Climate Change or Global Warming:

The 18th century began a time of economic and industrial growth around the world, and with that industrial growth came the advent of factories. These factories made manufacturing easier, burning fuel and using energy to faster perform the tasks that up until then had been done by men. The fuel burned was based on coal, a huge producer of carbon dioxide. This went on until...well, it's still going on. While today we have standards and regulations for the amount of emissions a factory can produce, the fact is that for 200 years, there were none. Factories pumped out as many emissions as were necessary to work at peak capacity, as often as possible. Many in the scientific community (some would say most) believe these emissions were the main contributing factor to the deterioration of our atmosphere & increase in worldwide temperature, a trend we call either "global warming" or "climate change".

Big oil industry would have climatologists downplay coal and oilburning emissions contribution to the change. The situation has been studied for over 20 years now, and science cannot state definitively that carbon emissions are the cause of the change, due to the nature of scientific study & the scope of the atmospheric damage done, and thus independent groups use that technicality to claim other possibilities are just as valid despite not having the same hard evidence behind it. Party wise, typically Republicans, being on the side of "big business" are more opposed to climate change & regulation of carbon emissions.

Personally, I find the debate silly. Opponents are grasping at straws, hoping for any new information that could absolve the coal and oil industries of fault & allow them to maintain their current states, lining their wallets and their candidates political funds. Some groups even go so far as to suggest school rubrics emphasizing climate change's controversy, undermining the information in favor of sowing further confusion to slow down the changes in policy that would diminish their profits, fund events devoted to science arguing against it, and finances many of the major scientists opposing.(Source). It just comes across as the last desperate attempts of a group to establish legitimacy in the face of overwhelming evidence against them.

On September 30th, 2014 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) issued a press release stating that a man in Dallas, Texas had been admitted & diagnosed with the first case of Ebola found in the US. They noted that they had been "anticipating and preparing for a case of Ebola in the United States" (CDC Press Release). The man had traveled from a region affected by the disease on the 19th of the month, began to display symptoms on the 24th, and was hospitalized on the 28th. It was at this point that the US news industry blew up- reporting every detail they could find, verified or not, as fast as they could to stay ahead of the competitor news station. Reports began nationwide from "experts" and news commentators that the United States had a new epidemic on it's hands, that a new crisis on par with the AIDS pandemic of the late 80's was beginning. The US political machine got involved as well- Republicans blaming Democratic initiatives, Democrats blaming Republican initiatives. All of this, while this first man was still fighting for his life in quarantine away from those he should be able to conceivably infect.

Supporters of this so-called "war on Ebola" contend that Ebola infection is growing so quickly in Africa that infection is "inevitable" in the United States & other countries. As a result, they would have us ban flights to the afflicted area to prevent possible carriers from coming and going at will. This plan disregards the need for aid workers to travel to and from the area with necessary medicine and supplies for the areas most at risk and will inevitably lead to the increase of Ebola in the area directly surrounding the one that's sectioned off. Politicos on the left & right both are defending this assault on what they perceive to be a politically neutral enemy, a uniting force for their parties. After all, who could be opposed to helping sick people in poor countries? The problem with this is that their ideas of how to help these sick people are contradictory, counterintuitive, and often ill informed. Think of it this way: of all the national ills facing our country today, is it really feasible to believe how best to aid another country is going to be the one thing both major parties can agree on?
(map depicting the current outbreak of Ebola in Western Africa, courtesy of http://kosmixmedia.com/ebola-outbreak-2014/)

The rush to find a "solution" will only compound the problem of Ebola spreading, but unfortunately it is unlikely to cease in the foreseeable future. Political parties are interested in their polling results- 2014 is a midterm election year, so both sides are blaming key "failures" on the opposing party. In addition to this, this fear has also led to increases in sales of health and safety supplies; hand sanitizer, hand wash, face masks, and gloves are also experiencing booms due to the fear, pumping more money into our economy, a trend that no smart politician (least of all a smart politician in office trying to retain that office) is going to try to stymy. Likewise, the news media industry also has to gain from this hyperreactive coverage- ratings. More people, more afraid, are more willing to watch more news to find out more "information" which, unfortunately, they ultimately have the most sway over. Information is freely available for the average consumer (information being used literally here, actual facts and statistics available through online sources) but they unfortunately must depend on the sources that most benefit from both our time and attention. The news media is ultimately most interested in the needs of the news media, which translates to the needs of it's overseers and financial supporters, the companies selling the supplies Americans today, at this moment, are clamoring to get due to the fear of an imminent threat.


Sources: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/s930-ebola-confirmed-case.html
http://www.livescience.com/48087-ebola-first-case-diagnosed-us.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/10/ebola_politics_13_ways_democrats_and_republicans_are_exploiting_the_virus.html
http://theweek.com/article/index/269420/the-war-against-ebola-is-much-more-important-than-the-battle-against-isis
http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/10/12/354626252/ebola-diary-the-grave-diggers-the-mistress-the-man-on-the-porch
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/disinfectants-hand-sanitizers-surge-ebola-fears/295427/

On september 11th 2001 the United States was attacked for the first time on it's own soil. The attack was orchestrated and carried out by al-Qaeda, a militant group from the Middle East led by Osama bin Laden.
(image courtesy of fallingtree.co.uk)
The group poured $500,000 into an endeavor that would eventually cost America & the rest of the Western world up to $2 trillion in damages (Bruce Riedel 1). More than that, it began an idea- the idea of "Terrorism" as an enemy that could be fought and defeated in a traditional war.

(image courtesy of americanpopculture.com)
George W. Bush, his term inundated with turmoil in the preceding months, jumped onto an opportunity to direct blame for the attacks on a target he & his allies (both in government and in private industry) found more lucrative. The government and various industries upped the ante by increasing claims of national insecurity, selling more security software & survival equipment while enforcing their own ideas of safety.

Supporters of G.W. Bush's invasion of Iraq used the notion of Iraq's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to justify an invasion of an unrelated enemy nation for political and capital gain, while enabling the family of the party responsible to escape questioning, despite then doing everything in their power to enhance airport and travel security, ironically saving people from the security sweeps they later instituted.

Right wing groups believe Bush's invasion of Iraq was both a sensible political move & inevitability, as it's leader Saddam Hussein was a target. They disregard the fact that Bush likely circumvented the laws he would later enforce so harshly in favor of giving his business associates more time than they would have been given had they no relationship.

I believe that George Bush's wars were rushed, ill advised, and premature. Bush utilized the opportunity that a national tragedy provided to make a profit, and ensure his allies made a profit.