President Bush has taken steps to remove North Korea from the terror list, in the wake of that country's nuclear program declaration, issued today:
President Bush, who once branded North Korea as part of an "axis of evil," welcomed the move and said he intends to remove the communist nation from the U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism."The declaration says: 'We are not now engaged in any [uranium] enrichment activities or [nuclear] proliferation activities and will not engage in them in the future,'" U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said in Washington.
"It is a good first step in getting the kind of disclosure and transparency into North Korea's nuclear activities as part of and a step toward their disablement, dismantlement and termination of those activities," Hadley said.
So North Korea isn't going to be part of the axis of evil, apparently. I suppose the logical move would be to make them part of the "axis of countries mainly in Asia whose governments we don't trust and whose human rights abuses are problematic for us, but who might end up being a source of cheap goods," but it's probably too soon to make that designation.
In the meantime, our country has identified a new threat to our national security: global warming:
U.S. intelligence agencies usually work hard to stay outside the political fray, but this week they waded firmly into the debate over climate change by producing an unsettling assessment of the national security implications of changing weather patterns."We assess that no country will be immune to the effects of climate change, but some will be able to cope more effectively than others," says Thomas Fingar, who heads the National Intelligence Council, which drafted the assessment, adding that sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Central and Southeast Asia would be the hardest-hit regions. "However, the spillover--from potentially increased migration and water-related disputes--could have a harmful global impact."
I'm guessing that the "threat level--green" is going to add a whole new dimension to its meaning.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"there was a time when the scientific community was convinced that Ptolemy had it right. There was a time when the scientific community was unanimous about bleeding sick people. There was a time when the scientific community considered Piltdown Man to be an authentic fossil. Truth is not a matter of majority opinion."
"Science is bunk" he says, as he types on his computer sending his words nearly instantaneously to people thousands of miles away. I wish conservatives would give up this assault on science. Much of what you note above was not really pure science, but science that was heavily influenced by prevailing cultural or religious beliefs. This somewhat akin to what we see going on now. If the science disagrees with one's beliefs, one discredits the science. Put another way, almost everything you can see or touch around you right now has probably been a product affected by science in some way. The evidence in front of your nose shows you that science gets it right, eventually. Ptolemy got the ball rolling, but he was wrong. Later scientists, with better information and the ability to look past theological limitations, got it right.
The science on global warming is pretty good IMO, but it is not finished. Problems were noted with early studies, especially the troposphere studies, and new studies done. There is still ongoing research. If you read the actual reports, and interviews with the people involved, there remains probably a 10% level of uncertainty. Critics have voiced objections and they have been met. New criticisms will be raised as we go along. I think we need better studies on CO2 sequestration in our oceans for a starter. I might also add, that we continue to see little publication of data refuting global warming in peer reviewed publications.
The proper area of attack, IMO, is when scientists attempt to venture outside their fields into policy, or when policy makers misuse the science. If you dont like Kyoto, go after the pols, not the science. Science trying to prove that God does not exist? Out of their field.
Steve
Uh, no, Steve, I did not say "Science is bunk." I read the entire post over again, just to make sure that you had not maybe caught something I missed. Now that we all know you can erect a straw man, is there anything else you can offer?
Ok, rereading your post we will make it "science was wrong". You offer only evidence that science is wrong. I could make a list showing only bad things that the Catholic church has done to prove that is an immoral institution and should be banned. If I neglect to show that these actions did not represent the whole Catholic church, occurred at a different time and do not demonstrate any of its positive aspects it is a disingenuous argument.
Can "science" make mistakes? Sure. Presence of past mistakes does not mean that any particular conclusion is wrong. The presence of scientific success in the past does not make any particular conclusion correct. Judge the individual case on its merits.
Steve
I haven't noticed any of the talking heads saying so, but isn't this a loud message directed at Iran?
I'm still curious why all these arm-chair scientists who think global warming is bunk, don't just quit their crap jobs or come out of retirement to preach the oil baron gospel?
Like I said before, if you're pitch is halfway decent, I'm sure you'll be compensated quite well.
To hell with Nobel Prize winners and the International Panel on Climate... Just like George W. Bush, you can go with your gut. It sure worked with Iraq and bin Laden.
Tom,
It's interesting that people think we can swing our weight around with Iran. John McCain sings "Bomb Iran, bomb Iran..." to the the Beach Boys tune, similarly titled.
Our military is overstretched. McCain may say he won't reinstate the draft unless it's World War III, which lots of Neocons have said we're already in.
If we go into Iran, do you think China and Russia are gonna sit on the sideline? That's gonna be World War III, which the Neocons who make Republican policy seem to think we're already in.
I'm thinking McCain will have no choice but to draft kids. Republicans will probably come up with a moral justification that McCain was a POW, so if anybody's gonna draft you're kids - McCain's the one.
If we've learned anything, it's that when Republicans talk about war, they're like horny teenagers lookin' to score. Count on 'em to score.
Also, count on $10+ per gallon of gas. Our intelligence indicates they'll lay mines in the Persian Gulf - halting world oil supplies.
So, kids will die and we'll go into an economic depression. McCAIN 08
WAR, IT'S FANTASTIC.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.