NO English Al Jazeera

[thinkingaboutit]

Okay so it really shouldn't be in dispute at this point that Bush and Cheney and their families and friends have profited from the Iraq War.

Now although I've been building this case, I'm not wholly convinced that he didn't think it was best for America. Bush might feel that the USA should do anything it can to control the strategic oil reserves in the Middle East. He might feel that America will somehow eventually perish or at least lose its pre-eminence in the world unless it steals Iraq's oil. But clearly he's not opposed to making some bucks while he's at it.

But really, if Bush truly cares about the people of the USA and isn't just out for himself and his family, why would he try to obfuscate as serious a problem as climate change?

Bush Ripped on Global Warming

Luke O'Brien 02.07.07 | 3:00 PM
WASHINGTON -- Congress continued to probe allegations Wednesday that the Bush administration tried to muzzle government scientists on climate change and suppress scientific research, including a comprehensive report in 2000 on global warming's impact on the United States.
During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers weighed in with harsh words for an administration that has come under fire in the 110th Congress for its stance on climate change.
"One incidence of political tampering with science is too many," said Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the committee chairman, referring to a survey released last week by two advocacy groups that showed widespread political interference in research related to global warming.
"For years we have been frustrated by the lack of recognition and cooperation on the part of the administration on addressing this issue," said Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona).
Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) blasted the alleged political meddling, calling it "George Orwell at its best."
At the hearing, several witnesses testified that they had experienced or seen political interference by the Bush administration in climate-change science. Witnesses said press officers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other agencies had manipulated or obstructed media interviews with government scientists. Witnesses also said that important research on global warming had been downplayed, edited or suppressed by a system of "minders" and "gatekeepers."
Rick Piltz, the director of the climate science watch program at watchdog group the Government Accountability Project, said the Bush administration effectively quashed official use of the 2000 National Assessment report on global warming in the United States.
According to Piltz, who worked for White House climate-change programs from 1995 to 2005, the report remains "the most comprehensive, scientifically based assessment of the potential consequences of climate change for the United States." In his written statement, he called the suppression of the report "the central climate science scandal of the (Bush) administration."

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/02/72672

 

[fuelair]

You people are ridiculous. I am by no means a ct'er or 911er or whatever you want to call them.


I'm sorry you're not understanding my point. Perhaps if you'll indulge me we can go a little farther here.

Is there a network or channel calling for Bush's impeachment? Is there reason to impeach Bush?

Is there a network or channel advocating an anti-war position in the USA? i.e. let's not occupy foreign lands like Afghanistan and Iraq etc.

Is there a network or channel that has a large focus on poverty as an issue? Do you agree that poverty is an issue which should be a priority?

You see it as natural that virtually all networks are relatively monolithic in their content?

Do you dispute my contention that media ownership is highly concentrated?

Advocating Bush impeachment yes (if by network you mean shows on a network) or at least strongly emphasizing it when it comes up.
Advocating pure anti-war, Pacifica and some small stations - no network would be dumb enough to do that since very few of us are anti-war. We do not like war (for the most part), but most of us recognise it is sometimes necessary. Many networks have shows on which the Iraq war has been argued against/presented as a bad idea, probably none say the same about Afghanistan.
networks, like any other rational businesses still exist for one actual reason - to make money for their owners. If the network goes beyond what a large number of potential members of it's audience will accept it loses money/audience. Not going to happen - i.e. it is pretty monolithic toward middle of the road slightly liberal (except Faux Pnews which is right oriented).
It makes little difference whether it is concentrated or not - if it strays too far from what the audience wants, it goes out of business. Not saying that is good, just saying unless you have a way of forcing audiences to listen to what you might wish they were hearing, you have to have money enough to prove what I am saying is wrong - by creating your own network - and I bet if you make it really clear why you are trying to do it, none of the existing nets will lift a finger to stop you - 'cause they already know what will happen and will likely have pools going on how long you will last.

I almost hate to say this last one but thanks to ads from Save the Children, We are the world, regular newscasts, documentaries, etc. most people now feel almost free to joke about the ads and programs - at some point they kind of realised something like this " I've been giving to these programs, my church/school/office has been giving to these programs, my country has been giving to these programs, other countries have been giving to these programs. But I still keep seeing ads and news and specials on this. It looks like nothing we can do is going to fix this so let's concentrate on something we can,maybe, fix. With no offense, just recognition that there are tipping points, most people have been tipped into the feeling that it is pointless overall so it is the same as if it had just become boring. Let's find a new problem of the week/month / year/ decade. Poverty could be an issue if it were reasonably solveable - if all parts of the world where it exists could be turned into fertile lands with no disease, heavy population control, lots of potable water, complete halt to ethnic warfare and ethnic/tribal hatred including religion-based hate, decent educational systems for all, available efficient energy, etc............ Wake me when that happens - or when you figure out how to make it happen without dropping everyone's standard of living a really big amount.

 

[fuelair]

Minor flaw, too late to edit, in last line: " everyone's" should be "lots of people's".