How we lost our focus on Global Warming or: How I learned to stop worrying and love Venus

A brief introduction - one of my favorite posters on this site and a friend of mine is Medina64. He has demonstrated his knowledge and passion on many topics but clearly has an wealth of knowledge on Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming - AGW. I thought it would be informative and beneficial to get him to share his thoughts with all of us. Thanks M64!

OK, here is my response to COD’s call for AGW guest blogs. I’m not going to talk about the technical aspects of AGW - IPCC, RealClimate, Tamino, and, of course, Jim Hansen (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ ) do that infinitely better than I could.  Instead, I want to talk about how we lost our focus on AGW. 

First, some context.  The IPCC has said that we should limit CO2 to no more than 450 ppm and this was the generally accepted thought until about 5 or 6 years ago when Hansen and his colleagues began investigating in detail the effects of allowing CO2 to reach that level. Part of the impetus behind this was that the last time we had that much CO2 in the atmosphere was about 50 million years ago, when it was much warmer and there were no polar ice caps. The results of these investigations are summarized here, http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126 , and in his book “Storms of My Grandchildren”. The conclusions are, broadly, that at 450 ppm we risk crossing a tipping point from which we will not be able to retreat and which will have severe consequences for both human civilization and the biosphere in general - we have all evolved to live in much different conditions that will exist at 450 ppm. Furthermore, if we continue to burn coal, oil, gas, and tap into the Athabascan tar sands, consequently pushing CO2 concentration well above 450 ppm, there is a significant, non-zero, probability that the Earth could become like Venus, essentially wiping out all life on the planet. For reference, we are currently at 392 ppm and are going up at 3 ppm/yr.  Therefore, for people with young kids or grandchildren, it is very likely that those kids will be confronted with the changes associated with CO2 at or above 450 ppm. That thought was the main impetus for Hansen to write his first and only book.

With that context, how did we get to this point? When Hansen gave his now famous talk before Congress in 1988 it seemed like we were going to get our shit together and face this problem (note, LBJ mentioned the need to do something about AGW in a message to Congress in 1965). The story of why change was stalled is told in http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/ .  Essentially there were a handful of very good scientists: Fred Seitz – physicist and former president of the National Academy of Science, Fred Singer – physicist and a leader in the development of the first weather satellites, William Nierenberg – physicist and onetime head of the Scripps Institute, and Robert Jastrow – physicist and one time head of Goddard Institute of Space Studies. All had worked on Cold War projects and Seitz, Nierenberg, and Jastrow had worked on the atomic bomb during WW II.  For various reasons, these guys were pissed off – a lot of it had to do with the opposition that occurred to Star Wars, some of it was personal friction with other scientists, and some of it was the feeling that the country was being taken over by people who didn’t understand Communism or the importance of the Cold War. They then recruited others with similar feelings. The fight began with denying that cigarette smoking causes cancer (to this day, leading climate denier and brilliant scientist Richard Lindzen says that it has not been proven that cigarettes cause cancer), then moved on to denying that coal burning causes acid rain, that CFCs were causing holes in the ozone layer, that second hand cigarette smoke causes cancer, that global warming is real, and are now involved in attacking Rachel Carson and saying that DDT is not a problem. 

Denial started out for reasons of ego, pride, and being pissed at others but as time went on, and the big money began to flow, and there was an economic incentive to do it also. Early in cigarette/cancer fight, the strategy adopted was to attack the science and scientists behind the claims, even though the tobacco companies themselves had proven in the early 60’s that cigarettes cause cancer. This strategy was refined as time went on and applied to all subsequent fights. OK, at this point, those who have kept reading are probably wondering how I keep my tin hat on when the wind is blowing and when am I going to start talking about the New World Order. In response, I ask you to go to http://www.legacy.library.ucsf.edu/ which is the Legacy Tobacco Document Library (LTDL) which was formed to house and maintain internal documents obtained during the lawsuits that occurred against the seven major tobacco companies.  Do some or all of the following searches:

• Global warming – Why the fuck are there hundreds of docs in the LTDL concerned with AGW?  Turns out the tobacco industry was also a large funder of AGW denial.
• The names of the above scientists – look at some of what they authored and proposed.
• “A Challenge to Scientific Judgment” – written in 94, note one of the coauthors is Sallie Baliunas, a noted AGW denier who has had to eat her words on several occasions. In this doc we learn that asbestos is fine for brakes, acid rain is not a problem, we need to loosen pesticide regulations, PCBs aren’t a problem, AGW is BS, and there is no problem with the ozone layer.
• “Bad Science A Resource Book” – this was a pamphlet put together by the tobacco companies that essentially laid out templates for attacking the science behind second hand smoke/cancer.  The templates require little change to refer to AGW. 

All right, I’m almost done. What is the issue here? A core group of scientists (with no expertise in many of the fields they were publicly attacking those who did) created a denial methodology based on attacking legitimate science and scientists in order to achieve their goals. In my opinion, one of the unintended consequences of this has been to diminish scientific credibility in the public’s eye. That is not good.  But I also think it shows how we as humans behave, we are not rational, we operate on motives that, after a while, are probably not clear even to us, and if we repeat incorrect shit over and over we begin to believe it ourselves.  This has been true throughout history (http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i10/p39_s1?bypassSSO=1 ), Einstein got death threats over relativity and cancelled talks because of them, in the mid 18^th century a guy made his living debating astronomers all over England claiming the earth was flat – and winning in the public eye, or for today’s equivalent go to http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/ . In the past, science has eventually won out – with AGW it is not clear who will win, nature is a tough competitor. Carl Sagan famously said that probably the reason we have not received any alien broadcasts after years of searching is that once a species is advanced enough to do that it is advanced enough to destroy itself, and probably does.

Vincent Cocotti and Global Warming

We can go back and forth all day on the daily shenanigans of politics debating whether corporations are people my friend or whether you would ever want to live in a state where the standing governor refers to an entire group of job applicants as either on drugs or illiterate.  

We are merely repeating a process as ancient and as acrimonious as when Plato insulted Socrates by saying he looked like Charles Krauthammer. We will continue to have political discourse and debate until we crawl back into the oceans from whence we came or if you believe otherwise, until God un-Adam and Eves us.

 What we should be able to say without debate is whether Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) actually exists but unfortunately the debate appears to continue. 

Google “man made global warming” and see what comes up.

First link is http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/ - is from Dr Roy W. Spencer - “This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.”  

The next link http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/10/scientific-case-man-made-global-warming-fears-dead/41257  claims “a forthcoming Climate Depot A-Z Climate Reality Check report on the failure of the science behind man-made global warming theory will shatter any such illusions that the climate is "worse than we thought." 

It is not until the fifth link that we see concluded that the possibility the world is warming because of natural variations in climate (such as increased volcanic or solar activity) is "increasingly remote." Instead, they firmly pin the blame on man's burning of fossil fuels.”

So here is my problem – I am not a meteorologist nor an climatologist nor do I have a Dr. before my name.  I’ve read about AGW but no where near enough to be any kind of expert. But given the amount of information available and the stakes at hand you have to form an opinion. 

My belief are based on two things – 1. If you put enough stuff in the toilet it is going to overflow and  2. You want to avoid the worst thing that can happen.

Number 1 the “toilet” - according to the Union of Concerned Scientists burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:

• 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
• 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
• 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
• 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
• 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
• 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
• 170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
• 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
• 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.

Now with scientists, funny group that they are, data should be data except when people take leave of their senses and try to push an agenda like the Climate Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia.

Like the character Vincent Cocotti said in the movie True Romance  “Woulda got away with it, but your son, fuckhead that he is, left his driver's license in a dead guy's hand.”. So would have the Climate Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia had they not left a bunch of emails in a dead guys’ hand. It resulted in a huge backlash on the position of AGW and cast doubt on the scientific research that supported it.  But support of AGW has since rebounded and the number of AGW voices have increased.

Number 2 - what is the worst thing that can happen – if we take action  to reduce AGW (if it is not to late) there will be a significant effect (some say dramatic) on the world’s economy. Now tanking the economy is bad – bad wrong for that matter but when compared to the effects of global warming; dangerous weather patterns, unstable agriculture and economy, effects on animals; a world we could potentially leave for our children.  Now that is just unacceptable.  No can do. 

I was motivated to write this blog by comments left during previous posts that referenced  global warming – I extend an offer to those more knowledgeable than me to use this as a forum.  The comment section is too restrictive – write a blog and I will post it here as a guest post. 

"I know one thing, that I know nothing" - Socrates

High Heels and Healthcare

I have no idea what they are protesting.

A lot of people and institutions are up in arms over a new Health & Human Services rule that will require some Catholic institutions, such as universities and hospitals, to cover employees' contraceptive costs. Some claim it is an attack on religious freedom, others an attack on women's rights.

There are a couple of things to consider here. Religious organizations are to some degree state/federally funded organizations. Their tax-exempt status means they receive services and benefits funded from taxes you and I pay. Just from that fact alone, they should be forced to follow government guidelines. The same logic would apply to drug testing politicians that want to drug test welfare recipients. I am okay with fair.

 Healthcare should not be used as a tool by any organization based on selected beliefs. Should PETA be allowed to have provisions in their healthcare that does not allow for certain coverages? Say for brain damage caused by having a giant bite from a 3 lb burger block your airway for a few minutes? Healthcare may not be a universal right (it should be but just trying to avoid that argument for now) but the coverage should be universal. 

Anyone with medical insurance can choose not to use contraceptives. That should be the decision of the insured and not controlled by the Church or any business for that matter. Healthcare should not be a cafeteria-like option where employers would dictate employee options. The options should be the same for everyone and everyone should get to make their own choices. A recent report (Guttmacher Institute) shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning. So clearly the congregation is not in step with the Catholic hierarchy.

If the argument is based on the morality of funding something a person/organization would be morally opposed to, then what about any number of activities funded by our tax dollars like the Iraq War or Iran Contra affair or authorized interrogation practices that are illegal under U.S. and international law that many including myself strongly disagree with?
It is clear that the major religions are male dominated. There is a long history of ongoing female oppression. I for one would like to see what women would do if they held the power. What would the Catholic Church’s position be if not only did the pope wear a funny hat, but had a nice pair of heels to match?  

Trump endorses Romney and the flying Dirigible gets renamed

Let me begin with a personal disclosure - I will own up to having a long-standing dislike of Trump going to the mid-80’s when he burst onto the NY real estate market and was a shameless self-promoter.  I thought he was a soulless, aggrandizing pompous ass then and he has done nothing to change my mind.  When Trump seemed to fade away in the early 90’s as his empire crumbled, over $900 million in debt, and  bankruptcy. I thought it was a clear repudiation of his failed business practices and I was happy to see him go away.  

But somehow, to my great dismay,  Trump re-injected himself into the mainstream playing himself on TV.   In 1999 he began to inject himself into the world of politics – talking out of both sides of his mouth as he donated money to both Kerry and Bush.  Since then his political contributions include questioning Obama’s birthplace and flip-flopping on issues.  According to an article in Newsweek by Howard Kurtz.

“Trump declared in 2000 that “we must have universal health care”; now he says Obamacare is unconstitutional. He once pronounced himself “strongly pro-choice” but recently discovered that, guess what, he’s pro-life. Obama was “amazing” and “phenomenal,” Trump wrote in 2009; now, not so much. And while Newt Gingrich is branded an adulterer, Trump conducted a tabloid-frenzy affair with Marla Maples, the second of his three wives.”

www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/24/the-trump-backlash.html

While endorsing Romney,  Trump claimed “ I have a great relationship, as you know, with the Tea Party folks. I mean, I love the Tea Party…..I have a great relationship with the entire Christian Coalition. I have amazing friendships in that whole group. And I love them and I respect them.”

What aspects of the Christian Coalition does Donald exemplify?  Shouldn’t the Coalition be objecting to someone like Trump?  Does anyone think Trump lives his life with Christian values - can we take any of this seriously? 

The Tea Party and Donald?  Exactly what points of convergence are there between Trump and the Tea Party.   According to a story in the L.A. Times “top issues among the self-identified Tea Party followers are jobs/the economy and the exploding federal deficit.”  Does anyone think Trump’s business practices of repeated bankruptcies hasn’t contributed to the federal deficit by fleecing banks? ABC News reports that Trump businesses have actually gone through Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times - in 1991, 1992, 2004 and most recently in 2009. Trump used the government and abused the system to further his own end. 

www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-filed-bankruptcy-times/story?id=13419250#.Ty7KqsWXSRg

"I've used the laws of this country to pare debt. ... We'll have the company. We'll throw it into a chapter. We'll negotiate with the banks. We'll make a fantastic deal. You know, it's like on 'The Apprentice.' It's not personal. It's just business,"  Maybe that's part of what's wrong with the country - it's just business.

Doug Heller, the executive director of Consumer Watchdog, said Trump is the "most egregious, almost comical example" of the disparity between what the average American faces when going through bankruptcy and the "ease with which the very rich can move in and out of bankruptcy."
Lawrence O’Donnell of MNBC referred to Trump as "lying vulgarian" who inflates his wealth and embarks on garish rounds of self-promotion in order to boost the ratings for his show.
I think there should be more people willing to stand up and say the truth.  Trump was running his mouth saying that he may be a presidential candidate - has being the President of the United States fallen so low that a huckster like Trump can be a credible candidate.

Trump Hotels& Casino Resorts, the publicly held firm, which owns gambling joints in Atlantic City and Indiana, has lost $170 million since 1996. Its stock, now trading at $6, has tumbled 83 percent from a high of $35 three years ago. The company, saddled with $2 billion in long-term debt, is often mocked by online sites like The Motley Fool and TheStreet.com. The website “thesmokinggun.com” found buried in a March 31 SEC filing that despite these financial woes, THCR has loaned Trump, the firm's chairman, a whopping $24.5 million and even gave the supposed billionaire an advance on his entire 1999 salary and expense account (another $1.5 million). www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/trump-and-crook-0

Self-aggrandizing blowhard – Donald Trump.   Now if you want a symbol of what’s wrong with America – we can start there.

If we feel the need to find people to look up to in business why don’t we use the Harris Interactive RQ Study, which measures the reputations of the 60 Most Visible Companies in the U.S.  In its most recent poll  Google ranked highest, supplanting Berkshire Hathaway, which falls to the 4th position. Johnson & Johnson ranked second again, followed by 3M Company at 3rd. Apple continues a steady rise begun in 2002, ranking 5th, as its corporate reputation catches up with its elite brand status.  Or how about in Social Responsibility - 1) Whole Foods Market; 2) Johnson & Johnson; 3) Google; 4) The Walt Disney Company; 5) Procter & Gamble Co. 

I don’t see Trump’s name up there but if you use the search engine from highly respected Google you can find plenty of stories about individuals who have been royally screwed by Donald Trump.

www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/24/the-trump-backlash.html

or if you want to have some fun with it.

www.cracked.com/blog/10-stories-about-donald-trump-you-wont-believe-are-true/
I feel bad now knocking Ferdinand Adolf Heinrich August Graf von Zeppelin in my last blog.  Count Von Zeppelin was the inventor of the dirigible or "lighter-than-air aircraft" - kind of a hot air balloon if you like.  We shouldn't have called them Zeppelins we should have called them "Trumps".

The Trump explodes over Washington

 Oh, the humanity! And all the VOTERS screaming around here. I told you; it—I can't even talk to people, their friends are out there! Ah! It's... it... it's a... ah! I... I can't talk, ladies and gentlemen. 

Solyndra and Ferdinand Adolf Heinrich August Graf von Zeppelin

A pretty cool name ruined by a shitty design

Like Zepplin, Crapper or Steely Dan, the name Solyndra will live in infamy, a symbol to some of the Obama administration’s overall failures.  Now maybe it is a stretch to say Thomas Crapper's name will live in infamy but I would not be sure how else to describe what they did to his name. The poor bastard didn't even invent the flush toilet. 

Just a shitty name ruined by a good idea

But back to Solyndra - I hadn't followed the story very much and only heard snippets which included accusations against the Obama administration, financial contributors and the company itself.  

Today I heard a story on NPR’s “Fresh Air”, Washington Post environmental correspondent Juliet Eilperin explaining  how and why the clean-tech industry boom hit a wall. (http://www.npr.org/2012/02/02/146280685/clean-tech-industry-facing-lean-times-after-solyndra). Solyndra was of course included.

And just a cool name for a shitty band

Her report prompted me to look into the story a little more.  Solyndra was a manufacturer of cylindrical panels of CIGS thin-film solar cells.  The CIGS cells were meant to compete and replace the more costly silicon panels that are currently in use.   Two things were responsible for the downfall of Zepplin, I mean Solyndra.  One was  the dramatic drop in the price of natural gas (fracking) since 2008, down 75% from its high, thereby lowering the incentive to invest in alternative energies like Solyndra.  The second item was the drop in the price of silicon, the very material Solyndra’s business model was based on replacing.  In 2009 things began to spiral down for Crapper I mean Solyndra.  In 2008 silicon for solar cells cost 450 bucks a kilo on the spot market.  In 2009 it was closer to 100 and projections were if you waited a month it may be cheaper still.   As of 2011 prices for immediate delivery fell to an average $50 to $53 a kilogram as demand dropped after European nations slashed clean-power subsidies according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance data.

Solyndra bankruptcy and the governments financial backing has become the poster child for Obama’s failures and has negatively impacted other alternative energies going forward.

Two fundraisers for Obama were linked to Solyndra LLC, the California solar company that received a $528 million federal loan and then later declared bankruptcy, prompting a federal investigation. Steve Spinner, an Energy Department adviser, raised at least $500,000 and Steve Westly, a venture capitalist who was an unpaid adviser to the department, raised between $200,000 and $500,000.

Listening to Juliet Eilperin’s story I am not so sure there the criminal accusations being made are entirely correct.  In looking into the story a bit more it seems the Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007.  It has been said that the Bush administration tried to conditionally approve the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office.  The company’s backers included private investors who had diverse political interests.

The loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.

Because one of the Solyndra investors, Argonaut Venture Capital, is funded by George Kaiser — a man who donated money to the Obama campaign — the loan guarantee has been attacked as being political in nature. What critics don’t mention is that one of the earliest and largest investors, Madrone Capital Partners, is funded by the family that started Wal-Mart, the Waltons. The Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years. 

And that about wraps it up for future alternative energy....

It appears that there is plenty of shame to go around – there was evidence Solydra’s realized that it was in trouble while still touting its chances for success to government officials.  

To me the shame in this story is the negative impact on alternative energies going forward. 

Below is a timeline published by Climate Progress and verified by Department of Energy officials - that shows how the loan guarantee came together under both administrations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

·       May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics [PV], Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

·       July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

·       February 2006 - October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.

·       December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.

·       Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.

·       October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the "company's second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location."

·       November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra's very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

·       January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE "without prejudice" because it wasn't ready for conditional commitment.

·       March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE's credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

·       June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%.

·       September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years - not the 41 days that is sometimes reported. OMB did raise some concerns in August not about the loan itself but how the loan should be "scored." OMB testified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring.

·       November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month - on time and on budget - employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.

·       February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company - which was a going concern - for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.

·       March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.

·       September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama Administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of September 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE's loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that's known to be troubled.

Iran, Ishtar and other Bombs.

I saw a story today that made my head explode– “Group urges credible U.S. military threat to Iran" Reuters News

”The United States should deploy ships, step up covert activities and sharpen its rhetoric to make more credible the threat of a U.S. military strike to stop Iran's nuclear program, a bipartisan group said on Wednesday.

Recall if you will the anti-government protests of the Iranian people in 2009 and again in 2011.  They took great risks in publicly protesting against their government.  Protesters were raped, tortured and executed.  The United States was criticized for not strongly supporting the 2009 opposition protests that was sparked by Iran’s disputed elections.  The U.S. had another opportunity to support the Iranian people during the 2011 opposition protests. Unlike the U.S. supported “Arab Spring” Egyptian and Tunisian protests the U.S did not provide the same leadership.  President Obama’s response to the Iranian protests was to say that the United States would not directly or indirectly participate in the protests in Iran.

President Obama said of the Iranian protests that "Ultimately, these are sovereign countries that have to make their own decisions. What we can do is offer moral support". Compare that to the U.S./UN military action in Libya and you clearly see the divergence in U.S. policy when it comes to supporting the Iranian people.  

But Iran is not so sovereign that we won’t bomb the bejesus out of them.  Somewhere in Karoke Heaven Ronald Reagan is singing Bomb Iran to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann.  It appears that the U.S. is more than willing to bomb Iran back to the stonemage but won’t support the Iranian people's attempt to free themselves of tyrannical rule.  I am deeply troubled by the disconnect in our policy.

Back to the Reuters story

The report by a Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) task force of Democrats, Republicans and independents is to be formally issued on Wednesday and comes amid speculation about the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Iran.”

I am glad to see that our politicians can work together to approve attacking another country but still can’t agree to reduce the deficit by raising taxes and reducing entitlements.  Maybe if we can convince the government that the rich and the elderly have banded together and intend to get their hands on some low yield nuclear devices…….