Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted April 2, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
28 Comments
Primary NavigationHomeU.S.BusinessWorldEntertainmentSportsTechPoliticsElectionsScienceHealthMost PopularSecondary NavigationElections White House Congress U.S. Government World Supreme Court Press Releases Judy Woodruff Search: All News Yahoo! News Only News Photos Video/Audio Advanced
——————————————————————————–
Bush ex-strategist says loses faith in president
Here’s a little experiment I suggest for all who doubt the consequences of global warming.
Find in or near your home a closed model of the Earth’s atmosphere, a place with roughly 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, a little bit of water vapor and trace amounts of, say Neon, Helium, Methane, Krypton, and Hydrogen. Your garage is a perfect location.
Now, come up with something that might recreate the last hundred and fifty years or so of burning coal, wood, and petroleum that generally constitutes the years of the Industrial Revolution. An internal combustion engine, for example. Got a car in your garage? Perfect. Your little experiment is set.
Get in your car and start the engine and contemplate how manmade consumption of carbon-based fuels has no effect on the earth’s atmosphere.
Get back to me with your results.
You forgot to add the ocean as a sink for gases. You forgot clouds, rain, infrared, solar activity, moon effects, wind, seasonal influence, geographical location…
Other than that Monkeyhawk, you’re analogy is just fine. :D
So which one of the boycotters is back with instructions on how to kill yourself?
How small would a car have to be in relation to a garage to accurately reflect size proportions of the entire atmosphere to one garage? And, are there any trees creating oxygen in that garage?
I don’t think monkey was ever part of the boycott.
The real loser of the British/Iranian hostage standoff? Gas prices. I hope the Brits stand strong and don’t bow to the hostage holders.
Seems to me that if any country knows how to handle maritime thuggery, it would be the British, a nation of seafarers.
raptor:
To replicate trees, bring a couple of houseplants into the garage. Then, to replicate deforestation, kill one of them.
The dog’s water dish will recreate Republican’s “ocean sink” variable.
High Court Tells EPA to Consider Global Warming Steps’http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awWXnSn4VOHw&refer=home“April 2 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Supreme Court ordered Bush administration environmental officials to reconsider their refusal to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, giving a boost to advocates of stronger action against global warming.”
Why would The Supreme Court even be messing with this?
Because the State of Massachusetts, among others, sued EPA concerning its authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” under NEPA. EPA essentially said it didn’t have the authority to so and, even if it had the authority, was not required to so do; the States and others who were plaintiffs disagreed; thus the litigation.
Vaughn,
This is why I asked:
Roberts said the court lacked constitutional power to second-guess the agency at the behest of states and environmental groups. The majority’s reasoning “has caused us to transgress the proper — and properly limited — role of the courts in a democratic society,” he wrote.
Scalia said the court “has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.”
Amen!
Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent concentrated on the issue of standing.
Justice Scalia’s dissent concentrated on the degree of deference to be given to the opinion of the administrative agency.
The majority disagreed; thus, the outcome.
Republican,
Your BS re AGW works better if you “forget” the oceans. It’s a positive feedback.
And warmer oceans = less phytoplanton = less CO2 absorbed.
‘Climate Warming Reduces Ocean Food Supply’http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/warm_marine.html” “Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere play a big part in global warming,” said lead author Michael Behrenfeld of Oregon State University, Corvallis. “This study shows that as the climate warms, phytoplankton growth rates go down and along with them the amount of carbon dioxide these ocean plants consume.That allows carbon dioxide to accumulate MORE rapidly in the atmosphere, which would produce MORE warming.” ”
Your BS re AGW works better if you “forget” water vapor — it’s also a positive feedback.
And “forget” the other positive feedbacks — less ice/snow = more heat energy absorbed, GHG’s released from thawing permafrost, etc.
Anyone read that the Aussie terrorist is going to be released, but conditioned upon a gag order that he can’t discuss the torture treatment he was never subjected to?
I’d say if this guy’s kid goes to Iraq, he’ll be sent on the most dangerous missions available. A little of the famed Bush Payback.WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The chief strategist of George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign said he had lost faith in the U.S. president over Iraq and other issues, in a high-level rupture of Bush’s famously loyal inner circle.
ADVERTISEMENTMatthew Dowd, a polling expert who switched parties to become a Republican and also served as a senior strategist in Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, told The New York Times in an interview on Sunday that Bush must face up to Americans’ growing disillusionment with the war.
Dowd said he had found himself agreeing with calls by Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Bush’s opponent in 2004, for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
“If the American public says they’re done with something, our leaders have to understand what they want,” Dowd said. “They’re saying, ‘Get out of Iraq.”‘
He also cited the administration’s bungled handling of the response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Bush’s refusal to meet Cindy Sheehan, who had lost a son in Iraq, while she was leading a protest outside Bush’s Texas ranch.
“I had finally come to the conclusion that maybe all these things along do add up,” Dowd said. “That it’s not the same, it’s not the person I thought.”
Although some other administration officials have expressed similar views over the years, the Times said Dowd is the first member of Bush’s inner circle to break so publicly with him.
Dowd said he had been attracted to Bush by his ability as Texas governor to work across party lines but Bush had failed to do the same as president and had become isolated with his views hardening. The Times said Dowd was speaking out partly in an effort to get through to Bush.
“I really like him, which is why I’m so disappointed in things,” Dowd said. “I think he’s become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in.”
SHARED SACRIFICE
He said Bush had failed to call for a shared sacrifice among Americans after the September 11 attacks and followed a divisive political strategy.
Dowd helped develop Bush’s successful re-election strategy of rallying his Republican “base” but sounded a different note in the Times interview.
“I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people,” he said, “but to bring the country together as a whole.”
White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Dowd’s criticism reflects the U.S. debate over the war.
“This war is a complicated and difficult one and it brings out emotions in people from both sides of the aisle, even those who work closely for the president, and the president respects his position,” Bartlett said on CBS television’s “Face the Nation.”
“Obviously, we disagree with him as far as him (Bush) being too insular or him bringing the troops home,” Bartlett said. “What troubles me is that there is a perception that this president doesn’t understand the difficulties of this war … there’s nothing that weighs more heavily on his mind.”
The Times said Dowd acknowledged that the expected deployment to Iraq of his oldest son, Daniel, an Army intelligence specialist, was a factor in his changed view of Bush.
Dowd said he now wanted to “do my part in fixing fissures that I may have been a part of.”
The Times said Dowd cited Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois as the only 2008 presidential candidate who appeals to him but said the idea of mission work also was attractive as a way to “re-establish a level of gentleness in the world.”
Correction to 11:57am post; not “NEPA” but “Clean Air Act”. My apologies.
Apparently not receiving the same media attention, but IMHO perhaps a more important decision; SCOTUS rules 9-0 against Duke Energy in the government litigation against it concerning “clean up” of coal fired power plants. The initial litigation was commenced during the Clinton Administration.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/02/scotus.dukeenergy.ap/index.html
Remember tomorrow: If you didn’t like the corrupt “good ol’ boy” network that ran Wichita but can’t remember their names, you can refresh your memory by reading the list of Carl Brewer’s campaign donors.
HiLARious, Anon.
How you can say “good old boys” without mentioning Mayans is a real side-splitter.
This is the guy who lied us into an arena and then claims he “never raised taxes.”
Steve,
Bush did work across party lines. However, when as the times got tougher, some Democrats who were for the War and Certain Policies are now against it.
So, who changed? Bush or the Democrats? :)
“Republican” –
The best argument you’re left with is Democrats are dupes. They had the patriotic courage to believe, back in 2001 and 2002 that George WMD Bush wasn’t lying to them.
It’s been documented by former White House insiders that Shrub took (literally) office on January 20, 2001 with a passion to attack Iraq. It’s fully documented that the outgoing (literally) Clinton Administration told the Bushies that the biggest threat to America was al Qaeda… and that the Bushies weren’t all that interested. Indeed, when the CIA reported to Dumbya that “al Qaeda [was] Determined to Attack the United States,” — a full month before 9/11 — the pResident of the United States was more concerned with clearing brush in Crawford, Texas.
On September 12, 2001, Bush enjoyed almost universal support from every American, indeed every freedom-loving person on the planet. Bush promised the nation, indeed every freedom-loving person on the planet, that he would bring Osama bin Laden to justice…or bring justice to Osama bin Laden.
What’s happened since then?
Right back at’cha, “Republican:”"Who changed?”
Either George WMD Bush is a pathological liar or utterly incompetent. Because of my liberal nature, I’m reluctant to think people are driven by mendacity, so I must assume Shrub is merely incompetent.
pResident Bush has told us there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, that WMDs-in-Iraq were a slam-dunk certainty, that invading Iraq would pay for itself with Iraqi oil; that the total cost to American taxpayers would be $4 or $5 Billion tops; that American troops would be welcomed with flowers and chocolates; that the invasion of Iraq would last three days; maybe three weeks, probably not as long as three months…
How’s that worked out, “Republican?”
And, see? All this time I’ve hoped that George WMD Bush has been simply incompetent; not a liar! It breaks my heart to think the pResident of the United States wouled purposefully lie to his constituents. I hoped Shrub applied the same executive sense and wisdom he displayed when he traded Sammy Sosa away from the Texas Rangers. I wanted to believe poking dozens of dry holes in oil-rich west Texas was just a string of bad luck, not an example of taking a lot of investors in Abusto Oil to the cleaners, just before Daddy Bush’s friends at Harken Energy bailed out the company.
I so much wanted to believe George WMD Bush wasn’t a liar; simply incompetent.
Then he told me Harriet Meiers was qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Then he told me if he ever found out who leaked the identity of Valarie Plame he’d fire them on the spot. Then his Attorney General gave three (or is it four?) different versions as to how 8 United States Attorneys were determined to be “non ‘Bushies.’”
And Shrub told me more arsenic in the water is good for me. And Georgie told me “Brownie” was doing a heckuva job. Then he told me Donald Rumsfeld had his complete faith and backing.
Who changed? Most certainly not George WMD Bush. He’s been lying all along.
MonkeyHawk,
The Democrats had access to the same inteligence that Bush did. They overwhelmingly chose to support the war.
The Democrats can’t play the we were lied to card.
Looks like Bush’s But Boys he put in the S.C., just weren’t enough to keep the SC from ruling against him, and declaring that the EPA does indeed have the authority to regulate green house gas emissions. Looks like the SC is going to maake the EPA do their job however reluctant they are.
MonkeyHawk,
I have a hard time following your post. You put more parts in there than “Hobo stew.”
Having a hard time concentrating with all that hate?
You really don’t need to waste all of that repetitive “Republican” usage.
Did President Clinton lie when he said Iraq had WMDs? You don’t think a Scud missile with radioactive material is not a WMD? How about mustard gas? Sarin anyone?
By the way, was your head wobbling when you wrote that? :)
Good post, MonkeyHawk.
When Clinton lied, I said he lied.
When LBJ lied (about the Gulf of Tonkin attack), I said he lied.
When practically every provable statement that comes out of George W. Bush’s mouth is proven false, Republican, Hank and Nathan claim that the man has never NEVER uttered a lie.
“The vast majority of my tax breaks go to those at the bottom of the economic ladder” when 67 percent of the benefits go to the TOP 14 percent.
Nope, not a lie.
THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html
Nope, not a lie.
“There’s a new sheriff in town–one that’s dedicated to fiscal responsibility” and he increased government spending more than ANY president since WWII, more than Truman, more than Carter, more than Johnson and sent the national debt to a post WWII high.
Nope, nothing to see here.
Look at the “context.”
Good post Capn.