Political Economies: Explained Using Cows

United States: You have two cows. The government pays you subsidies not to milk your cows. Imports of dairy products from South America increase.

China: You have two cows. The government takes both cows and shoots you.

Iraq: You have two cows. They end up in Guantanamo Bay, but receive excellent medical care.

India: You have two cows. You worship them.

Poland: You have two bulls. You get killed trying to milk them.

Russia: You have two cows. You drink vodka and see four cows.

Argentina: You have two cows. Néstor and Cristina Kirchner take the milk and export it. They tax you 44%, leaving you without enough money to cover production costs. Too bad! On the plus side Cristina is able to pay for Botox injections and pays off some political cronies. Read more!

Global Warming: WHAT THE F*CK IS GEORGE W. BUSH THINKING, OR IS HE THINKING AT ALL???

The United Nations Climate Change Conference began this week on Monday. This two week meeting is the thirteenth conference to be held by the 192 parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change and is the third meeting by the 176 parties of the Kyoto Protocol. Of key importance in this conference is the negotiation of standards on climate change for the post 2012 period which marks the expiration of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol.

"The scientific debate has been conclusively laid to rest by the latest scientific findings from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - climate change is unequivocal and accelerating" noted the Indonesian Environmental Minister and President of the conference, Rachmat Witoelar.

Of particular note the new Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd and his team were sworn in the same day this conference began. Putting global warming and other environmental concerns at the forefront of his list of priorities, Rudd signed the Kyoto Protocol that day reversing the decision of the former conservative party that has controlled Australia the last eleven years.

Yet in spite of this good news the United Nations acknowledged that this is not enough. They went on to add that no meaningful agreement can be reached without the participation of the United States, the last of the world’s industrial powers to refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. "There is no doubt that the U.S. has to play a key role in the post-2012 agreement," noted Artur Runge-Metzger, the European Union’s climate chief. "I think what the rest of the world would like to see is a credible effort, a credible commitment from the side of the U.S. to resolving this major challenge."

The key stated objective of the Kyoto Protocol is to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." The United States' ratification of this treaty is vital to its success as the USA is the world’s largest carbon emitter and contributor of roughly 25% of the world’s greenhouse gasses. The USA is rated as an Annex I country (like the European Union) and as such the USA would be expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5% less than 1990 levels.

To me at least this hardly seems unrealistic in the face of the consequences if we do not make a meaningful effort at compliance. As noted above, the reality of climate change is both “unequivocal and accelerating”. In the United States alone we have seen radical shifts in normal weather patterns the last few years that can only be attributed to the effects of global warming. Flooding in some areas, droughts in others, erosion, hurricanes, and more such weather events are becoming more common every year.

All this begs the question: WHAT THE F*CK IS GEORGE BUSH THINKING? Or maybe the better question is WHEN IN THE HELL IS HE GOING TO BEGIN USING HIS BRAIN??? To put this into perspective let us look for a moment to just one example of the effects of global warming on the United States.

At the end of June of this year leading researchers in North Carolina issued a report noting that the coastline of that state would continue to experience significant loss in land area during the course of the next 30 to 75 years due to the effects of projected changes in climate (global warming). Those findings appeared in the report “Measuring the Impacts of Climate Change on North Carolina Coastal Resources” which assessed the impact of rising sea levels on property values, recreation, and quality of life issues. The study was conducted jointly by researchers from Appalachian State University, East Carolina University, University of North Carolina Wilmington and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Among other things this study found that:

• North Carolina’s coastal topography makes it especially vulnerable to sea level rise and hurricanes;


• That the impact is both economic and ecologic;


• The expected one- to three-foot rise in sea level along four North Carolina coastal counties could mean billions of dollars in private property losses over the next 75 years;


• Recreational fishing and beach trips will also become vulnerable to increased erosion from sea level rise and expected hurricanes.

The thing to consider here is that this is just one study dealing with one small portion of the United States. To frame this issue in a more complete international context one need merely look to the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In accordance with current research, global sea levels are expected to rise significantly the next 25 to 75 years with the IPCC’s estimates places sea levels at 1 to more than 2 feet (0.3 to more than 0.61 meters) within that time frame.

Looking to costs to North Carolina alone business interruption losses from hurricanes could increase by as much as $157 million per weather/storm event by 2080. In that same time frame it is estimated that 14 of 17 recreational beaches could, without adaptation, see erosion all the way to the roads which would eliminate the possibility for beach recreation in those areas. Recreational economic losses the next 75 years for southern North Carolina beaches are estimated in the range of $3.9 billion. Losses in property value in just four key counties are projected to reach $6.9 billion.

Okmyung “Paul” Bin from East Carolina University’s Department of Economics studied the impact of rising sea levels on North Carolina property values. “The amount of developed property along the North Carolina coastline has steadily increased over the last several decades due to a strong preference for coastal locations,” Bin said. “The number of building permits in Carolina Beach during the last four years alone exceeds the number of permits issued over the previous 20 years, and the average selling price for residential properties in Wrightsville Beach has increased more than 200 percent since 2001. This growth, coupled with soaring property values in North Carolina, has created greater vulnerability to rising sea levels.”

So again, one has to ask WHAT THE F*CK IS GEORGE BUSH THINKING? Of course in all fairness we cannot put all the blame on George II, the boy king. In his eight years in office Sir Bill (Clinton) failed to even bring the matter of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol before congress for consideration for ratification. The thing that gets me though it that Boy George has managed to ignore even domestic policy and law regarding global warming.

Just this year he received a healthy spanking from no less than the highest court in the land. On Monday, April 2nd of 2007 the Supreme Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles and that its stated reasons for not doing so were inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. The EPA and Bush administration have argued against the EPA's assertion of its authority noting a number of reasons: that it would hinder the President's ability "to negotiate with 'key developing nations' to reduce emissions", that it would in fact be too small a step in addressing concerns of global warming, and that voluntary regulation is preferable. In ruling against these assertions, the court went on to rebuke President Bush by noting that:" while the President has broad authority in foreign affairs, that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws."

And it is not like there is an absence of mounting pressure at the grassroots level to address this issue because there is every indication that this is a subject of serious concern. Of particular interest to myself is KyotoUSA. On their website found at www.kyotousa.org they refer to themselves as “an all volunteer, grassroots organization that encourages U.S. cities and their residents to reduce the global warming greenhouse gas emissions for which they are responsible.”

On February 16th, 2005 the Kyoto Protocol became law for the 141 countries that had ratified it to date. On that very same day Seattle Mayor Gregg Nickels launched the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement to advance the goals of the Kyoto Protocol through leadership and action. Two years later, The U.S. Conference of Mayors launched the Mayors Climate Protection Center to administer and track the agreement and by November 1, 2007, there were more than 710 signatories to that Agreement.

Under this Agreement, participating cities committed to take the following actions:

• To strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions ranging from anti-sprawl land-use policies to urban forest restoration projects to public information campaigns;


• To urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol -- 7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012; and


• To urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation, which would establish a national emission trading system.

So to me a simple man, the question remains the same: WHAT THE F*CK IS GEORGE BUSH THINKING????? Or maybe is he thinking at all remains the key question. Or maybe what the hell were we thinking when we allowed this tyrant to steal two elections? WHAT THE F*CK ARE WE THINKING AND WHY ARE THE FRENCH THE ONLY ONES WHO GET TO STORM THE BASTILLE??? I always heard they were sissies. So what does that make us?

p.s. I hope you take not offence my French friends. It is called American satire, deal with it. Please!!!

Sources and further reading:

http://unfccc.int/2860.php

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/stories/treaty/
http://www.kyotousa.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/30/bali.climatechange
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/kyoto.htm

Read more!

What the F*ck ! ! ! (In Search of Bush’s Brain)

From Bushisms to outright lies one has to ask the question: Where the Hell is George W. Bush's Brain??? I find his presidency to be like the paradigmatic example of the Yiddish word chutzpah wherein a child murders his parents and later throws himself on the mercy of the court declaring: "You cannot throw me in prison, I am an orphan".

So anyway, I thought I would assemble a collage of his more noted quotes, Bushisms, in the form of a question and answer session. Hope you enjoy.

Q: Can you briefly explain the rationale for going to war in Iraq:

A: "Iraq is a very important part of securing the homeland, and it's a very important part of helping change the Middle East into a part of the world that will not serve as a threat to the civilized world, to people like -- or to the developed world, to people like -- in the United States." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2007

Q: I am a bit confused by that answer, could you elaborate?

A: "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." --as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002

Q: Go on.

A: "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." --Washington, D.C. June 18, 2002

Q: And you are sure you want to go on the record saying this?

A:"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president." --as quoted in Bob Woodward's Bush at War

Q: What about your resolve in Iraq?
A: "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C. Sept. 19, 2001

Q: Where do you see yourself ideologically?
A: "The best way to defeat the totalitarian of hate is with an ideology of hope -- an ideology of hate -- excuse me --with an ideology of hope." --George W. Bush, Fort Benning, Ga., Jan. 11, 2007

Q: What do you think about Iraq's greater role in the Middle East?

A: "I understand that the unrest in the Middle East creates unrest throughout the region." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

Q: You have any thoughts regarding security in North America?

A: "Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better." —George W. Bush, in a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Sept. 24, 2001

Q: And what about our chances of winning the War on Terrorism in general?

A: "Can we win? I don't think you can win it." --after being asked whether the war on terror was winnable, "Today" show interview, Aug. 30, 2004

Q: So if you think that is true why wage war to begin with?

A: "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

Q: Well what happens if people disagree with you?

A: "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

Q: What do you say about not finding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?

A: "They could still be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas on a turkey farm." --George W. Bush, on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Washington, D.C. , April 13, 2004

Q: Do you have any thoughts on possible casualties during the war?

A: "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." --discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson in 2003, as quoted by Robertson

Q: And what do you have to say to those who do not support the war?

A: "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." --talking to key Republicans about Iraq, as quoted by Bob Woodward

Q: What would you say to the American public about how to support the war on terror?

A: "People say, how can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in's house and say I love you." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2002

Q: Do you have any words for Saddam Hussein?

A: "F*ck Saddam. We're taking him out." --to three U.S. senators in March 2002, one year before the Iraq invasion, as quoted by Time magazine

Q: And for the Iraqi troops?

A: "My answer is bring them on." --on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

Q: And what about Osama bin Laden?

A: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." --Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

Q: And how is the search for bin Laden coming?

A: "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." --Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

Q: What do you think about Tony Blair?

A: "We both use Colgate toothpaste." —George W. Bush, on what he had in common with Tony Blair, Camp David, Maryland, Feb. 23, 2001

Q: And what about God's role in all this?

A: "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." --to a group of Amish he met with privately, July 9, 2004

Q: Umm hmm.

A: "I've got God's shoulder to cry on. And I cry a lot. I do a lot of crying in this job. I'll bet I've shed more tears than you can count, as president." --George W. Bush, as quoted by author Robert Draper in Dead Certain

Q: And how would you summarize your role as president?

A: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." --Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

Q: And how do you think the war in Iraq has been going?

A: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." --speaking underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003

Q: But sir, we are still there.
A: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Q: So you really believe we can win in Iraq?

A: "I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe -- I believe what I believe is right." --Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001

Q: Well but that fails to answer my question; can we win?

A: "Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence." --George W. Bush, on Iraq, Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007

Q: You really think so?

A: "We're kicking ass." --George W. Bush, on the security situation in Iraq, to Australian Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile, Sydney, Australia, Sept. 5, 2007

Q: You sure you want to go on the record saying that?

A: "It's bad in Iraq. Does that help?" --George W. Bush, after being asked by a reporter whether he's in denial about Iraq, Washington, D.C., Dec. 7, 2006

Q: So what is the solution then?

A: "The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done." --George W. Bush, Greeley, Colo., Nov. 4, 2006

Q: If you really think that, then explain to me your views on staying the course?

A: "We're never been stay the course, George." --George W. Bush, attempting to distance himself from what has been his core strategy in Iraq for the last three years, interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Oct. 22, 2006

Q: Do you have any comments regarding claims we are bombing innocents in Iraq?

A: "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007

Q: What about comparisons between Iraq and the Vietnam War?

A: "More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming out any other way."—Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

Q: Do you have any words for our wounded troops?

A: "As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself -- not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch. As a matter of fact, the Colonel asked if I needed first aid when she first saw me. I was able to avoid any major surgical operations here, but thanks for your compassion, Colonel." --George W. Bush, after visiting with wounded veterans from the Amputee Care Center of Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, Jan. 1, 2006

Q: Any words for the wounded in Iraq?

A: "I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

Q: How do you think history will remember you?

A: "I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is -- my point is, there's a strong will for democracy." --George W. Bush, interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Sept. 24, 2006

Q: What about your own legacy?

A: "I have a record in office, as well. And all Americans have seen that record. September the 4th, 2001, I stood in the ruins of the Twin Towers. It's a day I will never forget." --George W. Bush, Speaking on the September 11th attacks, Marlton, New Jersey, Oct. 18, 2004

Q: Do you have any final thought you want to express?
A: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Read more!