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
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Moore has had enough of House
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/22
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted June 3, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
36 Comments
Naturally speaking…
How climate change created Mexican agricultureAbout News Accounthttp://www.scientificblogging.com/news/how_climate_change_created_mexican_agriculture
Submitted by News on 2 June 2007 – 12:03am. Archaeology
“New charcoal and plant micro fossil evidence from Mexico’s Central Balsas valley links a pivotal cultural shift, crop domestication in the New World, to local and regional environmental history. Agriculture in the Balsas valley originated and diversified during the warm, wet, post glacial period following the much cooler and drier climate in the final phases of the last ice age.”
Texas Soldier in Very Bad MoodFrom Tank in Iraq, Offers Expletive-Laced Reasons Not to Re-Enlist06/01/2007 12:04 PM ET
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3027
Sadly it has been another side effect of the Iraq war, in my own family I have a nephew that had dreamed of being not just a soldier but a helicopter pilot. He was a Captain in the first air cav. and served a tour in Afghanistan and Iraq. He had planned on making a career out of the Army, but because so disillusioned he did not re-up the next time it came up. He just gotten worn out from all the extensions he had. I am running into more that feel the same way, they are torn between duty to those still fighting or have died and the feelings of being just some much toilet paper to the Administration.
Good morning All!Looks like it’ll be a beautiful day. I’m going to leave all the fussing and discussing to you.
Like all good Bikers, we’re headed to Cassoday this morning for the Biker’s Breakfast.Hold down the fort, LOL!
People with bad attitudes in the military have always existed.
When you get involved in the details about the reason they are not re-enlisting, they are:
(1) They never studied for their Promotion Exams(2) Their fitness exams show that they have a failure to provide attention to detail.(3) They miss appointments.(4) They think the care and hygiene of their uniform involves throwing it over the back of a chair.(5) They’ve had safety or human intervention issues (bad attitude)(6) They are unresponsive to repeated counseling sessions.(7) They don’t exhibit leadership qualities and think that they who have a few years of service know more than people with ten years their senior in service time are stupid.(8) They have attitudes that are refractive, that is, they bounce back and complain about every decision instead of just doing what was ordered.(9) Their consistent bad attitude gets passed on to troops under their charge and causes morale problems.(10) They have had stress in their life and instead of getting counseling lash out at the world.
etc. etc. been there-seen it.
Not once thinking people have minds of their own, republican pretends to know the minds of every soldier who decides not to re-enlist.
People decide not to re-enlist also because:1. They have a life.2. They have a life.3. They have a life.4. They have a life.
Of course republican will give the reason he couldn’t re-enlist because he has “war injuries”, which are probably nothing more that the loss of all reasoning powers, an obvious assumption after reading his posts. I’m thinking his “war injury” consists of some noncom kicking him in the head after getting tired of his bs.
Another bull’seye for Crowson today!
Officers don’t re-enlist. They get commissioned or resign their commission.
‘mornin’ ksfarmgrrl,Well, after the sunflower is gone, we can really make the orange barrel the state flower. Nothing will kill it.
Heh Walker!
I noticed governor leadership has declared an end to “the drought”.
You know, the one that didnt exist in the Salina area.
Bill Scott, one of the leaders of the movement to save Cedar Bluff, had a great lte in the Hays Daily.
http://online.hdnews.net/content/let/Scott052507.shtml
How else can the guv garner support for the ridiculous coal plants in western Kansas? The truth would subject it to unwanted scrutiny. Can’t have that, now, can we?
I see that Republican still has not volunteered to help bring democracy to Iraq.
Republican will never be anything more than a lying hypocrite.
I don’t know how anyone could say we weren’t in a drought by standard for our area. But yeah, I’d say it was over.I told my boss at the beginning of spring, I hope that it rained so much that we ended up with enough water to last awhile. I guess I got my wish.
‘Global warming ‘is three times faster than worst predictions’ ‘http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2609305.eceat PNAS link,”Together, the developing and least-developed economies (forming 80% of the world’s population) accounted for 73% of global emissions growth in 2004 but only 41% of global emissions and only 23% of global cumulative emissions since the mid-18th century.The results have implications for global equity.”
So Lawrence now has a ‘partner registry’. Ah, Lawrence…home of the Gayhawks.
Typical Repubican response – it is the soldier’s fault for not re-enlisting. This a running theme among the Bushies – blame the other guy, even if it is a soldier that actually did the fighting.
If the video is true cat, then the soldier had no ability to re-enlist based on his assertions. As I outlined the reasons for those not eligible to re-enlist or those not found desirable to re-enlist is set forth in established regulations of all military services.
It is not a Republican or Democratic response, it’s about military regulations.
Bush believes that nuclear power is renewable energy.
‘Europe Reacts with Reserve to US Climate Plan’http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,486090,00.html“If you’re truly interested in cleaning up the environment, or interested in renewable sources of energy,” Bush said, … “the best way to do so is through safe nuclear power.”
So after you deplete a uranium mine, just wait a few years… and it grows back?
“It is not a Republican or Democratic response, it’s about military regulations.”
Not really. It’s more about choice, and free will than anything else. For those who don’t find the military to their liking, after serving, re-enlisting would not be a good choice. It has very little to do with military regs, unless the soldier has violated military regs that would make him or her ineligible for re-enlistment.
cosmos,
I’m no Bush fan, but breeder reactors produce fissionable material that can be used in other reactors…I doubt Bush even knows what a breeder reactor is.
BFAH,
Bush’s comment was an indirect criticism of Germany’s decision to phase out their (non-breeder) nuclear plants by 2021.
Fast breeder reactors theoretically increase uranium supplies by about sixty-fold. That still fails the definition of for all practical purposes cannot be depleted.
GSheridan and Joe Williams recently pushed this guy as someone on the “left” who denied that humans are causing GW.
‘Alexander Cockburn goes quote mining’http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/06/alexander_cockburn_goes_quote.php
He used a comment re old computer climate models that is no longer true. That’s a typical ‘deniers’ tactic.
Cosmos,
I’m not disagreeing with you, just saying that Bush probably misspoke (again).
BFAH,
I agree. But since he likes ‘nucular power pants’, I’d guess that he intentionally misspoke, to promote them.
He does have a good collection of them…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushism
You really don’t have to hurl insults at Walk-on-by-Boy. Linking to his work provides impeachment of his sanity [sic] and clearly shows the boundless nature of his grandiose delusions. The rantings of a very frightened little boy – for all to see.
http://republikan.typepad.com/republikansan/2007/05/29/index.html
Wait till you see the 3D toon, with its cast of characters:
Al BoreCorporal AmericaksranchstylecosmissCluckiePediaLiteRosie the Hut
Sorry Steven Davis, I didn’t find you to be a significant enough figure to include in the movie. :)
Steven Davis,
I’d recommend NOT clicking on Republank’s typepad link — increases his hits, and the possible ISP tracking issue.
And there’s more than enough proof of his mental problems in his posts — lies, nic-stealing, irrational comments, etc.
Thanks for demonstrating my point WOBbly…
You’re probably right, but his little movies are rich in their clinical detail about his fears, his whining about his victimhood, and his pathetic defenses aimed at protecting what little integrity he has.
Quite the case study I would say.
Sorry, I could only handle about three minutes of the Republank site – boring.
I mean, put an insomniac to sleep, bore a man to death, commit suicide rather than watch boring.
I have watched paint dry that was more stimulating than that.
“Wait till you see the 3D toon, with its cast of characters:”
The “toon” will be shown at your nearest pro phred phelps rally, along with “How Republican tripped over his own tongue, sued the government, and collected at the public trough under the “war injury” banner.
Does anything good ever come out of Texas? No wonder Bush talks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to GW!Blame coal: Texas leads carbon emissions By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science WriterSat Jun 2, 12:45 PM ET
WASHINGTON – America may spew more greenhouse gases than any other country, but some states are astonishingly more prolific polluters than others — and it’s not always the ones you might expect.
ADVERTISEMENTThe Associated Press analyzed state-by-state emissions of carbon dioxide from 2003, the latest U.S. Energy Department numbers available. The review shows startling differences in states’ contribution to climate change.
The biggest reason? The burning of high-carbon coal to produce cheap electricity.
_Wyoming’s coal-fired power plants produce more carbon dioxide in just eight hours than the power generators of more populous Vermont do in a year.
_Texas, the leader in emitting this greenhouse gas, cranks out more than the next two biggest producers combined, California and Pennsylvania, which together have twice Texas’ population.
_In sparsely populated Alaska, the carbon dioxide produced per person by all the flying and driving is six times the per capita amount generated by travelers in New York state.
“There’s no question that some states have made choices to be greener than others,” said former top Energy Department official Joseph Romm, author of the new book “Hell and High Water” and executive director of a nonprofit energy conservation group.
The disparity in carbon dioxide emissions is one of the reasons there is no strong national effort to reduce global warming gases, some experts say. National emissions dipped ever so slightly last year, but that was mostly because of mild weather, according to the Energy Department.
“Some states are benefiting from both cheap electricity while polluting the planet and make all the rest of us suffer the consequences of global warming,” said Frank O’Donnell, director of the Washington environmental group Clean Air Watch. “I don’t think that’s fair at all.”
He noted that the states putting out the most carbon dioxide are doing the least to control it, except for California.
Several federal and state officials say it’s unfair and nonsensical to examine individual states’ contribution to what is a global problem.
“If the atmosphere could talk it wouldn’t say, ‘Kudos to California, not so good to Wyoming’,” said assistant energy secretary Alexander “Andy” Karsner. “It would say, ‘Stop sending me emissions.’”
Some coal-burning states note that they are providing electricity to customers beyond their borders, including Californians. Wyoming is the largest exporter of energy to other states, Gov. Dave Freudenthal told The Associated Press.
He said two-thirds of the state’s carbon footprint “is a consequence of energy that is developed to feed the rest of the national economy. That doesn’t mean that somehow then it’s good carbon, I’m just saying that’s why those numbers come out the way are,” Freudenthal said.
And the massive carbon dioxide-spewing and power-gobbling refineries of Texas and Louisiana fuel an oil-hungry nation, whose residents whine when gasoline prices rise.
However, some of the disparities are stunning.
On a per-person basis, Wyoming spews more carbon dioxide than any other state or any other country: 276,000 pounds of it per capita a year, thanks to burning coal, which provides nearly all of the state’s electrical power.
Yet, just next door to the west, Idaho emits the least carbon dioxide per person, less than 23,000 pounds a year. Idaho forbids coal power plants. It relies mostly on non-polluting hydroelectric power from its rivers.
Texas, where coal barely edges out cleaner natural gas as the top power source, belches almost 1 1/2 trillion pounds of carbon dioxide yearly. That’s more than every nation in the world except six: the United States, China, Russia, Japan, India and Germany.
Of course, Texas is a very populous state. North Dakota isn’t, but its power plants crank out 68 percent more carbon dioxide than New Jersey, which has 13 times North Dakota’s residents.
And while Californians have cut their per-person carbon dioxide emissions by 11 percent from 1990 to 2003, Nebraskans have increased their per capita emissions by 16 percent over the same time frame.
Officials in Wyoming, North Dakota and Alaska say numbers in their states are skewed because of their small populations. But Vermont, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia are similar in size and have one-12th the per-capita emissions of Wyoming.
A lot of it comes down to King Coal.
Burning coal accounts for half of America’s electricity. And coal produces more carbon dioxide than any other commonly used U.S. fuel source. The states that rely the most on coal — Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia, Indiana — generally produce the most carbon dioxide pollution per person, but also have the cheapest electric rates.
States that shun coal — Vermont, Idaho, California, Rhode Island — and turn to nuclear, hydroelectric and natural gas, produce the least carbon dioxide but often at higher costs for consumers.
It’s unfair to pin all the blame on the coal-using states, said Washington lawyer Jeffrey Holmstead, who as an attorney at Bracewell Giuliani represents coal-intensive utilities and refineries. Holmstead is the former Bush administration air pollution regulator who ruled that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant, a decision that was overturned recently by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Coal-fired generation is the most economical, least expensive way to produce power almost anywhere in the world,” he said. He argued that outlawing such plants would have little overall impact globally; however, the U.S. has long been the leading global source of carbon emissions.
Instead of trying to wean themselves from coal, Texas government officials went out of their way to encourage the state’s biggest utility, TXU Corp., to plan for 11 new coal-burning power plants that would have produced even more carbon dioxide. The strategy collapsed when an investor group buying TXU cut a deal with environmentalists to drop plans to build most of the coal plants.
The Texas state agency charged with monitoring the environment declined to comment on carbon dioxide emissions. Spokeswoman Andrea Morrow said the gas “is not a regulated pollutant.” Frank Maisano, a lobbyist and spokesman for Bracewell Giuliani, which also has offices in Texas, defended the state saying, “these net exporters of energy are always going to produce more carbon dioxide.”
Emissions from generating electricity account for the largest chunk of U.S. greenhouse gases, nearly 40 percent. Transportation emissions are close behind, contributing about one-third of U.S. production of carbon dioxide. States with mass transit and cities, such as New York, come out cleaner than those with wide expanses that rely solely on cars, trucks and airplanes, like Alaska.
Alaska, which stands out for its carbon dioxide production, also stands out as one of the early victims of climate change. Its glaciers are melting, its permafrost thawing, and coastal and island villages will soon be swallowed by the sea. Alaska ranked No. 1 in per-person emissions for transportation, which includes driving, flying, shipping and rail traffic.
That’s not the state’s fault, says Tom Chapple, director of the state Division of Air Quality. Its sheer expanse requires a lot of air travel. And Anchorage ranked No. 2 nationally in air cargo traffic.
For people who want to reduce their household emissions, or their “carbon footprint,” the state where they live really does matter.
After seeing Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gregg Cawley used one of the many calculators available online to determine his “carbon footprint.” The University of Wyoming professor lives in a small one-bedroom apartment and drives a moderately efficient Subaru, so he figured he contributes less to global warming than the average American.
But the calculations showed otherwise. They suggested Cawley produces more carbon dioxide than most Americans. Even if he reduced his energy consumption, the numbers would hardly budge. “My God,” he thought, “what do I have to do to my lifestyle to change this?”
Then he changed his home state in the equation. He took out Wyoming and plugged in Washington state.
“I came in way low. I said, ‘That’s the problem. I live in the wrong damn state.’”
That simple hypothetical change of address cut his personal emissions by nearly three tons of carbon dioxide a year.
___
Associated Press writers Bob Moen in Cheyenne, Wyo.; Paul J. Weber in Dallas; Dan Joling in Anchorage, Alaska; Terence Chea in San Francisco; and Mike Hill in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report.
___
Where’s the love Phantom?
Republank,
“Where’s the love Phantom?”
That’s very ironic, since Republank’s HATRED of the U.N. blinds him to the fact humans are causing global warming.
Not to mention that he doesn’t want it to snow in Kansas.
Yet again, Republank proves that he’s a clueless, brain-dead idiot.
Just walk on by…
New slogan for the Republican party in 2008:
Picture of GW and underneath
“We’re with stupid.”
Or “26 percenter, and proud of it!”