3 Bags Full

1. I doubt if the global warming e-mail scandal is going to be a “game changer” when it comes to the anti-technology juggernaut that is the global warming belief system -- and that is a centerpiece of Obama's economic (AKA "environmental") policy. And the reason the facts – or the lack thereof – will be irrelevant is simply that “global warming” has become a secular religion. It has become, in effect, a focal point for all the people who felt left behind when the Soviet Union broke up. It is now a matter of faith and belief, and the “science” behind it is only kept around to satisfy a few people who are on the margins of the discussion – call them “independents”. But the vast majority of the world's population – or at least the “First World's” population – has now taken sides in the debate, and no further facts are required. And what are the chances, at this point, of ever getting truly objective scientific data on the matter? Virtually nil, I'd say. The whole issue has been taken out of the realm of science and put into the realm of faith – and secular faith at that, if that is not a contradiction in terms. But you see, it makes perfect sense, since the global warming crowd is, by and large, faithless – i.e. few of them subscribe to any of the traditional creeds -- you know, the ones that propose values that transcend the merely material. Instead, like the populists, socialists, humanists, and communists, they have substituted a political/economic/environmental faith for the creeds of old. So it is no longer of any use to fight back with facts – assuming any “facts” can be objectively acquired at this point. From here on out, it's strictly faith vs. skepticism... and it will follow the same trajectory as all the previous faith vs. skepticism conflicts – impacting politics, economics, and the general welfare, but totally resistant to ever being resolved.

2. Headline: “Search for GM CEO could take (a) year”. Hmmm... but I'm wondering why? I mean, the main duties of a GM CEO – as for so many other high-end corporations these days – consist of suppressing innovation, seeking monopolies and favorable regulation, bribing Congressmen (oops – I mean “coordinating campaign contributions"), and periodically jetting to Capitol Hill to beg for bailout money from the taxpayers. Am I missing something? It seems like there is any number of guys (or gals, even) out there who could do this. Heck, I could probably do it myself; why don't they just hire me? But perhaps I'm being too hasty. After all, the chairman of GM has described the process thusly: “Will it be internal or external? I don't know. Will we make a valid look? You bet we will. Will we find the right person? You bet we will.” Sheesh... what is this guy, a football coach? He sound like he belongs on late-night TV, selling Veg-O-Matics. But anyway, I'm waiting for him to call...

3. Pat Buchanan – apparently, according to his column in today's paper – really believes that Obama's going to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan (unless he's just being “ironic” -- but irony is not his style). And he does not disapprove – although he does point out some “jarring contradictions” in Obama's presentation of his case. It seems like the bottom line is that Obama is actually a peace president pretending (for the time being) to be a war president – sort of a sheep in wolf's clothing (as opposed to Carter, who was – as Winston Churchill said about a British politician of his time – a sheep in sheep's clothing). Personally, I'm not convinced. My theory – which is not shared by Pat Buchanan – is that Obama is not his own man (no matter whether he “stands up to the Pentagon” or not) and that he is following orders from higher powers (“above his pay grade”, as he himself might put it), and we are not going anywhere unless, and until, they say so. After all, the vested interests that got us into those wars are still in place, still in power, and still control everything they controlled in 2001. One might think that, with Bush out of office and blessedly exiled to North Dallas, the Evangelicals and Neocons would have less clout in Washington that they did before – but no such luck. They might not be as obvious, or blatant, or triumphant, but they are still very much in place and very much in control. Then there are the arms makers, who pretty much own everything and everybody on Capitol Hill. Add to this the Democratic Congress, who would hang their own grandmother on a meat hook rather than do anything to offend Israel... and you have the continuation of the same perfect storm that overtook George W. Bush. No... if we ever get out of Iraq it will only be because Afghanistan has turned into just as big a money maker. And if we ever get out of Afghanistan, it will be because we have, by then, invaded and occupied Iran. We're all perpetual warriors now.