The Downing Street Memo and the Fantasy of Impeachment

Finally, evidence has surfaced in the American media which implies that the Bush administration (as well as Prime Minister Tony Blair and his administration) had full intention to invade Iraq on a set of conjured-up reasons for regime change well before the actual invasion in March of 2003. Not that there weren't a thousand other things that would also suggest the same, but this is a clear and consise piece of evidence that can easily be acknowledged by even the most simple-minded and ignorant of American citizens.

There is a hearing taking place in a Democratic forum as I write this, and there is talk that the implications of the whole ordeal could eventually lead to the impeachment of the President. Of course, for anyone who truly is aware of the many reasons why the Bush administration is the worst thing to happen to planet Earth besides global warming, the thought of impeachment brings about the need for a clean pair of shorts. But what are the chances of this happening?

It's funny, Bill Clinton was nearly impeached for something as petty as having an affair with Monica Lewinski- which, although everyone would agree that it was not a display of good morals, didn't result in the loss of nearly 2,000 American lives and something like 100,000 Iraqi lives. Would fixing facts and evidence to support a regime change and control the resources of a foreign country without just cause be more deserving of impeachment than sexual misconduct?

I'll bet that if you ask FOX news, they'll tell you that it isn't and somehow they'll make you believe it.

UPDATE (6-17-05): I did some surfing this morning at about 4:00AM to see what kind of coverage this story is getting, and there wasn't any at that time- apart from CNN, who has covered the issue quite well; and FOX News, who seemed to leave out a lot of details and skewed the story as usual. I just checked CBS news again and it seems that they have published the article that was written by the associated press yesterday (or the day before?). This issue may actually turn out to be a smoking gun if it gets enough attention.

Will humanity survive the 21st century?

As you can probably ascertain from my previous post, I am what some people would consider to be a huge nerd. I like to think of myself as the Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde of nerds- I switch from being a nerd to being a socialite on command, only I don't need a potion to do it (I have found that alcohol has an unpredictable effect... it usually only amplifies whichever state I happen to be in at the time of consumption). Anyway, being an avid Star Trek fan goes along with the nerdy side of my personality. What really appeals to me about Star Trek is not just the cool toys and super-powerful starships, but also the ideology behind it that sets a goal for mankind. In the Star Trek world of the 24th century there is no money and there are no poor people. By then, the world has become a collective commune that all people are equally included in. There are no evil multinational corporations and there are no wars (at least on Earth). Earth's environment is well protected and things seem like they can't really get to be any better. As much as I would like to think that this is where we will be in another 300 years, I know that there is probably a 1/10,000th chance that man will have achieved any of these goals by then.

The Obstacles

1. "Peak Oil" and the struggle to maintain a high level of energy consumption around the globe. Oil is a finite resource, folks. It is estimated that peak world oil production should be reached somewhere between 2005 and 2015. This means that oil, which provides about 90% of the energy in the U.S. and is used for countless other things, will be more and more difficult and expensive to get in the near future. Without oil, we will be forced to make MAJOR changes in our way of life, and there will certainly be a lot of fighting over the control of the last of it (i.e. Iraq and soon to be Iran).

2. Global Warming: I don't care what Michael Crichton says, the Earth's environment is changing. You can't burn as many chemicals as we do an expect it to not have any effect on the atmosphere.

3. The threat of Nuclear War: despite the end of the Cold War, we are not as safe as we would like to think. Listen to this interview with Dr. Helen Caldicott (10MB) for a good lesson on the subject of our status in the post-Cold War era.

4. Impending economic crisis: At this moment in time, our economies (here in the "First World") have now become growingly dependant on technology. This includes electricity and communications. When I say 'communications', specifically, I am referring to satellites. With the Bush administration going forward with the weaponization of space, satellites will be in more of a threat of being destroyed intentionally or accidentally (from the collision with space debris- created from the destruction of other satellites or orbiting objects- which travel at about 17,500mph). The loss of certain satellites would have serious consequences down here on Earth. This is also covered in the interview that I mentioned previously.

While two of these things don't neccessarily mean the end of all life on Earth, they still represent something that would be a major setback in the progress of mankind. These are things that we should all be aware of and take into consideration.