Maginations

Let me sing to you my song of love.
Thoughts emotions …
Vague in the instant
Yet clear in eternity.

Crystalline teardrop prisms fall,
A kaleidoscope of color, meaning…

He sits in his room, his asylum
Pondering, feeling, reaching out…

Has it all been a dream he wonders. I feel so great, so right, so true…

Echoes of the past…
Thoughts real in the moment
Yet untrue upon reflection.

Yes,
True,
Pure.

In an instant he tastes mortality.
Dreams unrealized
Fear, emotion, impotence…

He remembers a dream,
Not of this world yet real.

Broken thoughts
Impossible concentration.

A child is so fragile.
Swirl of emotion
Clear, yet out of reach.

I awoke to fear one day!
Not from self…of self
Yet
Real
Painful.

A presence looms over the child.
"is this real?"
"I don't know".
"Am I safe?"
"Illusion".

Memories, the echoes of his mind crowd him now.

I think
See
Feel
Am.

Is that all?
Is too much ever enough?

Impossible concentration…
Connection
Sudden.

Striken by emotion he rests
All becomes clear, yet…

Too much.

It grows within
Wanders without
Enfolding in mystery.

The end.
Is that all?
Whispers now……………..

yesss…. Read more!

The end of divine rule by George W. Bush

Follow up: The Greater Ramifications

There are ramifications to yesterday’s decision regarding the Clean Air Act that surpass a mere decision regarding the issue of global warming and the role of the EPA. I consider this a significant casein that it has much to do with the system of checks and balances created by the framers of the U.S. constitution.

What has happened in this case, and in the greater arena of U.S. politics in general, is that the executive branch has overstepped its boundaries regarding the realization of the legislative intent of the clean air act. As the Supreme Court notes, the intent in enacting the Clean Air act was both exact and unambiguous. If you take the time to read the full published opinion in this case, the Supreme Court mentions on more than one occasion that the intent of legislature, or “Congressional design” , was stated clearly in this act. At one point it refers to the act’s “clear statutory command” and goes on to state that ”There is no reason, much less a compelling reason, to accept EPA’s invitation to read ambiguity into a clear statute”.

What we have here is a President, acting in his capacity as the head of the executive branch, trying to usurp the authority of Congress by directing the EPA to ignore their statutory mandates. This is in full defiance of the separation of powers in the U.S. and in this case the President was called on it.

One of the primary functions of the Supreme Court is to set forth guidelines for the judiciary in reviewing questions of law. In this instance the court has issued an opinion clearly rebuking this president for violating the law and the powers of congress. In this context I see this decision as having implications that permeate nearly every department and agency within the executive branch of government.

George W. Bush (or George II, the boy who would be king, as I refer to him) has since arriving in office attempted to control the government and media through fear tactics and abuse of his power over the agencies, divisions, and departments falling under his command. This behavior is clearly violative of the basic rules of government enacted by our founding fathers over two hundred years ago. I see this as the first significant step in taking our boy king off his throne. This opinion and its clearly stated warning to the EPA pave the road for other departments to act in defiance of executive manipulation and control over their lawful exercise of authority in a manner consistent with the laws of the land. The following months are likely to prove interesting indeed.

And in conclusion there is yet one more issue to present. Why has the mainstream press in the U.S. completely ignored the greater implications of this opinion? It seems that while Bush’s stranglehold of power over government is coming to its end his assertion of control over the media remains ever strong.
Read more!

Bush, the EPA and the Environment: NEW HOPE?

On Monday, April 2nd of 2007 the Supreme Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles and that its stated reasons for not doing so were inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. The EPA and Bush administration have argued against the EPA’s assertion of its authority noting a number of reasons: that it would hinder the President’s ability “to negotiate with 'key developing nations' to reduce emissions”, that it would in fact be too small a step in addressing concerns of global warming, and that voluntary regulation is preferable. In ruling against these assertions, the court went on to rebuke President Bush by noting that:” while the President has broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws."

The relevant portion of the Clean Air Act in this decision reads as follows:

“The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time
revise)in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards
applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgement cause, or
contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare…”

The court looked to this act and went on to note that the Clean Air Act "and common sense...demand regulatory action to prevent harm, even if the regulator is less than certain that harm is otherwise inevitable."

In looking to its authority to hear the case the court stated the following regarding injuries:

"The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. ...a
number of environmental changes that have already inflicted significant harms,
including the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover
extent, the earlier spring melting of rivers and lakes [and] the accelerated
rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few
thousand years ...."

The EPA's main defense for its inaction seemed to be that any attempt at regulation would be futile as there are many other countries contributing to global warming ("because predicted increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing nations, particularly China and India, are likely to offset any marginal domestic decrease”). The court failed to agree with this assertion noting that: "Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop. ... They instead whittle away at them over time, refining their preferred approach as circumstances change and as they develop a more-nuanced understanding of how best to proceed." The court went on to note that:

"To put this in perspective: Considering just emissions from the
transportation sector, which represents less than one-third of this country's
total carbon dioxide emissions, the United States would still rank as the
third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, outpaced only by the
European Union and China. Judged by any standard, U.S. motor-vehicle
emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations and
hence, according to petitioners, to global warming."

The EPA itself argued that "a number of voluntary executive branch programs already provide an effective response to the threat of global warming, that regulating greenhouse gases might impair the President's ability to negotiate with 'key developing nations' to reduce emissions, and that curtailing motor-vehicle emissions would reflect 'an inefficient, piecemeal approach to address the climate change issue". In looking to at these arguments the court stated that "EPA has been charged with protecting the public's 'health' and 'welfare' ...." and went on to add that: "EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate."

In its concluding findings the court held that

“Although we have neither the expertise nor the authority to evaluate these
policy judgments, it is evident they have nothing to do with whether greenhouse
gas emissions contribute to climate change. Still less do they amount to a
reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment....If the
scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a
reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming,
EPA must say so. That EPA would prefer not to regulate greenhouse gases because
of some residual uncertainty....is irrelevant. The statutory question is whether
sufficient information exists to make an endangerment finding. In short, EPA has
offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse
gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore
'arbitrary, capricious, ...or otherwise not in accordance with law'.... We hold
... the EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute."

This decision is a resounding defeat to the Bush administration’s policy of complacency and laissez faire governmental policy when it comes to the environment. As the court duly noted, the EPA has been entrusted to look after the health and welfare of the country, its citizens, and the environment. This opinion sends a clear signal to the lower courts and legislatures that no longer is it acceptable for agencies to stand idly by while the future of the citizens of this country and indeed the world live in peril. Courts and legislatures nationwide have awaited this decision in anticipation of the application of its finding to their own affairs. And now they can move boldly into the twenty-first century with both clarity and authority.

Read more!