Saturday, July 11, 2009
Why, exactly, Al Gore believes that the prospect of "global governance" will inspire us to support greenhouse gas regulation is beyond me:
“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.
“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.
Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.
“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.”
Anybody who thinks that "global governance" is anything other than a profound evil is a woefully misguided dreamer, a nut, or an authoritarian. The only question is whether it is a necessary evil. Let us hope not
"President Obama ...agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C."
What unmitigated GALL! Who do these megalomaniacs think they are??
While were at it...let's bring the VAn Allen belt a little farther south so we can all enjoy the Aurora and agree to prevent solar flares from disturbing our sattelite communications.
This is "chicken in every pot" demagoguery on a grand scale.
The truth is, with Global Government, we will all simply be TOLD what the Earth's temperature is and anyone who disputes it will be "re-educated".
This stuff better be sending a CHILL down everybody's spine!!!
Global Governace" is what it has been about all along.
We used th call in the "International Socialist Conspiracy" and it had been around for wuite some time.
The chatting classes of the 1th century talked about, the Soviets of the 20th century tried to implement it by force. The communists of the 21th century are attempting to do it by government fiat.
It will set mankind back centuries should it finally come to pass.
Global Government by international elites, maintained through high technology, poverty and limited opportunity, will be the darkest tyranny man has ever known. It will take centuries to overturn and deeply harm the heart and soul of mankind.
They are not nuts or misguided dreamers, and you can take that to the bank.
"The only question is whether it is a necessary evil."
Necessary for what? Saving us from climate change?
That implies both that mankind is the cause of and solution to climate change and more importantly that "global government" can somehow accomplish anything useful.
If endemic corruption and endless misery could stop climate change then, yeah, Global Government is a surefire solution.
I think that the saying power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely applies here. The lessons of the last year are, if anything, that large doesn't work. If small governments have trouble, large ones have more.
Much of the earth is peaceful. But the question of maintaining peace globally is a false one, I think. The loss to humans in freedom and small conflicts (which will occur) must be weighed against the loss to humans from large loss of freedom and the still extant small conflicts that will continue to occur.
I would like to see the United States to withdraw from its position in the world.
On another note, did you read the Newsweek piece that indicates Holder is thinking of appointing an independent prosecutor on the torture issues (including where DOJ guidance was not followed). This is very bad news for a close friend. And ruined my day.
I do not really see how quickly people forget (indeed while we are still fighting in Afghanistan), and to think it was only 3 people who were waterboarded. Prosecutors do not open a dialogue. They close it down. And then it just becomes a matter of who is power. Like the Alien and Sedition Acts.
From Link re Corncob on Holder,
Holder says he's making the decision on whether to further probe Bush-era torture on his own, without input from Obama. Holder also has a bridge he wants to sell you.
This is not something Holder has to pursue. He could have made this decision months ago, if he was going to make it. Now there's a puff piece in Newsweek that uses anonymous sources to say he's leaning this way. It's a setup.
It'll happen if and only if Obama needs a distraction in the next few months. If unemployment continues to climb, Obama may have to drag out the Cheney Monster once again.
"I would like to see the United States to withdraw from its position in the world."
Be careful what you wish for.
Multi-polar international systems are violent and nasty things. They preceded both world wars and the Napoleonic Wars, for instance. They are prone to the formation (and collapse) of rival alliances in balance of power schemes, and because there are many actors of relative strength there are many people and many ways to trigger war.
And not the neat little wars of the last 6 decades, when one side has overwhelming force or the combatants are pulled apart by their patron states after a bloody nose or the entire 'war' consists of video-game air and missile strikes... we'll be back to either many limited wars for territories and concessions, (hello imperialism) or wars of conquest (and therefore, survival) with full mobilizations and atrocities.
Then there are the other little things that the United States provide to the world as a benign hegemon, such as freedom of the seas, supporting NGOs and the World Bank and IMF, giving away hundreds of billions of dollars from the kindness of their hearts for disaster relief and disease treatment, fighting the global narcotics trade, and serving as a check on regional trouble-makers. You can expect that gravy train to end.
Look forward to the new world. Because it looks to be on the way.
It occurred to me that including that comma makes it sound like I'm saying that all wars of the past 6 decades resemble those described, when they obviously did not. What I mean is that when states are relatively comparable in power and have few disincentives to fight, wars will look a lot more like the Iran/Iraq war of 1980-1988 or the Yugoslavian collapse than Desert Storm or the 6 Day War.
Link echoing Dawnfire82,
I heartily agree. We forget how the world can be a dangerous place. The US gets no credit as a benign hegemon. We're the only nation in the world who can project force at distance. We're the only ones who can be World Police. We may not be perfect ... but we're the only grown-up in the room.
Disruptions to critical supply chains may be the biggest risk to the US. Cyber-attacks present threats never seen before. Risk of asymmetric wars and terrorist attacks continue.
Asia has issues. North Korea is a regional problem because China enables it ... so China can have a rabid little attack dog on a leash. A great way to intimidate neighbors like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Odds of regional conflict are low, but our manufacturing supply chains depend so much on the region that conflict could crater world economies. China has significant internal issues -- there's no guaranty the current regime will last 30 years. What then?
Russia has ambitions to reclaim at least part of its past glory. Putin would love to undermine the US any way he can. The right kind of crisis would drive up oil prices and multiply his personal fortune greatly. He's not our friend.
Europe is useless, but benign. Given their 20th century history, this isn't a bad thing.
India and Pakistan can always blunder into a fight, and a nasty one. Mutually Assured Destruction only works with rational national leaders. I don't know what we're trying to achieve in Afghanistan, frankly.
The Middle East is always a day away from creating a global crisis. Whatever you think of our invading Iraq, we can't afford to have it fail as a state. I can't figure out whether Israel is really intent on bombing Iran -- it'd be a long-term blunder for Israel and for the US. Dependence on oil is our biggest strategic weakness. We continue to take the risk that we'll pay with the blood of our children -- and heavily -- because we purposefully pursue policies to increase this weakness. I can't focus on this for more than five seconds without my blood going to boil.
Tempting as it is, we can't withdraw from the world stage.
But that's exactly what he said. 'Drive change through global governance' as opposed to agreements, mentioned separately. (as it ought to be; agreements are made between parties of equal standing, whereas governance is rulers commanding the ruled and enforcing their dictates)
He got a BA in Political Science (as did I). He knows what he said.
Now, whether he'll admit that's what he meant is another matter entirely. I doubt he would. But the idea of a global government is not an unpopular one among liberal political theorists. It's not just the realm of 'black helicopter' conspiracy theorists, as you seem to imply, and the roots of the idea go back in academia about 150 years.