Senator James Inhofe was on the Rachel Maddow Show last night on MSNBC. Senator Inhofe lied with a smug smile as his State suffers from climate warming-induced drought and horrific tornadoes. How is it possible that people in Oklahoma vote for this dangerous charlatan?I can only surmise that these people do not care if their children and grandchildren will suffer through the worst catastrophe humans will ever face.The dangers of climate change, which is ultimately caused by overpopulation, will dwarf any immediate problems we see today since it will almost certainly lead to mass famines caused by the loss of arable land causing world wide migrations on an unprecedented scale,which will in turn lead to wars and probably the use of nuclear weapons, flooding of almost all coastal cities and destruction of infrastructure such as roads, railways and airports,leading to financial collapse of industrialized countries, and eventually almost certainly to the collapse of modern civilization. Neither I nor Imhofe will live to see the worst of this but his 20 grandchildren and their children will.
And everyone who survives will be asking "Why oh why did they let this happen?".
Any predictions regarding what the Supreme Court will do with the health care situation?
ReplyDeleteI have no predictions, just fears. To do anything about climate warming in this country, the Democrats must somehow maintain the majority in the Senate, regain it in the House, reelect Obama, and do away with the Filibuster in the Senate. Then we may be able to change the composition of the Supreme Court and finally pass some laws limiting greenhouse gases in the US. But I have no idea how to achieve this in the rest of the world - ie India, China, etc in the absence of some dramatic catastrophes which can be directly linked to climate change. But of course facts can not affect the minds (?) of people who do not believe in causality or in Science in general.
ReplyDeleteAs a non-American (but one day………) I don't know how valid my opinions will be on the matter, but seriously, I wish laws are introduced to stop filibustering. Not anything drastic, but something along the lines of: A speaker is allowed 5 minutes to produce a coherent, concise and well-planned statement, and then up to 10 minutes is given to debate their statement further. In these 10 minutes, up to half of it may be allocated to the original speaker to defend their statement.
ReplyDeleteAlso, that Democrats voted along party lines. I don't see this as partisanship, because I'm not advocating Democrats completely ignore the Republicans (although I see no reason why they shouldn't).
American politics are much, much, much more interesting than the back-page sports-section quality of politics I have going on here.