Fox News and the World

Fox News, which is the main media arm of Republican Party in USA, is deceiving American people about Global Warming and its consequences. It is feeding them false stories and facts and keeping them in dark about what will happen if the world didn't take solid actions against Global Warming.

Republican Party will lose majority of its voters if the Fox News disappears today. It will no longer be able to attract the large rural population with least education.

Fox News was the main driving force behind pulling USA out of Paris accord. Since USA and NASA are the major scientific contributors for our knowledge about Global Warming, its causes, and its consequences, this presents the biggest hurdle in facing the challenge.

Americans are rich, and they are one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita in the world, this might accelerate the greenhouse gas emissions and speed up the Global Warming. This also makes it very hard for the world to face the challenge of the Global Warming.

As long as the Fox News is dictating American politics, every measure the world takes on fixing the Global Warming will most likely to fail.

World against Republican Party in USA

Republican party is one of the main driving forces against any measure the world is taking for fixing the Global Warming and dealing with the associated problems. As long as the Republican Party in USA is in any position to project power in American politics, any work on Global Warming will most likely to fail.

If the world wants to fix the Global Warming and other Environmental problems, it should try its best to separate Republican Party from any position of power.

All big countries should consider establishing funds for campaigning during American politics and making American people aware of the fact that voting for Republican Party is bad for the world and for the USA itself.

Struggle for Corrupt Person

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, photo from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iftikhar_Muhammad_Chaudhry

A friend of mine, who affiliates with Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) once said to me that former Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was a corrupt person. My reply to him through mobile sms was as follows:

You message some time ago raised several questions in my mind. I am listing my questions and points as follows.

• At the end of the message, you said that our (former) Chief Justice is very corrupt person. 
• I remember one such claim was made by former President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf. 
• Lets consider Chief Justice is corrupt, then PPP used to struggle for restoring a corrupt Chief Justice in 2007-2008. 
• Barrister Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, a prominent leader of PPP, was the leading role in the movement for restoring a corrupt Chief Justice.
• Shaheed e Jamhuriat, Benazir Bhutto said to put a Pakistani flag on his house. Had she no moral boldness and confidence to talk against a corrupt person?

Contradicting own Ideologies

Separation between church and state: this means keeping religion as a private matter of a person and not involve the state in religious matter, and not letting religion involved in state matters.
USA constitution is very clear about this.
There are several measures to ensure this.
But when we look at the Israel and USA policies to each other, we see a stark contradiction in the policy of keeping state and religion separate.
The very existence of Israel is based on a combination of religion and racism.
Israeli policies to its neighbors and other minorities have a major impact from Judaism. 
The unconditional support of Israel by USA is solely based on care for religion and race.

But one can say that the above contradiction is due to the problematic politics in USA.
This explanation raises another question:
USA is a preacher of democracy and good governance and transparency.
When its own politics leads it against its own ideology, then how credible is the USA own democracy.
If its own democracy is not so good, then why preach to others and even trying to export the democratic system to other countries, like into Iraq and Afghanistan?

Why does Iranian People not Matter to USA

USA had been helping its puppet Shah of Iran for decades as a tyrant in suppressing Iranian people while forwarding American interests. Iranian people were hating Shah of Iran and also USA for the atrocities. This is no secret.
After Iranian revolution, there was a harsh response which resulted in the American Embassy Crisis. Americans loath Iranians for the Embassy Crisis but they never acknowledge their own mistake of supporting a tyrant Shah of Iran against Iranian peoples wishes, rights, and interests.
I was talking with someone more familiar with American politics and foreign policy. He said that when USA was supporting Shah of Iran, it was because of American interests. In that matter, Iranian people didn't matter at all. Iranian people didn't matter to USA when it was supporting Shah of Iran. Because American financial and strategic interests were involved.
Iranian people didn't matter to Americans. Human rights of Iranian people didn't matter to Americans because American interests were involved. 
Even today, Americans don't care about Iranian people. They are forwarding their own agenda. In American capitalism and democracy, non-American people don't matter at all.

If USA government was a dictatorship or kingship, then it was an act and a policy of a few individuals. But USA was and still is a democracy. USA is a long-time and civilized democracy with one of the world's best constitutions and several democratic institutions. It has a free media for a long time.
Isn't this strange for a democracy like USA to violate human rights of another country for several decades?
Isn't it strange for a land-of-free to enslave people of other countries through dictators and tyrants? 
Isn't it strange for a civilized country to help a tyrant and dictator to suppress his countrymen for decades?
Isn't even more strange for a democratic country to not acknowledge its undemocratic and inhuman behavior against another country people even after several decades?

What a strange nation....

Pre and Post Iranian Revolution Perceptions

Before Iranian Revolution of late 1970s, Shah of Iran had complete authority over almost every aspect of Iranian government. He had suppressed the Iranian people in almost every aspect.
But USA and Iran were great allies. USA was major supporter of Shah of Iran, and rarely objected about his any undemocratic acts of suppression of Iranian people.
Shah of Iran had given several kinds of facilities to Americans to do whatever they wanted to do in Iran. In Shahs Iran, there were least number of problems for Americans, but Iranian people were facing all kinds of problems.
The Shah of Iran had subjected Iranian people through secret and securities agencies and Americans where happy with that. Americans where very dear friends of Shah.
In short, Americans were best and dearest friends of Shah of Iran, while the same Shah was the worst enemy in the eyes of Iranian people.
After revolution, the Iranian hostage crisis occurred. It was a very complicated and long event. This event made Americans very surprised and angry. Their anger was natural but their surprise and claiming a moral higher ground was strange.
As mentioned at the start about the dirty romance of Americans with Shah of Iran, similar event should have been expected by Americans. What Iranian people viewed of the American embassy was not of as a source of diplomacy but a gateway of strength of Shah of Iran and the gateway of troubles of Iranian people, and the home of Shahs dearest friends. And Iranian people hated Shah a lot for his cruelty, while Americans loved him just for his money and power. Naturally, Iranian people considered Americans has a major source of their suffering.
I am making a simpler assumption here: A democratic government is from the people, and its any acts put strong responsibility on the people.
So, when American government was a dearest friend of Shah of Iran in suppressing Iranian people in very cruel manner, then American people were also very  responsible for the suffering of Iranian people by hands of Shah.
After the crisis, American people didn't thought about their past behavior and romance with the Iranian Shah. They didn't transcend about their active support of undemocratic behavior of Shah of Iran. American people and American intellectuals and American media just blamed Iranians for everything and declared them their enemies.
If American people and intellectuals had thought about their past mistakes,and acknowledged them, then the intensity of the enmity with Iran would have been very low. Both parties might have recognized their own mistakes and very soon people of both countries might have been in good relations.
But Americans didn't do this. They didn't thought about their mistakes and didn't acknowledge their wrong behavior in dealing with Iranians from the beginning.They acted like psychos with no guilt and dead conscience.
We can say that Iranians were uneducated, religious extremists, so we can't expect the thinking from them.
But Americans were not like Iranians. They were educated and intellectuals and had free media and democratic government. Why didn't they think about and acknowledge their mistakes and try to compensate for them, while improving the situation with the Iranians?
This is a big why?

Several reasons and factors can be  presented. I have the following ones:

• There is a very powerful lobby of weapon manufacturers in American government. Declaring Iran as an enemy would brighten their prospects.
• They knew that Iranians were Shia and there were historical religious disputes with Arabs.So, they needed an enemy in the middle of Arabs to sell them weapons, a lot of weapons.
• Israeli Jews have a huge influence in American politics and policy making. They felt threatened by Iranians and they wanted Americans to contain it.
• The free median in American is not as free as it seems. When it comes to government plus money plus powerful lobbies of weapons manufacturers and Israeli Jews, they just go with in any direction they are directed.
• Some very few American intellectuals tried to talk about it, but median blocked them out, so no one got a clue of the matter at all.

Academic Politics and Political Academics

Claim: Political science is not compatible with real world and research carried out in universities and colleges and other educational institutions is mostly about modeling events happened in past.

Arguments:

• There is a huge gape between theory and practice of political science. Scholars of political science have very little influence in everyday politics and on political parties.
• Political science departments of universities of a country provide very small input or influence on the everyday politics of the country.
• No matter how older and mature the political science departments of universities are, the country politics get nothing from this.
• There is no such thing as political maturity or political advancement, like we say scientific and technological advancement. 
• New generation politics in real world show very little maturity when compared to older generations politics.
• Sometimes, the politics of newer generations are immature and stupid than the older generations politics.

For a case study, I can provide the example of USA politics, specially when it comes to wars and foreign policies. 
From the above points, it can be concluded that political science is just an intellectual luxury and brain-itching for some old professors which has very little to do with real world.
Most of the time, the theory of political science is rarely applied even in the office politics among the academic staff of the political science departments.
Isn't this strange or stupid?