phoenix attorneys
WHAT PRECONDITIONS? EMPTY RHETORIC FOR THE LESS INFORMED
Count the times you’ve heard this favorite Republican talking point, or something close — “he has said he will meet with the world’s worst dictators without preconditions”. Did a debate or Hardball episode pass without this being thrown out as though it should end all discussion about Obama’s readiness to direct our foreign policy? But ask yourself this obvious follow up question — what are the preconditions? Did you ever once hear any Republican canditate, spokesperson or campaigner ever explain what the preconditions should be? Are they the same for each country, each region, or do they change daily based on the dastardly deeds of our enemies? Does our State Department send daily emails to our enemies so they know what they need to do before they can have a sit down? Or, is this nothing more than a catchy phrase used to appeal to certain segments of the public that yearn for simple slogans to support entrenched political affiliations?
In Brian Williams’ interview of McCain and Palin in the final weeks of the campaign, Palin was asked this very question. Her response was a rambling summary about the danger of Obama’s policies and his naivety. But she never gave an example — not one. McCain sat by looking like a nervous school boy that hadn’t done his homework the night before the pop oral quiz. “Please, oh please don’t ask me that question Brian”, he must have been thinking. Thankfully, Mr. Williams didn’t pursue and once again, the precondition card was left to float about without real challenge.
In the months leading up to the election, in exchange after exchange, I’ve challenged GOP partisans to provide specific preconditions that must be met by any one country. Not once have I received a direct response, or at least one that was thought out in advance. Little is written that explains in detail what the preconditions should be. The best anyone can do is set out conditions that in reality are the end goals we seek to achieve. This is true for any country and any issue. For example, several sources report that Iran recently set preconditions to speak with the US. One of these conditions is that we must pull out of Iraq. So, the precondition to talk is really Iran’s end objective for holding any current talks on Irag with the US - get out of Iraq.
One can assume that Republican hardliners would say conditions for meeting with Iran include Iran immediately ceasing all nuclear activities, immediately ceasing certain human rights violations and immediately denouncing, renouncing, repudiating, rebuking, etc. all anti-Israeli activities. So, in order to meet with the U.S., Iran must stop doing everything that causes the U.S. to call Iran our enemy (or at least not our friend). And American politicians believe this condition setting business will move our relationship with Iran and others forward? Are they serious?
Consider any difficult relationship. Say, for example, the relationship of a married couple of 20 years (not that any married couples have difficult relationships). Assume both spouses have a laundry list of complaints about the other. Assume one spouse, say the wife, wants to sit down and talk about the issues and try to find common ground. Assume the husband imposes, as a condition to talking, that the wife satisfy all of his major complaints. Considering the sensitive and volitile nature of marriage, like the sensitive and volatile nature of foreign relations, it’s easy to figure out where the wife will tell the husband to take his preconditions (imagine the husband who imposes a condition of more, uh-hum, affections — he’ll be seeing his needs met, right ladies?).
How are conditions with non-allied foreign countries and their leaders different? As Brent Scowcroft recently said, “It’s hard to make things better if you don’t talk.” Talking with those you dislike reminds one of the old saying about friends and enemies — keep your friends close and your enemies closer. If you want to know what the dark side is up to, if you want to change its course, you won’t accomplish your goals by retreating into a corner. Go ask the husband that sulks on the couch as the wife emplores him to open up. That relationship is doomed, as are our foreign policy relationships if we don’t get up off the couch and sit down at the table to talk - before it really is too late.
Global Warming Reality — Why Doing Nothing Is Wrong Choice
Ok, so most of us in the general public don’t have the expertise to know whether global warming is a man made phenomena or is nothing more that the ebb and flow of our ecosystems. We have to rely on the opinions and reports of scientists and other experts and even then we sometimes don’t know what to believe. Whether you believe that man is 100% to blame, not to blame at all, or somewhere in the middle, truth is, it’s hard for any of us laypersons to say anything certain on the topic. But there are a few things we know are true, regardless of the cause. For instance, temperatures in most parts of the world are increasing, at least since we humans have been keeping score. And the ice sheets up there around Santa Land, they’re disappearing before our eyes. Entire species are being wiped out at rapid paces and clean water supplies are dwindling. Our air is getting dirtier. Basically, the world isn’t as sustainable for us humans as it used to be and the trend is not good.
I’ve heard the question asked many times by those that doubt man’s impact on our environment – what if we find out that man isn’t the cause of all the problems? Wouldn’t we be wasting our time and efforts? I have 2 simple answers to these questions – 1) so what, and 2) no.
So what if we learn that man isn’t the cause of the problem? The truth is, there will be a time when the fossil fuels we use to power our lives will run out or become so scarce compared to demand that the cost will be prohibitive for most of us. Even if we sided with the narrow minority in concluding that burning fossil fuels is not harmful to humans or our environment, there is no doubt that the country that can sustain itself on alternate fuels will be at a tremendous competitive advantage in this world – economically, militarily and socially. New energy sources will reduce influence and wealth in many countries not considered our friends. New energy sources will create jobs by spurring the growth of new industries producing vehicles and products that run on new motors and power systems. Finding new energy sources will strengthen our scientific and technological fields and open up doors to new research and technologies. For these reasons, no, it wouldn’t be a waste of our time to devote our energy and resources towards finding new energy sources, just the opposite. If successful, America can ensure energy supplies to power our industries, businesses, homes and autos without having to make foreign policy decisions while being held hostage to the lure of oil. Thus, there is no material long term downside to assuming that global warming is man made.
But what about the potential harm if we side with the doubters and decide to do nothing (or little) about global warming? What if we do nothing but later learn unequivocally that global warming IS the result of man’s activities? And what if the problem gets so bad that it can’t be reversed? The answers to these questions? Basically, see you at the pearly gates everyone.
Sometimes, the risk and cost of doing nothing in response to a situation is far greater than the risk and cost of doing something. Take going to the doctor for instance in response to an odd bump on your neck. You could chance it and hope it is nothing and goes away. You might be right. But, you might be wrong and if you are and it turns out to be a cancerous cyst that could have been remedied if treated, you’d be awfully sorry for your decision. Or take the matter of faith and salvation. Some people can’t logic their way to a supreme being and therefore conclude that religion and spirituality are a waste of time. But what if, by chance, they are wrong and the eternal being merely wanted some recognition and homage to reap the benefit of faith? Pretty big gamble if you ask me.
Given we are the current stewards of this planet, if we are to err on one side or the other when it comes to global warming and what to do, the obvious and only responsible choice is to err on the side of taking every action possible and immediately before things worsen. Anything less would be taking a gamble that no parent would ever take with their child’s life, let alone all of humanity.