|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
Why Such Drastic Changes Sought by Neo-cons? |
Current rating: 0 |
by D. Burbeck
(No verified email address) |
25 May 2005
|
Of course it is the inevitable, looming oil crisis that awaits the US (because
of her thirst for oil) that has given this Administration the justification to
invade Iraq on the "pack of lies" (1. Honorable George Galloway) that came
out of this White House. That, although not justified in many people's minds,
is pretty much understood by the rank and file. |
The pre-emptive doctrine conjured up by Wolfowitz and Pearle in '92 was
filed under "R" for "ridiculous" at the time. But it was dusted off and
accepted by both major parties a few years ago (with little if any debate)
because we simply must have a constant supply of oil - PERIOD. Well
that does not explain the emergence of the recent, drastic changes in
"domestic policies" that we are seeing advocated of late, such as:
>1) the attempt at dismantling the Senate's ability to Filibuster,
>2) the dissecting of the Bill of Rights (such as illegal search
> protection, among others),
>3) the attempt to diminish the safety net for retirees,
>4) the changes in bankruptcy laws and attempts at tort reform,
>5) the wiping away of decades of environmental protection,
These have now, suddenly, been heavily pushed. And in the case of the Patriot
Act, it was passed with the help of democrats that hadn't even read the massive
bill. They quite possibly will have very long term effects on the average
American's life. The Filibuster fight had to do with judgeships in the
Appellate and Supreme Court which can have a major effect on American's
lives.
Some of us were under the impression that these flagrant attacks on the
American way of life and the Constitution were simply diversions to keep
people's minds off of the evidence surfacing of the secret desires and acts
of the neo-cons, and they have somewhat done just that with the help of our
abysmal corporate media. But the pace at which this Administration is
pursuing it's goals is better explained by realizing that they have, at this
time, a public which is asleep at the wheel and allowing the Bush
Administration almost everything they want since they have the bible in
their back pocket. That may change though, rather quickly, as the poles
are indicating diminishing support since the November Election. The point
here is that these drastic "domestic policy changes" have nothing at all to do
with America's need for oil.
There has been a scientific discovery within the past nine years that has
shaken global climatologists and may shed some light on the neo-con's
frightening agenda. In 1996 an oceanographer named Wally Broecker
connected the dots to many unanswered scientific questions about the
earth's climate, and explained how abrupt climate change happens. It has
to to with the melting of the ice caps, which we are just now learning is
happening at an accelerating rate. This very disturbing discovery (which
the corporate community is still trying to dismiss, unsuccessfully) of a
snap in the climate to "ice age conditions" which will diminish the growing
season to perhaps half it's current length (maybe less), is what the corporate
world is having our elected officials preparing for.
Try to imagine what just a three year period of crop failures (such as has
happened several times in the past 70,000 years) will be like in a time
when there are over 6 Billion people on Earth. These snaps have lasted several
years, to hundreds of thousands of years. It is irrefutable and unquestionable
scientific evidence, and the neo-cons are now very aware and concerned,
although mute about it. They are fully aware that very bad times are ahead
for the entire planet. Scientific evidence IS scientific evidence, after all,
and these people aren't idiots.
But the corporations are not willing to relinquish
profits to something they feel will not affect them, with their millions
in the bank. The New York Times reported, for example, that "about
nine out of 10 (new power plants) on the drawing board - will not use
integrated gasification combined-cycle technology"(2) which not only
makes coal 10% more efficient but also greatly reduces pollution.
One has to be completely appalled that at a time when scientific study
after study is proving that global warming is not just a theory, it is
actually happening right now and at increasing levels, that industry is
not changing it's polluting ways.
When you understand what is (not might be) in our future, the reasons
for this "abrupt change in domestic policies" will be obvious. The
scientists cannot say when this phenomenon will re-occur, only that it
definitely will. And with the recent scientific findings of Cambridge
University Professor Peter Wadhams, we can expect it in the not-so-
distant future.
>“Until recently we would find giant ‘chimneys’ in the
>sea where columns of cold, dense water were sinking from the surface
>to the seabed 3,000 metres below, but now they have almost disappeared,”
>he said.
>“In the past we could see nine to 12 giant columns forming under the
>shelf each year. In our latest cruise, we found only two and they were
>so weak that the sinking water could not reach the seabed,” said Wadhams,
>who disclosed the findings at a meeting of the European Geosciences
>Union in Vienna.(3)
Regardless of how soon these giant systems shut down, there is complete
consensus in the scientific community of what will be the result of global
warming - abrupt climate change. It's an incredible twist of fate that the
change will be to ice age conditions, and you can see why the rank and
file is and will be slow to accept such a radical concept. But you can be
sure that the neo-cons have accepted it, as exemplified more and more
with their radical policy changes. And, as evidenced by their "abrupt
change" on environmental policies in the past four years, they don't
intend to do anything about it. "More study is needed" they say.
D. Burbeck
(1) British Parliament Member the Hon. George Galloway in testimony
before the US Senate 5/17/05:
http://dc.indymedia.org/feature/display/122932/index.php
(2) New York Times, May 22, 2005, "Dirty Secret: Coal Plants could be
much Cleaner"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/business/yourmoney/22coal.html?
(3) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1602579,00.html
If these links are not active, please simply check another IMC site. |
This work is in the public domain |
