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
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
Open thread 6/29
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted June 29, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
67 Comments
CNN this morning is broadcasting news of a crude car bomb in London. The device included 50 gallons of gas, possibly propane cannisters, and various reports of large quantities of nails. Bouncers at a club noticed the driver driving erratically and reported it.
“CNN this morning is broadcasting news of a crude car bomb in London. The device included 50 gallons of gas, possibly propane cannisters, and various reports of large quantities of nails. Bouncers at a club noticed the driver driving erratically and reported it.”
Obviously not an Al Queada job. Too amatuer. Getting gasoline to explode without mising it with oxygen is impossible. Sounds like these guys need to watch “Mythbusters” on Discovery. They tried like hell to get gasoline to blow up by shooting holes in the cans, dropping matches in the cans- no luck.
Kev,News reports are still sketchy. You’re right, it can be difficult to make gasoline explode, but we don’t know what if anything was mixed with it. There are unconfirmed reports of propane canisters. Compressed propane is harder to make explode than you might expect, but if you could ignite and rupture a cylinder in the presence of 50 gallons of gasoline, you’d have a hell of a fire bomb.
Today’s Bush Family Evil Empire: Scandal Du Jure–
Remember when seven Americans in a convey were captured by Iraqis in Nasariyah? One of them was a Kansan, Patrick Miller. Three weeks later, they were freed by Marines in their Baghdad prison?
At the time, Commander Cod-Piece loudly declared that he expected our captured soldiers to be treated “humanely,” and Sec’ry of War Donald Rumsfailed excoriated the Iraq and Al Jazeera News for filming and airing interviews of the prisoners.
Fast forward now to Abu Ghraib prison and what little we know about Guantanemo Bay. Were those enemy combatants treated “humanely” as Bush wanted our POW’s to be treated?
Since the reports of widespread prison abuse–which include routine torture, sexual humiliation, rape and sodomy of women and children and even fatalities–NONE of our captured soldiers have been returned in one piece.
Three Americans were taken prisoner in May and they vanished; nothing but dog tags and tattered clothes showing up.
So let’s review–before Abu Ghraib and routine US torture (see “special rendition”), our captured soldiers were treated like POW’s. Jessica Lynch was even hospitalized by the Iraqis.
After Abu Ghraib and torture, our guys vanish and are never seen again.
While it’s impossible to say if there’s a direct cause-and-effect relationship, it does make sense that if we want our guys to be treated “humanely” (as W put it), then maybe we ought to treat our captives humanely too.
It also makes sense that our soldiers would be tortured and killed after what we did to them.
But then . . . when has the BFFE ever given a damn about ordinary working people like soldiers?
This has been your Bush Family Evil Empire: Scandal Du Jour.
Where is the RW outrage over Israel’s President stepping down with a plea deal for the rape of one of his female employees, haveing harrassed two others? Guess he could of faced seven years in prison if convicted.
That damn Carter negotiated with the NK’s over nukes, not unlike commander Codpiece! Codpiece just took longer to come to terms with it! Where’s talk radio’s outrage?
Bruce Fein, who served as the Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, in a scathing editorial today called for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.
“Impeach Cheney” The vice president has run utterly amok and must be stopped.By Bruce FeinPosted Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 5:06 PM ET
Under Dick Cheney, the office of the vice president has been transformed from a tiny acorn into an unprecedented giant oak. In grasping and exercising presidential powers, Cheney has dulled political accountability and concocted theories for evading the law and Constitution that would have embarrassed King George III. The most recent invention we know of is the vice president’s insistence that an executive order governing the handling of classified information in the executive branch does not reach his office because he also serves as president of the Senate. In other words, the vice president is a unique legislative-executive creature standing above and beyond the Constitution. The House judiciary committee should commence an impeachment inquiry. As Alexander Hamilton advised in the Federalist Papers, an impeachable offense is a political crime against the nation. Cheney’s multiple crimes against the Constitution clearly qualify.
Read the rest of the editorial here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2169292
“He looked uncharacteristically dejected as he approached the lectern, fiddling with papers as he talked and avoiding the sort of winking eye contact he often makes with reporters. And then President Bush did something he almost never does: He admitted defeat.”
“Bush emerged from reelection with four main domestic priorities for his second term, as identified by Rove and other aides: He planned to reinvent Social Security to allow investment of some funds in the stock market, overhaul the tax code from top to bottom, bring millions of illegal immigrants out of the shadows and impose tough new curbs on what he called excessive litigation. He is now almost zero-for-four.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062802585.html?hpid=topnews
Quack, quack. Quack, quack, quack!(limp, limp)
Yup. Good post, XXX.
I was thinking about this the other day too.
Except for packing the Supreme Court and bogging us down in war-without-end in Iraq, Worst President Ever has even succeeded in meeting his own goals.
Thank God.
Hasn’t even succeeded . . .
Also, making the tax cuts permanent.
Nope. Not that one neither.
Thanks, Cap A.Maybe we’re finally “seeing the light” at the end of a long, dark tunnel. The next question is, how will we ever dig ourselves out of the hole this administration has gotten us into?
“A bitterly divided U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday issued what is likely to be a landmark opinion — ruling that race cannot be a factor in the assignment of children to public schools.”
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,”http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/28/scotus.race/index.html
Well, this kind of changes the landscape, doesn’t it?
OOPs, missed a whole thread from yesterday….
MUST – HAVE – MORE – COFFEE!!!!!
Looks like Nancy Boyda never learns. She loves to ask for gay support, take our money, and then, like Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football, she does a 180 and dumps on us AGAIN!
I agree with my friend who sent me this. If the repukes retake Boydas seat next year, will we really notice the difference?
Jim Ryun in a skirt. She sides with bush and the repukes. AGAIN!
“Boyda also voted in favor yesterday of an amendment to an appropriations bill that would prohibit the District from Columbia from using federal funds to administer its domestic partnership program.
The vote was purely symbolic – DC doesn’t use federal funds for this and never has – but Boyda’s vote in favor of a right-wing anti-gay amendment that passed by only 6 votes is another sign that she, quite frankly, is a piece of sh*t.
If the GOP re-takes that seat in 2008, will we even be able to tell the difference?”
And a comment from another friend:
“Boyda disappoints us once again. Why does she not understand that she has to stand on principles that are going to get people like myself to vote for her again? When is she going to understand if she isn’t for us, then we aren’t for her??? Didn’t she learn that the first time she ran when all the LGBTs started pulling money from her campaign after her announcement that she would vote for the marriage amendment? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is just stupid. It is costing us valuable personnel in a time when we need people who speak languages other than English and can effectively communicate with people in places like Iraq. Loosing translators because they are gay isn’t helping the country. What is she trying to do here?”
I snipped out a reference at the end to her family.
Looks like the truth about kansas democrats is pretty obvious.
They think they are blue. I’d call them a blue tinted shade of red. More red than purple.
Meet the new bosses same as the old bosses….
“More Free Speech On Radio”
The Center for American Progress and Free Press recently released a report confirming the stunning lack of balance in talk radio. According to the report, 91 percent of talk radio owned by the top five commercial stations is conservative. Ninety-two percent of these stations (236 stations out of 257) do not broadcast a single minute of progressive talk radio programming. The report has spawned a far-reaching debate over the imbalance in talk radio, with conservatives raising false claims about free speech, claiming “bloody murder…censorship…and propaganda.” “There is little free speech or free choice in a market system that pushes out one-sided information 90 percent of the time on the radio,” said John Halpin, one of the report’s co-authors. Progressives, including several members of Congress, have unfortunately allowed the right wing to control the debate on this issue, focusing their legislative attempts at reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation that was repealed in 1987, required broadcasters to devote airtime to important and controversial issues and to provide contrasting views on these issues in some form. Reinstating that doctrine is not the answer. With talk radio being one of the most widely used media formats in the country and reaching an estimated 50 million listeners each week, it is imperative that progressives reclaim the debate from the right wing and instead address the increased concentration of talk radio ownership that has occurred over the past decade. As report co-author John Halpin stated, “If we break up concentrated ownership, and encourage greater local accountability over radio licensing, and still end up with lots of conservative talk, then so be it. We don’t think this will happen but at least the playing field would have been made more level.”
RIGHT-WING DISTORTIONS: The right wing has baselessly twisted the debate about the structural imbalance of talk radio into one about free speech, claiming progressives “want to revive a policy to require broadcasters to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.” Michelle Malkin titled her post about the CAP/FP report “Fairness Doctrine Watch.” Jonah Goldberg of the National Review stated, “Does anyone really believe liberals would even entertain this renewed passion for the fairness doctrine if talk radio were overwhelmingly liberal? It just strikes me as so transparently opportunistic and unprincipled.” “This next one may make you think twice about freedom of speech,” announced a Fox News host on Wednesday. But the CAP/FP report does not argue that the Fairness Doctrine should be resurrected. In fact, the report specifically states that this likely would not correct the massive imbalance in talk radio. “[T]he Fairness Doctrine was never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure the fair discussion of important issues. The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings, required notice to the local community that licenses were going to expire, and empowered the local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders.” Thus, legislation that would singularly revive the Fairness Doctrine is misguided, failing to address the more important issue of media ownership. “Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters.”
A MISGUIDED APPROACH: With conservatives wanting to shift the debate into one about the Fairness Doctrine, some progressive members of Congress proposing remedies that do not primarily address the problem. Some progressives in Congress have called for “reinstituting” the Fairness Doctrine, possibly introducing legislation to revive the rule. This approach would not mitigate the structure of a talk radio system that fails to meet the public interest and spends 90 percent of its time churning out one-sided talk. In fact, the report warns, “Misguided policy solutions may also lead to unintended consequences that reduce the diversity of speech on the radio rather than expand it.” Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said he will introduce legislation today “that would prevent any future president or the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.” Congress is clearly gravitating around the Fairness Doctrine; progressives should understand, however, that simply reviving the Fairness Doctrine will not ameliorate talk radio imbalance.
REAL SOLUTIONS LIE IN OWNERSHIP: Talk radio reform proposals should address the pressing issue of concentrated ownership and ineffective regulation in order to promote balanced news coverage. Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 eliminated ownership caps, there has been a 34 percent decline in the number of radio station owners, allowing conglomerates like Clear Channel to increase market share from 40 stations to over 1,200. As a result, women, minorities, and small local owners have been deprived of opportunities to participate. Leading progressive radio talker Ed Schultz recently debunked the right-wing claim that there is a “free market,” explaining that the market is being controlled by a few ownership groups that are forcing conservative talk shows into local markets. “I beat Sean Hannity in Denver. I beat him in Seattle. I beat him in Portland. I beat in San Diego. How many markets do I have to beat Hannity in before I get 200 or 300 stations? It’s an ownership issue,” Schultz said. “The fact is, it’s market opportunities and liberal talkers, progressive talkers are being held to a totally different standard than conservatives.” Congress should propose legislation that addresses the ownership problem, promoting diversity by restoring local and national ownership caps, for instance, allowing no entity to control more than 10 percent of total commercial radio stations. Last week, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) introduced the Local Community Radio Act, potentially prompting “hundreds of new low-power [local] FM radio stations to sprout up around the country.” Said Doyle, “We have announced legislation that we believe has the potential to revolutionize what Americans hear on their radio.”
It is all about ownership:
Thursday, May 10, 2007The Clear Channel Flips Have FloppedAbout three months ago Clear Channel flipped four liberal talk radio stations to other formats claiming that the stations were not performing well.
Now, the results are in and it appears that format flips have proved to be flops.
Also, according to an article that appeared in the Columbus Dispatch, where the lib talk station, WTPG/1230, was flipped to conservative talk, it appears that CC’s motives were not to improve to the programming but rather to protect dominant status of their heritage conservative talk station WTVN/610.
During the last two weeks of December, stations operated by CC in Boston, MA and Columbus, and Cincinnati, OH dropped lib talk in favor of new formats.
WXKS/1400-WKOX/1200 in Boston became The Rumba (a music format targeting Hispanics). WTPG in Columbus became a conservative talker with new call letters – WYTS, and WSAI in Cincinnati was changed to eclectic mish mash of lifestyle talk calling itself The Source.
Now the Winter Arbitron survey results are in and the news for Clear Channel are not good.
Hispanics in Boston have not picked up on the Rumba where listenership has dropped by 75%. Conservatives in Columbus, who seem to be happy with WTVN, are not flocking to WYTS, which saw listenership fall by 38%. And talk radio listeners in Cincinnati are not tuning to The Source, which has resulted in stunning 90% decline in WSAI’s ratings.
Collectively, the three stations have lost about 70% of listenership over the past three months.
Next ratings period we will see how the other CC flips have worked out –e.g. in Akron, WARF/1350 and in New Haven WAVZ/1300 where the stations have switched to Sports.
Remember what CC managers said at the time that they announced these three flips.
“It wasn’t working. We thought it best to do something else,” said Tony Bender, program director at WTPG.
Obviously, what Bender came up with is apparently working less.
We’ve reported extensively on comments made by Darryl Parks, CC’s operation manager in Cincinnati who refers to himself as “the ‘Grim Reaper’ of liberal talk radio.”
“It was a format that was set up not to entertain, but it seemed set up to get people elected, for a lack of a better way to put it,” Parks said. ” “There were some good (liberal) shows, but they need to start looking to more broad-based subjects than just harping on politics.”
Tom Thon, CC’s market manager in Columbus told the Dispatch that the format flip was just a “business decision”.
“Unfortunately, central Ohio listeners did not respond to the progressive format,” Thon said. “It’s been very underperforming in ratings and revenue.”
However, that same newspaper in Columbus revealed that CC might have had a different motivation.
On Wednesday, the Dispatch, reporting on the sharp ratings declines experienced by WYTS, confirmed that CC had no desire to return to lib talk in spite of the miserable ratings they were receiving for the newly launched conservative talk format.
“The station now ties up talk-show hosts such as Laura Ingraham, Bill O’Reilly and Michael Savage in case another station in town wants to flip an FM station to talk,”the Dispatch reported.
So it seems that “the business” decision that CC made was not designed to get higher ratings for WTPG (WYTS), but rather to protect their conservative talk franchise on WTVN.
Lib talk radio fans in Boston, Columbus, and Cincinnati are working hard to get the format back in their respective markets.
At least Bush has succeeded in one thing’ where so many before him have failed. He has unified the Arab world’s many diverse peoples.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Mission Accomplished Bush!Turned the whole world against us!
Good Job!
Hey Delores-
Buy a radio station! While that sounds kinda flippant, so I will apologize in advance, the point is real. Any liberal wealthy person, can buy or start a new network or radio station. Let the marketplace decide.The markets you show above, show a decline in listeners when shifting to the new formats. That translates into lower financial income. How long do you suppos that will be allowed to go on. Rememberr, the greedy bastard businessmen fat rich white guys only care about two things. Power and money. Since owning a radio station with no listeners providesneither, how long before they switch to something that gives them one or the other? One quarter means crap. Nada.
I would truly LMAO if the Fairness Doctrine II got passed. Why?
Imagine Joe the Liberal Radio Talk Show how gets his own show on a major radio network which is heard nation-wide.
Now, Adolf Imanazi wants equal time on Joe the Liberal’s talk show. Also, Frederick “KKK” Hangemhigh wants equal time on Joe Liberal talk show host. The list would be never ending and Radio Stations would be sued constantly for not allowing equal time.
Careful what you wish for.
“Any liberal wealthy person, can buy or start a new network or radio station.”
Air America has given us a gift. If they hadn’t tried, we wouldn’t really know what a miserable failure Lib Talk would be.
When you are getting killed in the marketplace of ideas, change the rules.
Oh gee, let’s get rid of IMUS, and bring on some bunch out of Texas, who are full of racial slurs, sexist slurs, and essentially anti-anything-even approaching-middle of the road…
Do that and you have KFH’s new morning format of “Walton and Johnson” That bunch is so narrow minded, they can look through a keyhold with both eyes open!! Almost as bad as Savage!!
Savage is so paranoid he wont even use his REAL name on the air!!
From the blue-blood Boston Herald, a scathing indictment of the “fairness doctrine.” Best line:
“Here’s how it works. If you don’t like “talk radio,” you don’t have to listen, and you don’t have to pay for it. If you don’t like NPR, you don’t have to listen, but you do have to pay for it. How’s that for fairness, Sen. Kerry?”http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1008800&format=&page=1
If I believed for a minute those who favored reintroducation of the “fairness doctrine” sought same in order to get “fairness,” I’d be more sympathetic. But they don’t. What they want to do is shut up talk radio for political advantage. And that’s exactly what a 1st Amendment was designed to prevent.
Just like the fact that Jerry Springer is the #1 TV show, the fact that right wing radio shows like Lamebutt&Co show the sad state our country’s mindset is in. It takes no intellegence or thinking…certainly nothing to brag about.
Mary-you should know by now people as a whole do not want McNeil/Lehee, they want a roman circus
After yesterday, there must be a boycott or an “example” goin on. Awfully quiet across threads.
We’re all skeered to post, we’re at work!
Hank
good one hank!
;^)
“Any liberal wealthy person, can buy or start a new network or radio station.”
Air America has given us a gift. If they hadn’t tried, we wouldn’t really know what a miserable failure Lib Talk would be.
When you are getting killed in the marketplace of ideas, change the rules. Posted by Fleettwood.
———————————How is lib talk a miserable failure? Air American is out of bankruptcy. Many other liberal and progressive radio talk show hosts have become better knownbecause of Air America.
———————————”Voinovich Lashes Out At Hannity: ‘You’re Not Going To Intimidate Me,’ Then Hangs Up
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/28/voinovich-lashes-out/
“Any liberal wealthy person, can buy or start a new network or radio station.”
Air America has given us a gift. If they hadn’t tried, we wouldn’t really know what a miserable failure Lib Talk would be.
When you are getting killed in the marketplace of ideas, change the rules. Posted by Fleettwood.
———————————How is lib talk a miserable failure? Air American is out of bankruptcy. Many other liberal and progressive radio talk show hosts have become better knownbecause of Air America.
———————————”Voinovich Lashes Out At Hannity: ‘You’re Not Going To Intimidate Me,’ Then Hangs Up
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/28/voinovich-lashes-out/
“Many other liberal and progressive radio talk show hosts have become better knownbecause of Air America.”
I am happy for you.
Hank just wondering what years you were in Idaho. My son was here for a week on his way to Virginia. He will be working there for two years. He wondered what years you were an instructor there. Didn’t see you on the blog when he was here.
What did I miss yesterday that people are afraid to post? Just wondering.
I am happy for you.Posted by: fleettwood
I am happy that you are happy for me.
———————————Next subject:
Topic: Miscellaneous itemsDate/Time: 6/28/2007 11:01:31 AMTitle: Why WSJ reporters didn’t show up for work ThursdayPosted By: Jim RomeneskoNewspaper Guild release
June 28, 2007 11:00 A.M.
A statement from Wall Street Journal reporters:
Wall Street Journal reporters across the country chose not to show up to work this morning.
We did so for two reasons.
First, The Wall Street Journal’s long tradition of independence, which has been the hallmark of our news coverage for decades, is threatened today. We, along with hundreds of other Dow Jones employees represented by the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees, want to demonstrate our conviction that the Journal’s editorial integrity depends on an owner committed to journalistic independence.
Second, by our absence from newsrooms around the country, we are reminding Dow Jones management that the quality of its publications depends on a top-quality professional staff. Dow Jones currently is in contract negotiations with its primary union, seeking severe cutbacks in our health benefits and limits on our pay. It is beyond debate that the professionals who create The Wall Street Journal and other Dow Jones publications every day deserve a fair contract that rewards their achievements. At a time when Dow Jones is finding the resources to award golden parachutes to 135 top executives, it should not be seeking to eviscerate employees’ health benefits and impose salary adjustments that amount to a pay cut.
We put the reputation of The Wall Street Journal and the needs of its readers first. That’s why we will be back at our desks this afternoon, producing the day’s news reports. But we hope this demonstration will remind those entrusted with the future of Dow Jones that our publications’ integrity must be protected, and sustained, from top to bottom.<<<<<
If Murdock get his hands of the WSJ will their reputation go “downhill”?
I’m very disappointed in Boyda and what she’s doing. She’s not a dem. She should have ran as an independent.
Ben,
You might be interested in floodgate operations in central Texas. Handling 600,000 acre-feet by July 1, from the storm a few days ago..http://www.lcra.org/index.html
Also some videos of flooding.
Marble Falls got 19 inches of rain in 8 hours, and 11 inches fell in only 3 hours!
If my last name were Weiner *savage*
I wouldn’t use it either
but either way he is an ass
Take the liberal/progressive talk radio challenge. Listen to Ed Schultz now at:
http://www.am1090seattle.com/
I was a student there in 1967. Came back as an instructor at A1W 1971-1975. Came back again as an instructor at SIW 1978-1982.
Joyce and I went through there last fall on our way to the BCCA Nationals in Oregon/Washington. Very disapointed in the area. They’ve Californicated all my old stomping grounds!
Hank
He actually lives in Boise but is being transferred to the DC area for two years. Loves the Boise area and is looking forward to going back. I was in Idaho Falls in the late eighties and it was beautiful. A pleasant surprise since I had never been to Idaho before.
I’ll let him know the years. He would have been there after you were gone.
“I am happy that you are happy for me.”
mulva– I am happiest for you. Infinity.
I lived in Idaho Falls all three times. Great fishing/hunting!
Hank
The 7.7.07 Live Earth Pledge:
I PLEDGE:
1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;
2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become “carbon neutral;”
3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;
4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;
5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;
6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,
7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.
Sign the Live Earth Pledge by visiting:
http://liveearthpledge.org/algore.php
(cues jackboots marching in unison)
Hi! My name is cosmo. blahblahblahblahblah
(Here comes cosmo. Act like you don’t see him. Let’s cross the street now).
My take:
The 7.7.07 Live Earth Pledge:
I PLEDGE:
1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;
(not on your life) 90% reduction in 2 years? I don’t think so. Unworkable and unhealthy to any developed countries economic well being
2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become “carbon neutral;”
Yes to pesonal reductins, carbon ofsetting is bs, and way to easy to be manipulated
3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;
Maybe. Alternatives?
4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;
Got no problem with that, within economic realities
5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;
Like that
6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,
Alread do
7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.
Will start to identify and compare these entities
Sign the Live Earth Pledge by visiting:
Not yet
littlejohn,
“(not on your life) 90% reduction in 2 years? I don’t think so.”
Read it again.”To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years”
“that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;”
The solution re 3 is higher end-use efficiency, to cut energy demand.
Also,’2007 seen as second warmest year as climate shifts’http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29318569.htm
my bad
Cosmos—My bad in misreading item #1, but I still think it is an unworkable goal. One that I think, were we to sign such a treaty, would spell either economic disaster, or huge “fines” for violating our agreement.
Wow, it was a tough day for you lefties, yesterday. First, your treasonous illegal alien amnesty got whacked, so you won’t be able to add millions more minorities to the voting rolls of your liberal plantation. Secondly, the Opus Dei reactonaries on the bench took the first step in rolling back the evil, insane, utopian, egaitarian nonsense that you have been forcing upon us since the sixties!
I imagine that many of you libs spent much of the night wringing your hands and then wringing out your panties! hehehehehehehehe
Sgt, I thought it was Bush pushing for amnesty…
Yes, Brian, but Bush is a lefty. This was the work of mainly dems like feinstein, boxer, and especially fat kennedy. Look at the votes, most dems voted in favor and most repubs voted against.
“most dems voted in favor and most repubs voted against.”
I heard 75% of the repubs and 33% of the dems voted against it.
oh god you repukes are dim
What do you say about the subpoenas the White house got but are ignoring?
What have you thouht about the useless slaughter of our troops in Iraq over a hundred again this month?
what do you feel about your president being a lame duck the last 18 months of his term?
Oh and that attempt in London, I thought we were fighting them there …
oh I could so go on
“What do you say about the subpoenas the White house got but are ignoring?”
The legal folks I am hearing on NPR say the executive privledge is pretty solid on this one. Leahy is doing this for political reasons only.
right
you keep believing that one…
ya’all opened the door when you were orgasming over the Clenis
but hey…
OH LOOKIE HERE another scandel
Vice President Cheney’s Role in Illegal Water Diversion Prompts Congressional Investigation
WASHINGTON – Today, Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), along with 36 California and Oregon Members of Congress, called for congressional hearings on Vice President Dick Cheney’s involvement in the political decision that killed 80,000 spawning salmon. They made this request to House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) after a Washington Post investigative report found that Cheney pressured mid-level bureaucrats in the Department of Interior to divert water from the Klamath River Basin for political gain.
“We’ve known since 2002 that the Bush Administration manipulated science in a perverse and petty attempt to win votes,” said Thompson. “Now it appears that this manipulation goes straight to the top. Despite what he may think, Vice President Cheney is not above the law and not above Congress’ oversight. We want a thorough investigation of his involvement in the largest salmon kill and fishing disaster in our nation’s history.”
In 2002, the Interior Department diverted water from the Klamath River Basin to farmers in Oregon, resulting in the death of 80,000 adult salmon. The Washington Post reports that Vice President Cheney called for the damaging water policy to secure the farmer’s votes, despite scientific evidence that it would endanger two federal protected species of fish, a violation of the Endangered Species Act.
Thompson and others brought a lawsuit against the Administration in 2002, and three courts found that the water diversion was “arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the Endangered Species Act.”
In the letter to Chairman Rahall, the Members wrote, “The ramifications of that salmon kill are still being felt today as returns to the Klamath River are so low that commercial, sport and tribal fishing seasons have been curtailed for the past three years. In fact, last year’s commercial fishing season for all of California and Oregon was cut by over 90 percent, and was the largest commercial fishing closure in the history of the country, causing over $60 million in damages to coastal economies.”
“Unfortunately, this is not the first instance of Vice President Cheney choosing political gain over the health and welfare of the American people and our natural resources,” added Thompson. “It’s time the vice president is brought out of the shadows and held accountable for his actions.”
leave,I can hear the repubs defending Dick already:blah blah blah lefty tree and fish huggers blah blah blah farmers more important than fish blah blah blah.Not too many repubs or conservatives will address the fact Dick pressured Government officials to go around an existing US law.
Must really suck to be a dem. Here we have the absolutely worse VP in history, A VP to the worst president ever
You own congress, you own the senate and you can’t get anything to stick.
hehehehehehehe
At least a staunch Republican like you, Mr. Price, agrees that we are stuck with the worst VP AND President in history.
Thanks for admitting the truth.
And the Democrats have bare majorities in each house – just wait until 2009.
Well Clark,
I can hardly wait! If the dem’s recent perfomance is any indication of their effectiveness, I should have been voting democrat for years!
Hank
Hey!
Going to Salina for a herding weekend with my dogs. Everybody have a great weekend!
Hank
Can bush and cheney say OOps?U.N. shuts down Iraq weapons inspection unit By Claudia ParsonsFri Jun 29, 4:16 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – As the United Nations officially disbanded its weapons inspections unit for Iraq on Friday, the United States again defended faulty intelligence it had cited to justify its 2003 invasion of the country.
ADVERTISEMENTDespite U.S. and British suspicions and assertions that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, no evidence of active programs to make chemical, biological or nuclear arms has been found.
In a final report on Thursday, the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or UNMOVIC, said its on-the-ground inspections had proven better than intelligence assessments by individual countries.
After the U.N. Security Council approved a U.S.-British resolution to shut down the inspection unit, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations conceded Washington had overestimated Iraq’s weapons capability before the invasion.
But Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said that should be set against the fact that Iraq’s capabilities were underestimated before the 1991 Gulf War.
“In the events leading to the liberation of Iraq and subsequently, there of course was a mistake — assessments, projections that went in the other direction, overestimating what existed,” Khalilzad told reporters.
“We’ve all learned lessons in hindsight. One would have hoped to have had in both cases more precise information.”
Critics of the invasion accuse the Bush administration of being selective with prewar intelligence and of falsely linking Saddam to Islamic militants from al Qaeda.
While the U.N. unit found no active weapons programs, Saddam — who was executed in December — had ordered the use of mustard gas and nerve agents in the 1980s during a campaign against ethnic Kurds that killed tens of thousands of people.
Khalilzad said the U.N. inspectors played a “very important role” in destroying banned Iraqi weapons since 1991, but added: “Some of the destruction took place by other means, as well as during the war to liberate Kuwait and the activities that have taken place since the liberation of Iraq.”
He said the overestimate of Iraq’s capabilities came at a time of great concern because of the September 11 attacks on the United States by al Qaeda in 2001.
“We have to recognize this took place in the context of post 9/11 where concerns were heightened about the potential of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists,” Khalilzad said.
‘HISTORIC DAY’
The resolution to shut down the weapons inspection unit was passed by 14 votes to none, with Russia abstaining. Russia had argued that U.S. reports on Iraq would not suffice and the U.N. inspectors were needed to confirm Iraq’s disarmament.
The resolution terminated the mandate of UNMOVIC, once in charge of ridding Iraq of chemical and biological arms and long-range missiles, and that of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, in charge of nuclear arms.
Since the 2003 invasion, UNMOVIC experts have been studying satellite photos and reporting on contaminated wreckage being sold abroad from former weapons plants.
Iraqi Ambassador Hamid al-Bayati said it was a historic day and called on the Security Council to turn its attention next to lifting Iraq’s obligation to pay compensation to Kuwait for Saddam’s invasion that sparked the first Gulf War.
“It was Saddam’s crimes and the Iraqi people should not be held responsible for these crimes,” Bayati told reporters after the vote, adding that Iraq was paying 5 percent of its annual revenues in compensation, or around $2 billion a year.
UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council that recent use of chemicals such as chlorine in bomb attacks in Iraq were a sign of the need to stay vigilant in safeguarding even small quantities of chemical materials.
“The possibility of non-state actors getting their hands on other, more toxic, agents is real,” Perricos said.
The resolution calls on Iraq to report in one year’s time on its adherence to nonproliferation treaties and efforts to ensure no stockpiles of banned materials remain at large.
so now we should fight them here so we don’t have to fight them there?
bush
keeping america safe RIGHT>>>
the man is a lunatic
“…just wait until 2009.”
You people are reduced to sounding like the Chicago Cubs.
“keeping america safe RIGHT>>>”
So far, so good.
never mind that 9/11 happened on BUSH”S watch
don’t give me that shit about him only being in office 8 months
Clinton was in less when the first bombing happened and last I knew…they actually caught those responsible…
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=32d_1182427382
just sick