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
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
Open thread 9/19
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Sept. 19, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
234 Comments
‘Evidence of global warming surrounds a skeptic’http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/332243_joel19.html
“”We will not lose our forests. We will not run out of energy, raw materials or water,” argues Lomborg, booked at Town Hall tonight.
Huh? Instead of coming into our house and lecturing us, Lomborg ought to take a few days off and look around.”Much more at link.
[U.N's]Ban Urges Countries on Global Warming’http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070918/D8RO6CU00.html
“UNITED NATIONS (AP) – The science is clear and the time short, but the political will is lacking to confront global warming, the U.N. secretary-general said Tuesday.
Ban Ki-moon said he hoped next Monday’s “climate summit” here will help galvanize leaders to take action “before it is too late.” ”
“Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.” Henrik Tikkanen.
G.O.P.’s Dirty Tricks Begin
By Bob HerbertThe folks who gave us the Willie Horton ads, the Swift boat campaign, the purges of black voters in Florida and endless other dirty electoral tricks are at it again.Like crack addicts confronting the irresistible vial, the evil geniuses of the G.O.P. can’t seem to help themselves. This time — with an eye toward seizing the White House again next year, even if they lose the popular vote — they’re trying to rewrite the rules for the distribution of electoral votes in California.Under current law, all of California’s 55 electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote statewide. This “winner take all” system is the norm in the U.S. It’s in place in all but two states, Maine and Nebraska, which have just four and five electoral votes, respectively.Now comes a move, from lawyers with close ties to the Republican Party, to scrap the current system in California and replace it with one that would divide up the electoral votes in a way that would likely give 20 or more of them to the candidate who loses the popular vote in the state.Democrats fear, correctly, that this maneuver could checkmate even their best efforts to win back the White House next year.California is widely expected to go Democratic in the presidential election. Its 55 electoral votes are a hefty chunk of the 270 needed to win, and thus crucial to Democratic hopes.Under this new proposal, the 20 or more electoral votes that would be denied the winner of the statewide vote in California, could well be enough to hand the White House to a Republican candidate who loses the popular vote nationally.“Their idea is to have California be the only big state to do this,” said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who is supporting Senator Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. “If the Republicans can poach 20 electoral votes from the Democrats in California, that’s the same as winning all the electoral votes in Ohio. You’re basically giving them the election.”The effort to change the way Californians vote for president has been cloaked in the typically deceptive garb that the G.O.P. pulls out for its underhanded maneuvering. The proposal has been dubbed the “Presidential Election Reform Act.” It is being led by Thomas Hiltachk of Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk, a law firm that has represented both the state Republican Party and G.O.P. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.According to The Associated Press, the firm was also linked to a political committee, largely funded by Bob Perry, that targeted Democratic candidates in 2006. Mr. Perry, a longtime supporter of George W. Bush, contributed millions of dollars to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, whose intense and deceptive campaign in 2004 was so damaging to the candidacy of John Kerry.
This crowd is no more interested in genuine electoral reform than Britney Spears is.
Mr. Hiltachk and his operatives are trying to gather enough signatures to get their proposal before the voters as a California ballot initiative next June. If they succeed, and the voters approve the initiative, the rules for apportioning the state’s electoral votes would be changed for the 2008 presidential election.Instead of “winner take all,” 53 of the state’s 55 electoral votes would be apportioned according to the winner of the presidential popular vote in each of the state’s 53 Congressional districts. A single vote would be awarded to the winner in each district. (The other two votes would still go to the statewide winner.)John Kerry defeated George W. Bush in California in 2004 and collected all of the state’s electoral votes. But Mr. Bush won the popular vote in 22 of the state’s Congressional districts. If this proposed system had been in effect, 22 electoral votes would have been withheld from Mr. Kerry and given to Mr. Bush.“This clearly is a power grab by the Republican Party,” said John Travis, a longtime political science professor at Humboldt State University in California. Mr. Travis believes that while there may be problems with the Electoral College system, this is not the way to fix it.“This is simply a way for the Republicans to manipulate California’s electoral votes to their advantage,” he said.Democrats do not have perfectly clean hands when it comes to this sort of thing. A similar effort by Democrats in North Carolina was scrapped at the insistence of national party leaders, and not a moment too soon.
What the Democrats need to do now is make sure that California voters understand that they are the latest targeted pawns in the G.O.P.’s longstanding efforts to undermine not just the Democrats but democracy itself.
It would be fine if done on a national scale, else not at all. Should be controlled at the federal level, not state.
Dear cosmos,
I know you are sincerely concerned about global warming. I’m sure that unlike most politicians your concern goes beyond merely using it for short term political gain.
Maybe this link will bring you a little comfort. We’re safe. The polar bears are safe. It’s all a hoax.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200709/COM20070904b.html
Hank
On a lighter note, the Wichita City Council has pretty much abandoned plans to make the new dangerous dog legislation breed specific.
The Wichita Kennel Club and others have been working hard to make the law more effective and enforceable.
The fight isn’t over though, they haven’t voted on the final ordinance and they will revisit the problem in a year to see if the ‘pit bull’ problem has been abated.
Hank
“Freedom Update: Sept. 18th
Europe Strikes American Companies with a New Kind of Protectionism
If you can’t beat ‘em, regulate and fine ‘em. That’s the new word from Europe this week. European companies are struggling to compete with American technology firms like Microsoft, so they are now using Europe’s political and legal systems as a new form of protectionism. Yesterday the European Court of First Instance (CFI) upheld a fine against Microsoft of more than $680 million. Even worse, the CFI is also requiring the software company to sell a stripped-down copy of its operating system and forcing it reveal software code to its competitors.
European regulators, politicians, and businesses are upset that European consumers appear to overwhelmingly prefer Microsoft’s operating system. Instead of competing in the marketplace, European businesses are turning to the power of the state. With this decision, European regulators are forcing themselves into American corporate design studios and boardrooms. This isn’t just about Microsoft— the precedent created Monday means any leading American firm is now a possible target in Europe.
Some companies may appreciate the big stick provided by European regulators, but consumers will see little benefit, and the business climate for American companies in the global marketplace just got tougher. These disputes are better settled in the marketplace than in the courtroom. Consumers should be the ultimate arbiter of what’s sold in the market, not a group of regulators egged on by lawyers and lobbyists.”
Hank, that is the same crap that global warming denialists have been saying for years, not just in 2007. CNS news, a right wing sham news source, can find individuals who argue against global warming (and nowhere in the quotations do I see anyone addressing the primary evidence for global warming), but the overwhelming evidence is not only that global warming is occuring, and that it is largely due to human sources, and that evidence has increased greatly over the past few years even. The most unfortunate legacy of the Ronald Reagan years is the alliance of the Christian Right with the flaky (and they are flaky) pseudo-anarchocapitalist right that objected to any attempt to regulate business (particularly big business). That made environmentalism a left issue, and anti-environmentalism a right issue, something that believe it or not was not really true prior to the 1980’s (for example, circa 1980 the majority of Audubon Society membership was Republican, and a good chunk of the Sierra Club was Republican as well). The global warming consensus is coming from an international community of scientists, the vast majority of whom could care less about American Democratic or Republican politics, or the current definitions of liberal and conservative in American (and to a certain extent Australian) politics.
This current polarization of issues that should not be polarized comes primarily from nearly 30 years of redefining the American right, and it is extremely unfortunate. People influenced by this sort of polarized thinking are behind the curent efforts to split the Califorinia electoral vote (but you can bet that they won’t try to split the vote in Texas). Anything goes, as long as you’re right.
Is It A War for Oil or a war to control the profits?
It is a war to control the profits that flow from oil.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/03/142249
http://www.counterpunch.org/rai02032003.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1016/p01s01-uspo.html
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/56672/
However at the expense of death and destruction which is abuse and mismanagement of our military,their families,mideast families and our tax dollars. Bring the troops home!
Dear ksagnostic,
If there is any doubt in your mind that the entire the-sky-is-falling-we’re-all-going-to-die-from-global-warming-crap is any more than an worldwide anti-capitalist, anti-American, left-wing political scheme then all you have to do is study the Kyoto treaty and figure out what it’s object really was. It was merely a plan to transfer money from the American tax payers to third world governments.
Thankfully, the terminally inept UN is on the problem. We’re safe. They haven’t been effective in any thing they have tried since their inception.
Hank
Phantom, I agree; such a change should be made nation-wide (would require a constitutional amendment, I believe); but, as I recall, it is up to the states to determine how its electoral college votes are to be cast.
There are, I recall, two states which already have a plan such as this in place; Maine and one other. I know Maine is a small state, so there’s not been too much made of its plan; I don’t recall which state has a similar system.
It would seem to me that, in response to the complaint about “democracy” in the posted article, an allocation of electoral college votes of a state by house district carried by popular vote would, in reality, be more democratic, right? Again, though, the system should, IMHO, be uniform; either every state is “winner take all” or every state does an allocation.
Anyone who believes, as Hank does, that the earth is less than 10,000 years old has no authority to opine on the truth or falseness of scientific models for Global Warming.
If you reject science for superstition, Hank (and you have), you don’t get to use it to support what pathetic “scientific” arguments you have.
Does your wife actually treat patients or does she just cast out their demons?
A quick check of the Wiki reveals that our neighbor to the North, Nebraska, has also adopted the “Maine method” of electoral college vote allocation, which, from my limited understanding, is what is being proposed in California.
“Anyone who believes, as Hank does, that the earth is less than 10,000 years old has no authority to opine on the truth or falseness of scientific models for Global Warming.”Posted by: CapnAmerica
If I agree with that then I also have to agree that you have no authority to opine on the truth or falseness of anything.
It would seem to me that, in response to the complaint about “democracy” in the posted article, an allocation of electoral college votes of a state by house district carried by popular vote would, in reality, be more democratic, right? Again, though, the system should, IMHO, be uniform; either every state is “winner take all” or every state does an allocation.
Posted by: Vaughn Tolle | September 19, 2007 at 09:03 AM
Wouldn’t that make the electoral college moot? And would that be so bad? I struggle to see the relevance of the electoral college today.
Okay, I want to clarify something from yesterday. Kansas said that the aggressive college student “rushed the stage” and I pointed out that this was false.
However, it turns out that the kid DID push himself to the front of the line, which is why police were standing around him. There was a long line.
SO, having learned of this new information, I must admit that Kansas was partly right and I was partly wrong about events leading up to the tasering.
I still think it was handled badly though.
Winner take all negates the other votes in the state. In Kansas Democrat votes do not count. I was surprised the Democrats chose to drop the issue in North Carolina.
I want it to pass in California since this should lead to other states adopting it.
WOW, snappy come-back, Hud.
Too bad it has no actual meaning or anything . . .
“Does your wife actually treat patients or does she just cast out their demons?”
It depends, Captain, what are your symptoms?
Hank
Wouldn’t that make the electoral college moot? And would that be so bad? I struggle to see the relevance of the electoral college today.
Posted by: littlejohn
littlejohn the Electoral College is irrelevant but both parties have much to lose if it goes away. At least they think they do. I want to see two presidential elections. In the first one, the Democrats or Republicans win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. In the second election, the reverse happens. Maybe then the two parties will see the wisdom in getting rid of it.
Hehehe, good one, Hank.
I enjoyed that.
Dear Captain,
It’s not science that I reject, it’s politically motivated scientists.
Hank
“I struggle to see the relevance of the electoral college today.”Posted by: littlejohn
Since when we vote it a vote for a member of the Electoral College not for the candidate running for President, has there ever been a case where the member of the Electoral College voted for the other guy?
Hank-
LMFAO !!!
On the Electoral College; I’m not sure such a change would make it moot. From what little I recall of the various compromises that led to the drafting of the Constitution, a fear existed that if election of the president by popular vote was in place, a small number of the original 13 states could elect the president, due to the population imbalance. We still have a population imbalance among the states, but leaving the actual election of the president and vice president to the electoral college rather than based upon pure popular vote does mitigate against the potential of the voters in a few states mandating the election of a president and vice president; a guard against the “tyranny of the majority”, so to speak.
If one believes the small states, such as Kansas, are already irrelevant to presidential politics, implement a popular vote plan for president. Whatever attention Kansas and its brother and sister states do receive now will be non-existent under such a system, IMHO.
Well said, and very true Vaughn.
If I was trying to eliminate the electoral college, apportionment of electors would be a good first step.
Since when we vote it a vote for a member of the Electoral College not for the candidate running for President, has there ever been a case where the member of the Electoral College voted for the other guy?
Posted by: hud
hud I think it has happened a couple of times but I think it has been a while. You raise another point against the college. They do not have to vote for the candidate they were chosen to vote for. I am not sure what would happen if enough voted against their candidate to change the outcome of an election. The Supreme Court has ruled on part of the issue, but another part has never been addressed. My bad, looks like 158 have, I thought it was much smaller. The interesting court challenge would be to see how the Court rules on it in a state where the state has punishments for faithless electors.
According to Wiki,
Faithless electorsMain article: Faithless electorA faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than whom they have pledged to elect. On 158 occasions, electors have not cast their votes for president or vice president to whom they were pledged. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The remaining 85 were changed by the elector’s personal interest or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was in 1836 when 23 Virginia electors changed their vote together. In that year, Martin Van Buren’s Vice Presidential running mate, Richard Johnson, did not receive the minimum votes to become the Vice President but ultimately won the office on the first ballot by the United States Senate in 1837.
There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states. While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214). The court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as remove electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a function of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. In any event, a state may only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact; it has no power to change his or her vote.
As electoral slates are normally chosen by the political party and/or the party’s presidential nominee, electors are usually those with high loyalty to the party and its candidate, and a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than governmental action.
VT’s argument for the electoral college is the traditional one, and it makes some sense.
Without the EC, it’s possible that every election could be determined by NY, PA, FL, OH, and CA.
However, the counter-argument is that the EC negates “one person, one vote.” Votes in some states count much more and votes in other states count much less under this system. A vote in Montana (small state) counts much more in influencing who’s elected than a vote in California (big state), because every state has two electoral votes no matter how many people they have.
Under the Constitution, if a meteor slammed into Montana and everybody in the entire state died, they’s still have TWO electoral college votes for president.
I think that people should be represented by votes, not geographical areas.
The number of electoral votes of each state is the sum of its number of U.S. Senators (always two) and its U.S. Representatives
“Under the Constitution, if a meteor slammed into Montana and everybody in the entire state died, they’s still have TWO electoral college votes for president.”Posted by: CapnAmerica
Sorry but this reminded me of the joke, “Where do you bury the survivors?”
Dear Hank,
Thank you for the very funny deception column. Are you really that gullible?
Always check the sources,Alan Carubahttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alan_Caruba
CNSNews.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercast_News_Service
Caruba writes: “The hoax has mainly been a creation of the United Nations Environmental Program”
The U.N. does NOT do climate research.http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
“The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.”
Global warming has been researched since the 1800’shttp://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
Re NASA’s 1934 vs 1998 temperatures, the issue is “GLOBAL”, not “U.S.” warming.
Before, and after the minor data corrections, the 1934 and 1998 temperatures in the ** U.S. ** were a virtual TIE.
The data correction had an INSIGNIFICANT change on GLOBAL temperatures.
Explanation of corrections, and temperature graphs, mapsDr. Hansen’s ‘The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla’http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf
‘1934 and all that’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
I think that people should be represented by votes, not geographical areas.
Posted by: CapnAmerica
I support it 100%. In doing the research, California, New York, and Texas split the votes between Republicans and Democrats by about 40 – 45% for the losing party and 55 – 60% for the winning party. In other states, it was as high as 48 or 49% to 51 or 52%. Some states had wider margins.
The minimum number of electorial votes a state has is three. Two for the senators and one for its representative.
Correction troll–
That’s factually right, but it does not refute the point I was making.
North Dakota has 3 electoral college votes, 2 senators and 1 representative.
California has 55 EC votes, 2 senators and 53 representatives.
Based on their populations, ONE electoral vote in CA represents 664,000 people in the state.
One electoral vote in ND represents 212,000 people in that state.
As a result, a North Dakota vote counts three times MORE than a California vote.
“Without the EC, it’s possible that every election could be determined by NY, PA, FL, OH, and CA.”
Florida determined the 2000 election. Ohio determined the 2004. If this new thing in California is passed, it could determine the 2008. That leaves New York and Pennsylvania, taking us through 2016.
Why don’t we just hand it over to the Republicans now? They’ll find a way to take it anyway.
Or why vote at all? Think of all the money that could be saved on elections? There’d be no contributions from anyone, so companies, claiming to be individuals, could give that extra to stockholders and CEOs. We could sell our voting machines to Iraq. No more purple fingers. The possibilites are limitless! Might as well do the same for Congress, while we’re at it. Or maybe just proclaim GWB king!
The minimum number of electorial votes a state has is three. Two for the senators and one for its representative.
Posted by: Jim in VA | September 19, 2007 at 10:01 AM
True, Jim. But not if a state had no population.
Then it would have zero population and zero representatives. It would still have TWO senators though, even though no one could run for office because of the residency requirement.
AND two EC votes.
Refute troll went on vacation before a replacement could be trained. We are only able to correct. Refute will return.
The minimum number of electorial votes a state has is three. Two for the senators and one for its representative.
Posted by: Jim in VA | September 19, 2007 at 10:01 AM
True, Jim. But not if a state had no population.
Then it would have zero population and zero representatives. It would still have TWO senators though, even though no one could run for office because of the residency requirement.
AND two EC votes.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | September 19, 2007 at 10:08 AM
ALWAYS look at any Disaster Situation to first see what Political Advantage you can take – Liberal Socialist Democrat rule #1.
It’s a hypothetical, Max, to show how stupid the Electoral College is.
It gives rocks and trees representation over people.
Besides, you live in Iowa. NOTHING happens there, not disasters, not anything.
And speaking of those democracy-loving members of the Republic Party:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801158.html
Senators Block D.C. Vote Bill, Delivering Possibly Fatal Blow
By Mary Beth SheridanWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, September 19, 2007; A01
Republican lawmakers yesterday blocked the Senate from taking up the D.C. vote bill, a potentially fatal setback for the District’s most promising effort in years to get a full member of Congress.
The vote was on a motion to simply consider the bill. Fifty-seven senators voted in favor, three short of the 60 needed to proceed. Without enough support to vault the Senate’s procedural hurdles, the bill is expected to stall this year and possibly next year.
The Senate action was a crushing disappointment to many activists in the decades-long campaign for voting representation in Congress. The bill, which passed the House in April, has gone further than any other D.C. vote measure in almost 30 years.
Glum-faced supporters vowed to fight on.
“We have not given up,” said Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the District’s nonvoting congressional delegate. “The session is not over. We have come too far to stop now.”
*****
Taxation without representation, alive and well for DC residents thanks to the Repukes.
“Without the EC, it’s possible that every election could be determined by NY, PA, FL, OH, and CA.”
Posted by: Rox
Rox, with the EC it only takes a few more of the big population states to achieve the same end. I mentioned above the breakdown of voters in several of the big states. Around 45% of California voted Republican, 41% of New York Republican, 38% of Texas Democrat, 48% of Pennsylvania Republican, 48% of Ohio Democrat, and 48% of Florida Democrat. Those numbers make for a much closer race than the current system and show the smaller states could have impact. With the closeness of the above states, candidates would have to campaign in more states since every vote counts. Now, our votes do not count at all in Kansas.
Taxation without representation, alive and well for DC residents thanks to the Repukes.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | September 19, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Actually, thanks to the Constitution.
Well, the Constitution says something about “representatives from the Several States.”
But I think a district that’s in America that has more residents that a lot of states should be considered a state.
The Repukes won’t even allow it to be discussed.
We’re fighting in IRAQ so they can have elections, but we tell people in DC to just screw it.
This EC discussion is very interesting. Vaughn has laid out the reason for the system, the only thing I would add is that it is important to remember that the U.S. was designed as a federal republic, a union of States. In a real sense, the Federal gov’t was intended to govern states and their interaction with each other, not citizens; that was left to the states, who retained far more sovereignty than they do today. I know that seems kind of odd today, but it was the design then. And the EC was intended to give the small states an ability to prevent being overwhelmed by the few large states. Then, the “big states” that it feared would overwhelm the others were NY, Virginia, Pennsylvania.
Today, it’s CAlifornia, Texas, Florida, and yes, still NY. While the players have changed, the rationale hasn’t. Kansas, of all places, should resist getting rid of the EC for that reason, and for that reason, it is unlikely to go away.
And BTW, ROBERTO (you chose all caps, dude) and others, just remember:
When a political party advocates electoral “reform,” of any kind, they ALWAYS do so because they believe they will gain electoral advantage. It’s never altruism or public interest, it’s self interest. Both sides. In EVERY case.
Remember why political parties exist at all: to win elections. Period.
The founders understood this; that’s why they built the checks we have into the system. The “gridlock” we complain about today isn’t a defect of the system, it is the system’s intent. It’s by design.
I’m sure your support for DC statehood Capn, has nothing to do with the fact that it is about 90% Democrat.
It’s a hypothetical, Max, to show how stupid the Electoral College is.
It gives rocks and trees representation over people.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | September 19, 2007 at 10:12 AM
I used to agree with your position on this Capn, until I realized what would happen without the Electoral College.
Without it, only about 10 states would ever get any attention during the elections, and only about 10 states would receive Federal funding for anything, but all 50 states would be taxed.
You think the Midwest is flyover country now, just consider what would happen without the Electoral process.
Any states without a lot of Orange and Red on this Map, would be flyover states:
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/512popdn.pdf
Actually, since the EC vote in Montanna is based on the popular vote if there was no population there could be no vote and therefore no EC votes.
Reminds me of an old saying my grandfather had,
There are three types of people in the world, those that are good with math and those that aren’t.
Applying that last bit to DC:
Dems favor it because it’s a reliable democratic vote, Republicans oppose for the same reasons. Were the shoe on the other foot, the parties would absolutely be reversed, for the same reason. Democrats don’t give a rat’s *** about “taxation without representation” for DC in principle, they just want more democratic representatives. Self-interest masquarading as principle.
http://www.esri.com/industries/elections/graphics/results_2004_lg.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_USA_election_by_county_map_percentage.JPG
Maps of 2004 election results.
One person, one vote, all votes should be equal regardless of where you reside.
Hank–
True. But since you’re bound and determined to miss the point, let’s say one guy was left alive after the meteor hit.
That one guy would have three EC votes: more influence than about 2 MILLION California voters.
I guess that’s fair in CON world . . .
Thanks Phantom!
Discussion and rational thought no longer needed.
We have our bumper sticker!
Hank
The bigger question is should DC be a state. If so, should Congress make the decision, DC, or America as a whole. Congress had a reason for making DC a district and not a state. We need to carefully consider if the reason is still valid before changing it.
According to Wiki, only Wisconsin has a smaller population. Wiki also refers to a failed Constitutional amendment to give DC voting Congressional representation, failed in 1985. Wiki also says, The District of Columbia, founded on July 16, 1790, is a federal district as specified by the United States Constitution. Based on the above two items, looks like it should take a Constitutional amendment to change it to a state.
I think DC needs to decide first. I expect they will overwhelming vote for it. Next, a Constitutional amendment needs to be voted for in both Houses, followed by a nationwide vote. Will it take a while? Probably. Will it succeed? Most likely.
“only about 10 states would receive Federal funding for anything, but all 50 states would be taxed.”
Funny you should mention that, Max, because federal tax dollars go FROM urban Democratic states TO rural Republican states.
When it comes to states like your Iowa and my Kansas, we’re the welfare queens, sucking down tax dollars from places like Los Angeles and New York.
I don’t know Capt,
He probably vote democratic for the federal assistance.
Then it would be fair in the lefty-looney world.
Hank
“But I think a district that’s in America that has more residents that a lot of states should be considered a state”
THen let them apply for statehood, or a constitutional amendment. Until then, the Constitution holds sway, and since DC is not a state, it gets not representation. As you have mentioned about other things, it’s in the COnstitution. It’s the law of the land
Some more on Hank’s CNS column by Caruba.
Bob Carter: “There has been little, if any, global warming since 1979, …”
Dear Hank,
Is that what this graph says?http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carterhttp://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/bobcarter/
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1557“Carter “not a credible source” on climate change
In response to claims made by Carter that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uncovered no evidence that global warming was caused by human activity, a former CSIRO climate scientist stated that Carter was not a credible source on climate change and that “if he [Carter] has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process.” ”
Caruba’s Anthony Watts — measuring stations next to hot black asphalt, etc.
Hank should study this graph.
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/09/deniers-rediscover-hockey-stick.html
“To be honest, this is starting to look like a great validation of GISTEMP.”
And Caruba’s Stephen Schwartz,http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/friday-roundup-2/
Dem and proud . . . you meant Wyoming not Wisconsin.
I disagree though that DC needs to be a state to be represented. The Constitution can be finessed on this. If the CONs can suspend habeus corpus and tell Florida voters to go to hell, we can get DC Congressional representation.
GIVE IT A REST !!!!
I’d rather watch Nathan and Chas go at it.
Jeeze-oh-pete. could this be any more STALE !!!!
GW or not GW. Until we have alternative sources of power and transportation, WTF man, give it a rest.
Vaughn-
So if the states changed their way of awarding electoral college votes to proportionate, then the smaller states would still get some attention, but would give the populace a greater emphasis. Right? In that case, maybe it would be good to try.
Gun control.
Gay weddings.
God and Jesus.
ANYTHING BUT MORE GW POSTS !!!!
Sol–
Agreed. Global warming is no longer really debatable on this forum.
All the same points have been made a million times and those who believe their position are entrenched in that position.
Until major new evidence emerges, I’d like to see the WEBlog move past GW.
Without it, only about 10 states would ever get any attention during the elections, and only about 10 states would receive Federal funding for anything, but all 50 states would be taxed.
Posted by: Max | September 19, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Max, not more than 10 states currently get attention during the elections. The Republicans usually avoid states they dont think they can win, the Democrats usually avoid states they dont think they can win, and the last few elections, they both focused on the smaller number of swing states. This is a better system than letting every vote count equally? As it is now, candidates can choose to ignore large segments of the voting population because they only need a handful of states to win.
I am not sure why you think only 10 states would get federal funds since we still have Congress? Congress is the key player in federal funding. Maybe if the president have line item veto he/she could veto pet projects for states voting against him/her.
Bob Carter: “There has been little, if any, global warming since 1979, …”
SolDevVB, is that what this graph says?http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Capn,
The info re Anthony Watts and Stephen Schwartz is new info.
Funny you should mention that, Max, because federal tax dollars go FROM urban Democratic states TO rural Republican states.
When it comes to states like your Iowa and my Kansas, we’re the welfare queens, sucking down tax dollars from places like Los Angeles and New York.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | September 19, 2007 at 10:59 AM
——————————–
You are correct Capn, per the attaached report (see pg 2-3) several of the smaller states in the West and Midwest receive more Federal dollars then what is paid in.
A couple of reasons for that:
1. Spending on Interstates in the larger less populated states in the West/Midwest actually carry truck traffic between the larger Eastern/Western states.
2. Biggest factor is probably the agricultural subsidies paid to farmers in the West/Midwest states. Benefits the farmers in these states for sure, but also benefits all in the US with lower food prices.
Elimination of the Electoral process would still impact funds granted back for other Pork projects that don’t have a direct impact on the larger states.
Smaller population states would still lose revenue and would get ignored on other legislation that impacts our lives as well. So, no matter what side of the aisle you are on, if you are not in one of the top 10-12 population states, you should be all FOR continuing the Electoral process.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf
Cosmos.
There isn’t a FREAKIN thing I can do abut it. I live 40 miles from work. They don’t make a hybrid car that does well on country roads. I can’t afford solor cells yet.
I planted freakin trees in my yard. I’ll plant a garden this spring.
WTF !!!!!
Until there are viable alternatives… WTF do you expect us to do?
You know what? I think GW is a farce JUST BECAUSE you are so rabid about it. NOTHING could be true that you have to stump this much for.
Jesus jumped up. Get a clue. This has got to be THE most stale topic on theis blog.
Give me abortion args. Gun control. Who’s the better Christian. Just shove this GW thing UP YOUR ASS until there are viable alternatives for the average Joe.
GW or not GW. Until we have alternative sources of power and transportation, WTF man, give it a rest.
Posted by: SolDevVB | September 19, 2007 at 11:05 AM
*Sol, this is the best and most concise argument I’ve seen on this issue, and I think it says it all. Great post!
If GW or Not GW doesn’t really matter as long as people are NOT going to
a)drastically cut energy used
b)develop alerternatives sources or
c)combination of A & B.
???
Wow, meds haven’t kicked in yet.
lj, not exactly. From my reading of the post that started the EC discussion, what is being proposed in CA is adoption of the so-called Maine plan. It works by awarding the electoral votes on the basis of the following:
The state-wide winner gets two EC votes (I think of this as the EC votes represented by the Senators, so to speak). Then, the popular vote winner in each House of Representative district receives the EC vote “assigned” to such district. Taking ME as an example, as it only has 4 Electoral College votes, as it has but two members in the House of Representatives, if the presidential candidates “split” the two districts, there would be 3 EC votes for the statewide winner, and 1 EC vote for the “loser”. Thus, the system isn’t exactly proportional per population, but does award a vote to the statewide “loser” if s/he carries one district, even if the statewide vote would break down 51% – 49% for the “winner”.’
I am not sure why you think only 10 states would get federal funds since we still have Congress? Congress is the key player in federal funding. Maybe if the president have line item veto he/she could veto pet projects for states voting against him/her.
Posted by: Democrat and proud of it | September 19, 2007 at 11:08 AM
In the House, the large states would just over power the smaller states, no question about that.
The President also wouldn’t care about the smaller states.
The Senate would still be an obstacle for the larger states though.
You think ANY legislation favorable to the smallest 40 states would come out of the House?
a)drastically cut energy used
b)develop alerternatives sources or
c)combination of A & B.
Posted by: Max | September 19, 2007 at 11:19 AM
And how does the average Joe go about this? I’d love to buy a hydrogen/electric car.
A) They don’t make one I can afford right now.
B) There isn’t a hydrogen fill station on the back roads I take to work.
C) My house is 3 1/2 years old. I have energy efficient appliances.
D) I don’t use the AC unless it is 90 or above outside.
E) I can’t afford solar panels for my house.
F) I planted trees in my yard
G) I will have a large garden next spring.
So WTF else can I or any other average Joe do???
“Until there are viable alternatives… WTF do you expect us to do?”
Posted by: SolDevVB
Why should we have viable alternatives, when many people are denying that humans are causing global warming?
“Why should we have viable alternatives, when many people are denying that humans are causing global warming?”
Posted by: cosmos | September 19, 2007 at 11:29 AM
WTF difference does it make? I want a hydrogen car because it will reduce my expenses and kick OPEC in the balls.
I want solar panels so it will kick Consumer’s in the balls.
WTF difference does it make? If you put a viable alternative out there, people will take the alternative for whatever reason they have. Especially if it is cheaper for them in the long run.
Dem and proud . . . you meant Wyoming not Wisconsin.
I disagree though that DC needs to be a state to be represented. The Constitution can be finessed on this. If the CONs can suspend habeus corpus and tell Florida voters to go to hell, we can get DC Congressional representation.
Posted by: CapnAmerica
You’re right, I knew it was a W state. It is no more right for us to supersede the Constitution than it is for the Republicans. It makes just as bad as they are. Why should voters continue to support Democratic candidates if we are as bad as our opponents? I get tired of my friends making similar points. As the saying goes two wrongs do not make one right. We cannot hold the Republicans up for issues our side also does. We cannot use the “they do it so it is okay for us to do it” spiel. If we are no better than the Republicans, why should Americans vote Democrat? I know plenty of former Democrats who went independent because we are not following the Democratic ideals our party was founded on and our party is doing the same crap as the Republicans.
In the House, the large states would just over power the smaller states, no question about that.
The President also wouldn’t care about the smaller states.
The Senate would still be an obstacle for the larger states though.
You think ANY legislation favorable to the smallest 40 states would come out of the House?
Posted by: Max
Max,
You are not making sense on this issue. How does changing the EC change Congress? It only changes how we pick the president. The larger states already have the potential to overpower the smaller states in the House. How will that change? I may not agree with you on some issues, but I can see where you are coming from. On this issue, I do not. The president would still have to take smaller states into account. They have the potential to prevent his/her election. They also have the potential to block legislation and override vetoes. Using the numbers I cited above, the big states are close enough in voting numbers between the parties they wont affect presidential elections as much as they do now.
Why should we have viable alternatives, when many people are denying that humans are causing global warming?
Posted by: cosmos
I am staying out of your GW debate. As to why should we have viable alternatives. Better gas mileage means I pay less for gas since I dont fill up as often. Solar panels means I pay less for heating and cooling. As Sol says it is cheaper which means we have more money to spend on other things.
“I am staying out of your GW debate. As to why should we have viable alternatives. Better gas mileage means I pay less for gas since I dont fill up as often. Solar panels means I pay less for heating and cooling. As Sol says it is cheaper which means we have more money to spend on other things.”
Posted by: Democrat and proud of it | September 19, 2007 at 11:41 AM
DING DING DING DING DING
Tell (him/her) what (he’s/she’s) won !!!!!
I oppose any party gerrymandering to win an election. You can bet the same Republicans trying to get this passed in CA would be stridently opposed to the same ruls applied in other large states. Repubs. are still at if you can’t come out ahead with the existing rules; change the rules to your advantage.
I say let Alice Waters run for president. At least she wants GOOD things for others. She is indeed “the high priestess of the local, sustainable food revolution”.
NYT: Lunch With Alice Waters, Food Revolutionary
By KIM SEVERSONPublished: September 19, 2007
….By all measures, Ms. Waters should be relaxing at this point in her life. She is 63. She has held court with princes and presidents. A year ago, with some prodding from her partners at the restaurant, she pulled back from the daily work at Chez Panisse. Now she is trying to become better at leveraging her role as the high priestess of the local, sustainable food revolution….So why does Ms. Waters still seem so restless, so unsatisfied, so unrelentingly demanding that she can’t show up at someone’s house and trust that they might have the right olive oil?
Because true, radical change — a country full of people who eat food that is good for them, good for the people who grow it and good for the earth — is simply not coming fast enough. She is dismayed by the presidential candidates and said she has vowed not to vote for anyone who does not talk about the awful state of the food system.
Her pioneering Edible Schoolyard project, in which schoolchildren grow their own lunch and teachers use gardens for science lessons and recipes for social studies, is thriving in Berkeley, has been planted in New Orleans and may expand to Pittsburgh and Brooklyn. But in more than a decade the concept has not permeated the nation’s thinking on education. Although many school districts are trying to improve the food they offer, the results have been unsatisfying, she said. It’s useless to coat frozen chicken nuggets with whole-wheat bread crumbs and fill vending machines with diet soda. Only a complete and radical reform will do, and it must be led by the president of the United States.
“These are little Band-Aids,” she said. “The whole body is bleeding and we must stop it. We simply must.” A revolution in how we eat means respecting food and the people who produce it, she said. In her world, every aspect of this revolution, be it related to agricultural policy, the environment or obesity, must begin with a plate of lovely, locally produced food and work backward from there.
She’s also concerned about whether the Slow Food organization, which began with protests of a McDonald’s in Rome, will ever become as influential here as it has been in Europe. Although she has helped the United States organization grow to 171 chapters since its inception in 2000, she would like Slow Food and the concept of eco-gastronomy to be as much a part of the political discussion as foreign policy….
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/dining/19wate.html?ei...
Sometimes I wonder about Maslow.
It seems futile some days to worry about self actualization for all Americans when our food supply, our water supply, our clean air and our housing are in serious jeopardy.
Centralization may be good for political parties and accumulating power, but I dont think it works very well for protecting the essentials of life.
“WTF difference does it make? If you put a viable alternative out there, people will take the alternative for whatever reason they have.”
Posted by: SolDevVB | September 19, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Global warming is ANOTHER (and very important) reason for putting the alternatives out there.
The best way to make the alternatives cheaper is more production. The best way to increase demand is to have more reasons.
SolDevVB,
Look at it from the opposite direction — think how much less progress there’d be on solar panels, H2, etc if global warming was not an important issue.
And note how states like California are pushing hard for higher vehicle mpg, efficiency, etc.
“The Constitution can be finessed on this.”
THAT statement tells me all I need to know about Capn, closet totalitarian that he now admits to being.
And the interests are still true: Dems want voting rights for DC for one and only one reason – a reliablhy democratic district. This is not altruism, it’s self-interest; gerrymandering on a national level. (And yes, were the party benefits the other way, it would be no different).
Max is right; unless you are from one of the 10 largest states, elimination of the EC is not in your interest. Remember, the federal government is a union of States as individual political entities. Delaware knew in 1789 that they were not equal to NY, and the big states would overwhelm the small. THAT’S WHY THEY PUT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN!!
It’s still true, just on a larger scale.
One other thing: those who favor EC reform do so, remember, because they believe it will favor their party or their state, not out of principle. But as demographics shift, this year’s electoral advantage may well become next year’s disadvantage.
Gosh, almost 3 times as many Americans approve of Bush then approve of the Liberal Socialist Democrat Congress!
Bush, Congress at record low ratings: Reuters pollWed Sep 19, 2007 8:41am EDT
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress registered record-low approval ratings in a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday, and a new monthly index measuring the mood of Americans dipped slightly on deepening worries about the economy.
Only 29 percent of Americans gave Bush a positive grade for his job performance, below his worst Zogby poll mark of 30 percent in March. A paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1844140220070919
How does changing the EC change Congress? It only changes how we pick the president. The larger states already have the potential to overpower the smaller states in the House. How will that change? I may not agree with you on some issues, but I can see where you are coming from. On this issue, I do not. The president would still have to take smaller states into account. They have the potential to prevent his/her election. They also have the potential to block legislation and override vetoes. Using the numbers I cited above, the big states are close enough in voting numbers between the parties they wont affect presidential elections as much as they do now.
Posted by: Democrat and proud of it | September 19, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Without an Electoral College, the President will only be accountable to the voters in the biggest states. Why should he/she care about the smaller states?
In the House, the biggest states will easily have a huge majority on any law they want to collectively pass. Why should they care about the smaller states?
One other thing: those who favor EC reform do so, remember, because they believe it will favor their party or their state, not out of principle. But as demographics shift, this year’s electoral advantage may well become next year’s disadvantage.
Posted by: GMC70
GMC
I wont speak for other people, but I do it out of principle, not party/state. It is the right thing to do. I have studied the issue for several decades and used to believe the EC was the way to go. My studies showed me otherwise. I am well aware of the potential shift in party and state alignments that could hurt my state or party one year or help it in another year. I could as easily argue those wanting the status quo on the EC do it for their state or party.
If you think that was the only reason for the EC, you need to brush up on the EC. The EC is an outdated concept that needs to be put to rest. I have seen too many naysayers of doom and gloom that refuse to recognize the problems of the EC and the benefits of not having the EC.
DC and PR could become states and as both are pro Democratic this would give the Democrats an even bigger edge in the EC game.
As to the Liberal Socialist Democrat Congress, with the lowest approval rating in history, why are they not keeping their promise to end the Iraq war now?
If they think it is the right thing, why don’t they do the right thing? Or don’t they think pulling out of Iraq is the right thing? They promised last year before the elections that they would pull the US out of Iraq.
They appear to be worried that it might be the wrong thing to pull out of Iraq. If millions die in a bloodbath after the US leaves, the Democrats would be clearly accountable. They can’t stand being accountable.
Yet they are faced with a dilemma because if they don’t pull US troops out of Iraq, their record low approval rating will likely continue, and they will lose the majority in Congress. They will lose Power!
During lunch with Hillary the other day, I had the chance to analyze this dilemma from the Liberal Socialist Democrat Perspective:
Decision: Pull out of Iraq.
Outcome A: No problem, nothing much different happens. Good thing. Surrender for US is a victory for Democrats.
Outcome B: Millions killed in a bloodbath and regional war in the Mid East breaks out. Bad thing. Democrats lose.
Decision: Don’t Pull out of Iraq.
Outcome A: Nothing much changes. But low approvals and the Broken Promise causes Dems to lose Congress in 2008. Bad thing for Democrats.
Outcome B: Situation in Iraq improves. Victory for the US. Broken Promise causes Dems to lose Congress in 2008. Bad thing for Democrats.
Outcome C: Situation in Iraq gets worse. Bad for US and bad for Democrats, because the Broken Promise and the worsening Iraq situation leads to totally P-O Democrats. Bad thing for Democrats.
CONCLUSION:
So you see, in NO CASE, does Victory in Iraq help the Democrats.
The ONLY way the Democrats might win and might keep their power is if they force a Surrender (or I mean withdrawal) from Iraq, and nothing much changes there. Then when America is defeated the Democrats win! The dilemma though is that this Surrender approach will cause Democrats to lose for sure, if a bloodbath and/or regional war breaks out in the Mideast.
Bottom Line: Democrats need to have balls to do what they think is right. Surrender in Iraq and face the consequences. Let the chips fall where they may. You either Win Big (and America loses) or you Lose Big (and no one wins or America wins).
You Democrats have the balls to do the right thing?
Are you sure you are doing the right thing? Are you sure you have balls?
Without an Electoral College, the President will only be accountable to the voters in the biggest states. Why should he/she care about the smaller states?
In the House, the biggest states will easily have a huge majority on any law they want to collectively pass. Why should they care about the smaller states?
Posted by: Max
Why would he only be accountable to the bigger states? Based on the numbers I posted above, the bigger states are fairly close in numbers for both parties. Even if he was, so what? He does not determine budgets for the states. He makes a budget and Congress changes it to fit what they want. He either accepts or rejects the budget.
On Congress, that is not true. You have not shown how it will change from the current model by eliminating the EC or how the current model supports that theory now. You also fail to take into account seniority. Seniority in Congress plays a much bigger role than the size of your state’s population. Mississippi, a small poor state, gained much federal largesse when it had several of the more senior Senators and Representatives. In the Senate, the small states outnumber the large states since its state has an equal number of Senators.
Amazing cosmos,
You try to refute my right wing wackos with your left wing wackos!
It appears that Phil Jones doesn’t play by the rules! (who’d a thunkit?)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1282
Dem and proud:
“I could as easily argue those wanting the status quo on the EC do it for their state or party.”
Of course. Never argued otherwise. As a Kansan, I want to keep it because it benefits Kansas. Self interest, pure and simple. It also serves the constitutional purpose of protecting the interests of those small states.
And yes, there were other factors at play in 1789; but they’re not really in play anymore.
Of course. Never argued otherwise. As a Kansan, I want to keep it because it benefits Kansas. Self interest, pure and simple. It also serves the constitutional purpose of protecting the interests of those small states.
Posted by: GMC70
GMC
How does it benefit Kansas now? We dont get presidential candidates coming to Kansas. They dont care. The Republican ones know Kansas will vote R, the Democratic ones know the same thing. A large part of the votes in Kansas dont count, the non Republican ones. In California, the non Democratic ones dont count. The President does not have a lot of say on what Kansas does or does not get from Congress, Congress does. The fact our Congresspeople have so many years in Congress dictates more of what we get than any President ever will, with or without the EC. How do you envision Kansas losing its special status if we dump the EC?
If you believe the purple article the other day, Kansas is becoming less red. I am not sure I buy into the argument yet. Under the EC, Kansas has too few votes to be a swing state or one of the power houses. If we bussed in a bunch of illegals (think in the millions or more), claimed they were all born here, dummied up birth records, then maybe we would be a swing state.
Dear Hank,
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1282“Mean temperature data for Sitka (1832 – 1887), that are not included in the GHCN archive, were also obtained (Phil Jones personal communication).”
Are you REALLY claiming that not having data for one city back in the 1800’s makes this false claim valid???
Bob Carter: “There has been little, if any, global warming since 1979, …”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
For the record, I am not advocating Kansas import a bunch of illegals, only making a point.
Wrong GMC I favor eliminating the EC if done for All states, else I think it shouldn’t be done. Some people, usually dems. are able to put principal above party.
Why should we have viable alternatives, when many people are denying that humans are causing global warming?
Posted by: cosmos
A. Gaining energy independence for America will make this nation stronger, and no longer hostage to a hostile MidEast.
B. We still care about the Environment, and want to minimize pollution of our air and water and soil. (May or may not believe in GW. May or may not believe that man caused it. May or may not believe man can cure it.)
C. We need a long-term reliable, cost-effective, and clean supply of Energy to maintain our economy, improve our standard of living, and for future growth.
Max,
Points A, B, and C have been valid for a long time — 1973 oil crisis, etc.
Progress has been slow. For example, Congress passed the CAFE standards, we had some mpg improvements, Reagan rolled the standards back, and then stagnant.
What’s relatively new, since the late 1980’s, is the human caused global warming factor.
Delaying the solutions will cause the need for more drastic actions in the future.
In the House, the biggest states will easily have a huge majority on any law they want to collectively pass. Why should they care about the smaller states?
Posted by: Max | September 19, 2007 at 12:21 PM
======================
Max, first – the EC only pertains to Presidential elections… Second – The Big states already have this advantage if they choose to use it…
What’s your point??
Can somebody clear up one little thing for me that has been bugging me now all morning???
Would there have to be a Constitutional Amendment to drop the Electoral College, or not??
Just a question, and I dont think I saw it referred to yet??
“Some people . . . are able to put principal [sic] above party.”
True enough. Just as both parties act out of self-interest, there are indeed people of principle in BOTH parties. However, persons in both parties are usually able to rationalize their self-interest with principle, and at least tell themselves they are acting out of principle. Humans lie to themselves best of all.
So yes, it can happen. But don’t bet the farm on it. If you’re waiting for politicians to act out of principle, you’re in for a long wait.
If it’s not cosmos’s way, it’s the wrong way according to cosmos.
If we stopped all pollution of every kind today, it would take 50 years to see an effect, if indeed any was to be seen.
This Alarmist view is about funds for politically driven climate researchers and to fill the bank accounts for those selling Carbon Credits. It’s all about money and saving their precious careers.
The Climate Alarmists have no solution but screaming “chicken little” nauseatingly repeated phrases which everyone is tone deaf to now.
The fact that June 2007 was the 23rd warmest on record, shows that they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to climate variability. That’s right, not even in the top 20 for recorded temperatures.
The fact that temperatures in the past before recording were more dramatic, much colder and much hotter doesn’t stop the Alarmists from making their wild, highly speculative claims.
Averaging temperatures is like averaging phone numbers. Weather variations that lead to climate conclusions are local, involving latitude, longitude, ocean oscillations, wind, water vapor and geophysical properties such as elevation.
British climate experts predicted that 2007 would be the warmest temperature recorded year on record. So far, they are very, very off the mark and their prediction is trashed.
Cosmos – Couple of thoughts… I KNOW we can clean up the air and the environment… Two cases >>>
1) Pittsburgh, PA… In the 60’s and well into the ’70’s, the coal soot, and the steel mills pollutions, made all of the old stately downtown buildings in Pittsburgh look BLACK… It still looked pretty impressive to drive in and see that skyline… BUT… you should see it NOW!!
What a difference cleaning up the air, and even the 3 rivers has made!! When I was a kid, we couldnt swim down in the Alleghany, or Monongahela rivers… TONS of oil floating on the rivers…. TODAY, those rivers are fairly clear by comparison to 35 – 40 years ago..
2) Southeast Kansas… Strip Mining areas… Used to look horrid… NOW — after much work, and clean-up efforts, the area is once again gorgeous!!
We CAN clean up the environment and the air quality…. And all of the above was MAN MADE pollution… Just imagine that on a GLOBAL SCALE!!! Or just look at what China is doing now!!
How can anybody tell us that HUMANS arent contributing to the greenhouse gasses, and pollutions, that effect climate changes world wide???
Thanks!!
“Just a question, and I dont think I saw it referred to yet??”Posted by: Chas.
Yes, it would have to be an amendment. It has been changed twice since the original.
The Electorial College is mandated by the Constitution.
Aticle 2, section 1
Modified by 12th amendment
Hank
“Modified by 12th amendment”Posted by: Hank Price
And the 23rd.
So… I am wondering… How can California, or any other state, modify how the process works???
Would there have to be a Constitutional Amendment to drop the Electoral College, or not??
Just a question, and I dont think I saw it referred to yet??
Posted by: Chas.
I would think so.
In the House, the biggest states will easily have a huge majority on any law they want to collectively pass. Why should they care about the smaller states?
Posted by: Max | September 19, 2007 at 12:21 PM
======================
Max, first – the EC only pertains to Presidential elections… Second – The Big states already have this advantage if they choose to use it…
What’s your point??
Posted by: Chas.
If you were asking me, I was making the point dropping the EC does not affect Congress since it is only about presidential elections. I do not know why Max thinks it would change that. If that is one of his issues, then the issue already exists in Congress and will not be affected either way by keeping or removing the EC. As I pointed out later, seniority plays a much bigger role in Congressional pork and nonpork spending than size of your state. The President may present a budget, but Congress rewrites it and adds or takes away what it wants. The President has to approve or reject the whole package for each of the 13 spending bills and numerous subsequent spending bills later in the year.
While I’m not for elimination of the Electoral College nor for modification in its process, a couple of points;
1) Elimination thereof would certainly take a constitutional amendment.
2) Each state is given the right to determine how its electors are appointed (see second paragraph, Article II, Section 1, Constitution). Thus, California, as well as any other state, has the right to adopt the “Maine plan” or any other method of determining how its electors are appointed, so long as the other provisions concerning qualifications of electors as set forth in such section are observed.
Just a question, and I dont think I saw it referred to yet??
Posted by: Chas. | September 19, 2007 at 02:10 PM
Shoots your credibility all to Heck Chas.
You don’t give a rip about the Constitution anyway!
So… I am wondering… How can California, or any other state, modify how the process works???
Posted by: Chas.
I didnt see where the Constitution addressed how each state had to use a specific method for keeping or splitting electoral votes among the candidates. Mass. used this process as early as 1804 and in several elections later. Maine used it, dropped it and reinstated it. New York used it once IIRC. Nebraska also adopted the Maine method.
Hey, Max, I am just asking questions that I dont have answers for… Do you find that to be a problem??? So much so that you shoot out yet another Ad Hominem attack??? Hmmmmm….
Well, i’m willing to do my part to put some of these lesbians back on the str8t and wide. hehehehe
Changing Sexual Orientation Is Possible, New Research SaysBy Randy HallCNSNews.com Staff Writer/EditorSeptember 17, 2007
(CNSNews.com) – The results of a three-year study challenge the idea that homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation and that attempts to do so are harmful. But an opponent of “ex-gays” dismissed the findings as the result of “a deceptive sham” perpetrated by “right-wing therapists.”
While writing their book, “Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation,” researchers Stanton Jones of Wheaton College in Wheaton, Ill., and Mark Yarhouse of Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va., chronicled the experiences of 98 people who contacted Christian ministries in an attempt to become heterosexuals.
“What we found by following these subjects over time is that not everyone is successful, not even a majority is successful, but a very substantial group of people report fairly dramatic change,” Jones said while discussing the research during the annual conference of the American Association of Christian Counselors last Thursday in Nashville, Tenn…http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200709/CUL20070917b.html
JOIN THE GNOSTIC LIBERATION FRONT TODAY!!!
GMC calls me a “closet totalitarian” for believing that every American deserves to be represented in Congress.
Never knew that a desire for more democracy could make one a “totalitarian,” but I guess it makes sense in CON world.
The Constitution needs to be updated as situations change. That’s why we now allow blacks to vote (14 & 15th amendments), women to vote (19th amendment), residents of D.C. to vote for president (23rd amendment), and 18 year olds to vote (26th amendment).
I don’t believe that the Constitution needs to excludes DC residents from Congressional representation just because of that one phrase “of the several states” . . .
“The fact that June 2007 was the 23rd warmest on record, shows that they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to climate variability.”
Posted by the troll Kansas.
Does the troll Kansas think the issue is “U.S. Warming”… or is he trying to deceive???
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/jun/jun07.html
“U.S. Temperature Highlights for June
June 2007 was the 23rd warmest June on record……GLOBAL HighlightsSeparately, the global January-June land-surface temperature was WARMEST on record, while the ocean-surface temperature was the sixth warmest in the 128-year period of record.
For June, the global land and ocean surface temperature was the FOURTH warmest on record as neutral El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions contributed to an overall lower global ranking for the month.”
Kansas: “The fact that temperatures in the past before recording were more dramatic,…”
PAST natural climate changes do NOT prevent human-caused ones. Nuclear winter, etc…
Kansas: “Averaging temperatures is like averaging phone numbers.”
They don’t “average temperatures”, they use anomalies.
Kansas: “British climate experts predicted that 2007 would be the warmest temperature recorded year on record. So far, they are very, very off the mark and their prediction is trashed.”
They said a 60% chance. They’re NOT “off the mark”, and it depends on ENSO. See NCDC link above.
Thank you Kansas, for AGAIN proving that you post FALSEHOODS, and have ZERO credibility.
You know, you can’t really do a valid research study if you’re bias about the result in the first place.
BUT hey, did you know both Brownback and Roberts voted against having a discussion about reinstating habeas corpus?
That’s a vote you should have missed Sam, and you should have taken Roberts with you.
McCain and Leiberman voted against HC too. They’re both on my spit list now.
Focus on the Family radio broadcasts of Tuesday and Wednesday focused on how a church can sponsor free adoptions (with no fees for adopting parents to pay), as the Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, WA is doing. Dr. Ken Hutcherson intends to institute the program in every state in the USofA.There are no unwanted babies.See radio pagehttp://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/Default.asp
Hey, Max, I am just asking questions that I dont have answers for… Do you find that to be a problem??? So much so that you shoot out yet another Ad Hominem attack??? Hmmmmm….
Posted by: Chas. | September 19, 2007 at 02:33 PM
Just a statement of fact Chas. You first give your opinions about the Electoral College before knowing the basic facts of how the Electoral College is described in the Constitution.
If you like to give the answers first, then ask the questions (your method of researching the facts) please continue.
So the deal with EC is that states, not citizens, are electing the president.
Phantom said:”One person, one vote, all votes should be equal regardless of where you reside.”
Fact is, we’re only hurting ourselves by a vote by state election. If I vote republican in in a blue state, my vote doesn’t count. It’s already been posted that electorates can vote any way they want.
If we’re going to play red state/blue state, why bother with elections for candidates for congress? Why not just throw a blue slip or a red slip into a box and vote for the party? Let the party then pick who they want to run? It makes as much sense as the EC.
I understand the reasons the Founding Fathers instituted the EC. However, most if not all of those reasons don’t apply now. It’s archaic. One person, one vote. Why is that wrong?
Capn -
I’m not opposed to DC representation in principle. You’re not in favor of it in principle either, you just want the Dem votes.
However, the Constitution is not something to be “finessed.” A little “finesse” here, a convenient “penumbra” there, and pretty soon we don’t have a constitution at all. And THAT is the road to tyranny.
(The entire story can be found on the link below)
“The Forgotten Man”By William Graham Sumner.1
The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C’s interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man.
For once let us look him up and consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is, that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all the parts of society hold together, and that forces which are set in action act and react throughout the whole organism, until an equilibrium is produced by a re-adjustment of all interests and rights.
They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and, forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion – that the State cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/SumnerForgotten.htm
“Posted by the Troll Alarmist cosmosDoes the troll Kansas think the issue is “U.S. Warming”… or is he trying to deceive???”
Actually, this exactly proves my point about Climate variability and geographical location. If there is Global Warming, then the U.S. is ignoring it.
========================”They don’t “average temperatures”, they use anomalies.”
Actually, they used compiled data and plug it into computer models which come up with computed averages which is to date, extremely inaccurate in predicting regional influences.————————–”They said a 60% chance. They’re NOT “off the mark”, and it depends on ENSO. See NCDC link above”
ENSO is a global and natural part of the Earth’s climate, commonly called the “El Nino” effect. Which cosmos, you proved my point that climate change occurs naturally as ENSO is about as naturally as it comes.
The British Climatologists can’t even predict natural occurances and you’re hanging your hat on a bunch of “fluffed up” statistics from computer models which have been known to be full of errors, omissions and unreliable predictability of Climate variances.
You lose once again cosmos and will keep losing, because your consensus is a joke as it leaves out that natural Climate events as you agreed controls the Climate of the earth.
So. . .P_Mom,
I take it you aggree with giving Constitutional rights to enemy combatants, why?
Hank
And just so we all understand where we are now, it should be clear to all. The 23rd amendment gives presidential electors to DC, as if it were the smallest state; i.e. three electors. If the issue is votes for DC in presidential elections, it’s already been done.
I would oppose statehood for DC, however. It was set up as a special federal district, for the purpose of serving as the seat of government of the US. It serves exactly that purpose. On what basis should that change?
“Constitutional rights to enemy combatants, why?”
Because one can’t know that they are enemy combatants until they have been determined to be so in a court of law.
One person, one vote. Why is that wrong?
Posted by: Rox | September 19, 2007 at 03:26 PM
Because the 10 biggest states represent 152 million of the population, which is more than half of the total.
If you want the votes for the other 40 states not to count and sit back and watch while California, New York, Texas and others decided who your President will be, then be my guest.
I however, like the present system as I’m sure small states like New Hampshire, Delaware and Rhode Island do as well.
“I’m not opposed to DC representation in principle. You’re not in favor of it in principle either, you just want the Dem votes.”
Fascinating. GMC can READ PEOPLE’S MINDS now.
Quick, where’s the next terrorist attack coming?
If a full and fair recount in Florida meant that Bush actually won, I would still be for it.
If Bush had sex with Condi Rice in the oval office, I would oppose a special investigator and impeachment.
If DC were full of rock-ribbed Republicans, I would still be for representation.
If a direct election instead of the EC meant a Republican president for the rest of my natural life, I would still be for it.
…more incoherent arm flailing by the Capn
If you want the votes for the other 40 states not to count and sit back and watch while California, New York, Texas and others decided who your President will be, then be my guest.
I however, like the present system as I’m sure small states like New Hampshire, Delaware and Rhode Island do as well.
Posted by: Kansas
Kansas, that is assuming that those voters all vote the same way, and based on what I posted above, they split between 40/60 to 48/52. That gives plenty of room for the small states to make a difference. How is the current system any better? Maybe a couple of more states have to be won, but the end result is the same. 1/4 or less of the states decide who will be president.
So Captain, according to your logic we should not be able to shoot an enemy combatant unless he had been convicted in a court of law.
By designating these terrorists as enemy combatants we are actually giving them more status than they deserve under the Geneva convention.
Terrorists that are not fighting for a soveriegn country or in uniform can be sumarily executed by commanders in the field. The fact that we take them to Gitmo instead of lining them up against a wall and shooting them is more than they deserve.
Take them to court? Shees, where do you get that crap!
Hank
Hank,
Your son’s Commander in Chief has already decided that he has the power to declare native-born American citizens to be “enemy combatants,” even while they’re standing on American soil.
Take them out and shoot them?
I hear goose steps in the distance.
Iranian Leader Was Denied Ground Zero VisitBy Thomas J. Lueck
Updated, 4:40 p.m. | An advance team for the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asked earlier this month that he be allowed to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site during the opening of the United Nations General Assembly next week, but the request was denied, New York City police officials said today.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/iranian-leader-seeks-to-visit-ground-zero/?hp
Must be quite the tourist attraction for those who want to celebrate victory over America.
I guess that this an example of hillary’s “village raising a child” in action?
September 12, 2007Dear Health Freedom Fighters:
There is a developing story from California that involves a mother with a 17 year old child who HAD melanoma. The mother, chose to go against her allopathic (conventional) doctor’s orders (to have surgery and chemotherapy) – and instead try advanced natural medicine first – since she understood that supporting the body’s ability to heal is more effective than destroying it as chemotherapy does.
Not surprisingly this approach worked! This young man is now CANCER FREE!! However, the allopathic doctor is insisting that the child must have chemotheray as well as surgery, which the mother refuses to have her child undergo. Interestingly, doctor, the allopathic doctor’s unnecessary treatments will be compensated by the insurer or state, while the holistic strategies that actually worked are not eligible for coverage.
The Department of Child Services was called and her son was taken away from her and put in foster care. The DCS claimed she failed to properly care for her child. Note here: the advanced methods which worked are being defined as “child abuse” while the doctor’s assault (which is what we call touching someone against their will) is supported by the power of the state. Is this Health Freedom?
Next, the mother was put in jail for 5 days in maximum security and suffered injuries in the neck and arm from jailers. Her child is still in foster care, where he was forcibly vaccinated. Disgusted yet? It gets worse…
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/healthfreedomusa/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1077060
JOIN THE GNOSTIC LIBERATION FRONT TODAY!!!
Looks like it’ll be left to the S.C. to restore our world wide dignity. The Senate defeated a measure to give Habeus Corpus to Gitmo detainees. Bet our scumbag senators helped to defeat it.Senate bars bill to restore detainee rights By Susan Cornwell
Wed Sep 19, 12:27 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Senate voted on Wednesday against considering a measure to give Guantanamo detainees and other foreigners the right to challenge their detention in the U.S. courts.
ADVERTISEMENTThe legislation needed 60 votes to be considered by lawmakers in the Senate, narrowly controlled by Democrats; it received only 56, with 43 voting against the effort to roll back a key element of President George W. Bush’s war on terrorism.
The measure would have granted foreign terrorism suspects the right of habeas corpus, Latin for “you have the body,” which prevents the government from locking people up without review by a court.
Congress last year eliminated this right for non-U.S. citizens labeled “enemy combatants” by the government. The Bush administration said this was necessary to prevent them from being set free and attacking Americans.
The move affected about 340 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban captives held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba. It also affects millions of permanent legal residents of the United States who are not U.S. citizens, said one of the sponsors of the bipartisan measure, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
“Any of these people could be detained forever without the ability to challenge their detention in federal court” under the changes in law Congress made last year, Leahy said on the Senate floor. This was true “even if they (authorities) made a mistake and picked up the wrong person.”
“This was a mistake the last Congress and the (Bush) administration made, based on fear,” Leahy said.
But Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican opposing the measure, said lawmakers should not allow “some of the most brutal vicious people in the world to bring lawsuits against their own (U.S.) troops” who had picked up the detainees on the battlefield.
Giving habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees would “really intrude into the military’s ability to manage this war,” Graham said, adding that it was “something that has never been granted to any other prisoner in any other war.”
“Our judges don’t have the military background to make decisions as to who the enemy is,” Graham told the Senate.
Congress eliminated habeas rights as part of the Military Commissions Act, which also created new military tribunals to try the Guantanamo prisoners on war crimes charges.
Congress was led by Republicans when the act was rushed through, shortly before new elections put Democrats in control.
Sen. Arlen Specter, another sponsor of the bill and a Pennsylvania Republican, noted that the right to habeas corpus was a protection against arbitrary arrest enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215.
Later this year, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments from lawyers from Guantanamo prisoners challenging the law to eliminate the habeas right.
“I hear goose steps in the distance.”
Don’t worry Tom, that’s just Hillary practicing for her coronation.
Hank
Yeah well Hank, I just hope she isn’t wearing a dress at the time.
Max, do you suppose you could show me where I have done anything here except ask questions about the Electoral College??? I have not expressed ANY opinion one way or the other… What kind of kool aid you drinking up there in Iowa today??? Its making you think youre seeing someting youre not…
Don’t fall for it Max, you’ll be feeding the Troll.
HANK… I have only asked questions about the EC that I didnt know answers to… Please tell me what you think is wrong about that???
Hey, Chas, ya got any of them peanuts you are always talking about, I’m gettin’ hungry?
JOIN THE GNOSTIC LIBERATION FRONT TODAY!!!
Another section of The Forgotten Man:
The friends of humanity start out with certain benevolent feelings toward “the poor,” “the weak,” “the laborers,” and others of whom they make pets. They generalize these classes, and render them impersonal, and so constitute the classes into social pets. They turn to other classes and appeal to sympathy and generosity, and to all the other noble sentiments of the human heart.
Action in the line proposed consists in a transfer of capital from the better off to the worse off. Capital, however, as we have seen, is the force by which civilization is maintained and carried on. The same piece of capital cannot be used in two ways. Every bit of capital, therefore, which is given to a shiftless and inefficient member of society, who makes no return for it, is diverted from a reproductive use; but if it was put into reproductive use, it would have to be granted in wages to an efficient and productive laborer. Hence the real sufferer by that kind of benevolence which consists in an expenditure of capital to protect the good-for-nothing is the industrious laborer. The latter, however, is never thought of in this connection. It is assumed that he is provided for and out of the account. Such a notion only shows how little true notions of political economy have as yet become popularized.
There is an almost invincible prejudice that a man who gives a dollar to a beggar is generous and kind-hearted, but that a man who refuses the beggar and puts the dollar in a savings bank is stingy and mean. The former is putting capital where it is very sure to be wasted, and where it will be a kind of seed for a long succession of future dollars, which must be wasted to ward off a greater strain on the sympathies than would have been occasioned by a refusal in the first place. Inasmuch as the dollar might have been turned into capital and given to a laborer who, while earning it, would have reproduced it, it must be regarded as taken from the latter.
When a millionaire gives a dollar to a beggar the gain of utility to the beggar is enormous, and the loss of utility to the millionaire is insignificant. Generally the discussion is allowed to rest there. But if the millionaire makes capital of the dollar, it must go upon the labor market, as a demand for productive services. Hence there is another party in interest – the person who supplies productive services. There always are two parties. The second one is always the Forgotten Man, and any one who wants to truly understand the matter in question must go and search for the Forgotten Man. He will be found to be worthy, industrious, independent, and self-supporting. He is not, technically, “poor” or “weak”; he minds his own business, and makes no complaint. Consequently the philanthropists never think of him, and trample on him.
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/SumnerForgotten.htm
Well, back to work… break time is over now….
Later, all!!
Got plenty of Troll Peanuts Gnostic… You got any teeth to chew em, or are you just bumpin your gums together??
“However, the Constitution is not something to be “finessed.” A little “finesse” here, a convenient “penumbra” there, and pretty soon we don’t have a constitution at all. And THAT is the road to tyranny.”
Posted by: GMC70 | September 19, 2007 at 03:26 PM
George (Howdy Doody) Bush says: “It;s just a god damn piece of paper”.
Later!!
Good thing Mr. Bush didnt say that on Fox News. It would have been bleeped. Ha! Ha!
“If there is Global Warming, then the U.S. is ignoring it.”
Posted by the TROLL Kansas.
The 2% of Earth is not “ignoring” global warming.
Kansas: “Actually, they used compiled data and plug it into computer models which come up with computed averages which is to date, extremely inaccurate in predicting regional influences.”
“GLOBAL” does not = “regional”.
Anthony Watts’ and Steve McIntyre’s work,http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/09/deniers-rediscover-hockey-stick.html
“To be honest, this is starting to look like a great validation of GISTEMP.”
Kansas: “Which cosmos, you proved my point that climate change occurs naturally as ENSO is about as naturally as it comes.”
BOTH anthropogenic AND natural climate changes occur at the SAME time.
Kansas: “The British Climatologists can’t even predict natural occurances…”
Their prediction is close… 2007 is similar to 1998, which was warmed by a record 1997-1998 El Nino.
Kansas: “your consensus is a joke as it leaves out that natural Climate events as you agreed controls the Climate of the earth.”
It includes BOTH anthropogenic and natural factors.
‘Increase In Atmospheric Moisture Tied To Human Activities’http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070918090803.htm
Capn writes:
“Your son’s Commander in Chief has already decided that he has the power to declare native-born American citizens to be “enemy combatants,” even while they’re standing on American soil.”
That, Capn, is simply an incorrect description of the law, i.e., a lie. Pure and simple. The fact that it is a DU talking point does not make it so. Read the statute.
Capn writes:
“Your son’s Commander in Chief has already decided that he has the power to declare native-born American citizens to be “enemy combatants,” even while they’re standing on American soil.”
That, Capn, is simply an incorrect description of the law, i.e., a lie. Pure and simple. The fact that it is a DU talking point does not make it so. Read the statute.
Sorry for double post; it did not appear to hav taken on this end. Ignore the second one, or read it twice, and get twice as smart!!
January 2007′2007 – forecast to be the warmest year yet’http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html “The forecast takes into account known contributing factors, such as solar effects, El Niño, greenhouse gases concentrations and other multi-decadal influences. Over the previous seven years, the Met Office forecast of annual global temperature has proved remarkably accurate, with a mean forecast error size of just 0.06 °C.”
Dear cosmo: Please God, help me. Just stop your descent into crazy land. Find another subject to cut and paste about. This global warming scam has you obsessed to no good end. What will happen to your credibility when it’s all found out to be a whole lot of nothing?Answer: NothingYou (and your cohorts) are in a win win situation.
Not a bad scam.
fleettwood,
You, and other deniers, already have no credibility.
And all of you are in a losing situation.
If you don’t want to read a post, just scroll past it.
“…deniers…”
That word reminds me of something else, but I just can’t place it.hmmmm
The beauty is you will be dead when it’s proven your ilk are just reactionary fools.
You got it covered from all angles. I have to give you that.
fleettwood,
What do you call people who “deny” scientific facts, and observations. Besides labels like “fools”, etc.?
And we are already seeing signs of anthropogenic GW today — sharp decrease in the Arctic sea ice, Northwest Passage open, etc.
Capn writes:
“Your son’s Commander in Chief has already decided that he has the power to declare native-born American citizens to be “enemy combatants,” even while they’re standing on American soil.”
Actually, I didn’t write that.
But since you say it’s wrong, why not tell us what is right?
What DOES the statute say?
Do we have a nic stealer in our midst tonite, CapN???
Nah . . . GMC just made a careless error.
Surprising though, since he can read minds.
He knows what I believe even if I don’t believe it . . .
Just wondered… had not seen much of your blue underlined Nic earlier…
Say GMC, if you wouldn’t mind posting the law referenced above I’d like to read it.
I’d like to see what CF2K was complaining about.
Hate to admit I’m not up to speed on that one, but I’m not an attorney anyway. Though I do like to keep up on Freedom rights for Americans.
Hard to keep up with all the new laws. I wish they would pass a law requiring 10 laws to be eliminated for every 1 new law created.
Going to a flat tax or national sales tax would eliminate countless IRS laws in 1 year alone!
quote:
“It is of absolutely no relevance whether the holocaust happened or not. Denying it is a punishable offense.” Judge at trial of Ernst Zundel
That judge sounds just like that cosmos charcter. Myths and nonsense need draconian speech and thought crimes laws to support them!
JOIN THE GNOSTIC LIBERATION FRONT TODAY!!
BTW, Max, I still havent put out an opinion on the EC yet, like you tried to accuse me of earlier… Guess you couldnt find anything, eh?? LOL
Shut UP Gnostic… that is disgusting!!
And we are already seeing signs of anthropogenic GW today — sharp decrease in the Arctic sea ice, Northwest Passage open, etc.
Posted by: cosmos | September 19, 2007 at 07:05 PM
We?
What “we” are seeing is Climate Variability that has happened before and is happening again.
You do remember studying about all those glaciers that used to cover the northern part of the United States don’t you cosmos?
How about that same land where glaciers were on, cold-blooded dinosaurs were walking on millions of years before.
That cosmos, is climate variability. It has happened before and it is happening again.
Talk about deniers, cosmos is the only one on the blog that can’t see that the climate changes constantly from one extreme to the other and that occurs naturally.
Hi Max, guess what?
Lawyer in Plea Deal Was Edwards Bundler
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/19/lawyer_in_plea_deal_was_edward.html?hpid=topnews
You are right, Chas, it is disgusting that jews and leftists have instituted evil speech/thought crimes laws to criminalise ideas and debate. Of course, that is all they have left.
JOIN THE GNOSTIC LIBERATION FRONT TODAY!!
You know Hud, I keep hearing this crap from the saintly Democrats that “everybody raises money this way”, yet I have not seen any news stories of similar accounts for any Republican candidates for this Presidential campaign.
And even if some do eventually materialize, how much comfort should We The People take in knowing that both sides are equally crooked?
Sounds too much like the “he did it too!” excuse I used with my brothers growing up as a kid.
Guess what, Dad whipped all our asses.
Chas you have so many damn posts, you can’t even find it!
Isn’t there a God thread or something where you can display your expertise?
What the cosmos the denier lies about daily when he posts his daily alarmist propaganda from the GORACLE herd of “chicken littles.”
A case study, Manitoba, Canada, now and then.
Manitoba in the Past
“EnvironmentThe climate was warm and humid and the landscape was covered with lush vegetation such as this Magnolia. These conditions were ideal for many types of dinosaurs and other animals.” The Manitoba Museum
==============Manitoba Present Day
The central and northern parts of the province – the majority of Manitoba’s land area – fall in the subarctic climate zone (Koppen Dfc). This region features long and extremely cold winters and brief, mild summers, with relatively little precipitation. It is common to have overnight lows as low as -40°C (-40°F) several days each winter across the province (quite frequently in the north), and to have a few weeks that remain below -18°C (0°F)
Pretty hard for those cold blooded dinosaurs to live in -40°C climate don’t you think cosmos?
Keep on trumpeting your consensus blow hards cosmos, no one believes you because you are the ultimate denier of past climate change that occurred before man even walked the earth.
Troll Kansas,
The problem is, only a small part of the recent warming is caused by natural “climate variability”.
A larger part is caused by anthropogenic factors — human-added greenhouse gases, and land use changes.
Climate science proves that I am right.
Your personal insults, and dragging up past ice-ages, etc proves nothing, except your denial of science.
Climate science proves that I am right. Posted by: cosmos | September 19, 2007 at 08:14 PM
No it doesn’t. All you have for proof are computer models that use formulas that ignore the data that may be against their point of view and utilize the data that puts “Climate Scare” to the fore.
How much of greenhouse gases contribute to greenhouse gases cosmos? How about less than three percent.
You ignoring that 97 percent of the greenhouse gases are natural and you say that everyone is a denier if they don’t believe that the three percent contribution by man is the man reason for Global Warming.
Hog wash cosmos, you are believing in hog wash.
MAX… show me ONE post where I have expressed an opinion here today… SHOW ONE!!!
And since I KNOW you cant show it, just SHUT UP JERK!!!
Wow, thats neat… greenhouses contribute to greenhouse gasses…
Should have read , “How much of man made greenhouse gases contribute to total greenhouse gases?”
“He will be found to be worthy, industrious, independent, and self-supporting. He is not, technically, “poor” or “weak”; he minds his own business, and makes no complaint. Consequently the philanthropists never think of him, and trample on him.”
Sounds like the middle class that Howdy Doody and his posse is trying to kill.
Sometimes 3% can be a significant amount… consider 3.2% beer… it is still intoxicating… even with just that small amount!!
Maybe its not so much the percentage, but the ingredients??
…climate change that occurred before man even walked the earth.
Posted by: Kansas | September 19, 2007 at 07:52 PM
========================
The thought occurs to me that a fairly large amount of climate change before humans happened due to astronomical events, rather than climatological events… That would make your argument land toward the Moot Side of things….
Chas could you give us that in english.
It IS in English, KsGrm…
“How much of [man made] greenhouse gases contribute to greenhouse gases cosmos? How about less than three percent.”
Posted by the troll Kansas.
The “percent” is irrelevant. What’s important is the global warming potentials of the gases, and their radiative forcings.
The troll Kansas would know that, if he knew anything about climate science.
Will the Iraq genocide expand in the Middle East? Will wars erupt in Africa? Will they continue the war on people of color here in America by the scapegoating of Blacks, Jews, Arabs and Latinos?
What does the mainline media do when chaos is imminent? Report it? Hardly! Or does the mainline media muster feel-good stories….like OJ is getting poetic justice, or Brad finds foreign semen in Angelina’s panties?
What does an honest Fuhrer do when collapsing markets cause the physical economy to grind to a halt?
He causes the regular military, as the guardian of Plutocracy’s interests, to circle the wagons. Then he send the corporate military, like Blackwater, into action.
Then he closes the borders!
How does a Fuhrer stave off revolution by hungry masses?
Why he introduces austerity measures: then issues food and fuel vouchers and scrip currency. Then a Fuhrer is likely to engage the propaganda organ, aka the Media tribe, to pacify the mob conditioned to bread and circus with more feel-good or tear-jerker stories to divert from the seriousness of the situation.
Well nuts… Sock Puppet Ballet is starting earlier than usual…
You know Hud, I keep hearing this crap from the saintly Democrats that “everybody raises money this way”, yet I have not seen any news stories of similar accounts for any Republican candidates for this Presidential campaign.Posted by: Max | September 19, 2007 at 07:48 PM
Abramoff was a bundler for the Bush campaign.
‘Maybe its not so much the percentage, but the ingredients??”
Posted by: Chas
A great example of that is a tiny amount of Ebola virus, compared to the weight of an adult human.
The “percent” is irrelevant. What’s important is the global warming potentials of the gases, and their radiative forcings.Posted by: cosmos | September 19, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Evidently, cosmos doesn’t even understand his worshipped “gods” of man made Global Warming.
From cosmos’s illustustrious guru of anthropometric Global Warming.
From Dr. Hansen, NASA
“Since 1975, global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit, a trend that has taken global temperatures to their highest level in the past millennium. “Our estimates of global climate forcings, or factors that promote warming, indicate that it is the processes producing non-CO2 greenhouse gases that have been more significant in climate change,” Hansen said.”
Oops cosmos! Your guru has let you down with your Carbon Credit scheme as says that other processes other than CO2 are more significant in causing Global Warming.
Your consensus science is just all over the board isn’t it cosmos?
One day the Alarmists say it’s co2, then next is other processes other than co2 that are significant in Global Warming.
Yeah, the Alarmists can’t figure it out, because they are deniers of natural climate variances.
NOW I have heard it all from the RR.
They’re claiming that Atheist cannot be protected under “religious” amendment…because they aren’t religious.
Can you believe this crap?
Not any more ridiculous PMom, than me asking for protection as a female, when I’m actually a man.
Now that would be strange and ridiculous.
I suppose asking for protection under rules that you are not could be considered ridiculous.
Troll Kansas,
Are you “unable” (to be polite) to understand the graph, and the NEXT paragraph from the OLD, year 2000 link you copy/pasted at 10:54 PM?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast29aug_1.htm
” “The good news is that the growth rate of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases has declined in the past decade, …”
Or were you gullible, and copy/pasted it from some “edited” version at a “deniers” page?
Also,http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
CO2 is the largest radiative forcing component. See Figure SPM.2. at,
‘Summary for Policymakers’”The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores….The atmospheric concentration of methane in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb) as determined from ice cores.”
Thanks again troll Kansas, for AGAIN proving that you have ZERO credibility.
PMom… I dont think that argument would hold up long, under the First Amendment rights to Freedom of Religion… That Freedom OF Religion would naturally encompass the Freedom to have NO Religion…
Well, another long day ahead tomorrow… So….
Good nite, Good luck, and God bless; whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings all!!
One for the road >>>> Looks interesting….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=481996&in_page_id=1965
cosmos states I’m the one being impolite and he states this:
“Thanks again troll Kansas, for AGAIN proving that you have ZERO credibility.” Posted by: cosmos | September 19, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Again, I quote from cosmos’s guru of Alarmist Global Warming.
From Dr. Hansen, NASA
“Since 1975, global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit, a trend that has taken global temperatures to their highest level in the past millennium. “Our estimates of global climate forcings, or factors that promote warming, indicate that it is the processes producing non-CO2 greenhouse gases that have been more significant in climate change,” Hansen said.”
cosmos is a denier of natural climate change and variation because he has a product to sell, carbon credits and alarmist videos that the GORACLE sells.
“cosmos states I’m the one being impolite and he states this:”
Nope… I posted: “Are you [Kansas] “unable” (to be polite) to understand the graph, and the NEXT paragraph from the OLD, year 2000 link you copy/pasted at 10:54 PM?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast29aug_1.htm
I asked if Kansas was “unable” to understand that the conditions have CHANGED since prior to 2000. Kansas stupidly answered yes.
Troll Kansas: “cosmos is a denier of natural climate change and variation…”
Thank you Kansas, for AGAIN proving that you have ZERO credibility.
I’ve posted,http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm
“The rise of the Appalachian Mountains may have caused a major ice age approximately 450 million years ago, an Ohio State University study has found.”
athttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/a_federal_subsi.html#comment-70300164
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/is_there_a_carb.html#comment-66611156
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/open_thread_17.html#comment-63624316
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/quote_of_the_we.html#comment-64415170
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80563113
“Your son’s Commander in Chief has already decided that he has the power to declare native-born American citizens to be “enemy combatants,” even while they’re standing on American soil.”
That, Capn, is simply an incorrect description of the law, i.e., a lie. Pure and simple. The fact that it is a DU talking point does not make it so. Read the statute.
Posted by: GMC70 | September 19, 2007 at 05:37 PM
Here’s Bush’s order declaring Jose Padilla, a native-born US citizen standing on American soil, an enemy combatant:
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/padilla/padillabush60902det.pdf
It’s not a DU talking point, and it’s not a lie. It’s evidence admitted in Federal court. And no, it’s not even a statute, as GMC infers. It’s an executive order that completely ignores statute, law, precedent, and the entire Constitution.
My goodness… looks like Kansas has been proven WRONG… right there in black and white!! WTG Tom!!
Abramoff was a bundler for the Bush campaign.
Posted by: XXX | September 19, 2007 at 10:14 PM
One helluva defense XXX. Think that will get Hillary aquited?
Thanks for the link, Tom. And note the date!
Padilla and Hamdi were test cases for what the MCA sure as hell APPEARS to do, mainly apply “enemy combatant” status to U.S. citizens. This administration prefers authority by omission, but will settle for a law when it must.
If anyone wants to poo-poo the chilling possibilities, consider that Bush found the Authorization of Military Force–which had pretty open-ended language, but authorized no such thing–as sufficient legal justification to turn any American citizen into a legal nonperson, at the whim of the king, er, president.
This was with no law at all explicitly authorizing “enemy combatnant” status then. There is now. How could ANYONE not see that Bush will not only use the law, but go beyond any reasonable interpretation of his legal authority–as usual?
You could be next.
“…but authorized no such thing–as sufficient legal justification to turn any American citizen into a legal nonperson…” Posted by: Rage | September 20, 2007 at 03:35 AM
You plan on becoming a terrorist anytime soon Rage?
The MCA only applies to those conspiring or engaged to plot against the United States and its citizens with acts of terrorism.
Your argument is about as leak proof as a sieve.
Nope… I posted: “Are you [Kansas] “unable” (to be polite) to understand the graph, and the NEXT paragraph from the OLD, year 2000 link you copy/pasted at 10:54 PM? Posted by: cosmos | September 20, 2007 at 01:02 AM
Old link eh? So Hansen lied back then cosmos?
How can anyone trust your imminent Dr. Hansen if he keeps lying every year?
I mean it’s this thing here, then it was 1998 was the warmest temperature on record – oops! that’s wrong, it was 1934. We had some bad data calculations!
Then Hansen lies before Congress and says he hasn’t been given an opportunity to state his case publicly about man made Global Warming, when he fact he has had Internet interviews and op-ed pieces over 1000 times!
If your scientists keep lying cosmos, how can anyone believe them or you, as you keep spreading their lies.
“Our estimates of global climate forcings, or factors that promote warming, indicate that it is the processes producing non-CO2 greenhouse gases that have been more significant in climate change,” Hansen said.”===========================
IN OTHER WORDS, Kansas…. There are things that produce NON-CO2 gases… that have had MORE impact on climate change, and Global Warming(SINCE 1975) than even the CO2 gases… He does NOT say that C02 gases are not producing Warming… But that there are other gases that are producing MORE warming than CO2
One of these days you will learn not to SPIN something that cannot be spun… Hansen cant be spun… You look pretty silly when you try to pretend that he can be.
One helluva defense XXX. Think that will get Hillary aquited?
Posted by: Max | September 20, 2007 at 02:30 AM
Acquitted? Max, I wasn’t even aware she had been charged.Point is, Bush did it too. Notice how much that sounds like what you repubs have been whining for so many years? (Clinton did it).
Max, if there’s charges to be brought, bring them. Otherwise,
You got nothing.
Tom:
1) Sorry, the lie was from Tom, not Capn. Apologies to Capn.
2) the statute is the MCA. And we’ve been through all this months ago. Go rehash it there. The statute is clear.
And BTW -
GMC did not IMPLY it was a statute, he said so explicitly. TOM drew an innecessary INFERRENCE.
Why am I writing in the third person?
“2) the statute is the MCA. And we’ve been through all this months ago.”
And I posted this delighful little snippet then:
Sec. 3(a)(1)(1):
“”(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful
enemy combatant’ means—
”(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who
has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States or its co-belligerents who is
not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who
is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces);
or
”(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant
by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent
tribunal established under the authority of the
President or the Secretary of Defense. ”
Pay special attentiont to (ii). Note that any “competent tribunal” established by the President OR the Secretary of Defense, “BEFORE on, or after the date of the enactment,” can make such a judgement.
Notice that Bush personally signed the Padilla order? All this really does is offer retroactive approval for the illegal actions the administration had already been taking.
Kinda like Congress’ craven “extenision” of the NSA spying program.
Rage -
Post the REST of the statute. Not just the “snippet.”
From Wikipedia – opinions by a legal scholar on the MCA, habeas corpus and unlawful enemy combatant status.
“The text of the law states that its “Purpose” is to “establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.”
“While the most controversial provisions in the law refer to alien unlawful enemy combatants, earlier provisions (section 948a) refer to unlawful enemy combantants, not excluding U.S. citizens. Therefore, there is some controversy over whether this law affects the rights of habeas corpus for United States citizens.”
“Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as “unlawful combatants” would still have habeas rights and could challenge their indefinite detention.[6]
“While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [7]
“CBS legal commentator Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the “suspension of the writ of habeas corpus – the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad” and that “it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted.”
There you have it, legal opinion written by legal scholars backing up GMC’s opinion.
And he is right, we have discussed habeas corpus, unlawful enemy combatants and the MCA in spades many times before.
It appears the Democrits have very short memories or should I say selective memory.
posted in wrong “Open thread.”
“[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992).
“Congress is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another.” Estate of Bell v. Commissioner, 928 F.2d 901, 904 (9th Cir. 1991).
Application of “broad purposes” of legislation at the expense of specific provisions ignores the complexity of the legislative problems Congress is called upon to address and the dynamics of legislative action. Congress may be unanimous in its intent to stamp out some vague social or economic evil; however, because its Members may differ sharply on the means for effectuating that intent, the final language of the legislation may reflect hard-fought compromises. Invocation of the “plain purpose” of legislation at the expense of the terms of the statute itself takes no account of the processes of compromise and, in the end, prevents the effectuation of congressional intent. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. Dimension Financial Corp., 474 U.S. 361, 373-74 (1986).
“When Congress includes a specific term in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it should not be implied where it is excluded.” Arizona Elec. Power Co-op. v. United States, 816 F.2d 1366, 1375 (9th Cir. 1987); see also West Coast Truck Lines, Inc. v. Arcata Community Recycling Ctr., 846 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 856 (1988).
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s104.htm
Posted by: Rage | October 23, 2006 at 02:48 AM
What’s really at issue here is not how reasonable people will interpret the discrepancy, but how the administration will.
It’s in the interest of human rights organizations to argue that the statute doesn’t authorize what it ambiguously appears to authorize with the conflicting language.
The administration’s previous actions pretty much tell us what they’ll do.
Kansas,
Okay, so you ARE too stupid to understand that the graph shows the “GROWTH RATES of Greenhouse Gas Forcing”.
Dr. Hansen did NOT say that 1998 was the warmest U.S. year on record.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/james-hansen.html
“Dr. Hansen’s public stand helped to bring about reforms of NASA’s public relations policy.”
Since Kansas has no science to support his incorrect claim re global warming, he instead posts confusion, lies, and false personal attacks.
If we all admit there is global warming, caused by man, and that we can cure it, and we all agree to cut our personal energy usage in half starting tomorrow, can we end the GW debate?
Since Kansas has no science to support his incorrect claim re global warming, he instead posts confusion, lies, and false personal attacks.
Posted by: cosmos | September 20, 2007 at 01:59 PM
Wrong again cosmos.
I have hundreds of years of Natural Climate Science on my side.
You have what, 10 years? Your side can’t even figure out how to incorporate low level clouds into climate models because satellites cannot see them.
Kansas,
You do post confusions, lies, and false personal attacks.
Past natural climate changes prove nothing.
You do NOT have any scientific proof that humans CANNOT cause global warming, and climate change.
You CANNOT refute the scientific consensus that humans are causing a large part of the recent warming.
You CANNOT refute the scientific consensus that humans are causing a large part of the recent warming.
Posted by: cosmos | September 20, 2007 at 02:21 PM
Yeah cosmos, I will admit it is hard to refute simply because the “consensus” only releases to the press partial truths and omits evidence that would damn their conclusions.
On that we agree.
“and omits evidence that would damn their conclusions.”
Posted by the troll Kansas.
The scientists trying to prove that humans are not causing global warming cannot find any credible evidence.
The scientists trying to prove that humans are not causing global warming cannot find any credible evidence.
Posted by: cosmos | September 20, 2007 at 02:35 PM
There is no extra proof needed cosmos. The Manitoba example is just one example of thousands of “proofs” that climate change happens with or without man.
If we all admit there is global warming, caused by man, and that we can cure it, and we all agree to cut our personal energy usage in half starting tomorrow, can we end the GW debate?
Posted by: Max | September 20, 2007 at 02:01 PM
Max I tried this, even went so far as buying a Prius – didn’t help. But I do love my Prius and hardly ever have to buy gas.
What part of Iowa are from? My grandson is in Cedar Falls this fall going to UNI. He loves it.
Kansas,
Natural past climate changes do NOT prove “that humans are not causing global warming” today.
Cosmos,Maybe we should campaign for more bike friendly roads in and around Wichita? People will do that just to save money and get exercise if they live close enough to work. However, we need workplaces and city government to get on board with this.
The infrastructure of Wichita and ever other USA city is dependendent on cheap oil. We can’t change even if we believe everything you say until the infrastructure changes!
I work for a company that does not have showers or lockers. they should make it easier to alternative commute by providing some of those things. I bike in anyways, but the point is, there are practical things that can be done other than debating bloggers with links about man causing GW.
The scientists trying to prove that humans are not causing global warming cannot find any credible evidence.
Posted by: cosmos | September 20, 2007 at 02:35 PM
There is no extra proof needed cosmos. The Manitoba example is just one example of thousands of “proofs” that climate change happens with or without man.
Posted by: Kansas | September 20, 2007 at 02:37 PM
Natural past climate changes do NOT prove “that humans are not causing global warming” today.
So cosmos, you are saying natural climate variability stopped the moment Hansen opened his mouth?
What a gullible freakazoid you are.
The tooth fairy is the only person causing global warming. The Easter Bunny is highly suspect.
Details at 11.
The tooth fairy is the only person causing global warming. The Easter Bunny is highly suspect.
Details at 11.
Posted by: SolDevVB
Probably the only GW post I am going to read today or maybe the whole year. The Eagle needs to create a link just for the GW stuff and we could get some peace and quiet from that quadrant. Then, we would only be dealing with the other 3 G’s. LOL
Sol, the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny may be doing the GW to get back at Santa. After all, if the North Pole melts, Santa will be in a world of hurt.
“So cosmos, you are saying natural climate variability stopped the moment Hansen opened his mouth?”
Posted by the troll Kansas.
No, and neither does Dr. Hansen, or the other “consensus” scientists.
Thanks for again posting your confusion, and another personal attack at me — instead of your (nonexistent) proof that humans are not causing global warming.
proof that humans are not causing global warming.
Posted by: cosmos | September 20, 2007 at 04:06 PM
cosmos arguing the prove the negative.
Typical cheese-eating liberal.
rfl,
Bikes are good for work commutes… also shopping, vacation, etc. And are even fairly safe at night with the new light systems.
Some companies have a van service, like a private bus line, to transport employees to/from work. Or do a “van pool” in neighborhoods.
And working at home when allowed is easy, with ‘Net connctions, etc.
“cosmos arguing the prove the negative.
Typical cheese-eating liberal.”
Posted by: Kansas
More confusion, and another false personal attack.
The “consensus” shows “that humans are causing global warming” today. Finding proof that they’re wrong isn’t “prove the negative”.
“So cosmos, you are saying natural climate variability stopped the moment Hansen opened his mouth?
What a gullible freakazoid you are.”
Posted by: Kansas | September 20, 2007 at 03:51 PM
I forgot to thank the troll Kansas for proving that he is very ignorant about the “consensus” science of anthropogenic global warming.
Natural forcings, and palaeoclimatic information, are very important parts of the “consensus” climate science.
In short, Kansas is clueless about the climate science that he incorrectly claims is invalid.
Instead, the troll Kansas is skilled at posting confusions, lies, and false personal attacks.
Instead, the troll Kansas is skilled at posting confusions, lies, and false personal attacks.
Posted by: cosmos
Calling a person a troll when accusing them of false personal attacks is hypocritical.
No… in Kansas’ case, it’s redundant.
cosmos,
I know this is wasted typing, but I will do it anyway. You will never convince Kansas, Nathan or any other anti-GW person of your beliefs. They will never convince you of being wrong on GW. All of you get over it and move on. Most or all the other people are ignoring all of the GW posts you three make.
The Eagle needs to create a special board for GW and you three could post on it all day long, sparing the rest of us your (all three of you) diatribes. The Eagle would need to delete any new GW posts on the regular discussions or we would be back to the same problem.
anon,
Are you unable to scroll past posts that you don’t want to read?
I can scroll past posts I dont want to read and it includes all of the GW ones. I am curious as to why all three of you waste so much time trying to convince the unconvinceable. It would be better for you of all to channel such tremendous energy into making it a better world out there. Of course, the last comment applies to most postings on the blog. I hear super lot of talk and super little action to improve the world. No wonder the world and this country is going to hell in a handbasket. People are spending so much time on blogs coming up with solutions and not doing anything to get them implemented. It’s not only this blog, but all of the blogs. I see some great ideas with very few people willing to carry out what they come up with. The potential on this blog alone could transform Wichita and Sedgwick County or wherever the person lives into a much better and nicer community. Instead, people are bickering, fighting, calling each other spiteful and hateful things leading to increasing levels of hate and spite. I volunteer and do other things to make the community beter, but I am in the minority on this blog. I have skimmed many of the old discussions and some people spend most of their days on the blog. I hope they take bathroom breaks or at least wear an astronaut diaper. People, Internet addiction is treatable. Get help now before it is too late. Make the world a better place, get off your butts and take action instead of only gritching about it. If you don’t take action, you have no right to gritch. Same with voting, no vote no complaints.
Food for thought. Pleasant dreams all.
anon,
I have many other activities, and contributions besides this blog. I have the links I post in files — a quick copy/paste, add some text, and post.
If you believe that the WE Blog objects to posts that point out lies, then ask Mr. Brownlee, pbrownlee@wichitaeagle.com to delete this post.
NASA’s Dr. Hansen has said that the U.S. temperatures for 1934 and 1998 were basically a tie, or “dead-heat”.
Example proof at PDF here,http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.htmland
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf
Kansas falsely accused Dr. Hansen of lying, claiming that: “it was 1998 was the warmest temperature on record – oops! that’s wrong, it was 1934.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-919.html#comment-83416089
Opinions should not be based on lies.
The WE Blog should delete posts that contain proven lies. Or add an “editors note”.
If you believe that the WE Blog objects to posts that point out lies, then ask Mr. Brownlee, pbrownlee@wichitaeagle.com to delete this post.
Opinions should not be based on lies.
The WE Blog should delete posts that contain proven lies. Or add an “editors note”.
Posted by: cosmos
Show me where I said the Blog should delete posts of any kind? For which side is basing opinions on lies, it depends on which side a person believes. For Kansas and others, they believe one group, for you and others you believe another group. Your GW posts do more to turn people against GW than to convert followers. Good science welcomes debate and allows for differing opinions to raise questions. When I was young, scientists were willing to debate things and not try to intimidate other scientists into accepting their positions. Now scientists rarely honestly and openly debate issues. Side one makes a claim and if side two opposes it, side one unleashes their full might to quash opposing and dissenting views. This is bad science, no matter what the topic. Healthy debate leads to new places and new answers and new questions. Your posts do not allow for your position and the position of your scientists to be debated. You accuse other groups of being liars, hacks, on the payroll of Exxonco, etc.
The WE Blog should delete posts that contain proven lies. Or add an “editors note”.
Posted by: cosmos
Who determines something is a “proven lie”? Because you think it is since it disagrees with your position? If the Blog deleted posts with “proven lies”, it would have to delete over half the posts here. It is better they delete the hate posts, but 3/4 of the posts would be lost.
You are not willing to let Kansas, Nathan and others have the right to their opinions on GW, but you want to have the right to your opinions. As my professor said the other day, a person’s perception is their reality. You want to accept GW as fact, this is your choice, but you have to accept other people have the right to disagree with you. As Americans, it is their choice and we should respect it. We dont have to agree with it, but they have the right to their opinion on a subject.
Belief in something does not automatically make someone else’s disbelief a lie. You have your proof, they have their proof. Only time will tell which proof is correct. A third alternative is you are both wrong. A fourth alternative is you are both partially correct. A fifth alternative is we have a nuclear exchange which devastates the planet and makes both sides’ arguments moot. Evidence is science is constantly changing. Look at the recent discovery where they thought two different human ancestors did not live during the same time. New evidence showed they did.
anon: “Who determines something is a “proven lie”? ”
The facts determine it.
anon: “Good science welcomes debate and allows for differing opinions to raise questions. When I was young, scientists were willing to debate things and not try to intimidate other scientists into accepting their positions.”
Climate science has been researched since the 1800’s.
THREE DECADES ago, scientific opinion converged on human-caused global warming.http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
anon: “Now scientists rarely honestly and openly debate issues.”
Are there any scientists with credible proof that anthropogenic global warming is not happening? All they have to do is write a paper, and submit it.
anon: “You accuse other groups of being liars, hacks, on the payroll of Exxonco, etc”
They are funded by fossil-energy, and/or right-wing groups. They do use deceptions and lies, as determined by facts.Most of them are not qualified, active climate scientists.
anon: “You are not willing to let Kansas, Nathan and others have the right to their opinions on GW,”
I asked them to explain what they base their opinion on. Kansas claims the warming is “natural”, but has no scientific proof that nature is causing all of the warming, or that humans are not causing any.
Kansas attacks the “consensus” climate science, but does not even seem to know that natural variability, and paleo info are important parts of it.
Nathan claims that hundreds of scientists disagree with the “consensus” (Avery and Singer) — logic says most (or all) of those scientists actually agree with the “consensus”.
Hank claims that a graph showing global temperatures rising after 1979 is invalid, because some data for ONE city, way back in the 1800’s, may be missing.
The claim that humans are not causing global warming is NOT based on credible science. That claim would require,
1) Refuting the “consensus” climate science.and2) Finding credible theories, and sources, to explain the recent observed warming.
[img]http://www.ruweb.co.uk/fotki/n/119421755160.jpg/img
[img]http://www.ruweb.co.uk/fotki/n/119421760660.jpg/img
Beatiful Japan womans football :o))