Friday, October 26, 2007

Headlines

Bush is considering air strikes again Kurdish rebels in order to please the Ottoman Empire, which just approved an invasion of Kurd controlled Iraq. Such a nice situation we are in. Maybe we won't make a whole new slew of America hating insurgents. But hey, maybe it's the way we are handling it that is making things so darn poopy. Bush's Special Envoy to Turkey thinks so. He just resigned in protest because he was so frustrated that the Bush administration lack of diplomacy efforts. But he just forgot that diplomacy IS bombs. Silly envoy.

Chicken Little says: The ice is melting, the ice is melting!!! Oh shit, it is.



Yup, that's actual NASA satellite imagery folks.

The Lt. Gov of CA called out Bush for his disastrous record on dealing with disasters. He pointed out (as did the state leaders after Katrina and the midwest tornadoes) that the absence of National Guard troops and equipment greatly hampers their ability to deal with disasters. He apparently forgot that they are busy dealing with Bush's disaster.

Bush is apparently not content with trying to deny poor kids access to healthcare, but now he wants to take away funding for helping low income people heat their homes. A program that annually costs about what one week of Iraq does is apparently just too much of a burden for taxpayers. I guess Bush figures that illness isn't an efficient enough killer of children, so he intends to freeze the lil' fuckers.

Even Fox News had to report that just 2 months ago, we had a 70% chance to get Osama, but didn't because of, according to a Col. Hunt, "incompetence" among "our government, the current administration and yes, our military leaders." Dead or Alive indeed.

The estimated cost for the Iraq occupation if continued for the next 10 years is... $2.4 t-t-trillion. Bush's spokesperson says they are not concerned with how much it costs. Isn't that nice, after selling it as only costing $50 billion we now find out it will check in at, oh, about 50 times that. And they don't care.

Scientists have denounced the "evisceration" of a CDC report on the potential health effects of global warming by the White House as "frustrating," "terrible" and "appalling." The edits reduced the initial report from 14 pages to only 6, and removed essentially any mention of potential health concerns. Dana Petrino remarked that the White House was simply trying to increase the focus on potential health benefits of global warming. She then ad-libbed how warming would help reduce cold related health concerns. A stance that wasn't even in the report, which actually did not find that there were any benefits at all. In fact it reported that any benefit from reduced cold would be outweighed by increasing heat related issues.

But you all have to remember that the scientists do not really understand the science here, the White House does. You see, political inculcation allows for true understanding. Years of education, specialization and study do not.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

The small viking made a big point in her earlier comment. What does it matter if global warming is "real" or not? Clearly there will not be a consensus within this group.

But why, given the choice, would anyone choose not to behave in a way that increases the sustainability and quality of life on planet Earth (aka the only one we have)?

On a planet where demand for water is doubling every 20 years, outpacing population growth, a planet where in less than 20 years, it is estimated that demand for fresh water will exceed the world's supply by over 50 percent, how can being "green" or an "environmentalist" be a political issue?

Why is concern for the future of humanity a "liberal" issue? It seems like common sense to me. We need to drink water to live. Protect the water sources, keep them clean and safe to drink, find sustainable solutions to water consumption.

If you don't like water, OK, let's move to energy. If you believe Iraq is about spreading democracy then you might as well stop reading. If you understand the concepts of corporate interests/GDP, the U.S. military industrial complex, energy needs vs consumption, and the non-renewable nature of oil, then you should have no problem turning off your lights when you leave the house, taking public transportation whenever possible, and curbing your consumption of plastic water bottles filled with what is usually tap water anyway. On a larger scale, you should have no problem supporting legislation to invest more heavily in R&D for, say, sustainable production methods, renewable energy sources and sustainable agricultural methods. It's better for business if you can continue doing that business far, far into the future, isn't it?