Media falls for White House head fake
By on Sep 21st, 2006 at 4:52 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
My mantra here has been do NOT believe what they say – watch what they do. That applies to Bushie and the environment.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:58 pmAnd as usual, the media basically ignores Gore, who had much more interesting proposals. Daily Howler has more:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh092006.shtml
Who cares if Gore produced the 3rd highest grossing documentary in history? The media has pronounced him non-newsworthy.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:06 pmThe media are in love with themselves and the powers that be. They consider themselves part of the “honored” few in the circle of power, so they don’t challenge things that the president says because they view him as “one of their own”.
They care not for content of message, they care not about challenging ideas that come from the hallowed halls of the White House. They care not for the duty that they owe to the public, to be a filter of information and only allow the truth to flow whenever possible.
And lets not forget JUST PLAIN STUPID. I mean really, how many times can Bush outright LIE, never follow through on what he says, and they don’t call him on it?
September 21st, 2006 at 5:19 pmAgain,
The White house realizes, like most of us, that if the USA sets emission caps/reductions without the rest of the world matching our effort, it could do some really bad things for our economy in the short run and kill our economy in the long run.
W could get the UN to set emission caps/reductions say 30%-50% reduction from today’s amount that each and every country had to follow. Now something like that would work and our economy wouldn’t be hurt at all as US companies would be working under the same law and % reductions there competetors abroad would be under.
Currently, things like the Kyoto treaty were designed to simply bring down the American economy as China and India don’t need to follow it. Without China and India and every other single country in the world agreeing on a common law everyone has to follow, whatever we do really won’t reduce global warming and may very well speed it up.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:19 pmAnyone who believes the Bush administration is doing anything but stalling is more than a bit naive.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:35 pmYes, why should America be a leader or set an example. We’re all going to die from global warming anyway.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:38 pmThat’s right Roger – Let’s hurt all mankind to save our own beliefs. Great idea. BTW, my kid’s going to need a scholarship soon, so we’re posting negative items about your kids on our myspace site, you know, to get a leg up on the competition – I’m sure you’ll understand….
September 21st, 2006 at 5:50 pmYeah, because spending $3 billion a month on an illegal occupation is great for the economy. Moron.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:52 pmWhy is this news to progs? You’ve seen the mainstream media move to isolate the Deaniacs and all their candidates as fringe crazies, so why torture yourselves with this topic again and again?
I commend you for pushing your views, but understand that everytime you get close to tasting success, and new unsuspecting ally turned enemy will step in to stop you. I’ve said it before, and I will repeat it here – the fringe left won’t be able to field their candidates until Hill’reh has run and lost the presidential election in 2008, and the Clintonistas will trip you up constantly until they have crashed and burned themselves.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:58 pm#4 – That is a very popular myth. It has a very strong sense of ‘truthiness’ to it but when you dig a little deeper you find that it is complete crap.
Placing emissions standards on the country COULD potentially hurt it but it doesn’t HAVE to be that way. It all depends on how you do it. The fact is, an alternative energy push done the right way would create many more jobs then they would eliminate. Stronger emissions standards would force companies to spend money on making cleaner fuels, which does require a bit of up front money but in the long run it cycles back around and things stabalize. More jobs, more money being spent, and new technologies ALWAYS equals better for the economy.
For someone who claims to be a global warming accepter, you sure don’t seem to understand whats at stake. Even IF there was no way to introduce an alternative energy market and carbon emissions caps to the market without hurting it in the near term, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t implement those steps anyway.
Ever heard of sacrifice? Of course, why should we give up our ‘American way of life’ to secure the future of our species? What good will a strong economy do if we all starve to death because the ‘Breadbasket’ midwest turns into another dust bowl?
You can’t eat money.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:03 pmMan, you guys just don’t seem to understand.
I am FOR emission caps and emission reductions as it is the major way to curb Global warming. If the world doesn’t cooperate however, us doing it ourselves will serve no good. We wouldn’t be setting a good example, we would be giving places like China a major bumb to there economy as ours would dwindle.
Why are you guys and gals so against having the world unite to set emssion caps/reductions that everyone is required to follow?
This is like turning your AC down in the summer to save energy and then watch as your 2 neighbors turn there AC up 200% and explain to you that they are doing it because they realize the energy your not using is now available for them to use. Your effort would seem futile.
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE GOVERNMENT AND THE UN. We need to make an international law that requires all countries to follow the same set of rules. I’ll take anything at this point as this problem needs to actually be solved soon.
Lets have a vote in the UN requiring all countries to cut emissions by 30% within 3-5 years. I would back that. Hell, I would back a 50% reduction and more. I simply realize that we need every country on board for this to work. If China or India don’t get on board, every single other country gets screwed. All the internation companies based in the USA would also just move all but there sales force and or sales outlets to the countries that don’t have the standards as well causing massive unemployment.
On the flip side, if every country has the same set of emission standards, the world economy gets untouched. In the long run, we could actually benefit from it.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:04 pmIs anyone really surprised by this. This administration has been playing the media like a fiddle for over five years. Though they’ve shown a minor amount of independence over the last couple of months, it’s going to take while before they actually live up to their duties as protectors of democracy.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:08 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
It is howash to try and say emission caps would “create” jobs. Sure it would create jobs, but many of your standard workers in the Oil industry would lose there jobs (I aint talking about executives rather your stanard worker, gas station clerk, plsu countless others that work indirectly). At best it would be a wash. At worst we would have less jobs. On top of all this, you would be requiring companies to invest hugely in new techs to meet this stuff (which I am fine with as long as every single country is doing the exact same thing). The thing is, companies won’t eat this cost. They will pass it on to the consumer. If we have to spend more on the goods and services we get, our economy goes South.
All this does NOT need to happen if we simply pass a resolution in the UN mandating every country on the planet to the same emission stanards and percentage cuts. Why are you fighting against having the world unite?
September 21st, 2006 at 6:14 pm#14, btru,
The mainstream media is for Hill’reh and the Clintonistas, not the Deaniacs, so they are left wing, but not extreme left crazy progs.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:25 pmI look at emission properly. You need to look at GDP output compaired to emissions. You will find that the USA is actually doing better then almost every single country. For China and India to produce $1 of GDP, they use about 3-4 times the emissions we do meaning they are far worse polluters.
And again, we we simply cut out emissions, we reduce our output. Since this is a global economy, the world will still demand that output. This all adds up to China and India picking up the slack and producing what we choose not to. The problem is we now shifted some production to China and India which means that we now will see emissions increase 3-4 times of what it was for that same amount of GDP when it was produced in the USA.
Are you trying to tell me that you are ok with China’s emission output and the fact that they are increase there Co2 emission but 400%-500% within the next 10 or so years? The same goes for India. Within 20 years, each country will be producing 2 times the emissions of the USA. So our effort alone is futile and could actually speed up global warming.
This is why it makes sense to have the world body get together and set a rule that everyone follows equally.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:26 pmSeeing as how the United States accounts for 1/4th of the ENTIRE worlds emissions, then you are dead wrong. Even IF no other countries followed our example it would STILL help out a great deal.
Either way you cut it, the United States has the opportunity to make a big difference in total emissions as well as set the bar for the rest of the world, which is something that we as a country just love to flaunt when we actually make good on it.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:36 pm1.1 degree (F) rise in the last century. Apparently most of it before 1945. It is possible that we will all die of global warming in the next 20 years. It is also possible this is an issue driven by environmentalist or other groups, not out of fear of global warming, but a desire to move towards zero emissions. I am for zero emissions, however at what cost? Give up your car? Plastics? More offshoring?
September 21st, 2006 at 6:39 pmAnd no, its not hogwash to say that emissions caps would create jobs… geez get your head out of the textbooks! Life does not care what an economy textbook says. Creating new emissions caps would spur the development of MANY technologies out of necessity. Who is going to develop those technologies and run those companies? Dare I say it would be Americans??
Besides, the ability to actually LIVE on this planet trumps everything else. I don’t give a shit if we create another depression, if we avert the full effects of global warming then it will be worth it.
Again I ask you – what good will a nice booming economy be if suddenly you have millions of refugees due to drought. Colorado (my home state) is looking more and more every year like we could very well be forced to a water ration soon. How long before there simply won’t be enough water for all of Denver’s residents to drink? How long before heat waves and droughts create another Dust Bowl scenario in the breadbasket of the United States?
F*ck the economy if THAT’s what we have to look forward to.
But that’s beside the point, this is a red herring argument. The only thing keeping us from averting global warming AND having a strong economy is a LACK of ingenuity and imagination.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:41 pmOn the flip side, if every country has the same set of emission standards, the world economy gets untouched. In the long run, we could actually benefit from it.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Unhuh. Another disadvantage of a shift towards a global economy is the argued loss of domestic jobs. Certain labour-intensive industries (like textile and even parts of the software development industry) tend to shift their production from developed countries to developing countries where wages are lower. This shift, it is argued, not only increases the unemployment rate in the developed countries, but in some cases leads to exploitation of third world workers, in particular, children.
Your Globalization leads to sweat shops and child labor, just as we see today with Delay and the Marriannas, as we see Walmart and China paying folks 9 cents and hour. Globalization is good for greedy corporations but bad overall for America.
You can take your Global theories and your good for ‘us’ crap, becaus it isn’t good for U.S. It’s good to exploit poor people in undevelooped countries.
Quit looking at people as something to be exploited Roger they are not machines and numbers, and remember you, after all, are worth no more than any poor worker anywhere in this world no matter how much you think you are.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:42 pmHey, I’m all for it. In fact I agree with you that this is what needs to happen eventually. But we’ve seen this happen before with the Kyoto treaty, the rest of the world was ready to sign and ratify it but the U.S. backed out. The end result was that the Treaty lost much of its ability to decrease total emissions BECAUSE the U.S. is the worlds worst polluter of CO2 and without the U.S. on board the Treaty seemed a pale shadow of its former self. If we had been on board with that effort we would already be seeing some of its benefits. But since we dropped the ball on leadership the rest of the world followed suit (especially China).
September 21st, 2006 at 6:44 pmHow many times do we have to explain to our conservative visitors that the United States should lead by example? If you’re going to call yourself “the leader of the free world”, then you have to show some leadership from time to time. It’s not always pleasant, but the ultimate rewards are definitely worth it.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:45 pmOur conservative visitors believe that leading is grabbing everything for ourselves and then trying to convince the rest of the world that it’s in their best interest. Conservatives don’t know what you’re talking about if you explain what leadership is if you don’t make that reference.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:55 pmThe media didn’t fall for it they went knowingly along, they see themselves as a power in their own right., and they know that all the spin the put out is meant to mislead, it has been this way for forty years. This has been a concerted effort between the media and the lie house.
What the Hell Jason is talking about who knows..Deaniacs?
September 21st, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Why are you fighting against having the world unite?
I have no problem with the WORLD, the People unite, but when the Greedy Morons who put money before man unite it is BAD for the people. You want to create a Global Economy create a Global Wage. and laws against exploitation, child labor, sweat shops and poverty wages.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:01 pmRogerRoger
September 21st, 2006 at 7:10 pmEvery generation that had to face great changes have worried but we did face them and made the changes work to our benefit. We moved from canals to railroads to trucking to air transport of goods with accompanying losing and gaining jobs, for example. We, in this generation, can face the challenges (with the U.S. as the leader) or stagnate (at best). All that is missing is the will.
The world already did that without us, it was called the Kyoto Treaty.
Google it, you might learn something.
Most likely you won’t and will come back here and spew the same garbage.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:14 pmOn top of all that, I still say it is time that we unite in the UN and pass a worldwide mandate that cuts everyones emissions even further.
Bolton wants to destroy the UN, not unite it.
Roger Roger I have no idea what planet you are from, planet Sociopath maybe?
September 21st, 2006 at 7:27 pmOn top of all that, I still say it is time that we unite in the UN and pass a worldwide mandate that cuts everyones emissions even further.
Good luck with that..
September 21st, 2006 at 7:32 pmBush Ignores the Developing World
Yet Bush has simply ignored this promise. Similarly, the United States has failed to act on its promises as a 1992 signatory to the UN Framework Convention …
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1203-05.htm
So, it isn’t “my†globalization since we were in a global economy before I was born some 40+ years ago. But once again, if the USA cuts emssions while China and the India don’t, you will certainly see MORE sweatshops.
BUSH DOESN’T CARE ABOUT THE UN NOR DO HIS CRONIES, all that crap you typed out means nothing…
September 21st, 2006 at 7:34 pmTrinary_Suka
What are you talking about anyways? I see you quoted a news story about Bolton. Are you under the impression that I support Bolton? I don’t care for him at all. He should be booted right out of government already. Anyways, what is your point? You quoted some random story that didn’t apply to the topic at hand and then called me a Sociopath. Have you taken you meds today sir? Your post was creepy and strange as it didn’t apply to anything.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:37 pmNever said you liked Bolton, Bolton is a rep of the Bush Ideoligy.
So, No, what I am saying is that the Bush folks don’t care about the UN or Kyoto, so you can go on all day with your numbers and the amounts of C02 and WE should Unite the UN but none of that is gonna do a bit of good because the Bush folks dont care about UNTING THE UN!!!
gumbumping…
September 21st, 2006 at 7:50 pmAnyways, what is your point? You quoted some random story that didn’t apply to the topic at hand and then called me a Sociopath. Have you taken you meds today sir? Your post was creepy and strange as it didn’t apply to anything.
Your crazy I asked what Planet your from, I didn’t CALL you a sociopath. And Yes everything I posted pertained to the UN or Global economy.
But now I will call you a SOCIOPATHIC ECONOMTYH
September 21st, 2006 at 7:52 pmBush Ignores the Developing World
How is a post about ignoring the developing world not about a global economy? Developing worlds are the worst polluters.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:55 pmRoger_Roger wrong again….
Ah, another IGNORANT LIE, from the right wing propagandists!!
Who told you that ridiculous lie!!!
Almost all of your posts are wrong Roger_Roger. Go Away.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:58 pmPresident Bush is obsessed with the war on terrorism, especially with the military response to terrorism. This year, the United States will spend around $450 billion for the military, including the costs of the Iraq War, while it will spend no more than $15 billion to overcome global poverty, environmental degradation and disease. How much longer must the world live with Bush’s obsession?
Throughout 2003, debate over Iraq dominated international diplomacy and took up almost the entire U.N. agenda. At the same time, Bush’s emphasis on a one-dimensional, militarized approach to global problems has fueled instability throughout the Islamic world, leading to increased terrorism in Turkey, North Africa, Saudi Arabia and Southeast Asia.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:02 pmJesus Christ Roger I agree with youtr Idea of Uniting the UN, but first we have to recognize the problems that exist today.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:03 pmWhereas the IMF and WBank give corporations a voice over the exploitation of people!!!
And the pressure is on the IMF now, and WE are seeing some changes… See where I was going now Roger_Roger?
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-09-21-voa30.cfm
Indrawati says if the World Bank wants countries to be open to corruption investigations it should be more open. Developing countries have been lobbying for more say in World Bank and IMF decision-making.
The IMF passed [9-2006] internal reforms Monday giving more voting rights to China, Turkey, Mexico, and South Korea to better reflect the economic power of those countries. Argentina, Brazil, Egypt and India were among a minority of countries that opposed the limited increase in voting shares.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:44 pmIf americans don’t know by now that the mainstream media is run by the GOP, then you are not doing your homework.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:26 pmA Global Economy may be a good thing Roger_Roger, but not as long as Bush Ignores the UN and uses it to build an Empire and create profits for the military industrial complex and other cronies.
A Global order will never be achieved thru these people, it will have to come from the people who one day will simply refuse to take part in the insanity of a Global War Economy something straight out of Orwellia. Perpetual War.
Thats what, to me, Bush Cheney and the GOP represent — Fortress Orwellia run by the Crazies.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:52 pmOne word: mediots
September 21st, 2006 at 11:53 pmSchwarzenegger and Bloomberg team up on climate change, tired of waiting for Bush
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:49 amRoger Roger
Okay, here is where you come off as stupid: If America develops cleaner technology then the money from that technology will go to America. This is not due to any freaky leftwing ideology, this is due to patent laws. Changing your enviromental standards on new cars means those countries with lesser enviromental standards have to produce cleaner running cars – or they won’t be able to sell them in America. It protects your markets. The meme that this hurts the economy is also bullshit, because so far those countries have at least tried to cut emission have done fine.
Lastly, right now while you are using China and India as an excuse not to clean up America’s act, but guess what? The Chinese and the Indians are pointing at America as an excuse to not clean up their acts. You have to start somewhere, and right now the frankly obstructionist attitudes you guys in America are taking, do not help.
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:32 amTHe problem that exists today is that Global warming is getting worse. We only have one way to potentially stop it and that is to set a world wide cap/reduction on emissions that includes every single country. Seems like something we could actually do today.
Lets get to the UN and let the countries of the world vote on this. I know I would be a very happy man to see the world unite to fight Global warming. Currently, places like China and India don’t care about the problem and without them on board, anything we do alone simply doesn’t matter.
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:51 am#18 Roger, why is it that communities that have enacted anti-global warming policies have economies that are outpacing the average?
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:14 pmAuto Financing
Ahearn just now filed to get an car loan and got allowed right away , despite there terrible money problems !
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:20 pmOnline Payday Loans
April 8th, 2008 at 2:20 pm