is sending definite offensive signals and the rest of the world is standing on the sidelines seemingly unsure of what to do.

This sends out bad signals. It assures Iran that he world will do nothing no matter what it does…

At this point, the US may find that the biggest crisis it faces is not Iraq but Iran.
Iran is three times larger in terms of population and perhaps double or triple the size of Iraq.

I don’t see anything happening now aside from aggressive deliberation and diplomacy that will change the outcome: War.

Bush is now between a rock and a hard place: No troops and a potential war on his hands.

Where do we go from here?

It’s totally bizarre but this one is starting to spiral out of control. And the Iranians see the US as weak and vulnerable.

Les Aaron

Mind Over Muscle...

Subject: Honey Works a Lot Better than Vinegar...


you know what nobody wants to talk about is that America does not know how to use diplomacy.

Immediately, when you talk to an American official, it's my way or the high way.

What we don't seem to realize is that so much more can be obtained through the intelligent use of diplomacy.

If you doubt that check the history books.

The past master of diplomacy has always been the Brits. They have it down to a science; understand all of the nuances and know how to play both sides against the middle and it is always to their advantage.

Even in WWII, they were the skilled players who knew every trick in the book.

And then when you look at what we're doing in the field of diplomacy, it looks like we were locked out of class that day.

. Our typically black and white approach is here it is; if you don't like it, you can lump it and we will blow you up as we please.

The Brits were always too smart to talk like that even if they felt like it at times. You in fact never knew where you stood with the Brits. That was proved to me today when I saw a wonderful documentary on the use of diplomacy by the Imperialist British government when it planned its maneuvers leading up and including WWI. I am going back to the time of Lloyd George, Balfour, and the secret agreements with the French and Russians that carved up The Arabian Penninsula.

This well-crafted documentary documented how the Brits used treachery, diplomacy, and sleight of hand to promise the middle east to both the Jews of Eastern Europe, thinking that they could use the power of the Jews to work in their favor in winning support for the English cause, and to the Arabs under prince Faisel. In truth, while they were making promises to both Arab and Jew, the English had the whole area mapped out and they conveniently used all sides to their own advantage while actually ceding Syria and Lebannon to France under their agreement and taking Iraq and the Canal, which was essential to the English Empire, for themselves.

This was the work of a secret agreement in addition to the Balfour Declaration and the efforts of Lloyd George.

Mainly, it was all designed to take down the Turks and carve up their territory for their own personal advantage.

At the time, they recognized Iraq's oil potential.

If you were to move the entire strategy fifty years forward, you could not avoid discussing the role of British diplomacy later in the 50's when it came time to securing Iran's oil wealth and getting rid of Moussadegh and bringing on the Ayotollah....and making the Americans the heavies. Remember, it was Eisenhower who backed them up...and the Iranians never forgot it.

They just prove a point however if you are smart, you can get just as much or more using your mind over muscle. This government seems incapable of learning their lesson.

Les Aaron