More than ever,  with each passing day of late, as I read more and more about the ongoing and imminent devastation of our national and global economies, I'm getting the sense of  watching one of those formulaic, sci-fi disaster flicks where a handful of scientists and some people in the White House are the only ones aware of some impending catastrophe that's going to change just about everything in our lives as we now know it.

At this point,  as far as the national and global economies are concerned, I would have to concur that the writing is, indeed, on the wall, and things are quickly spiralling out of control on a worldwide basis, economically.  It's a catastrophe that very rapidly lies not too far ahead of us, too. We really are "Facing a Greater Depression." And, as even President-elect Obama now openly discusses it, things are going to get much worse before they get better.

(cross posted at kickin it with cg and motley moose)

Back in August Stephen Hockman QC proposed an interesting idea. Namely proposing that a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment. Hockman argues that for the lack of solutions at hand for addressing climate change, "only an impartial adjudicating body is capable of providing the catalyst for a global consensus as to the fairest way to distribute the burdens that accompany solutions to the climate change problem."

The understandable reluctance of developing countries to sign up to carbon commitments - unless the developed world is prepared to make an equitable contribution - calls for more radical options. Those options must be realised at state, regional and international levels, and they will require political, economic and legal solutions.

In this mix, international legal instruments are crucial. The existing tools lack the necessary jurisdiction, clout and transparency. The time is ripe for a serious consideration of an international court for the environment. Such a court was mooted in Washington in 1999, but sank without trace. Today, however, we cannot afford to drop the ball.

Hockman, who is also a trustee of Client Earth, a nonprofit environmental law group, argued that such an institution would also offer a centralized system, "an enhanced body of law regarding environmental issues, and consistency in the resolution of environmental disputes". He wrote that such a court should be compulsory and have its own scientific body to assess technical issues.

However some are skeptical as to whether this concept would work, as Environmental Capital notes:

But what about the two giants in that global economy? The U.S. and China together account for about half the world's greenhouse-gas emissions. Any meaningful climate-change pact begins and ends with what Washington and Beijing decide. And while both presidential candidates are less hostile to the ICC, ceding control to supra-national jurisdictions generally gives the U.S. pause. Chinese leaders, meanwhile, have not traditionally embraced global law or institutions with open arms.

Concluded Environmental Capital: "Are lawyers really the best way to save the earth?"

Diary A: Obama hasn't been inaugurated yet, but he already sucks! By Clinton Supporter
Diary B: Clinton Supporters are mouth-breathing morons! By Obama Supporter
Diary C: Can't we all just get along? By Reconciler

What do all these diaries have in common? They are about TEH DRAMA!

We need to change the subject.

Like many people, I am excited about the possibilities for change that the Obama presidency embodies. As in his campaign communication, Obama's transition communication has been cutting edge and fabulous at producing a consistent image. Take, for example, the excitingly accessible transition site his team has produced: change.gov.

Access. This site symbolizes democratic access and community.

First it is simple, a two column structure with nine tabs line the header:home, newsroom, blog, learn, agenda, America Moment, America Serves, Jobs, About. On the home/arrival page, you find yourself staring at and being stared at by Obama, who is poised to address you thanks to Youtube. The newsroom, or press releases from Obama, actually appears on the home page, below the video.

The blog encourages you to  "Watch Your Weekly Address now," and true to the participatory genre and thus expectations of blogs, it asks the visitor to "then send us your questions or ideas about how to fix the economy." It sounds right, except you can't post comments. And cynics who have tried to write legislators in the past, will be wary of the sincerity of the suggestion. It will probably be considered like focus group and survey information in order to craft more scientifically messages to mass and niche markets--I mean, uh, voters.

Religious institutions have been attacking the Constitution and the people of the United States long enough.  I don't want their money, but it is the only way to get their goddamn mitts off of my government.

(Cross posted at The National Gadfly)

Many in the mass media, in an attenpt to try to explain the "why" of America's economic problems have looked in the wrong area. In this insightful column, award-winning journalist Walter Brasch explains why the workers and their unions are not the problem.

You remember those - - to start withdrawing, a little at a time, as soon as practicable immediately after the inauguration.  Not all at once, not unconditionally, but starting right away, continuing as permitted in reaction to conditions on the ground, and maybe even keeping a residual force.

Did the Democratic Party secretly plan to give the next nominee a Clintonista cage?