Global Warming: Hoax, Hype & Hidden Agenda Posted by gregjaye08 in Untagged

 http://polzoo.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Global-Warming-Hoax-Hype-amp-Hidden-Agenda.html/Itemid,41/

 

Earlier this month 500 people attended the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City. The conference was virtually ignored by the biased main stream media and the cadre of global warming alarmists. The attendees  ... were some very well respected (many retired) scientists, researchers, academicians, policy makers and business people. 

 

 The purpose of the conference was to contest the notion put forth by the main stream media and academia that the global warming debate is over. It also was intended to contest the apparent mandate of the global warming alarmists that drastic measures must be undertaken immediately to avoid global catastrophe, end of discussion.

After an intense 2-day conference with 100 presentations one of the chief results of the conference was the following declaration. I have added bold lettering for emphasis. If you don't read anything else read the words in bold to garner the gist of the insightful declaration, which says in part . . .  Go here to read the entire Declaration.

 

The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

Global warming is not a global crisis . . .

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life; . . .

Hereby declare:

. . .  THAT THERE IS NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT CO2 EMISSIONS FROM MODERN INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY HAS IN THE PAST, IS NOW, OR WILL IN THE FUTURE CAUSE CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE.

. . .  That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis . . .

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008. [End of Declaration]

 

... Myron Ebell told Tony Perkins on the Family Research Center's Washington Watch Radio Show recently that among conference participants were many scientists, economists, policy makers who do not agree that there is a consensus on global warming. In fact, there are two distinct camps on the question of global warming or climate control, the skeptics and their opponents the alarmists.

The global warming alarmists, with the aid of the main stream media, have declared that there is scientific consensus on global warming. This is similar to what academia and the scientific community say about another flawed theory, evolution. Ebell indicated that the alarmists were invited to the conference, but all declined. As Glenn Beck's video shows, few reporters or journalists covered this important conference ...

 

... Ebell summarizes it this way, "The first step in this debate is that we have got to limit our use of burning coal, oil and natural gas." Next, he says we will have to do with a lot less energy resources, "We are going to have to live more like people in poor (and) developing countries." "The next thing which you now see coming out of radical environmentalism as part of the grant-coalition supporting global warming alarmism is POPULATION CONTROL and they are very clear about it. There are way too many people on earth and we have got to radically reduce the number of people."

 

Is Reverend Wright Running for President? Posted by BalaamsAss in Obama, Democratic Primary, debates, Barack Obama, Barack

The Reverend's sudden political fame stems from a number of sermons (and particularly one connected with the September 11, 2001, attacks) delivered in his Chicago church. Excerpts from these sermons have been widely aired in the media, particularly on talk radio. Reverend Wright does not appear to have aimed at anything more than an advisory political role - something we will return to later. The main target of criticism was his friend and congregant, Senator Barack Obama.

Let me say first that the quoted speeches in no way represent my feelings towards the United States, and it is not the purpose here to defend or excuse them. But if the Reverend Wright's meaning and intention had been to encourage subversive or seditious acts, he should long ago have been prosecuted for it, particularly in the charged atmosphere which followed the World Trade Center attacks. If he was not (and this under the administration which pursues the "war on terror") then it must be concluded that his speech was political, and therefore, however insulting and hurtful it might have been, protected by the First Amendment.

It would not have been the first such occurrence. During the Vietnam conflict, stronger words were spoken, and much more was done by the war's opponents, even while American soldiers were fighting a ruthless and determined enemy. Yet the only ones singled out for arrest and prosecution were the few who clearly engaged in destructive and/or illegal acts.

The show hosts of talk radio, and their counterparts in television and the press, enjoy the same protection and the same freedom. But one may wonder whether Senator Obama's loyalty to his church and pastor is really the main issue here.

The many groups  and persons collectively referred to as "the media", have shown little interest in the candidates' positions on issues of far greater importance than their church affiliation. Why aren't these questions being asked: What the candidates intend to do, beyond "staying" or "leaving", about Iraq and the other wars; how they intend to assure America's energy supply; what their plan is (beyond hand-outs and bail-outs) to revive and redirect the economy; how to cut medical costs, beyond squeezing doctors and hospitals; and so on.

All three, Obama, Clinton and McCain, should be asked these and other hard questions, so that we know, before the vote, what they are committed to, and how they intend to discharge their commitments. The one question concerning his pastor Senator Obama should be requested to answer is whether he intends to retain Mr. Wright as a political adviser. I believe he already answered that in his recent speech, but it wouldn't hurt if he said it again.

http://polzoo.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,The-Iraq-War-A-Case-Study-in-Political-Elitism-and-Deceit.html/Itemid,41/



The Iraq War: A Case Study in Political Elitism and Deceit
Posted by Bacchus in Untagged

The rhetoric of election season is here again. I pay attention to the newsletters issued by each campaign. Despite the differences in policy, the tone is the same. The word "we" and "you" are in constant usage. With every primary victory, the message broadcasted to each base contains the phrases "We did it!" or "You made the difference!".

Perhaps some may chide my cynicism, but I cannot but help be amused by the sheer and blatant condescension so obvious in political rhetoric. Who exactly do these politicians think they are fooling when they seek to create an illusion that you are winning with them? Who are they fooling? The public, that's who. May I add, they may be forgiven if they believe they can get away with it. When the masses votes for an individual, who comes to bask in unparalleled glory, we are being told that "we made it"? Patronism at its best. When I examine the history of political behavior and the psychology of power, and compare this to the naivete of the masses, a wide chasm of perspective and understanding appear. The rhetoric that politicians utilize towards the masses are no different than the smooth talk of a car salesman to a shopper. If one is not aware of the selfish motives of those in power, you risk playing the role of the fool.

Those in power do not share the same psychology or vested interests with those that they rule. Perhaps in the initial stage of their ascendancy, idealism and a common bond with regular folks may truly strike a cord with some politicians. But in order to continue their ascendance and preserve their power, politicians are forced by necessity to become shrewd and calculating. In order to maintain power, humans are capable of every form of rationalization in the belief that their own prestige would translate to a selfless act on behalf of the common good. When you are in power, you depend on the behavior of the masses underneath you to act in a manner compatible with your goals. You can either convince them to do this through persuasion or through force. However, because the majority of the population lacks the perspective to truly understand policy goals in its most sophisticated form, the use of political rhetoric becomes important. The message must be simple and easy to understand. Some politicians are more honest than others, but all use these tactics to some extent.

As a case study, let's examine the War on Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was a plan concieved before 911 as a specific goal of the Project of the New American Century, primarily composed of Bush's neocon cabal. The interests of those involved for entering into this act of war were diverse, but primarily coalesced around personal profit, the advance of Israeli interests, American nationalism and the promotion of corporate hegemony. After the September 11th attacks, Bush's neocon cabal had the perfect cover to execute their plans. However, in order to sell it to the American people, the true purpose of this war could not be revealed. Instead, in the rush towards war, fear mongering was at its height, with the American public convinced that Iraq had WMD, and posed a great threat to them and their families. The power of this propaganda was quite effective. The citizens of the United States, a superpower with a $12 trillion dollar economy, a population of 300 million and a territorial empire which spanned the Atlantic to the South Pacific to the North pole, were scared out of their wits of Iraq. An Iraq of 20 million, ruled by a tinpot dictator who was strapped down by countless UN sanctions, a nation divided into three ethnic spheres where American warplanes roamed freely in its Northern and Southern skies. The propaganda was so effective that Americans believed that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had the power to determine the life and death of themselves and their loved ones.

After the invasion, when the WMD was proved to be non-existant, the Bush administration changed its rhetoric. Now, the war was not about WMD or a grave threat to US security, but it was about spreading democracy to the Arab world. Iraq was to be a grand project, a selfless American gift to the Arab people, a flourishing democracy in a region of tyranny. American troops were told that they were now fighting for the liberation of the Muslim world, at the same time that Dick Cheney was stuffing his already bulging pockets with the profits of Halliburton. The American people were told that their country was a crusader for justice, a beacon of light in the darkness, while pseudo intellectuals and armchair generals in the likes of William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz salivated at the humiliation of the Arab world and ratcheted up the hostilities with Iran. It is ceaselessly amazing to me that these individuals, who lack even the courage to cut their lip in a schoolyard fight, can willingly send thousands of American troops to their deaths for their own selfish interests. These troops, often from lower middle class backgrounds, are human beings with families to support and loved ones back home. True, many enter the military as a profession and as a choice. However, they also serve a profession in which they are asked to give selflessly in service of their nation. It is the minimal responsibility of those in power to reward this service with a foresight and moral backbone that would only promise to send them into harm's way to face dire threats to their nation. Instead, American troops were sent blazing to their deaths under a blizzard of lies and deceit.

Rarely do I break with my academic reserve, but when I think of the death of young lives that held so much promise, and the anguish of families who will never see their loved ones again, my entire body shakes with unbridled anger. When you speak to regular Americans about the war in Iraq, most are only aware of it being a supposed "War on Terror" or that it may be about "Freedom and Democracy". You would never hear references to the academic language utilized by the pseudo intellectuals who brainstormed and created this war. It is quite telling that Bush and none of the architects of the war have their own children fighting this war. These cowards are more than happy to have the children of the poor and underprevileged suffer and die for their endlessly selfish greed, while they continue to live lives of previlege and banter intellectually, well, perhaps not Bush, but the rest of them, would banter intellectually around cocktail parties of the continued threats of "Islamo-fascism".

The other month, I was reading the newspaper, and the observations I picked up were quite telling. On the front page was the picture of a soldier whose appearance had been badly deformed due to severe burns from a roadside bomb in Iraq. Standing next to him was his young fiance, with the expression on her face, lifeless, as if she was attending a funeral. Now, I imagine that this girl was probably his sweetheart and they probably got engaged soon before he went to war. Now, this soldier comes back deformed and practically disabled, the life that he and his fiance were supposed to share is now filled with gloom and uncertainty. The very picture I saw was a picture of shattered dreams and the realization of a nightmare. I turn the page. A contrast between night and day. On the very next page was an article about the engagement of George W. Bush's daughter, Jenna. There was a photo on the page which showed a similing president with a glowing daughter, and a very optimistic looking future son-in-law who was marrying into the most powerful family in America. This was the very picture of happiness and joy, and a complete contrast with the picture of gloom from the front page. I thought to myself, this man, this coward, who enjoys a life of luxury and ceremonial honors, has destroyed the lives of countless hundreds of thousands of people. The lives of countless Iraqis, but also of countless Americans through his sham of a war. If someone should be experiencing the utter depths of despair, it should not be the innocent soldier on the front page. Instead, it should be the architects of war and death. This incident demonstrated to me the utter reprehensiveness of our current administration, but also of the possible extremities of the gap between political rhetoric and political reality. Although I fully believe that none of the candidates this year are as despicable as our current leadership, it is important to spread awareness of the driving motives of politicians and the true nature of their interests. However, all of this effort may be futile on my part. For as long as humans have been humans, heirarchies have existed. With every heirarchy, chains of control and power have been preserved. Perhaps political manipulation are a necessity to human society, perhaps political deceit is a necessity to the common good.

Perhaps the common folk will always be fodder, expendible in the great game of the political elites.

The Iraq War: A Case Study in Political Elitism and Deceit Posted by Bacchus in Untagged

http://polzoo.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,The-Iraq-War-A-Case-Study-in-Political-Elitism-and-Deceit.html/Itemid,41/

 

The rhetoric of election season is here again. I pay attention to the newsletters issued by each campaign. Despite the differences in policy, the tone is the same. The word "we" and "you" is in constant usage. With every primary victory, the message broadcasted to each base contains the phrases "We did it!" or "You made the difference!".

 Perhaps some may chide my cynicism, but I cannot but help be amused by the sheer and blatant condescension so obvious in political rhetoric. Who exactly do these politicians think they are fooling when they seek to create an illusion that you are winning with them? Who are they fooling? The public, that's who. May I add, they may be forgiven if they believe they can get away with it. When the masses votes for an individual, who comes to bask in unparalleled glory, we are being told that "we made it"? Patronism at its best. When I examine the history of political behavior and the psychology of power, and compare this to the naivete of the masses, a wide chasm of perspective and understanding appear. The rhetoric that politicians utilize towards the masses are no different than the smooth talk of a car salesman to a shopper. If one is not aware of the selfish motives of those in power, you risk playing the role of the fool.

 Those in power do not share the same psychology or vested interests with those that they rule. Perhaps in the initial stage of their ascendancy, idealism and a common bond with regular folks may truly strike a cord with some politicians. But in order to continue their ascendance and preserve their power, politicians are forced by necessity to become shrewd and calculating. In order to maintain power, humans are capable of every form of rationalization in the belief that their own prestige would translate to a selfless act on behalf of the common good. When you are in power, you depend on the behavior of the masses underneath you to act in a manner compatible with your goals. You can either convince them to do this through persuasion or through force. However, because the majority of the population lacks the perspective to truly understand policy goals in its most sophisticated form, the use of political rhetoric becomes important. The message must be simple and easy to understand. Some politicians are more honest than others, but all use these tactics to some extent.

 As a case study, let's examine the War on Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was a plan concieved before 911 as a specific goal of the Project of the New American Century, primarily composed of Bush's neocon cabal. The interests of those involved for entering into this act of war were diverse, but primarily coalesced around personal profit, the advance of Israeli interests, American nationalism and the promotion of corporate hegemony. After the September 11th attacks, Bush's neocon cabal had the perfect cover to execute their plans. However, in order to sell it to the American people, the true purpose of this war could not be revealed. Instead, in the rush towards war, fear mongering was at its height, with the American public convinced that Iraq had WMD, and posed a great threat to them and their families. The power of this propaganda was quite effective. The citizens of the United States, a superpower with a $12 trillion dollar economy, a population of 300 million and a territorial empire which spanned the Atlantic to the South Pacific to the North pole, were scared out of their wits of Iraq. An Iraq of 20 million, ruled by a tinpot dictator who was strapped down by countless UN sanctions, a nation divided into three ethnic spheres where American warplanes roamed freely in its Northern and Southern skies. The propaganda was so effective that Americans believed that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had the power to determine the life and death of themselves and their loved ones.

 After the invasion, when the WMD was proved to be non-existant, the Bush administration changed its rhetoric. Now, the war was not about WMD or a grave threat to US security, but it was about spreading democracy to the Arab world. Iraq was to be a grand project, a selfless American gift to the Arab people, a flourishing democracy in a region of tyranny. American troops were told that they were now fighting for the liberation of the Muslim world, at the same time that Dick Cheney was stuffing his already bulging pockets with the profits of Halliburton. The American people were told that their country was a crusader for justice, a beacon of light in the darkness, while pseudo intellectuals and armchair generals in the likes of William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz salivated at the humiliation of the Arab world and ratcheted up the hostilities with Iran. It is ceaselessly amazing to me that these individuals, who lack even the courage to cut their lip in a schoolyard fight, can willingly send thousands of American troops to their deaths for their own selfish interests. These troops, often from lower middle class backgrounds, are human beings with families to support and loved ones back home. True, many enter the military as a profession and as a choice. However, they also serve a profession in which they are asked to give selflessly in service of their nation. It is the minimal responsibility of those in power to reward this service with a foresight and moral backbone that would only promise to send them into harm's way to face dire threats to their nation. Instead, American troops were sent blazing to their deaths under a blizzard of lies and deceit. Rarely do I break with my academic reserve, but when I think of the death of young lives that held so much promise, and the anguish of families who will never see their loved ones again, my entire body shakes with unbridled anger. When you speak to regular Americans about the war in Iraq, most are only aware of it being a supposed "War on Terror" or that it may be about "Freedom and Democracy". You would never hear references to the academic language utilized by the pseudo intellectuals who brainstormed and created this war. It is quite telling that Bush and none of the architects of the war have their own children fighting this war. These cowards are more than happy to have the children of the poor and underprevileged suffer and die for their endlessly selfish greed, while they continue to live lives of previlege and banter intellectually, well, perhaps not Bush, but the rest of them, would banter intellectually around cocktail parties of the continued threats of "Islamo-fascism".

The other month, I was reading the newspaper, and the observations I picked up were quite telling. On the front page was the picture of a soldier whose appearance had been badly deformed due to severe burns from a roadside bomb in Iraq. Standing next to him was his young fiance, with the expression on her face, lifeless, as if she was attending a funeral. Now, I imagine that this girl was probably his sweetheart and they probably got engaged soon before he went to war. Now, this soldier comes back deformed and practically disabled, the life that he and his fiance were supposed to share is now filled with gloom and uncertainty. The very picture I saw was a picture of shattered dreams and the realization of a nightmare. I turn the page. A contrast between night and day. On the very next page was an article about the engagement of George W. Bush's daughter, Jenna. There was a photo on the page which showed a similing president with a glowing daughter, and a very optimistic looking future son-in-law who was marrying into the most powerful family in America. This was the very picture of happiness and joy, and a complete contrast with the picture of gloom from the front page. I thought to myself, this man, this coward, who enjoys a life of luxury and ceremonial honors, has destroyed the lives of countless hundreds of thousands of people. The lives of countless Iraqis, but also of countless Americans through his sham of a war. If someone should be experiencing the utter depths of despair, it should not be the innocent soldier on the front page. Instead, it should be the architects of war and death. This incident demonstrated to me the utter reprehensiveness of our current administration, but also of the possible extremities of the gap between political rhetoric and political reality. Although I fully believe that none of the candidates this year are as despicable as our current leadership, it is important to spread awareness of the driving motives of politicians and the true nature of their interests. However, all of this effort may be futile on my part. For as long as humans have been humans, heirarchies have existed. With every heirarchy, chains of control and power have been preserved. Perhaps political manipulation are a necessity to human society, perhaps political deceit is a necessity to the common good.

 Perhaps the common folk will always be fodder, expendible in the great game of the political elites.

Censor, Regulate and Tax the Internet? Posted by Glennsopinions in Untagged