Usually I try to write on a single topic, so that in the future you can find interesting, relevant blog posts more easily.  Today, though, what I'm seeing is a juxtaposition of two topics that alone ae interesting to me, but together aought to be interesting to everyone.  


    There are two long-term threats to the political stability of the world that we are in a position to do something about right now.  The one that everyone is talking about today is global warming.  I'm not going to talk today about whether we have had any effect on global climate change.  The fact is, our climate is warming, and this will bring changes to our geopolitics.  At the same time, and whether or not it's related, depandance on carbon fuels is lessening, and this is going to change our world.  We need to be prepared for a new balance of power, one where the traditional energy producers of the last 50 years fade into less significance, and new players emerge.  We also need to be prepared to cope with mass migrations as the parts of the earth most desirable for inhabitation change.  It may be as simple as a move from east Texas to west Texas, or it may be as dramatic as a move from New York to Adak, AK, and that's just movements inside the US.  There will be dramatic population shifts outside as well.


    The second is terrorism.  Right now most of the terrorists are cloaking their actions in the language of Islam, but that does not make them Islamic, any more than the KKK represent christanity (If yhou think the KKK are a good example of christanity, please stop reading my blog.  Now.)  If we were to convince enough of the Islamic world to repudiate them, theu would not go away, they would just change their rhetoric.  We need to win the war, and to do so, we need to better understand the war.  We can't win by giving them what they ask for, because that will teach those that feel disenfranchised that terror and violence are reasonable ways to get what they want.  We also can't kill every last one of them, because who they are changes so quickly.  It would be like fighting a hydra.


    So what's the connection between the two, besides both of them being bad?  Here's the connection.  Our president of hope and change is not doing enough about either of them.  He gives himself a B+ for the job he's done so far, but the next day, it is revealed that he is denying the military the ability to use it's most successful weapon, the predator drone, against some targets.  He talks about the need to do something about climate change, but the treaty he is trying to bring back to the US does not do the necessary job.  He's a good speaker, and he puts on a good show, but there doesn't seem to be anything behind the show.  That won't win him the loyalty he will need from the Democrats to hold the white house in 2012, but if it's the best he can do, that's a good thing.