Much has been written about the Bush/Cheney "One Percent Doctrine" and you can read oodles about it if you care to. Basically, the concept is that if there is a 1% chance of something bad happening from a purported threat, action must be taken to neutralize it.
So why haven't they applied this type of thinking to climate change? The chance that something bad is going to happen seems to be a lot higher than 1 in 100. But they do nothing.
I think the reason is twofold. First, there is no benefit to the wealthy from remedying climate change. In fact, of all the people who would have to change their lifestyles, the people who build mega-mansions to house a family of three and who have fourth and fifth homes would have to change their ways. Those are Bush's peeps.
Second, there is nobody to kill, no defense contractors to enrichen, and Blackwater isn't going to make any money off it. 90% of the Bush track record revolves around either killing people or tax cuts; if he can't do one or the other, then he isn't interested, as anyone who lives along the Gulf Coast can testify to.
Anyway, George McGovern has an op-ed in today's Washington Post as to why Bush and Cheney must be impeached. It's worth a read.
No comments:
Post a Comment
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.