Another Moron Mismanages, Oh, Maybe the Most Important Issue EVER

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin:

“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

“As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”

Shorter NASA Administrator Michael Griffin:

'As you know, you live (and die) with the climate you have. They’re not the climate you might want or wish to have at a later time.'

Enough said. No, I take that back, not enough said – there are not adequate words for what should be said. Insert guttural primal noise HERE.



Update - Here's the email I sent to NPR about their reporting of this on Morning Edition:

Thank you for Steve Inskeep’s reporting that provided us with NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s views concerning climate change, but I am deeply disappointed that NPR elected not to completely fulfill its journalistic responsibilities in this report.

Griffin's eerie mirroring of Donald Rumsfeld’s irresponsible unwillingness to plan for and act on potentially disastrous scenarios – (Rumsfeld: “As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time”; Griffin: “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.”) – aside, I was stunned by the ideologically positioned empty moral posturing of his statement: “…I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”

Why, of course, Administrator Griffin, in the context of his straightforward recognition of anthropogenic climate change, has precisely and unilaterally decided that HE is “... to be accorded the privilege of deciding …[the] particular climate that we have” - and perhaps a not very forgiving climate at that - by refusing to take action on our placement of over 10 TRILLION pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. I think it borders on journalistic misfeasance for your reporters to be served up such conspicuous garbage from a public official and not point it out to your listeners.

An Open Letter to Former U.S. Attorney John McKay

Several recent editorials in our local newspaper by commentator Adele Ferguson addressed your situation as U.S Attorney. She claimed that US Attorneys are simply political appointees serving at the whim of the President, and that citizens should really expect no higher standard than political considerations in the handling of personnel matters for these important government posts, implying that if you were asked to resign solely for political reasons we should all just get over it. Oddly, considering that according to her first point no substantive rationale is necessary, she also alleged your firing was justified for performance reasons, though her allegation differed with the performance-based rationale provided by the Department of Justice.

First, I would like to know, based on your experience as US Attorney and your legal expertise and familiarity with the American justice system, what I should expect of the U.S. Department of Justice. That is, as a voter, taxpayer and citizen, is it unreasonable of me to expect the Department of Justice to operate in a fair, non-partisan fashion, that is, that US Attorneys, once appointed by the President, serve the United States to the best of their ability by evaluating cases on their legal merits and importance, upholding the laws as they are written? I had thought this is a big part of what is meant by the phrase: “the rule of law.” Or should I accept the Department of Justice for which Ms. Ferguson advocates, one that is a political tool of whichever party controls it, recognizing that it will pursue an agenda motivated principally by partisan considerations? Which one of these approaches do you think better serves the interests of our nation?

Second, do you think that perhaps Ms. Ferguson has somehow obtained information to which you and the office of the U.S. Attorney did not have access, or that her legal judgment is more acute than yours and the professionals in the U.S Attorney’s office in Seattle. She seems quite certain that a mistake was made in a high visibility case, despite extraordinary public interest, and the expertise, deliberative processes and checks and balances which your office brought to bear, and in spite of your record of accomplishments, your positive performance reviews, and your professional and political credentials (not least of which is that you are a republican nominated to your position by a republican president). I wonder whether in retrospect and given Ms. Ferguson’s profound insight, it might not have been appropriate to hire her as consultant to the U.S. Attorney’s office?

I suppose I should point out that it might bother me significantly if you answered that I should expect the DOJ to be a partisan political tool. I, and I suspect many others, could lose faith in our legal system. I cannot shake a sense that Ms. Ferguson’s prospectus for the Department of Justice is not consistent with the sentiment “… and justice for all”. On the other hand, I can easily see that having someone on the staff of the U.S. Attorney’s office who can determine when crimes have been committed without having to resort to the difficult process of availing themselves of the facts would be a great convenience. Thank you for considering my questions.