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
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- outlander on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Jail consultants straining patience
- Howserfan on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
114 Comments
my wish list for 20081. Faithfully serve God and continue my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
2. See John Edwards elected as 44th president of the USA
3. See Bush and Cheney impeached and tried for War Crimes
4. See Carl Peterson and Herm Edwards fired from the Chiefs and see Bill Cowher installed as Coach!
I agree 100% with Candidate Obama about universal healthcare for all Americans. How, we have to carry Minimum Insurance to drive a car in all 50 states. We cannot drive without it. Medicare, Mediciad is about $90.oo a month and covers “needs”. HCA is stealing us blind. The current “Experienced” Government is stealing us blind. I feel he will stop the abuse and theft of our resources. See http://www.wen2k.com/tell.php?Id=808 . It shows how and where the stolen money comes from and goes. That is $ 1 Billion a year that could go for people who actually exsisit. Ghost, people only fuel or fund personal agenda politicians. Stop them, take back our resources. Demand better. Herbert West III, Publisher/Journalist west.herb@yahoo.com
Ocean researcher Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administrator and UN IPCC lead author and reviewer, who led work on five impact analyses for the IPCC including Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones. Everett, who is also project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans, received an award while at NOAA for “accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries.”
Everett, who publishes the website http://www.climatechangefacts.info/index.htm also expressed skepticism about climate fears in 2007. “It is time for a reality check,” Everett testified to Natural Resources Committee in the U.S. Congress on April 17, 2007. “Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing,” Everett emphasized. “The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change,” Everett said. “In the oceans, major climate warming and cooling is a fact of life, whether it is over a few years as in an El Niño or over decades as in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the North Atlantic Oscillation. Currents, temperatures, salinity, and biology changes rapidly to the new state in months or a couple years. These changes far exceed those expected with global warming and occur much faster. The one degree F. rise since about 1860, indeed since the year 1000, has brought the global average temperature from 56.5 to 57.5 degrees. This is at the level of noise in this rapidly changing system,” Everett explained. “I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming, than the next ice age that will bring temperatures much colder than even today. The NOAA PaleoClimate Program shows us that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were 2 to 4 times higher, and coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so productive then that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated,” he added. “More of the warming, if it comes, will be during winters and at night and toward the poles. For most life in the oceans, warming means faster growth, reduced energy requirements to stay warm, lower winter mortalities, and wider ranges of distribution,” he explained. “No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more,”
Everett concluded. Everett also worked for the National Marine Fisheries Service Division Chief for Fisheries Development in the 1970s and he noted that the concern then was about how predicted global cooling would impact the oceans.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/AboutUs.html
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/StatementOralJohnEverett.htm
Huh.
Mainly Hank tries to pretend global warming is not happening.
Now a suggestion that it is a good thing?
“Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing,” Everett emphasized.
Sounds much like the Y2K hysteria, don’t you think? A few facts mixed in with a lot of hype and scare tactics..
I think I will ask the next mastodon I see about global warming. Oooops..they became extinct about 25,000 years ago as the last ice age ended…was that ALSO caused by man?
My point being, there have been temperature fluctations for millions of years. I don’t doubt that there is a gradual warming going on now..I just doubt the hype associated with it.
Good morning J R,
Just got back from feeding the livestock. I think a little ‘global warming’ would be a good thing this morning!
What do you think about Dr. John T. Everett’s credentials? Any one that is borderline hysterical about GW should take a little comfort from his opinions.
Forest fires can be caused by lightning (natural causes) or by a cigarette butt thrown from a passing car (man-made cause).
Just because climate change occured in the past naturally doesn’t mean that humans by pumping massive tonnages of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere aren’t influencing it now.
In retrospect, the highlighting of global warming by Al Gore is probably the worst thing that could have happened to this issue. It served to politicize it, rather than call attention to it.
Because of his involvement, the Dems follow his every word faithfully, and the Republicans dismiss it.
So, as a result, we see claims and accusations along political party lines, which is a lousy way to hold a scientific debate.
You don’t know much about the Democratic party, 3dog, if you think that they “follow anyone faithfully.”
On the other hand, the Repukes know very well how to gang up on their victims like a jackels on a wounded lion.
Death by a thousand sound-bites . . .
Ahh yes…the word according to Capn..Dems are perfect and Repubs are pond scum. How could I have possibly forgotten that…
These nics I’ve never seen before that suddenly show up and seem to know me and others and what is going on? I lend them little notice and no credibility. I do say so from time to time just so the person behind them knows.
Dems aren’t perfect and anyone who reads what I post knows I don’t think that.
Pelosi should be impeached for not impeaching Bush, for instance.
And good advice, JR.
I think I am going to be sick!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/world/africa/31prison.html?ex=1356843600&en=d51e4c5ad6e36405&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
Jihadists in Jails Win Leverage With Protests
Jehad Nga for The New York Times
Ahmed Rafiki in his cell in Oukacha Prison in Casablanca, Morocco. Other militants call him the father of Moroccan jihadists.
By SOUAD MEKHENNET
Published: December 31, 2007
CASABLANCA, Ahmed Rafiki sprawled on the makeshift couch in his cell, a fresh red henna dye in his long hair and beard. The New York Times
Morocco has cooperated with the United States to round up militants.Known to other militants as the father of Moroccan jihadists, he was convicted in 2003 of leading young men to fight Americans in Afghanistan. But here in Oukacha Prison, Mr. Rafiki, an Islamist cleric, is serving the final months of his sentence in style.His kitchen and larder are stocked three times a week by his two wives. His curtained doorway leads to a private garden and bath. He has two radios and a television, a reading stand for his Koran and a wardrobe of crisply ironed Islamic attire.“In my case,” he said with a smile, “the people treat me well.”Hardly a scene of harsh interrogation and detention for which Moroccan prisons are known, Mr. Rafiki’s plush prison life is evidence of an awkward balancing act between the crackdown on militants in many countries and the power those militants can hold over the authorities.
Through hunger strikes and protests, Mr. Rafiki and Oukacha’s 65 other militant inmates have won perks — including exclusive use of the conjugal rooms — that make them the envy of the prison’s 7,600 other inmates.
One recent morning, a prisoner advocate handed the warden a long list of inmates not linked to terrorism cases who were demanding equal time with their wives.“‘Why do they get much more rights than we get here?’” the advocate, Assia El Ouadie, said the other prisoners constantly asked her. “‘Do you want us to become terrorism prisoners, and then we will get those rights?’”Even as more and more militants are imprisoned around the world — often by governments with records of conducting extreme interrogations — the prisoners are managing to gain a kind of crude leverage over security officials who are struggling to figure out how to handle them.Draconian, or even strict, treatment of radical inmates can lead to prison unrest and public condemnation, particularly in countries with sizable Muslim populations. At the same time, officials fear that militants given free rein are more likely to turn prisons into prime grounds for radicalization and recruiting.“More than any time in the modern history of terrorism, the prisons have become a key front in the war on terror,” Dennis Pluchinsky, a former senior intelligence analyst at the State Department, wrote in a report for the United States government earlier this year.He estimated that there were 5,000 jihadi inmates and detainees worldwide, not counting those held in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that only 15 percent had received life sentences or the death penalty, meaning the rest would eventually be set free
Mornin’ Hank,
I have to agree with some of the conclusions reached by Dr. John T. Everett. I am still not fully convinced as to mans’ causing global, or as I would rather call it, climate change.
Too little is known about the earth and its climate. While I agree reducing CO2 output is a good thing, and can be done quite easily, the fact CO2 levels were higher in the past, with no life threatening consequences, makes the current argument suspect. My main problem is if the earth is going through a routine (for it) climate change, how will it affect man, and what must we do to prepare for it.
Will it cause agriculture areas to move? Will it affect water supplies? Will it affect coastal areas? How will it affect weather patterns? These all have serious consequences, and could lead to actual wars over land, water, etc..
Or, is it even necessary to go into that? Maybe warmer climates will extend growing seasons and benefit everyone. We just don’t know enough to predict the future.
But, I think that is where the bulk of scientific investigation needs to be done. Crying after the milk is spilt isn’t going to do anyone any good.
http://www.ivaw.org/node/2257
An Open Letter to the Anti-War Movement From Iraq Veterans Against the War
As we approach the fifth anniversary of the quagmire known as the invasion/occupation of Iraq, many of us feel a need to mark this occasion with an appropriately momentous show of resistance. For the past few months, IVAW has been organizing “Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan.” From March 13-16, 2008, we will assemble the largest gathering of US veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan in history, as well as Iraqi and Afghan survivors, to offer first-hand, eyewitness accounts to tell the truth about these occupations — their impact on the troops, their families, our nation, and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Winter Soldier will require IVAW’s full attention and organizing capacity leading up to and during the event.
We would like to have as many people as possible attend the event and we are making arrangements to provide live broadcasting of the hearings for those who cannot hear the testimony first hand, as space will be limited. We ask all of you to help us to spread the message of the testimony, raise funds, and get more veterans and GIs involved.
We have been inspired by the tremendous support that the movement has shown us and we believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members. Because Winter Soldier will provide a unique venue for those who experienced war on the ground to expose the truth and consequences of the “War on Terror” to the nation and the world, we are requesting that, from March 13-16, the larger anti-war movement call no national mobilizations and that there be no local protests or civil disobedience actions in Washington, DC.
Some leaders of the movement have expressed a desire to have a mass assembly to mark the fifth anniversary. Some have expressed support for a concert/rally. IVAW would support any events that do not interfere with the Winter Soldier hearings, our strategy, or goals. We would encourage our members to continue participating in events of the larger movement to end the occupation of Iraq, as we acknowledge both the significance and the necessity of such actions for movement building. IVAW will also arrange to make available copies of the Winter Soldier transcript highlights to support the various efforts of the antiwar movement.
We are thankful for your enduring support of IVAW and Winter Soldier. Let us all continue to think strategically and act in a spirit of cooperation.
In solidarity,Iraq Veterans Against the War
IVAW Board of DirectorsCamilo E. MejiaJabbar MagruderMargaret StevensPhil AliffJason LemieuxAdam KokeshLiam MaddenAnita FosterJose Vasquez
Winter Soldier Organizing TeamAaron HughesFernando BragaAdrienne KinnePerry O’BrienMartin SmithLily HughesAmadee Braxton
Oh, my god.
(Or, I should say, *Mike’s* god.)
http://tinyurl.com/2z3v34
ARKADELPHIA, ARK. — Five days after the tornado tore through the state, this city of 10,000 lay in ruins. The cyclone destroyed an office building, a bank, a pharmacy and 70 other businesses. The electricity was out. The National Guard patrolled the streets. Six people were dead.
In Little Rock, GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee was reviewing a disaster insurance measure that he intended to support when he became troubled: The bill, drawing on centuries-old legal terminology, referred to natural disasters as “acts of God.”
Huckabeeclick to enlarge
Related
- TOP OF THE TICKET Blog on Huckabee’s revealing schedule
- 2008 Primary Tracker: Follow the presidential nominating season
- California voter registration information
Related Stories
- GOP candidates turn up the volume
- Romney at center of GOP ad battle
- Assassination may shift focus of presidential race
- Huckabee speaks without speechifying
- Huckabee campaigning for 23% sales tax
In a time of emergency, Huckabee would hold up the measure for more than three weeks to press his personal objection that the Almighty could not be blamed for the region’s loss. In the process, he drew damaging headlines and created new strains in his relations with the state’s legislature, the General Assembly.
Vacationing in Rhode Island with his family over the weekend, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) cut short his holiday break and raced back to Washington today to be part of a Democratic line of defense against the White House.
All told, Reed’s work today will likely last no more than 25 seconds. It’s the latest effort made by a Senate Democrat in the party’s months-long battle against President Bush’s ability to make interim appointments while the Senate is on recess.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123002487.html?hpid=sec-politics
Curses! Foiled again!
The dispute over Indiana’s voter identification law that is headed to the Supreme Court next week is as much a partisan political drama as a legal tussle.
The mainly Republican backers of the law, including the Bush administration, say state-produced photo identification is a prudent measure to cut down on vote fraud _ even though Indiana has never had a prosecution of the kind of fraud the law is supposed to prevent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123000719.html?hpid=sec-politics
Will this law keep the dead from voting? Will it keep republicans from tampering with voting machines?
Buoyed by the still unsettled field, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is growing increasingly enchanted with the idea of an independent presidential bid, and his aides are aggressively laying the groundwork for him to run.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/us/politics/31bloomberg.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Are enough of us disenchanted enough with the status quo to make a third party viable? Which party loses votes to a Bloomberg candidacy?
Reposted from yesterday’s to today’s open thread because I think what Hank posted on the 10/30/07 open thread deserved a strong rebuke:
Hank: “Carl Sagan was a very pathetic and sad individual. He observed the creation of God and never acknowledged the Creator.”
This statement says far more about you than it says about Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan was a man who had a sense of wonder, and was very much concerned about his fellow human beings and his world. He was a beloved husband and father.
But no, in your eyes he was a “sad and pathetic” figure.
And why did you come to this conclusion?
Hank: “His PBS program “Cosmos” was a denial of God. His slogan in ‘Cosmos’:
“‘The cosmos is all there is, or ever was or ever will be.’”
So, because Carl Sagan comes to a different, metaphysical naturalist conclusion about the cosmos, one that is different from yours, he is a “sad and pathetic” individual.
Hank: “He denied the existence of God. Sad.”
Yep, this pretty much confirms it.
Hank: “Many of the great astronomers of our time look on the glory of God and are moved. Sagan missed it.”
Actually, that is half right. There are a number of natural scientists who also believe in god, but there is a high proportion of natural scientists who do not. All of them practice methodological naturalism, which is that they only resort to natural explanations because they are the only ones that can be tested, others also become philosophically metaphysical naturalist, which is the philisophical conclusion that the natural world is sufficient all in itself, and is all that needs to be invoked. However, one group or the other hardly has cornered the market on awe and wonder and humility. Carl Sagan’s writing clearly and repeatedly communicated his sense of wonder and humility. He also communicated, repeatedly and clearly, his extension of that awe and wonder about his fellow human beings. In his one piece of fiction, the people of faith were hardly presented as one dimensional characters. When he wrote as a skeptic and promoted skepticism, he clearly differentiated between what he thought were poor arguments, poor reasons for believing something, and the actual people themselves. He argued for a skepticism that was both tough minded and gentle, and that was humble.
Your dismissal of Carl Sagan as “sad and pathetic” simply because he didn’t see “God” you see(and I suspect that you are referring to the “God” whose existence you assume) doesn’t reveal anything about him. What it does is reveal quite a lot about you.
I do not assume that you are sad and pathetic. From what I have read on this blog, you are happily married, you love your son, and you and I share a love of animals, particularly dogs. I can not think of someone who has these things in life as sad and pathetic. Hell, I gather from those who have met you personally, even though they strongly disagree with you, that you are a likable guy and a great host.
You are also, very clearly from your own writing, a bigot. You dismiss people like the late Carl Sagan as being “sad and pathetic” because of a theological disagreement. That means that you would also dismiss me as “sad and pathetic” because my viewpoint if far more similar to Carl Sagan’s than yours. However, unlike you I do not confuse atheism and agnosticism with anti-theism.
You are a bigot, not because you are a Christian, but because of what you think of people who are not. You have communicated those thoughts with your own words.
My, my, the Winter Traitors have spoken. I wonder how many of those fruits were ever in the military.
Posted by: Bill | December 31, 2007 at 09:48 AM
Bill, I can tell you’re a conservative by the way you throw that “Traitor” word around. Anybody who disagrees with you is a Traitor, right?
Did you have a point, or did you just drop by to insult?
n 1994, Apple Computer began developing the Power Macintosh 7100. They chose the internal code name “Carl Sagan,” the in-joke being that the mid-range PowerMac 7100 would make Apple “billions and billions.”[14] Though the project name was strictly internal and never used in public marketing, when Sagan learned of this internal usage he sued Apple Computer to use a different project name. Other models released conjointly had code names such as “Cold fusion” and “Piltdown Man,” and he was displeased at being associated with what he considered pseudoscience. Though Sagan lost the suit, Apple engineers complied with his demands anyway, renaming the project “BHA” (for Butt-Head Astronomer). Sagan promptly sued Apple for libel over the new name, claiming that it subjected him to contempt and ridicule, but lost this lawsuit as well.
The very best ‘hucksters’ are those that have mastered artfully intertwining fact and fiction.Algore for instance, and many of the other man made global warming alarmists.Their prey; those that can only run with the crowd out of fear of thinking and standing on their own, and those who think man is omnipotent in impact and control.This should all be quite a joke in the years to come.
People used to say, Mr. Observer, that pumping sewage into the river couldn’t hurt anyone.
As presidential hopefuls from both parties rally support across Iowa ahead of Thursday’s caucuses, Democratic voters are showing greater fervor for the race than their Republican counterparts, a difference that could have repercussions throughout the 2008 campaign.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119906323214158703.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Considering the field republicans have to choose from, this isn’t surprising.
American Jewish University recently hosted a debate between two best-selling authors, Rabbi David Wolpe and atheist Sam Harris, available for online viewing at:
http://www.ajula.edu/Content/ContentUnit.asp?CID=1766&u=7037&t=0
“The very best ‘hucksters’ are those that have mastered artfully intertwining fact and fiction.Algore for instance, and many of the other man made global warming alarmists.
“Their prey; those that can only run with the crowd out of fear of thinking and standing on their own, and those who think man is omnipotent in impact and control.This should all be quite a joke in the years to come.”
Empty rhetoric about presumed intentions of those who are concerned about global warming and those who agree with them.
Concerns about global warming have been backed by multiple studies from around the world. The meta-analysis by the IPCC provided plenty of evidence that concerns about global warming should be taken seriously. Your assumptions about what these people are doing, I strongly suspect, reveal more about how you believe the world to be than any sort of reality.
As for the “Butt-Headed Astronomer’s” anecdote from the life of Carl Sagan, what’s your point? I am certainly not one to claim the guy was perfect, but such an anecdote does not define the man, although the story from the Apple engineers point of view, particularly the third acronym they gave the project after the second lawsuit was defeated (LAW for Lawyers Are Wimps), does reveal a lot about the sort of sense of humor that can be found among systems analysists and software developers (they can be funny guys and gals).
Natural processes built up hydrocarbons over millions and millions of years… Billions of tons of carbon effectively sequestered deep underground in the form of coal, oils and natural gases.
So mankind releases carbon collected over millions of years in the span of a hundred and is surprised or even doubtful that this will upset a natural balance?
Good morning ksagnostic,
I pretty much agree with everything you say!
I would like to maybe clarify a few of your observations, however.
As a Christian I’m pretty much a live-and-let-live individual. Carl Sagan wasn’t. Along with many scientists such as Dawkins and others Sagan attacked Christianity. He did it in a very subtle and benign way, but he pretty much attacked everything I believe in. You can make very good scientific observations and host very instructional scientific documentaries without belittling religious people.
You call me a bigot. Of course I dissagree with that! The word ‘bigot’ conjures up intolerance and hate. I don’t hate anyone. I’m pretty tolerant of other people’s views and life styles. But if you attack my faith I won’t be so tolerant. Doesn’t make be a bigot. Outspoken? You bet. Hate? None in my heart.
“What do you think about Dr. John T. Everett’s credentials? Any one that is borderline hysterical about GW should take a little comfort from his opinions.”
Posted by: Hank | December 31, 2007 at 07:27 AM
Poor delusional Hank falsely believes that science is based on mere “opinions”.
And Everett is a fish expert, NOT a climate scientist.
http://www.oceanassoc.com/OAIhome_files/WhoWeR.html#everett
“Dr. Everett comes from a fishing family and worked 31 years in 13 positions in the Federal Government as a researcher, analyst and manager in fisheries and ocean programs. …He holds a Doctorate and Masters from Florida State U. in Business (Research Management), and a Bachelors from the Univ. of Massachusetts in Engineering.”
And he’s “skeptical” re global warming, because he did research re global cooling in the 1970’s.http://mysite.verizon.net/vzevdebj/
Climate scientists in the 1970’s did not know whether Earth would cool from human-added aerosols, or warm from greenhouse gases.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
“1977 – Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century”
Poor delusional Hank falsely believes that science is based on mere “opinions”.
Posted by: cosmos | December 31, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Interesting observation cosmos! Can you reference anything that would lead you to such defamation?
Dr. John T. Everett is a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administrator and UN IPCC lead author and reviewer, who led work on five impact analyses for the IPCC including Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones.
Seems he has a little more on his resume than “fish expert”!
“Everett: “No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more,” ”
Posted by Hank
Dear Hank,
Please explain how you can be so brain-dead as to not understand that Earth’s climate can be affected by BOTH natural, and anthropogenic factors.
The “peak” in 1998 was caused by BOTH human-caused GW, AND a record warm El Nino event.
Any credible climate scientist (which excludes Everett) knows that ENSO, volcanoes, etc, cause fluctuations. Graphs are done with averaging, over say a 5-year period.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles
Human-caused GW is still continuing. 2007 will probably be warmer than 1998, without the help from El Nino.
Seems he has a little more on his resume than “fish expert”!Posted by: Hank Price | December 31, 2007 at 10:40 AM
LOL. Maybe a little more, maybe.
This is too funny. THIS guy is an expert?!?
From his resume:————————————-”His Federal positions included: Senate Commerce Committee (Ocean Policy Study) staff, Staff to NOAA Administrator, NOAA Fisheries Dir. of Policy and Planning, Manager of Dolphin/Tuna research, and Chief of Fisheries Development. He has chaired or co-chaired several impact analyses (fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans, and Coastal Zones) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and serves on the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Ecosystem Indicators of Climate Change. He recently testified in Congress about climate change and was interviewed by a major TV network. He put the materials he prepared on a new site called Climate Change Facts which he hopes will provide unbiased truth about climate change. Until recently he was Chief of the NOAA Fisheries Division of Research. Prior to NOAA, he coordinated launches in the Apollo Program at Cape Kennedy and was a commercial fisherman in Massachusetts. He holds a Doctorate and Masters from Florida State U. in Business (Research Management), and a Bachelors from the Univ. of Massachusetts in Engineering. “———————————-
LOL, holy moly! A fisheries guy with two — count ‘em TWO — Bachelors degrees!
LOL
I am already fond of this guy, though, as in his resume (of all places) he connotes the father from A Christmas Story (”a MAJOR award!”): ” He recently testified in Congress about climate change and was interviewed by a major TV network.”
Thanks for the laugh!
Not a minor TV network, mind you, but a MAJOR one!
LOL
Well bigot or not I won’t say but you sure seem willing and eager to make an ass of yourself Hank. Do you imagine that your take on faith interests people in learning more? I can say at least for me that it does not. I feel like your God would find me not up to standards for membership in his circle of genuflectors. And frankly, clubs like that I have no interest in belonging too anyway.
I know that Sagan’s “pale blue dot” moves me to tears and to an awesome sense of how little but special each of us is in the unimaginable vastness. I’ve read the bible and I’m sorry but I can’t find anything in all those Thees and thous that is remotely as moving.
Sagan anti religious? Perhaps. He saw through history how religious dogma had held back science and in many cases suppressed truth. But I don’t think he disrespected plain simple faith.
Perhaps you blame Sagan for people like me. Younger people that do not believe as you do? Well you’d be wrong. By the time I heard what Sagan had to say, folks like you had already turned me away from the church.
Would even the CONservatives have supported Iraquagmire if they knew that we’d still be occupying the country by force FIVE YEARS after the March 2003 invasion?
So many lies . . . so quickly forgotten by the reich-wing . . .
Something tells me that the market value of any “scientist” who served in Federal government under the Bush administration is due for a rude discounting come about January 2009.
They’ll probably go from scientist to “scientist,” and stay there. Or, of course, they could always chair the Fisheries department (woops, make that the Global Climate Changes Department) at, say, Liberty U.
LOL
Dear Hank,
IPCC has three separate groups,
http://www.ipcc.ch/Working Group I Report “The Physical Science Basis”Working Group II Report “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
Working Group III Report “Mitigation of Climate Change”———
Everett worked with, and might be qualified to comment re WG II.
He is NOT qualified re WG I, as clearly shown by his “since reaching a peak in 1998″ comment.
Actually, any “rude discounting” will apply to Bush appointees only, probably.
Posted by: ksagnostic”Concerns about global warming have been backed by multiple studies from around the world. The meta-analysis by the IPCC provided plenty of evidence that concerns about global warming should be taken seriously.”And skeptics, those questioning the science of global warming, are also ‘backed by multiple studies from around the world’. And they are increasing in number all the time. Now don’t start with that juvenile argument of ‘my expert scientists are better than your expert scientists’, which is weak.
“Your assumptions about what these people are doing, I strongly suspect, reveal more about how you believe the world to be than any sort of reality.” And like wise for you, none of which impresses me in the least.
This is interest only paid on the US debt.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
2007 $429,977,998,108.202006 $405,872,109,315.832005 $352,350,252,507.902004 $321,566,323,971.292003 $318,148,529,151.512002 $332,536,958,599.422001 $359,507,635,242.41
Good post, Annie
If Bush keeps “reducing the deficit and growing the economy,” why does the national debt keep growing and why do the interest payments keep rising?
We have facts.
They have opinions . . .
“Now don’t start with that juvenile argument of ‘my expert scientists are better than your expert scientists’, which is weak.”
Posted by: Observer | December 31, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Actually, it’s a very strong point.
Observer’s “experts”(sic) are described here,http://www.desmogblog.com/400-prominent-scientists-dispute-global-warming-bunk
Some of our experts are listed here,http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf
Posted by: J R”Perhaps you blame Sagan for people like me. Younger people that do not believe as you do? Well you’d be wrong. By the time I heard what Sagan had to say, folks like you had already turned me away from the church.”
“Therefore he has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.” (Rom. 9:18)
“Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” (Rom. 9:21)
annie moose post figures with out the facts.
These are interests paid on security documents like:
Interests paid on T-Bills, Treasury Notes, Treasury Bonds, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, I Savings Bonds, EE/E Savings Bonds.
This is but one way people, corporations, countries and firms invest.
Perhaps annie moose is against investment?
This is but one way people, corporations, countries and firms invest.
Perhaps annie moose is against investment?Posted by: Butt-Head Astronomer | December 31, 2007 at 11:22 AM
wtf? Who cares? It’s the only way governments can BORROW — and annie moose’s point was interest paid on the public debt…which comes from borrowing — so what’s your point?
“As a Christian I’m pretty much a live-and-let-live individual. Carl Sagan wasn’t. Along with many scientists such as Dawkins and others Sagan attacked Christianity.”
Hank, this is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to in my earlier post when I referred to confusion between atheism/agnosticism and anti-theism. Or for that matter, in this case, you appear to be confusing skepticism and anti-theism. Carl Sagan was very consistent, and even persistent, in attacking what he saw as pseudoscience and antiscience. This included but was by no means limited to empirical claims made in the name of religions. He was also very open about his own meta-physical beliefs. However, at no time did I ever, and I have read pretty much every book he has written and a good many of his articles, speicifically go off to attack Christianity. Was he not particularly sympathetic to the claims of fundamentalist Christians. No he wasn’t. However, the claims were out there, and these claims have formed the basis for attempts to decide what is done in the name of science education and public policy. Attacking the claims is not the same thing as attacking the people making those claims. Your son, I must be honest and blunt here, seems to make this confusion alot when he will make the statement that a given thread was posted for the purposes of “Christian bashing” or something like that. The source of that claim, whether you make it or your son makes it or anyone else here makes it, is I think based on a confusion between disagreement and attacking or bashing.
Go back to the statement you made that I took issue with, Hank.
You said: “Carl Sagan was a very pathetic and sad individual. He observed the creation of God and never acknowledged the Creator.”
Obviously, your conclusion was that Carl Sagan was a very pathetic and sad individual because he never acknowledged the Creator whose existence you take for granted. I have never, ever, in anything Sagan has written, seen him assume that people who believe differently from him are sad and pathetic individuals. He did write that he thought that strongly held beliefs without evidence, including religious beliefs, were dangerous and even kept people in the dark, but he did not come to the insulting conclusion that they were therefore “sad and pathetic” individuals.
That’s what I took issue with, Hank, and I still do. I disagree with your politics, and I disagree with your metaphysical beliefs. There are also people who I agree with metaphysically but not much at all politically, and vice versa. I do not look at the amount of that agreement or disagreement, by in large, and come to conclusions about what kind of individual they are.
“‘Therefore he has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.’ (Rom. 9:18)
“‘Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?’ (Rom. 9:21)”
In other words, God decides who will believe and who will not believe, and actually manipulates the people in one direction or another.
Not a particularly flattering portrait of the almighty.
“And skeptics, those questioning the science of global warming, are also ‘backed by multiple studies from around the world’. And they are increasing in number all the time.”
I call bullsh*t. Just because you have more people coming out of the think tank woodwork does not mean that global warming skeptics are “increasing in number”. Indeed, about a decade ago there was a considerable debate about the extent of global warming and also the extent to which anthropogenic causes were responsible for observed global warming, if any. The landscape has changed considerably. The IPCC report took huge number of different studies, not all of which by any means were in agreement with each other, and performed a meta-analysis on them. I have yet to see anything even remotely comparable from the “skeptic” side. What I do see is, well…
“Now don’t start with that juvenile argument of ‘my expert scientists are better than your expert scientists’, which is weak.”
Which is exactly what I see from the skeptic side. I see think tanks with very specific political agendas and philosophical viewpoints trot out guys with Ph.D.’s after their names to try to make it a game of “he said she said”. However, the reality is in the research, repeated and replicated. Most of the people doing these studies don’t have a political/philosphical axe to grind. That’s the whole point. Those who are the global warming skeptics, on the other hand, make the claim that those who disagree with them have an ideological axe to grind, and also they themselves, very clearly, have axe’s to grind (which is why cosmos does point out the political/philosophical affiliations of the Ph.D.’s that are trotted out, because these affiliations are more predictive of what they would have to say on the issue than their professional qualifications).
Ms. Moose: Thanks for the excellent figures on interest paid by the U.S. on our national debt.
And to B-H A: Thanks for listing various forms of debt instruments used to purchase this debt. Interesting.
Would someone mention the percentage owned by China and the interest the U.S. “pays” China each year to service this debt. Seems like the figure of about 60% comes to mind.
As a wide-eyed believing youth of probably 10 years old in Central Grade School in Pratt, I still recall reading about the national debt in the WEEKLY READER. I thought the solution was simple … Congress should reduce national spending to less than the national income and apply the difference to pay off the national debt!!
I probably also still believed in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
So Capn America: To answer your question as to why the national debt and interest thereon keep rising? Thanks to the mindset of politicians, with an incentive to frivolously spend more for less, THE NATIONAL DEBT IS LIKE THE SUN … IT’S ALWAYS RISEN AND ALWAYS WILL.
I’ll pass on commenting on theology.
This is the time of year we look back and take stock – and it’s been an interesting year. The war in Iraq is still ongoing, but by all accounts the situation on the ground there is improving dramatically. There appears to be a light at the end of the tunnel; whether that is the hoped for ending or an oncoming train remains to be seen. It does trouble me that some, for political reasons, seem to hope for the train. Personally, I hope very much for the light to be a winding down of our involvement there, as one son has already done a tour in the sandbox, and a second goes to San Diego for basic in January. I’d prefer, of course, that neither go to a combat zone, but I couldn’t be prouder of both. Semper fi!
Locally, there is the on-going saga of the downtown arena boondoggle; that ship has sailed, unfortunately, but the costs have not. I’ll say I told you so in advance. The tax is ending, I wish I could say I thought the costs would.
Then there is the casino issue; good luck to Sumner County: you’ll need it, and you’ll find, I think, that you sold your dignity, your peace and quiet, and your most vulnerable citizens for far too cheap a price.
A year ago, in the face of cries that the streets were about to run red with blood with the passage of CC, I offered a bet. None of the criers were willing to put up, but a year later, not surprisingly, I should note that had the offer been taken, I’d be enjoying a lovely case of Sam Adams about now. In fact, the streets have not run red, and the parade of horrors that is always trotted out when CC is proposed failed, yet again, to come to pass. Shocking. Moreover, the SCOTUS is about to affirm, for the first time, that the 2nd amendment means what it says, and that indeed the right to own a firearm is an individual one, and one cannot be deprived of it simply on the whims of local petty officialdom. I predict at least a 6-3 vote to affirm the DC Circuit in Heller. Intellectually honesty would demand a 9-0 vote, but I don’t expect same out of Ginsburg (who seems to believe what the world thinks is somehow relevant to constitutional law), and she may well be joined in that.
And, of course, the silly season is upon us. More to gab about, I guess.
To all of you, friends and foes alike, I wish you the very best for your New Year.
JR writes:”These nics I’ve never seen before that suddenly show up and seem to know me and others and what is going on? I lend them little notice and no credibility.”
So…is there an admission fee to the ‘cool kids’ corner to be recognized or “given notice” on this blog? “seem to know you”? don’t flatter yourself, your posts speak volumes. No need to “know you”. The attitudes and childish peevishness shown here is not worth any more of my time.
3dog
You’ve hit the nail on the head, I’m afraid. Some here believe that this blog is their personal playground, and that somehow you have to “earn” your way on. If you expressed the correct opinions, of course, you’d be welcomed by those same persons with open arms.
and yes, few get more petty, or have a bigger (and more unrealistic) self-image than JR.
All those of you wanting National Healthcare and MORE Social programs, you will make the problem worse!Posted by: Max | December 31, 2007 at 12:15 PM
You left out investments in (spending on) infrastructure. Ports, roads, bridges, airports, and borders all need investment. If we were wise, we’d nationalize utility distribution and bury all above-ground cables, and the FCC needs a budget with enforcement teeth. As does the IRS, OSHA, FDA, USAD, and the FAA.
We desperately need an improved “safety net” for those who, as a direct result of free trade, find themselves stuck in the “net losers” column. China and India each have at least a decade’s-worth of growing ahead of them before marginal labor rates become anywhere near those of the developed world, and due to our heavy trade with each the “net losers” are (1) growing, and (2) getting killed. If their aggregate voting power becomes large enough, then free trade will be threatened.
Actually, free trade is already threatened: see John Edwards and Mike Huckabee, both of whom are presented by their respective parties as serious candidates for POTUS.
Losing free trade will be like killing the golden goose for many of us. It’s time we took out a good insurance policy on the golden goose, and national healthcare is the most direct way to a win/win quickly enough to save free trade.
Some other spending’s going to have to be cut (ie, changes in the spending mix will have to be made), and some taxes are going to have to go up.
No way around it.
“He got what he deserved! He earned what he got!”. . . Hillcrest abortion mill receptionist, on the vicious assault on a pro-lifer. . .
On December 22, pro-lifer Ed Snell, 69, who was standing atop his automobile and protesting in front of the Hillcrest Abortion Clinic in Harrisburg, PA was physically attacked by an abortion supporter and thrown to the ground with enough force to knock him unconscious, striking his head on the pavement. Serious injuries included multiple trauma, right subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding in the area between the brain and the tissues that cover the brain), compression fractures of four vertebrae (T3, T4, T5 and T10), right scapula fracture and fracture of the fourth and fifth ribs. Mr. Snell was using his car as a platform to thwart a 7-foot fence erected by the abortion mill to prevent pro-lifers from speaking to mothers about to be victimized.Harrisburg police let the pro-abortion attacker go home in a car, after an ambulance hauled away unconscious pro-lifer Ed Snell. Police instead threatened to arrest pro-lifer Mr. McTernan, a friend of Mr. Snell, for demanding the immediate arrest of the attacker. The attacker was only later arrested after the extent of the serious injuries was reported by a hospital.
The pro-abortion major news media refused to report the story.Ed Snell was released from hospital care on Christmas Eve, to endure a painful 8-week recovery.The First Amendment rights of pro-lifers nationwide continue to be under assault by abortion mills, violent pro-abortion activists, and baby-hating police.Happy New Year.
Posted by: cosmos
Some of our experts are listed here,http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf
Typical of you and your “scientist”, your link doesn’t even work. It says there is a problems with it.Not surprising.
Troyboy,Having read your accounts of incidents I’ve actually seen, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if your Mr. Snell, if he exists at all, stubbed his toe trying to climb the fence.
Or just fell off the car. And his buddy, quick-thinking Mr. McTernan, fingered a clinic supporter so Mr. Snell could sue.
It’s very likely the receptionist meant “if the old guy’s dumb enough to stand on a car, in winter, in PA, he deserves what he gets.”
Thanks, GM. There are some of us who have been reading this for a while without posting. Didn’t realize it is a private blog!
“Typical of you and your “scientist”, your link doesn’t even work. It says there is a problems with it.”
Posted by observer.
Ah, dude, if you had been observing, you would note the pdf at the end of the link. That means you have to have a pdf reader, or it will not work. I would say your observation techniques need a few lessons.
Might I suggest foxit reader available free here: http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php
Way faster, and way less system hogging than adobe.
Didn’t realize it is a private blog!
Posted by: 3dog | December 31, 2007 at 12:58 PM
—
Only in the minds of some on the left. Welcome to the fray!!!
Poor delusional Hank falsely believes that science is based on mere “opinions”.
Posted by: cosmos | December 31, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Interesting observation cosmos! Can you reference anything that would lead you to such defamation?
Posted by: Hank Price | December 31, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Actually Hank, my 10:32 AM post was re your 7:27 AM “opinions” post, not Everett’s lack of qualifications.
“Any one that is borderline hysterical about GW should take a little comfort from his opinions.”
Posted by: Hank | December 31, 2007 at 07:27 AM
Science is not based on “opinions”.
Posted by: GMC70 | December 31, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Excellent post, GMC. Send my best to your boys and tell em I said Semper Fi.
Posted by: cosmos,”Ah, dude, if you had been observing, you would note the pdf at the end of the link. That means you have to have a pdf reader, or it will not work. I would say your observation techniques need a few lessons.”I was on a service waiting room computer, not mine, and it wouldn’t open.Just as well, as it wasn’t worth it anyway.
cosmos,By the way, thanks for the ‘reader’ tip…I’ll try it.Now I almost feel bad for being slightly nasty to you…..NAH.
Happy New Year!
Getting this out of the way now, as I will be unable to type in a few hours.
“Posted by: cosmos,”Ah, dude, if you had been observing, ….”
I was on a service waiting room computer, not mine, and it wouldn’t open.Just as well, as it wasn’t worth it anyway.”
Posted by: Observer | December 31, 2007 at 01:47 PM
Observer, try being more “observant”. I didn’t post “Ah, dude…”, stumper did.
And you’re right, the names of 600+ of the world’s top scientists aren’t worth reading.
Marc Marano’s list with a fish expert, coal journal editor, and out-of-context quotes from scientists who believe that humans ARE causing GW is more impressive. /sarcasm OFF
And you shouldn’t read any of the other reports at IPCC — the science would confuse you.(some files are big, over 20 megabytes)http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htmSummary for PolicymakersTechnical SummaryFrequently Asked Questions (extracted from chapters below)
Chapters:1 Historical Overview of Climate Change Science2 Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing3 Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change4 Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground5 Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level6 Palaeoclimate7 Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry8 Climate Models and their Evaluation9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change10 Global Climate Projections11 Regional Climate Projections
Might I suggest foxit reader available free here: http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php
Way faster, and way less system hogging than adobe.
Posted by: stumper
Thanks ’stumper’, I’ll try it. Should I remove Adobe before downloading foxit or can I just download and run it?
cosmos, never mind….stuff it.
Good luck to your kids, GMC.
I’ll have to read the Heller case because if you’re saying what I think you’re saying–that the principle of Miller will be overruled–I might be willing to indulge a long-distance bet.
But I would have to examine the DC circuit’s reasoning first.
Observer,
Don’t blame me if you can’t “observe” that a link has “.pdf” at the end, and who is listed at the end of “Posted by:”.
And you can hide from the science of AGW if you want to, but it’ll still happen to Earth. You will be the joke, in the future.
Got this from http://www.crooksandliars.com
Launching a new “Catholics for McCain” group and rolling out new leadership for his “Iowans of Faith for McCain” group last week, broadcasting a television ad about bonding with a prison guard over a cross as a POW, and airing recent ads on Iowa Christian radio, the presidential candidate who famously denounced the Christian Right’s leaders as “agents of intolerance” in his 2000 White House bid is making an 11th-hour appeal for the movement’s support.
Perhaps more than anyone, the person responsible for John McCain’s turnabout is Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, the evangelical-turned-Catholic religious conservative who endorsed McCain shortly after ending his own presidential campaign in October. In recent weeks, Brownback and advisors from his defunct campaign have counseled McCain and his aides about stepping up conservative Christian outreach and have arranged meetings between the campaign and evangelical Christian leaders.
“They are redoubling their efforts,” Brownback said of the McCain camp’s religious outreach effort in an interview on Saturday. “For quite a while, they just didn’t think it was their best zone of opportunity, and then we pushed them a lot and they’ve seen that McCain has a message that resonates in that community.”
“I don’t think they’d been very aggressive on reaching out the faith community… or showing respect for faith and issues of faith,” Brownback added about McCain and his team. “More than anything, he had to show respect for authentic faith, and you’re seeing that now in his language.”
Jeez, I just love how the Republicans are trying to out-theocrat one another. (/snark) The question is whether these “faith voters” have such short memories that they’ll forget McCain’s dismissive words during the 2000 campaign. Don’t you find it curious that the MSM isn’t really picking up on the rather large flip-flop on McCain’s part the way they dissected every single vote or statement John Kerry made in 2004?
—
Sam the Scam!
Heeeee’s baaack!
(Way back)
cosmos,As I indicated I was using another computer as I was waiting on service to be done on my car, and it wouldn’t load your link. I could see the ‘pdf’. Also, as I said the info. was old hash, not really worth the time.I can assure you I will be long gone, my children will be long gone, my grandchildren will be long gone and probably their children as well, and none of us, and no one else either, will see any appreciable change in the the earth’s climate other than the swings that have naturally occurred over the earth’s history. And by the way are occurring on other planets, ie Mars, in this solar system as well. Now, if you want to get your shorts all bunched up about it fine, turn your heat and lights off, get a bicycle, quite giving off so much gas yourself and leave me alone as I continue to pursue a second million to make my family more comfortable in the years to come. Which by the way helps provide work and commerce for others which actually does help this world as opposed to your ‘chicken little’ crying.Sayonara
Rage:
I’d suggest you read Miller first. The “principle of Miller” to which you apparantly refer was never in Miller in the first place; on the contrary, Miller presumes a right entirely consistent with the DC Circuit’s decision in Parker (now Heller) in order for its ruling to make sense. And read up on the facts and very unique procedural history of Miller. Those who tout Miller to support the collective rights theory rely on folks to read the “civics book” version of Miller, and not the decision itself, and the backstory behind it.
Then read Parker. The “collective” rights theory is pretty thoroughly demolished.
I’ll stand by my prediction. Intellectually honesty demands the DC Circuit be upheld. Even many on the left have reached the same conclusion, much to their chagrin. See:http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/a-liberals-lame.html
A friendly bet that Heller will be upheld? I’m in.
cosmos,I know you will continue to follow your Pied Piper of AGW (Algore) regardless of evidence to the contrary but still I want to try and help you by offering this.
Much ado about nothing. In a report to Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revealed greenhouse gas regulation to be quite the fool’s errand. In estimating the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases 90 years from now under both a scenario where no action is taken to reduce man made emissions and a scenario where maximum regulation is implemented, the estimated difference in average global temperature between the two scenarios is 0.17 degrees Centigrade.
For reference purposes, the estimated total increase in average global temperature for the 20th century was about 0.50 degrees Celsius.
That’s what researchers have reported this year. And let’s not forget the spanking a British high judge gave Al Gore’s movie for all its scientific inaccuracies and the thrashing non-alarmist climate scientists gave to alarmist climate scientists in a debate sponsored by the New York debating society Intelligence Squared.
Al Gore and the alarmist mob claim the debate about the science of global warming is “over.” Given the developments of 2007, it’s easy to see why they would want it that way.
I’m a fighting liberal by Steve Gilliard
You know, I’ve studied history, I’ve read about America and you know something, if it weren’t for liberals, we’d be living in a dark, evil country, far worse than anything Bush could conjure up. A world where children were told to piss on the side of the road because they weren’t fit to pee in a white outhouse, where women had to get back alley abortions and where rape was a joke, unless the alleged criminal was black, whereupon he was hung from a tree and castrated.
What has conservatism given America? A stable social order? A peaceful homelife? Respect for law and order? No. Hell, no. It hasn’t given us anything we didn’t have and it wants to take away our freedoms.
The Founding Fathers, as flawed as they were, slaveowners and pornographers, smugglers and terrorists, understood one thing, a man’s path to God needed no help from the state. Is the religion of these conservatives so fragile that they need the state to prop it up, to tell us how to pray and think? Is that what they stand for? Is that their America?
Conservatism plays on fear and thrives on lies and dishonesty. I grew up with honest, decent conservatives and those people have been replaced by the party of greed. It is one thing to want less government interference and smaller, fiscally responsible government. It is another thing entirely to be a corporate whore, selling out to the highest bidder because the CEO fattens your campaign chest. They are building an America which cannot be sustained. One based on the benefit of the few at the cost of the many. The indifferent boss who hires too few people and works them to death or until they break down sick. Cheap labor capitalism has replaced common sense. “Globalism” which is really guise for exploitation, replaced fair trade, which is nothing like fair for the trapped semi-slaves of the maquliadoras. In the Texas border towns, hundreds of these women have been used as sex slaves and then apparently killed,the FBI powerless to do anything as the criminals sit in Mexico untouched by law.
For the better part of a decade, the conservatives made liberal a dirty word. Well, it isn’t. It represents the best and most noble nature of what America stands for: equitable government services, old age pensions, health care, education, fair trials and humane imprisonment. It is the heart and soul of what made American different and better than other countries. Not only an escape from oppression, but the opportunity to thrive in land free of tradition and the repression that can bring. We offered a democracy which didn’t enshrine the rich and made them feel they had an obligation to their workers.
Bush and the people around him disdain that. They think, by accident of birth and circumstance, they were meant to rule the world and those who did not agree would suffer.
Liberal does not and has not meant weak until the conservatives said it did. Was Martin Luther King weak? Bobby Kennedy? Gene McCarthy? It was the liberals who remade this country and ended legal segregation and legal sexism. Not the conservatives, who wanted to hold on to the old ways.
It’s time to regain the sprit of FDR and Truman and the people around them. People who believed in the public good over private gain. It is time to stop apologizing for being a liberal and be proud to fight for your beliefs. No more shying away or being defined by other people. Liberals believe in a strong defense and punishment for crime. But not preemption and pointless jail sentences. We believe no American should be turned away from a hospital because they are too poor or lack a proper legal defense. We believe that people should make enough from one job to live on, to spend time on raising their family. We believe that individuals and not the state should dictate who gets married and why. The best way to defend marriage is to expand, not restrict it.
It was the liberals who opposed the Nazis while the conservatives were plotting to get their brown shirts or fund Hitler. It was the liberals who warned about Spain and fought there, who joined the RAF to fight the Germans, who brought democracy to Germany and Japan. Let us not forget it was the conservatives who opposed defending America until the Germans sank our ships. They would have done nothing as Britain came under Nazi control. It was they who supported Joe McCarthy and his baseless, drink fueled claims.
Without liberals, there would be no modern America, just a Nazi sattlelite state. Liberals weak on defense? Liberals created America’s defense. The conservatives only need vets at election time.
It is time to stop looking for an accomodation with the right. They want none for us. They want to win, at any price. So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?
“… parade of horrors that is always trotted….. ”
I saw no trotting — a little over the top
“… parade of horrors that is always trotted….. ”
I saw no trotting — a little over the topPosted by: kenKen, I must disagree with you, it’s not “a little over the top”, it’s way, way over the top. It’s strong indication of a terribly troubled paranoid mind with feelings of persecution. If anyone knows who ‘poster’ is try and get them some help, though I’m afraid it’s too late.
“Given the developments of 2007, it’s easy to see why they would want it that way.”
Posted by Observer
Do you mean that stupid joke of a list from Marc Marano?http://www.desmogblog.com/400-prominent-scientists-dispute-global-warming-bunk
The debate re global warming has been over for years. The debate now is how fast and how bad warming will be, mitigation, etc.
You attack Al Gore, because you cannot attack the scientists that he relies on.
The IPCC emission projections show a much larger difference in temperatures.
The British judge did not say that Gore’s AIT had “scientific inaccuracies”.
Michael Crichton is neither a “climate scientist” nor a credible source of climate science.
Science is based on research and peer-review, not public debates and reactions from non-scientific audiences.
Cosmos,
Obviously the debate is not over on Global Warming.
Cosmos,
Science appears to be based on little more than consensus and a od Public Relations policy for your camp….
od = good
Why does Carl Peterson still have a job?: The Chiefs are a joke and he gets to evaluate himself? And after oh so careful evaluation less than a day after losing the ninth straight game he pronounces the plan is sound and working?! What’s the plan – to be the 5th worst team in the NFL now and fall lower soon? Because that’s the reality.
I give up on the Chiefs as long as CP is running the show. What a joke. Free Agent Fan
“Marine faces lesser charges in Haditha killings By Adam TannerMon Dec 31, 2:58 PM ET
The U.S. Marine accused of leading his unit in killing 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in Haditha, Iraq, in 2005 will face voluntary manslaughter and other charges but not more serious murder charges, officials said on Monday.
Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich said in a September hearing he regretted the Iraqis’ deaths which followed the explosion of a roadside bomb that killed a popular Marine, but he insisted he had acted properly to keep his men alive.
Marines claimed they were searching for hostile combatants when the killings occurred. The incident, one in a series in which U.S. forces were accused of violent crimes against Iraqis, caused international outrage. Many of the Haditha victims were women and children.
In a statement, Camp Pendleton in California said the commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central, Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, decided that Wuterich would not face charges of unpremeditated murder of 17 Iraqis.
“The charges referred against SSgt Wuterich are voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, dereliction of duty and obstruction of justice,” the statement said. “Lt. Gen. Helland dismissed the charges of unpremeditated murder, soliciting another to commit an offense and false official statement.”
Wuterich’s lawyers viewed the reduction of charges as a partial victory and said they had requested a speedy trial.
“The good news is that SSgt Wuterich (and all of the Marines, for that matter), have been forever cleared of murder charges,” attorney Neal Puckett said. “The bad news is that the extensive pretrial investigation and legal analysis conducted by an experienced military judge was essentially ignored.”
“We are confident that a military jury will acquit SSgt Wuterich of all remaining charges, because he is, in fact, not guilty.”
He faces a maximum penalty of more than 160 years in prison, according to Marine spokesman Lt. Col. Sean Gibson.
COMPLICATED BATTLE
In his September testimony, Wuterich described a complicated combat situation in hostile terrain that he said required lethal force.
“I will bear the memory of the events of that day forever and will always mourn the unfortunate deaths of the innocent Iraqis who were killed during our response to the attack,” Wuterich said.
Eight Marines were originally charged in the highly publicized case in which Wuterich said he shot at five men standing near a car and then was among a squad that entered two homes and killed 19 others.
Since the initial charges, the cases against two officers and two enlisted men have been dismissed. The Marines previously announced that two others would face courts martial, and the Marines announced on Monday the cases against Wuterich and an officer would proceed.
In a separate statement, Helland said he had also referred charges against 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson for making false official statements, obstruction of justice and attempting to fraudulently separate from the Marine Corps. Another charge of dereliction of duty was dropped.”.
Being one whom lived under the motto of “better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6″. I know that what happens in the split second of the moment. Can in the cold, clear light of day seem unreasonable. The judgment of the actions of our troops needs to be tempter by the conditions they are under at the moment. For that reason I would advise people read the book “House to House, an Epic Memoir of War, by SSG David Bellavia with John R. Bruning”. http://www.davidbellavia.com/
So the above article and the outcome of the actions of the U.S. marines in Haditha that day. Is reasonable to me. Such is war, we send our youth to kill and maim in our name, that is their duty. If there is damning to be done for their actions in hell, then it is our name that should be damned and not theirs. That is what Martha should have said, it might have been what he meant. There is a fine line between the duty to kill and maim and that of personal wantonness. In the cold, clear light of day, such judgments are made not on the battle field or without the overall picture of the moment.My personal opinion.Writerdog.
I give up on the Chiefs as long as CP is running the show. What a joke. Free Agent FanPosted by: Free Agent Fan | December 31, 2007 at 07:27 PM
I used to think so, too, about 15 years ago. But it’s obvious now that the problems are much deeper than Carl Peterson.
Biggest problem is that whoever owns the Chiefs doesn’t care enough to fire Carl. This has been going on forever, after all.
If the owner doesn’t care, why should I?
And I no longer do.
Writerdog,
I doubt at all that is what Murtha meant.
Go back and read the transcripts.
Actually, when you read his comments, I don’t see how you could even begin to think that is what he meant.
Murth is a pig. He completely stabbed our Marines in the back without having all the information on what happened and accused them of simply killing innocent people in cold blod.
Sorry writerdog, Murth is not getting a pass with this Marine.
I would give that man a piece of my mind if I ever met him face to face.
“Cosmos,
“Science appears to be based on little more than consensus and a good Public Relations policy for your camp….”
Then you really haven’t been paying attention to what cosmos has been posting. The IPCC report is a meta-analysis of the research that has been done. It is by far the most comprehensive analysis that has ever been done. It is the other side that has been using political think tanks (like the old reliable Heritage Foundation and the Heartland Institute). I have yet to see much evidence of GW skepticism recently coming from anyone other than people who have a political or philosophical disposition to oppose anything that they think smacks of the regulation of business.
To GMC70, to both the boys (men) as one American to another, Thank you!My own son goes back the 3trd for graduation and then to AT school in the Army.While home he informed me of his intent to go to Airborne school after AT.
I have to admit I am not sure of his sanity in describing the thought of H.A.L.O as “cool”.Specially considering he has not ever jumped from a plane, But yeah somehow “proud” just seem lacking in describing how I feel about him! As I am sure you can relate to that, but yes I wish that the prospect of him ending up in the sandbox was not an option.
I guess I am one of those that makes the distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan.
*********As to Carl Sagan, one of my best friend’s and I grew up admiring his opinion. He cause wonderment with in us and broaden our minds. My Best Friend is one of the most spiritual persons I have ever met and he did not have any trouble with Sagan, he saw no conflict with his believe in God and the Theories of Sagan.
There is a difference between admiring the finished product and believing in the creation of the mind of the creator of the finished product.
Nathan yes, Murtha words should be damned, his greatest mistake was making it so personal instead of damning those responsible for them being in that situation in the first place. He should have been railing at the Administration that put those Marines there in the first place and failing that he failed the American people, the Marines and even the people of Iraq. And even the very country whom in his speech he was hoping to defend.I did not agree with the words he used by did agree that the situation needed to be condemned. The reasons why they were on that street, that day, that hour.
Nathan I seriously doubt anytime in the near future we will agree on the right and wrong of those reasons. But on this I will agree with you on, Murtha in the words he used did not honor the service he once wore the uniform of. Nor the country he claims as his own.
Exactly, “writerdog” –
“Hank” is one of those people Mark Twain was talking about when he said, “God created Man in His own image… and Man returned the compliment.”
Carl Sagen’s awe of the universe clearly refused to limit God-ness to human terms. We can all joke about the “billions and billions” quotes, but part of the subtext of Sagen’s writings is that we poor people operating with brains made out of meat cannot possibly begin to understand the vast wonder of the billions and billions of stars, the billions and billions of galaxies, the billions and billions of planets, or the billions and billions of years that got this little blue dot in the backwaters of the universe to a place where we might even begin to get a grasp on how it might have happened.
Poor ol’ “Hank” sits in the middle of Kansas thinking his meat brain and theology have an inside track into what “God” is thinking.
Well, fine, “Hank.” It it works for you, solid. If your “god” keeps his eye on the sparrow and counts every grain of sand on Earth, He doesn’t meet the job requirement. A true omnicient God has to (an perhaps does) count every grain of sand on every planet orbiting every star in every galaxy in the universe… and then some.
*That* was Sagen’s message.
That was Sagen’s so-called “atheism.”
“God so loved *the* world…?”
Sorry. That’s not God’s job. God’s bigger than that. Billions and billions and billions times bigger.
or have a bigger (and more unrealistic) self-image than JR.
Posted by: GMC70 | December 31, 2007 at 12:26 PM
You are looking in the mirror again there GMC. It aint me you’re seeing.
Hey if YOU want to defend the individuals who think this should be there faceless free fire zone I say it speaks volumes about you.
Myself, I think such posters diminish the forum. They can be a raving kook for a day, switch nics, and then pretend that anything they post next is just as respectable as what you or I would write.
But hey whatever floats your boat. Me I’ll keep on keepin’on and not lose a wink over your opinion thereto.
“I’d suggest you read Miller first.”
Hehehe, oh, the lawyerly twists and turns! I–of course–have read Miller. But it’s been a while; I’ll read it again.
But as I said, I HAVEN’T read Heller. And likewise, I will.
I guess we’ll see, GMC. You got a sawed-off shotgun in your arsenal, dude?
For the better part of a decade, the conservatives made liberal a dirty word.
Neolibs are what made liberal a dirty word, the same as neocons have made conservative a dirty word.
Monkeyhawk–
I hate to be a dick about a very small thing–but, for future reference:
It’s “Sagan,” with an “a.”
Peace, bro.
Cosmos said, “The debate re global warming has been over for years. The debate now is how fast and how bad warming will be, mitigation, etc.”
Why is Cosmos making a value judgment on warming? How “bad” it will be?
An unbiased individual can ask, How GOOD will it be? For example, Kansas has been an impoverished state, agriculturally. What grows here except for low-value cereal grasses that make small family farms uneconomic? Suppose the climate warmed, and more rain fell, and they could raise high-value fruits and vegetables. The Greenhouse Gas theory implies not just higher temperatures, but higher humidity, ala a greenhouse.
The truly fearful event is global cooling, which historically has forced mass migrations toward the equator. This is contractionary: people living on less habitable land. You can’t live on an ice field. Global warming is potentially expansionary for human migration, as well as biologic-diversification stimulating.
So global warming is good because Kansas gets to grow different stuff?
That’s…..um…insane.
Neolibs are what made liberal a dirty word, the same as neocons have made conservative a dirty word.Bill Kristol once threaten that if G.W. Bush did not do what the Neoconservatives said to do. They would change back to the Democratic party and forum the Neo-liberals. I am here to say, for a fair price the Democrats can have them back. But only for a fair price, remember I do not have a lot of money to pay!
Interesting Sagen was a pot head. Wonder if he got space weed from Cheech and Chong?
“Science appears to be based on little more than consensus and a good Public Relations policy for your camp….”
Posted by: Nathan | December 31, 2007 at 07:23 PM
Here’s a person in Nathan and Hank’s “camp”.
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/climate.php
“Although I am not a climatologist,……Since I am not a climatologist,…”
Dr. Akasofu has done lots of aurora research, but doesn’t seem to even understand the basics of climate science.
He doesn’t seem to understand that rises in CO2 in the past amplified the warming triggered by other causes. Dr. Hansen predicted that, even before the ice core data.
He doesn’t seem to know that the IPCC does factor in “natural components”, and researchs palaeoclimate.
He doesn’t seem to know that in the early 1970’s, scientists didn’t know if cooling OR warming was the future risk.http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
And more. But I guess Nathan and Hank will consider him a 100% credible climate scientist anyway…
Ah, a preemptive strike! Very good cosmos!
However, when his turn comes tomorrow we’ll learn that Dr. Akasofu understands more about climate change than cosmos is willing to admit!
Will we learn what Hank and Nathans stake is in maintaining the use of fossil fuels?
writerdog, gmc70:Good luck with the Iraq adventure, I have a son there now with the 82nd airborne, remember how proud I was when he got out of AIT and completed jump school… the airborne identity is pretty interesting, really, the missions are basically infantry missions, the last actual under fire combat parachute jump being made in WWII, I was amazed to read that in the museum when I visited Ft.Bragg with my wife when my son shipped out.. have since met other folks that have kids in the fray, including one who has twin sons, one a 3rd marine div. lance cpl. and the other an 82nd airblrne spec., and the one thing that I am truly amazed at is that all the parents of soldiers that I know get along super with each other regardless of political, economical, or social differences, because their chief value is the pride and concdern that they have for their children, and the pride that they have in the mission that the whole group has undertaken… I respect you GMC70,and writerdog, because your children are tied into the mission with my son… I know with no doubt that both of you speak with heartfelt regard for our country, God bless our young men, and bring them home safe.
Here, here!
Having a child in harms way tends to put things in perspective!
Our prayers are with you writerdog, GMC70 and NaMF.
Keep us informed!
“Rage” –
You’re right, of course. My problem is a personal friend who pronounces his sirname the same, but spells it with an “e.”
But think for a moment how good you’d be if you *wanted* to be a dick!
;-)
“However, when his turn comes tomorrow we’ll learn that Dr. Akasofu understands more about climate change than cosmos is willing to admit!”
Posted by: Hank | December 31, 2007 at 09:50 PM
Sure Hank (cough!)… that’s why Dr. Akasofu “publishes”(sic) his NON-peer-reviewed “opinions” on an obscure website. And Sen. Inhofe’s “pet weasel”, Morano, lists an out of date link to it.
Hank, you said that you’re “in the book”.
You really should make posts that you (and Nathan) are willing to defend many, many years from now.
To everyone on this blog,Best wishes for a happy and prosperous New year. AS Col. potter said in an episode of Mash, “May this year be a damned sight better than the old one.”
At least there’s only one more July 4 to grit my teeth through with Augustus Stupidus!
On a pre-emptively wistful note, anybody else hoping we all get to see Bush break out that codpiece just one last time in the ensuing 385 or so days, a last-call strut, say for the gipper? [I am sick at home and lying flat on my back watching a History Channel special on the History of Sex in the Middle Ages, fyi, and a bit ago codpieces stuffed with sawdust were discussed; natch the prez came to mind]
Whatever happened to that thing, anyway? Think it’ll end up in the Smithsonian alongside Washington’s wooden teeth?
Happy New Year to all!
I can’t say it any better than these guys – my wish for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz32I_GbpeU
I hope you never look back, but ya never forget,All the ones who love you, in the place you left,I hope you always forgive, and you never regret,And you help somebody every chance you get,Oh, you find God’s grace, in every mistake,And you always give more than you take.
My wish, for you, is that this life becomes all that you want it to,
Your dreams stay big, and your worries stay small, Younever need to carry more than you can hold,And while you’re out there getting where you’re getting to,I hope you know somebody loves you, and wants the same things too,
My wish for you ………..
Happy New Year All
Get well and happy new year Pedant.
Happy new year to all the libs and dems and moderates.
And to the Republicans and conservatives? May the more worthy among you see the excess and failure of the GOP. And for those who will not?
I’ll see YOU in November and every day until then.
Writerdog,Hang in there! I’m the proud father of a former Marine who this time about 5 years ago was getting ready to deploy “over there”. One of the things that I discovered was that you spend your life raising and protecting them as best you can and now it is totally out of your control. I don’t know what kind of support groups the Army has but the Marines have a group called Marine Moms On Line, it is a group of current and former Marine families that lend support and information to who ever needs it. It was a big help to me and my ex. You might see if there is anything available like that for you and yours.
Best of everything in the New Year.
GMC70 and NaMF,
My previous post is also directed at you as well
Best of luck in the New Year
There are only about 60 PhD Climatologists in the U.S.A.
cosmos is not one of them nor is he a scientist and cosmos should shut his pie hole. He doesn’t know what he is talking about.
muahahahaha, sneaked it in before the deadline…
Happy New Year!
(sets off carbon producing fireworks)
Re: Khan
DNFTT
Hail 2008 and liberation from george bush!
Get well and happy new year Pedant.
Happy new year to all the libs and dems and moderates.
And to the Republicans and conservatives? May the more worthy among you see the excess and failure of the GOP. And for those who will not?
I’ll see YOU in November and every day until then.
Posted by: J R | December 31, 2007 at 11:00 PM
—–
Ah, JR – petty and small in the new year as well. Some things never change.
Happy New Year anyway.