Some reasons why George Bush is an Asshole
A friend of mine inquired:
"...what is your opinion regarding the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina? Also, tell me about the environmental reasons why we are having so many hurricanes, I mean is it nature or is it attributed to greenhouse gas emissions?"
My Response:
About the Katrina stuff. My stance on the whole thing is kind of complicated. I don't think that Bush was really responsible for getting all those people out of there before the storm, that should have been more heavily pursued by the local governments. I think people stayed just because they had lived through hurricanes before, and they figured it wouldn't be that bad. So, you can't 'force' people to be more safe, in a lot of cases it was their own choice to stay. (I think if anyone knew how bad it would be they would have put more effort into getting people to leave.)
As far as Bush's role in the whole situation, he didn't really 'cause' any of this, but it does highlight a few of the MANY things he is doing wrong. There is no reason he would want to provide help to the people in New Orleans because that is not where his constituency is. He has no incentive to care about poor black people, they wouldn't vote for him anyway. So, true he didn't try to get them out, but he also cut their social programs, and made life harder on them for the last 5 years. So I don't see how this is any different. The thing in New Orleans is a compelling news story, but no one mentions the millions of other people who are being hurt by Bush's policies. You have to ask yourself, if the people in New Orleans had better public schools, better social programs, better health care, better public transportation, better jobs, would as many have been poor enough and uninformed enough to stay behind? Bush is giving tax cuts to the richest 1% in the country while others can barely survive. He is helping to increase the gap between rich and poor, and eliminate the middle class. So, no he didn't help to get them out, and no he didn't care, until however it got on the news. Now he is SOOO full of compassion for the struggling people.
About the Kyoto protocol: I believe, and I think good science supports, that there are some major environmental changes going on that we caused and are causing. Exactly what those changes are, and will be, is not yet clear, but soon enough we will be finding out. There is no way to prove that Katrina was stronger because of climate change, but I suppose it is possible. The real effects of global climate change probably won't start for another couple decades, but people are using this as an example of the type of thing we will see more and more of as the effects become clear. I think it's a little misleading to say Katrina happened because of climate change, but maybe it will get people to wake up to the issue.
Now, Bush's stance is: there is nothing happening, nothing will happen, and if the climate changes we'll deal with that then. Basically he has decided to ignore the issue because it will cost too much to do anything about it. The "scientific community" is pretty unified about the fact that 'something' is happening. People argue about the specifics, and the time line for change, and exactly what the changes will cause, but something is happening and we are causing it. You can't pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year and expect nothing to happen. (The Ozone layer taught us we CAN in fact change the atmosphere. Depletion of the Ozone layer is FACT, everyone agrees that is going on, but at first the conservatives said that wasn't happening either.)
So, the Kyoto protocol was meant to be a first step in trying to stem this problem, at least slow it down a little. (I think the theory is: there is a 50 year lag between when the carbon is emitted and when the effects would be felt, so even if we were to stop using all fossil fuels right now we would still have 50 more years of climate change.) The protocol is a flawed document, full of wishy-washy language that probably wouldn't have too much impact even if everyone were to comply with it. BUT the reason it is like that is so that countries like the US would sign onto it. It is only supposed to be a first step, an admission that there might be a problem. And Bush refuses to do even that. The science is against him, but he clings to little uncertainties and says nothing is happening. For the people who are working their entire lives trying to stop some of this problem it is maddening.
(Not to mention the fact that if the US doesn't ratify Kyoto soon, and really start putting it's political power behind it, there is no way we're going to get China and India to control their emissions 30 years down the line when they are doing even more damage than we are.)
In Europe they have basically accepted that something is happening and they are doing the little they can to do something about it. They try to have good public transportation, and expensive gas so people use less of it. It doesn't fix the problem, but it at least it is an attempt to deal with it somehow. It is an accepted fact of life, and they find it astonishing that the US can be so oblivious. (I do as well.)
So, that's it. No, Kyoto wouldn't have stopped Katrina at all, and no, Bush wasn't responsible for helping those people get out of New Orleans, but he sure isn't helping matters. (Again, not to mention the fact that he thinks nothing of invading countries without international approval, won't join the international criminal court, won't help secure Russia's nuclear stock pile, gave up talks with North Korea, backed out of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty so he could develop his missile defense system (which is and was sure to be, a total failure), and generally doesn't give a fuck about what the rest of the world thinks.)
I get pretty livid about all this stuff just because I'm constantly having to defend myself about Bush's foreign policy. I have to tell people over and over 'I didn't vote for him.' 'It's not my fault.' The people here (Switzerland) really aren't very pleased with the US. I can't really blame them.
Anyway, that's why I didn't vote for Bush :)
"...what is your opinion regarding the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina? Also, tell me about the environmental reasons why we are having so many hurricanes, I mean is it nature or is it attributed to greenhouse gas emissions?"
My Response:
About the Katrina stuff. My stance on the whole thing is kind of complicated. I don't think that Bush was really responsible for getting all those people out of there before the storm, that should have been more heavily pursued by the local governments. I think people stayed just because they had lived through hurricanes before, and they figured it wouldn't be that bad. So, you can't 'force' people to be more safe, in a lot of cases it was their own choice to stay. (I think if anyone knew how bad it would be they would have put more effort into getting people to leave.)
As far as Bush's role in the whole situation, he didn't really 'cause' any of this, but it does highlight a few of the MANY things he is doing wrong. There is no reason he would want to provide help to the people in New Orleans because that is not where his constituency is. He has no incentive to care about poor black people, they wouldn't vote for him anyway. So, true he didn't try to get them out, but he also cut their social programs, and made life harder on them for the last 5 years. So I don't see how this is any different. The thing in New Orleans is a compelling news story, but no one mentions the millions of other people who are being hurt by Bush's policies. You have to ask yourself, if the people in New Orleans had better public schools, better social programs, better health care, better public transportation, better jobs, would as many have been poor enough and uninformed enough to stay behind? Bush is giving tax cuts to the richest 1% in the country while others can barely survive. He is helping to increase the gap between rich and poor, and eliminate the middle class. So, no he didn't help to get them out, and no he didn't care, until however it got on the news. Now he is SOOO full of compassion for the struggling people.
About the Kyoto protocol: I believe, and I think good science supports, that there are some major environmental changes going on that we caused and are causing. Exactly what those changes are, and will be, is not yet clear, but soon enough we will be finding out. There is no way to prove that Katrina was stronger because of climate change, but I suppose it is possible. The real effects of global climate change probably won't start for another couple decades, but people are using this as an example of the type of thing we will see more and more of as the effects become clear. I think it's a little misleading to say Katrina happened because of climate change, but maybe it will get people to wake up to the issue.
Now, Bush's stance is: there is nothing happening, nothing will happen, and if the climate changes we'll deal with that then. Basically he has decided to ignore the issue because it will cost too much to do anything about it. The "scientific community" is pretty unified about the fact that 'something' is happening. People argue about the specifics, and the time line for change, and exactly what the changes will cause, but something is happening and we are causing it. You can't pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year and expect nothing to happen. (The Ozone layer taught us we CAN in fact change the atmosphere. Depletion of the Ozone layer is FACT, everyone agrees that is going on, but at first the conservatives said that wasn't happening either.)
So, the Kyoto protocol was meant to be a first step in trying to stem this problem, at least slow it down a little. (I think the theory is: there is a 50 year lag between when the carbon is emitted and when the effects would be felt, so even if we were to stop using all fossil fuels right now we would still have 50 more years of climate change.) The protocol is a flawed document, full of wishy-washy language that probably wouldn't have too much impact even if everyone were to comply with it. BUT the reason it is like that is so that countries like the US would sign onto it. It is only supposed to be a first step, an admission that there might be a problem. And Bush refuses to do even that. The science is against him, but he clings to little uncertainties and says nothing is happening. For the people who are working their entire lives trying to stop some of this problem it is maddening.
(Not to mention the fact that if the US doesn't ratify Kyoto soon, and really start putting it's political power behind it, there is no way we're going to get China and India to control their emissions 30 years down the line when they are doing even more damage than we are.)
In Europe they have basically accepted that something is happening and they are doing the little they can to do something about it. They try to have good public transportation, and expensive gas so people use less of it. It doesn't fix the problem, but it at least it is an attempt to deal with it somehow. It is an accepted fact of life, and they find it astonishing that the US can be so oblivious. (I do as well.)
So, that's it. No, Kyoto wouldn't have stopped Katrina at all, and no, Bush wasn't responsible for helping those people get out of New Orleans, but he sure isn't helping matters. (Again, not to mention the fact that he thinks nothing of invading countries without international approval, won't join the international criminal court, won't help secure Russia's nuclear stock pile, gave up talks with North Korea, backed out of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty so he could develop his missile defense system (which is and was sure to be, a total failure), and generally doesn't give a fuck about what the rest of the world thinks.)
I get pretty livid about all this stuff just because I'm constantly having to defend myself about Bush's foreign policy. I have to tell people over and over 'I didn't vote for him.' 'It's not my fault.' The people here (Switzerland) really aren't very pleased with the US. I can't really blame them.
Anyway, that's why I didn't vote for Bush :)
posted by -E at 11:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home