The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) [Archive] - Page 2?login=1

scaeagles

04-21-2006, 07:56 AM

Yes, I think we're in for an era of cutsie news. Oil prices topping $7 a gallon by this time next year, getting worse by the minute as supply is stripped away by the Chinese and Indians, all as oil slowly but surely runs out. Hmmm, bird flu pandemic unprepared for that will affect 40% of the U.S., bringing our economy to a standstill. Oh, and lots more war.

And that's just in her first year.

Too bad she won't be around for the real fun of worldwide water shortages.

Wow....you're quite the doom and gloom guy, ain't you?

You are predicting oil at $350/barrel (based on your $7/gallon)? Not going to happen.

There is no evidence that the bird flu virus is mutating into a human to human communicable diseasze. I see this going the way of Ebola and SARS.

War? Probably.

Water shortages? I doubt it. While expensive, desalination plants are quite effective.

Go take a happy pill, you pessimist.

Alex

04-21-2006, 08:23 AM

Yeah, I thought I was the morbidly pessimistic one.

Ghoulish Delight

04-21-2006, 08:30 AM

You are predicting oil at $350/barrel (based on your $7/gallon)? Not going to happen.That's some funny math there. It's $3/gallon now with oil at $71/barrel. It's been relatively linear (~$2 when it was at $50/barrel, ~$2.50 when it was at $60/barrel), so $7/gallon would be around $165/barrel. And it wouldn't be surprising if, once it passed $100, that linear relationship accelerates, hitting $7/gallon even sooner.

Meanwhile, I heard one economist with an eye on oil estimate that if supplies were what the "should be" (i.e., Iraq and Nigeria in particular producing at full capacity), the price "should be" $55/barrel.

Gemini Cricket

04-21-2006, 08:31 AM

Yeah, I thought I was the morbidly pessimistic one.
You are.

sleepyjeff

04-21-2006, 08:44 AM

Too bad she won't be around for the real fun of worldwide water shortages.

Not according to those who subscribe to global warming.

http://news.com.com/Global+warming+to+bring+heavier+rains,+snow/2100-11395_3-5895784.html

Alex

04-21-2006, 08:55 AM

You are.

Well, I'm still not sure where I've ever said anything particularly pessimistic on this (or any other board). But I meant I thought I was and iSm wasn't (since he is the one who labelled me such).

No biggie though. There's plenty of room over here and if we were all morbidly pessimistic in the form that I apparently am, humanity would be a reasonably happy group of people.

Gemini Cricket

04-21-2006, 09:07 AM

Well, I'm still not sure where....

It was a joke. It's supposed to be funny because the person calling you pessimistic was me. Never mind. :D

scaeagles

04-21-2006, 09:33 AM

That's some funny math there.

Well, no it isn't. ISM put OIL, not GAS, at $7/gallon. I am open to the possibility that he meant gas, and in retrospect he probably did. Oil at $7/gallon equals oil at $385/barrel (I mistakenly figured it out for a 50 gallon barrel originally).

Gemini Cricket

04-21-2006, 10:20 AM

Man, I'm so addicted to oil that all this talk is driving me bonkers, man. Anyone wanna hook me up with some Penzoil, man? Anyone wanna hit me with some 10W-30? C'mon, man. I'll get ya back later.

BarTopDancer

04-21-2006, 10:56 AM

Man, I'm so addicted to oil that all this talk is driving me bonkers, man. Anyone wanna hook me up with some Penzoil, man? Anyone wanna hit me with some 10W-30? C'mon, man. I'll get ya back later.

Meet me behind the gas station in 20 minutes.

Not Afraid

04-21-2006, 11:21 AM

Not according to those who subscribe to global warming.

http://news.com.com/Global+warming+to+bring+heavier+rains,+snow/2100-11395_3-5895784.html

What is this "subscribe" business? It's as if you can choose to plug your ears and say lalalalalala 5 times and it will disappear. It's not a choice or a subscription. It's only a choice to be ignorant or not.

(My little visit to Harvard really opened my eyes even further.)

innerSpaceman

04-21-2006, 11:32 AM

Yes folks, a Haavard grad in 15 minutes!

Drive-thru degrees!!!

(and yes, I mean gas, not oil, in my doom & gloom prediction post. Sorry for the error in nasty pessimism.)

scaeagles

04-21-2006, 11:38 AM

Now, now, NA.....I can post many a link from respected scientists that not only say global warming is stopping or slowing or not nearly as catostrophic as one might be led to believe by those who put forth such catastrophic forecasts, but that man can do nothing to stop it or make it happen.

No increase in temps since 1998 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html)

This guy here is just an atmospheric scientist at MIT:

Climate of fear (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220)

While this next report doesn't discount manmade greenhouse gases, it talks about the history of natural warming and cooling the planetary cycle:

Is Global warming nature's work? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/22/tech/main504436.shtml)

The sun is not a constant, and the energy (and therefore heat) output varies greatly. There have been periods of massive global cooling and warming that predate the industrial revolution (and even the presence of man on the planet).

While the global temperature is a degree or so warmer than 100 years ago, I am not anywhere near believing that this is man caused, particularly looking at the fact that the average global temperature has not increased since 1998 (see the first link).

We can, of course, continue to trade links on the subject. My point is simply that the scientific school of thought is not all in one corner on this.

Not Afraid

04-21-2006, 11:52 AM

Yes folks, a Haavard grad in 15 minutes!

Drive-thru degrees!!!

It was more like 10.

Man, you're in a mood today! Get better by tomorrow or I will have to sit on you.

I don't pretend to be a scientist - I'm far from it, but when I experience loads of really smart scientists saying the same thing, I tend to take their expert word on it. I guess It's too important of a phenonmenon to doubt. I mean, can something REALLY be bad about us being more conservation minded? Wouldn't it be smart just to do it?

scaeagles

04-21-2006, 11:57 AM

Conservation is always smart. Panic is not.

There are also lots of really smart scientists who disagree with the whole global warming panic phenomenon.

Not Afraid

04-21-2006, 12:01 PM

The sscientific community will keep discussing and disagreeing, but talk talk talking is great for them - they're supposed to do that. But, if we wait for them to come up with a difinitive conclusion we may be in too much trouble by then.

Of course, why do I care? I don't have kids and I will be dead by the time things progress to a point where it is too late for reversal. LALALALALALA ;)

scaeagles

04-21-2006, 12:05 PM

Hey uh, NA....the biggest doom and gloom speakers already say it is too late. Even the highly touted Kyoto protocal is not projected to do anything to stop what has been projected to happen (by those in that school of thought). Kyoto is projected to slow global warming by something like a tenth of a degree over the next 100 years.

Not Afraid

04-21-2006, 12:07 PM

I know. It sucks. I see why people don't want to belive it.

scaeagles

04-21-2006, 12:13 PM

I know. It sucks. I see why people don't want to belive it.

You're missing my point. It isn't that I don't want to believe it, it is that I think there is enough evidence that it is not man caused, but rather it is a natural cycle in plantary and stellar science that is causing the small increases we have seen.

€uroMeinke

04-21-2006, 12:16 PM

From my 10 minute Harvard Degree, it seems clear that temps are rising (glacier melt and all that) Whether or not that's caused by man seems irrelevent. I wonder if there is anything we can do to mitigate it - that too might be beyond our control, but I think it foolish to not at least evaluate that possibility.

Not Afraid

04-21-2006, 12:19 PM

Gemini Cricket

04-21-2006, 12:20 PM

'It might be causing global warming' is enough for me to think about it. Most of the solutions to the issue seem to be on the right track any way. To say we need to find alternate fuel choices kills my worry about global warming and my worry that we need to end our dependence on the Middle East for our oil.
Again, preventing something that may happen...

scaeagles

04-21-2006, 12:23 PM

We can't control a weather front. We can't stop a tornado or a hurricane or any weather phenomena or affect them in any known way. Those are minute compared to global climate.

All I know is that there was an ice age. There was a warming that thawed the ice age. There have been periods of recorded history with rises in temperatures and lowering of temperatures for significant periods of time. Far more extreme than what is currently happening.

I look at the data that says the average temperature has actually declined (though statisically insigificant) since 1998. I'm not going to get up in a tizzy about it.

Gemini Cricket

04-21-2006, 12:30 PM

Of course, we could say after it's too late that these warning reports by these global warming scientists were merely historical documents.

Ghoulish Delight

04-21-2006, 12:34 PM

I look at the data that says the average temperature has actually declined (though statisically insigificant) since 1998. I'm not going to get up in a tizzy about it.So let me get this straight. A 100 year increase (yes, of "only" one degree, but a single degree rise in ocean temperature has a MAJOR affect on world climate) isn't enough for you to consider a trend, but you're using an 8 year period as your "case closed"?

€uroMeinke

04-21-2006, 12:37 PM

I find acting in a socially conscious way so overwhellming at times that I ignore the whole concept. As much as I'd like to do the right thing, it seems there never is a clear answer. What I do end up doing usually is a matter of convenience to me.

So I take public trnasportation to work becasue gas prices are ridiculous, and I've come to like not driving. I recycle, becasue it's easy to put things in a seperate bin. I waste water becasue I love a long hot shower in the mornings.

Hmmm - maybe this needs to go in that "confessions" thread we had awhile back

Alex

04-21-2006, 12:37 PM

I don't think most people have a problem with this chain of thought:

The earth is warming in some way.
Mankind may be (and I would say probably is) contributing to this warming.
If we can change our contribution to this it should be considered.

But I think a valid question is at what cost?

What if the only way to reverse global warming and maintain the current average temperature is to euthanise the global population down to 2 billion people and ban the use of any form of energy that produces greenhouse gas emissions. Would it be worth that cost?

If not, then we're not arguing about whether there is a cost too high but where that line is and then the basis for agreement mostly evaporates as it will boil down to highly individualized sets of priorities.

I personally think some very obvious solutions have been missed. That irrational fear of nuclear power has made the situation worse and needs to be reconsidered. In our anti-polution policies we have favored greenhouse gasses over particulate pollution (thus diesel isn't common here as in Europe where they have mostly approached it from the opposite direction). We have to decide if we'd prefer dirtier air that doesn't heat the global climate or cleaner air that does (no, it isn't an absolute black and white dichotomy but when choices have to be made which is preferable)?

As has been noted, we don't have current climate models that accurately explain the current global climate so it is hard to put a lot of faith into models that try to predict it 100 years from now. So, since I'm not willing to sacrifice everything to prevent something that may happen regardless I have to decide just how much I am willing to sacrifice.

Alternatively we can let the government dictate how much we sacrifice and then the question is should they use worst case models, best case models, or the model that most closely matches the economic result they hope for anyway?

scaeagles

04-21-2006, 12:38 PM

So let me get this straight. A 100 year increase (yes, of "only" one degree, but a single degree rise in ocean temperature has a MAJOR affect on world climate) isn't enough for you to consider a trend, but you're using an 8 year period as your "case closed"?

Considering the amounts of green house gases spewed into the atmosphere since 1998, it would be logical to assume that if the cause were man made green house gases that the temperature increase would not have stopped, would it not?

No where did I say case closed. In fact, I am the only one here apparently saying the case is still open as to what is going on.

Nephythys

04-21-2006, 12:42 PM

The hysteria about global warming requires a brand of human arrogance that astounds me.

Gemini Cricket

04-21-2006, 12:42 PM

I find acting in a socially conscious way so overwhellming at times that I ignore the whole concept.
...
So I take public trnasportation to work becasue gas prices are ridiculous, and I've come to like not driving. I recycle, becasue it's easy to put things in a seperate bin. I waste water becasue I love a long hot shower in the mornings.

I'll add my confessions. We take the subway because we don't want to pay those prices for gas. I recycle because Ralphie makes me do it. I hate recycling. I think it's a scam. I hate the smugness of ten speed bicyclists and people who drive hybrid cars.
I also feel that the big car companies need to shift the need for gas. There should be a way to power cars with bio disel by now. But they are preventing that. Me not driving doesn't do a dang thing for the environment. It needs to be on a bigger scale. But until big business is onboard, there's not much we can do to truly change what's happening...

€uroMeinke

04-21-2006, 12:44 PM

The hysteria about global warming requires a brand of human arrogance that astounds me.

I don't follow

scaeagles

04-21-2006, 12:56 PM

I completely respect you guys for pointing out that you act out of convenience.

What gets me is the smug politicians (cough*Al Gore*cough) or commentators (cough *Arrianna Huffington* cough) who burn hundreds of thousands of gallons of jet fuel traveling to campaign on a platform or give speeches about the evils of the internal combustion engine and greenhouse gases and how the planet is doomed.

€uroMeinke

04-21-2006, 01:06 PM

Clearly everything we do impacts the planet in some way - it's all a question of trade offs. What's better what's worse is always in debate with new discoveries always changing the calculations - recent debates over ethynol have been interesting, whether it takes more energy to create etc.

Honestly I think the best solution is diversity both in our fuel mixes and practices - At least then it's easier to switch when something proves to be detrimental

scaeagles

04-21-2006, 01:08 PM

€uroMeinke

04-21-2006, 01:10 PM

Does (or rather, did) California ever use MTBE in their gas mixes? Arizona used to. What was supposed to be a huge step forward in clearer air was found to be a huge step backward in polution in the water table.

Sure did - some of the dug up gas stations (to remove leaky underground tanks) have yet to come back in service

Alex

04-21-2006, 01:26 PM

What's interesting is how politics changes things. Do you recall back in the 2000 election how several of the Democratic primary candidates were lauded as brave visionaries for standing up to the corn lobby and calling ethanol a boondoggle?

I think a revolution in portable power is well on its way to coming (hybrids, fuel cells, hydrogen, biodiesel, etc.). The big problem I see is that we're not yet undergoing the painful process of redesigning our fixed power grid. I'm all for increases in wind and solar but really think we need to convert a significant portion of our power grid over to nuclear.

scaeagles

04-21-2006, 01:29 PM

I think a revolution in portable power is well on its way to coming (hybrids, fuel cells, hydrogen, biodiesel, etc.). The big problem I see is that we're not yet undergoing the painful process of redesigning our fixed power grid. I'm all for increases in wind and solar but really think we need to convert a significant portion of our power grid over to nuclear.

Agreed.

One other problem is refeuling stations for cars. CNG (compressed natural gas) isn't a bad alternative to normal gas, and conversion of cars to CNG isn't that difficult or expensive (though the gas tank must be significantly larger). Phoenix had a huge push on this, including massive tax rebates related to the purchase price of CNG vehicles.

With all of that, though, the entire metro Phoenix area has exactly four CNG refueling stations.

Ghoulish Delight

04-21-2006, 01:32 PM

Honestly I think the best solution is diversity both in our fuel mixes and practices - At least then it's easier to switch when something proves to be detrimentalIt's a good theory, but scaeagles points out the big pitfall with that strartegy, at least when it comes to transportation. There's gotta be some good proof that it's an option that's gonna be around for the long haul, otherwise there's not economic incentive to make it available in massive fueling network that's necessary to support our transportation-dependent society.

€uroMeinke

04-21-2006, 01:36 PM

I don't know that we'll ever get completely "offgrid" but definately the grid needs to be more dynamic - with some household producing more energy than consuming (through wind, solar, fuel cell, or even micro-turbin). I've no problem with nuclear - worked at the local nuc plant so I'm fairly secure about how they are operated - but the spent fuel problem probably has to be addressed first before any new development can go on.

€uroMeinke

04-21-2006, 01:51 PM

It's a good theory, but scaeagles points out the big pitfall with that strartegy, at least when it comes to transportation. There's gotta be some good proof that it's an option that's gonna be around for the long haul, otherwise there's not economic incentive to make it available in massive fueling network that's necessary to support our transportation-dependent society.

I'm thinking more power grid than the transportation sector - but yeah I see your point. Still as the price of gas rises, I bet we'll see more hybrids and alternative use vehicles, perhaps even moving away from single passenger vehicles to conveyances that use other fuels. Believe you me, ridership has been noticably increasing latelyin my own anectdotal but empirical observation on the metro.

Alex

04-21-2006, 01:56 PM

I think a big step has recently been taken on that front with new rules allowing nuclear power plants in the United States to reprocess fuel.

Previously it could only go through once and ended up highly radioactive and something like 70% of its potential engergy still contained. But under new rules they are allowed to put it through again and the results are increasinly less radioactive.

As for storage, go put it back in the uranium mines. (Yes, that is flippant)

sleepyjeff

04-21-2006, 09:06 PM

I don't pretend to be a scientist - I'm far from it, but when I experience loads of really smart scientists saying the same thing, I tend to take their expert word on it.

Science by majority?

Those scientist who disagree with the global warming theory are not small in number either(although I wouldn't describe them as "loads")....are we to call them "ignorant" of their own field of study?

Not 30 years ago many of the very smartest scientist in the world said we were on the verge of an ice age. Publications such as the New York Times and Time magazine had article after article calling for more studies "before its too late". Those who dared to disagree were also called "ignorant". Those same publications and even some of the same scientists are now screaming the opposite....and of course those who don't panic along with them are called "ignorant".

A scientist who does not admit he might potentially be wrong is really a theologian.

wendybeth

04-21-2006, 09:20 PM

Science by majority?

Those scientist who disagree with the global warming theory are not small in number either(although I wouldn't describe them as "loads")....are we to call them "ignorant" of their own field of study?

Not 30 years ago many of the very smartest scientist in the world said we were on the verge of an ice age. Publications such as the New York Times and Time magazine had article after article calling for more studies "before its too late". Those who dared to disagree were also called "ignorant". Those same publications and even some of the same scientists are now screaming the opposite....and of course those who don't panic along with them are called "ignorant".

A scientist who does not admit he might potentially be wrong is really a theologian.

I think anyone who doubts whether there is global warming needs to head to Alaska, where the glaciers are receding at an incredible rate. Greenland is another 'hot spot'- the fisherman can tell you how things have changed in the past few decades. I know our weather up here has totally changed since I was a kid.

I trust the views of a majority of scientists over the views of a minority, especially since so many of the nay-sayers have their heads up Bush's ass. Now, with Kempthorne in office, we're really screwed. :rolleyes:

I realise the earth cycles out- warm periods alternating with ice ages- but usually it's catastrophic for the species that has adapted to the preceding age. We are that species this time around.

sleepyjeff

04-21-2006, 10:01 PM

I think anyone who doubts whether there is global warming needs to head to Alaska, where the glaciers are receding at an incredible rate. Greenland is another 'hot spot'- the fisherman can tell you how things have changed in the past few decades. I know our weather up here has totally changed since I was a kid.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/21/D8H4KC1G9.html

The Harvard Glacier has been advancing since 1905, and possibly earlier. It has advanced at an average rate of nearly 20 m a-1 since 1931, while the adjacent Yale Glacier has retreated at a rate of approximately 50 m a-1 during the same time period. The striking contrast between the terminus behavior of the Yale and Harvard Glaciers, which parallel each other in the same fjord, and are derived from the same snowfield, supports the hypothesis that their terminus behavior is largely the result of dynamic controls rather than changes in climate. If climate were controlling the terminus behavior, more synchronous behavior between the two glaciers would be expected (Sturm et al., 1991).

Nephythys

04-21-2006, 10:08 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/21/D8H4KC1G9.html

The Harvard Glacier has been advancing since 1905, and possibly earlier. It has advanced at an average rate of nearly 20 m a-1 since 1931, while the adjacent Yale Glacier has retreated at a rate of approximately 50 m a-1 during the same time period. The striking contrast between the terminus behavior of the Yale and Harvard Glaciers, which parallel each other in the same fjord, and are derived from the same snowfield, supports the hypothesis that their terminus behavior is largely the result of dynamic controls rather than changes in climate. If climate were controlling the terminus behavior, more synchronous behavior between the two glaciers would be expected (Sturm et al., 1991).

NOOOO- Oh God...no facts that might contradict the people are destroying the world mind set!

NOOOOOOO!!!!

(by the way- great find)

lizziebith

04-21-2006, 10:20 PM

Science by majority is, in fact, the rule. It's called "peer review." You can't get published without it. Are mistakes made? Hell yeah. But the diff. between science and theology is that science will admit mistakes (for example, plate tectonic theory -- originally laughed at, now taken as obvious). Thank you, first-year archaeology professor, for explaining that to the creationists taking his class just to disrupt proceedings.

Peer review is still the best way we have at our disposal to check the weird ideas. If a weird idea is spot on, though, it will eventually sway...and I happen to think the system rocks in its own funky way.

If it is shown that the globe isn't warming, I'll be surprised, but I've been surprised by more mundane things, so...*shrug* My dollar is on warming.

sleepyjeff

04-21-2006, 10:32 PM

Science by majority is, in fact, the rule. It's called "peer review." You can't get published without it. Are mistakes made? Hell yeah. But the diff. between science and theology is that science will admit mistakes (for example, plate tectonic theory -- originally laughed at, now taken as obvious).

....so when the majority of scientist didn't believe in plate tectonics(less than 70 years ago) the minority that did were wrong?

....when the majority of scientist believed that there could not possibly be anything smaller than the atom were the minority wrong?

....when the majority of scientist believed that the Earth could not possibly support a billion people were the ....well, my point must be obvious now.

Ghoulish Delight

04-21-2006, 10:34 PM

....so when the majority of scientist didn't believe in plate tectonics(less than 70 years ago) the minority that did were wrong?No, but they were eventually proven right. It's a matter of whether or not you believe eventually has already passed in this case.

sleepyjeff

04-21-2006, 10:38 PM

^Exactly. I still think the jury is out. This isn't a 2 plus 2 = 4 observation. There are many, many very well respected climate experts out there who are not on board yet.

---Not all of them work for Exxon, Shell, or Cheney either;)

Ghoulish Delight

04-21-2006, 11:02 PM

^Exactly. I still think the jury is out. This isn't a 2 plus 2 = 4 observation. There are many, many very well respected climate experts out there who are not on board yet.
Whereas others believe eventually has come and gone.

sleepyjeff

04-21-2006, 11:06 PM

Whereas others believe eventually has come and gone.

So long as it's just "believe" and not "know"

wendybeth

04-21-2006, 11:40 PM

Jeff, while I'm proud of you for finding one example of an advancing glacier, I don't suppose you could be troubled to explain the many receding ones. Or perhaps the ice fisherman in Greenland are just a bunch of big whiner babies, and the polar bears that are drowning just need to visit the local Y. (The rangers that came aboard during our cruise must be full of **** as well).

I really would like to borrow those rose-colored glasses of yours- I think you have a much more pleasant view of the world than I. (Future generations be damned, eh?)

Now, tell me how much better the people in Kiev and it's environs are these days and maybe I'll change my mind on nuclear energy as well.

wendybeth

04-21-2006, 11:45 PM

NOOOO- Oh God...no facts that might contradict the people are destroying the world mind set!

NOOOOOOO!!!!

(by the way- great find)

Selective facts, and I believe Jeff deserves some mojo for being able to sift thorugh the reams of documentation to the contrary to establish his 'fact'.

I appreciate any attempt to back up an argument, but snarky comments are just.......sad.

scaeagles

04-22-2006, 06:57 AM

Now, tell me how much better the people in Kiev and it's environs are these days and maybe I'll change my mind on nuclear energy as well.

You would honestly compare the nuclear technology employed at Chernobyl to current nuclear technology? Palo Verde here next to Phoenix was built in the late 1970s and is the largest nuke plant in the US. The tech there is old, and yet there hasn't been anything close to an incident. Modern nuclear tech is incredibly safe and building more plants is a necessity.

Not to be "snarky", but as someone who seems to be pretty sure on her scientific knowledge related to global warming, you are pretty uninformed about nuclear power and are making a pretty rash judgement.

I posted a link earlier in this thread about the intimidation many in the scientific community feel when they come out with evidence disputing the "common fact" of man caused (please note the "man caused") global warming. Not unlike Galileo and the whole round earth thing.

wendybeth

04-22-2006, 08:32 AM

I'm not any more sure on my global warming info- just not willing to dismiss information or conclusions simply because a majority of scientists happen to believe it. As far as nuclear reactors, might I remind you where I live, dear? Washington state? Site of WPPs and Hanford? I may not be completely up to date as to technology now being employed in the field of nuclear energy, but I am cautious about it for a reason.

Nephythys

04-22-2006, 09:31 AM

Selective facts, and I believe Jeff deserves some mojo for being able to sift thorugh the reams of documentation to the contrary to establish his 'fact'.

I appreciate any attempt to back up an argument, but snarky comments are just.......sad.

The day I see no snarky comments from the denizens of this forum, then I might be willing to acknowledge that pedestal some people choose to pronounce from.:rolleyes:

Why not just admit that MY snarky is what you call sad, and other people being snarky to me is what you call wit.

Not Afraid

04-22-2006, 09:36 AM

Why not just admit that MY snarky is what you call sad, and other people being snarky to me is what you call wit.

That's an interesting way to put it.

Nephythys

04-22-2006, 09:41 AM

That's an interesting way to put it.

I thought so. Very accurate as well.

€uroMeinke

04-22-2006, 09:55 AM

Why not just admit that MY snarky is what you call sad, and other people being snarky to me is what you call wit.

I'll fess up to that - Nephy's snarky is sad, my snarky is wit.

:cheers:

wendybeth

04-22-2006, 07:08 PM

The day I see no snarky comments from the denizens of this forum, then I might be willing to acknowledge that pedestal some people choose to pronounce from.:rolleyes:

Why not just admit that MY snarky is what you call sad, and other people being snarky to me is what you call wit.

The statement applies to any snarky comments centered around the topic at the time. I freely admit to this, and am willing to back it up with facts. (In order to avoid the appearance of snarkiness, of course).

sleepyjeff

04-23-2006, 12:07 AM

Jeff, while I'm proud of you for finding one example of an advancing glacier

Oh I could give you many examples of advancing glaciers; why I chose this particular one(other than the fact that it was called "Harvard") is that it is right next to a retreating one. Both share the same "enviroment"; both recieve the same amount of snow, rain, sleet and hail. If global warming was causing one to retreat then it would stand to reason.....

I don't suppose you could be troubled to explain the many receding ones.

Many(especially the ones in Alaska) have long records of receding and then advancing sometimes changing directions as many as 4 times a century.

If they never receded the entire world would be covered in ice.

As for those Greenlandic fishermen; You're never going to get me to call these smart independent(they pulled themselves out of the European Union back in 85') hardy souls whiners. However there is plenty of precedence for what is happening now---

Climatic cooling compelled scientists to drill into the Greenland ice caps. The oxygen isotopes from the ice caps inferred that the Medieval Warm Period had caused a relatively milder climate in Greenland, which lasted roughly between 800 and 1200. However, in 1300 the climate began to gradually cool and eventually the last Ice Age reached intense levels in Greenland by 1420.----from Wikpedia

The colonies established in Greenland around 1000 thrived for hundreds years(same time as the MWP) but were completely and mysteriously lost by the 1400s(not long after the MWP was over)

wendybeth

04-23-2006, 11:33 AM

I did a keyword search on global warming and came up with thousands of hits, of which only a handful fell into your line of thinking. (I suppose, using your 'majority' logic, that only serves to prove that all those scientists must be wrong). Time published an interesting article recently, which touches on many of the causes and effects of gw, and shows that the future is now: Be Very Worried (http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=global+warming&page=2&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D9 fd701776cabe300%26clickedItemRank%3D25%26userQuery %3Dglobal%2Bwarming%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%2 52F%252Fwww.cnn.com%252F2006%252FUS%252F03%252F26% 252Fcoverstory%252Findex.html%26invocationType%3Dn ext%26fromPage%3DNSCPNextPrevB%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2006%2FUS%2F 03%2F26%2Fcoverstory%2Findex.html). I realise you need to believe that the man and admin you voted for are right and everyone else in the world is wrong, but I'm afraid you're fighting a losing battle there.

scaeagles

04-23-2006, 11:42 AM

Not Afraid

04-23-2006, 12:06 PM

wendybeth

04-23-2006, 12:17 PM

WB - why then hasn't the average temperature increased since 1998?

Green house gas emissions have not fallen in that time frame, but have rather increased.

It isn't an issue of warming (at least to me), as there is data to show an increase of a degree or so in the last 100 years.

It is an indisputable fact that there have been periods of warming and cooling far before any such green house emissions by man came into play. These things happen naturally in the planetary (and more largely due to the solar) cycle. Therefore, no panic. We have no - zero, zip, none, nada - control over it.
Depends on where you get your data there, Scaeagles. 1998 was hot, but not the hottest, and the trend clerly shows increase, not decrease, in temps. Things are heating up (http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=world+temps&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D8 164205ba3cd7702%26clickedItemRank%3D5%26userQuery% 3Dworld%2Btemps%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F% 252Fwww.washingtonpost.com%252Fwp-dyn%252Fcontent%252Farticle%252F2005%252F10%252F12 %252FAR2005101202498.html%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DnsBrowserRoll%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fw p-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2005%2F10%2F12%2FAR20051 01202498.html).

Again, loads of documentation- by very reputable sources- is available that shows gw is happening, whether you like it or not. Not so much is out there to support your position. I wish it really were as you say, because the alternative sucks, but I can't do the ostrich thing and pretend it all away.

sleepyjeff

04-23-2006, 01:14 PM

I did a keyword search on global warming and came up with thousands of hits, of which only a handful fell into your line of thinking.

Which just brings me back to the line of thinking 30 years ago: If the internet exsisted back then as it does now you would have had a very similar number of hits warning of "global cooling" and only a handfull saying otherwise.

The ones wearing rose colored glasses back then were right:eek:

btw: My President agrees with you on this....;)

scaeagles

04-23-2006, 01:22 PM

Again, loads of documentation- by very reputable sources- is available that shows gw is happening, whether you like it or not. Not so much is out there to support your position. I wish it really were as you say, because the alternative sucks, but I can't do the ostrich thing and pretend it all away.

My sources are reputable as well.

Please show me, however, where I said the planet was not warming. I did cite a link in conflict to the temperature data you posted in your link.

I have said I am not convinced it is man caused. Again, there were massive periods of global warming and cooling that could not have possibly been influenced by man.

Why is it so hard to accept that is what I'm saying? I'll say it again - data shows an increase in average temprature of about a degree over the last 100 years. So there is warming.

WB, did you read the link I posted earlier from the guy at MIT? My philosophy is really in line with what he's saying.

scaeagles

04-23-2006, 01:25 PM

With all due respect, all of YOUR scientific analysis isn't going to trump what many scientists the world over believe

It isn't MY scientific analysis. It is what I've read from respected scientists who disagree with the whole global warming panic. Like I asked WB - have you read the link to the piece from the scientist at MIT?

We can trade links all day on this evidence or that evidence. I just resent the implication that I am not particularly well read on it or I'm making up my own scientific analysis. It is not the case.

wendybeth

04-23-2006, 01:47 PM

Of course it's not all man-made, but you're (and correct me if I am wrong) trying to excuse our government's anti-green stance by saying that all this science data is 'sky-is falling' nonsense. I suppose it doesn't really matter, because the fact remains that it is happening and we aren't doing **** about it anyway. By your logic, however, I never should have quit smoking. People got lung cancer long before cigs were invented, right? So why bother trying to do anything preventitive? Hell, we're all going to die someday- why try to fight it at all?

scaeagles

04-23-2006, 01:54 PM

Well, WB, what can we do about it? The fact is that we can't do anything to change sun cycles or planetary cycles.

Even the Kyoto protocols don't claim to be able to do squat about what the projected doom sayers say is going to happen. The reason I have cited the MIT column is because so much of what is being said could happen due to global water can't happen. It's alarmism.

I find it so comical that many who say that the government is trying to keep us in fear about terrorism as a method of control are so open to being controlled about fears regarding global warming.

sleepyjeff

04-23-2006, 02:35 PM

A federally sponsored inquiry into the effects of possible climate changes caused by heavy supersonic traffic in the stratosphere has concluded that even a slight cooling could cost the world from $200 billion to 500 times that much in damage done to agriculture, public health and other effects.
~Walter Sullivan NYT; 1975.

Walter Sullivan(yes, THE Walter Sullivan of the Walter Sulilvan Award for Scientific Journalism which was won this year by Time Magazine and its "musing" about global warming) is concerned here that the planet is cooling.

Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead; Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.
~Walter Sullivan NYT; May 21, 1975.

More concern.

"Surely we cannot let ecological qualms halt dreams of fertilizing the Sahara or warming up Antarctica with nuclear power, thus rendering habitable millions of new acres."
~Oppenhiemer NYT; 1972

Another writer at the NYT thinks that maybe we humans can slow "global cooling".......kinda glad now we didn't "panic" back then?

Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster, Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says.
~NYT; 1947

Of course those who were in the "cooling" crowd back in the 70s had people doubting them pointing to experts from the 40s saying the planet was warming up...........kinda see a 30 year cycle here?

findings indicate that global warming is melting polar ice ... findings indicate that global warming is melting polar ice ... reported indicators of warming have led researchers to devise .
~Walter Sullivan NYT; August 14, 1990.

Now Walter Sullivan is no longer concerned about global cooling....quite the opposite now........maybe he was bored?

Gemini Cricket

04-23-2006, 02:45 PM

From the play I'm in 'You Can't Take It With You'

"I used to worry about the world, too. Got all worked up about whether Cleveland or Blaine was going to be elected President- seemed awfully important at the time. But who cares now? What I'm trying to say, Mr. Kirby, is that I've had 75 years that nobody can take away from me, no matter what they do to the world." ~ Grandpa Sycamore

(Or something to that effect. I'm paraphrasing...) :)

Not Afraid

04-23-2006, 03:00 PM

Here are links to the last most recent IPCC Evaluations. (http://www.ipcc.ch/)

And an interesting article that is a couple years old but still relevent in it's overall information. (http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102195.html)

Both are nice assessments of information from a variety of sources.

scaeagles

04-23-2006, 03:04 PM

Like I said, we can play the exchange of links game all day. You may not respect my viewpoint on this, which is fine, but I'm not going to fell badly about agreeing with an MIT atmospheric scientist.

Not Afraid

04-23-2006, 03:06 PM

MIT vs Harvard?

That's why I posted the information that is a gathering of data with some general conscientious attached.

Motorboat Cruiser

04-23-2006, 05:01 PM

My sources are reputable as well.

Depends on your definition of "reputable", I suppose. A little checking on google reveals that Bob Carter, the author of your first cite has received almost 100K in funding from Exxon. Richard Lindzen, the author of your second cite has received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal, and ARCO and at one point was charging the oil and coal industry $2,500 a day for his consulting services.

Perhaps you could find a researcher that supports your opinion that hasn't been paid off by the oil industry.

sleepyjeff

04-23-2006, 05:20 PM

Perhaps you could find a researcher that supports your opinion that hasn't been paid off by the oil industry.

This one is paid by the State of Oregon: Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor.

http://www.ospirg.org/OR.asp?id2=18806

wendybeth

04-23-2006, 05:35 PM

This one is paid by the State of Oregon: Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor.

http://www.ospirg.org/OR.asp?id2=18806

Lol- is this supposed to help your cause?

""There is a valued and much-needed role for skeptics to question the prevailing view," says Philip Mote, Taylor's counterpart in Washington state and a professor at the University of Washington. "Once in a while, the skeptics are right. But there is no debate in the scientific community over whether human-caused global warming is possible or observed. The only way one could come up with that opinion is not being familiar with the scientific literature."
Taylor becomes especially dangerous when policy-makers accept his views, says Jeremiah Baumann of the environmental group OSPIRG. "You've got George Taylor fiddling while Rome burns, and the problem is that the Legislature is listening to the concert instead of doing something about the fire."

And there's more!:
"Taylor's position as the leading climate expert in Oregon, a state with a national environmental reputation, has given ammo to those who are hostile to the idea that the earth is warming up. On Jan. 4 of this year, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a Senate floor speech, "As Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor has shown, Arctic temperatures are actually slightly cooler today than they were in the 1930s. As Dr. Taylor has explained, it's all relative."
Inhofe was wrong on two counts. First, Taylor is not a doctor; he has no Ph.D. (he received his master's in meteorology at the University of Utah in 1975). And second, Taylor is flat-out mistaken. Temperatures in the Arctic have, in fact, reached unprecedented levels, according to an exhaustive study by two international Arctic science organizations published last November that confirmed previous, similar results.
Mote, whose Ph.D. is from the University of Washington, surmises that Taylor is guilty of looking only at data that support his views, while discarding the rest. "You can only come to that conclusion if you handpick the climate records," Mote says.
"You can say whatever you want about a subject, but to defy expert opinion-it's just hard for me to understand approaching a complex subject like this and say, 'I know better than the experts,'" Mote says."

Thanks for the laugh, Jeff. They said it better than I ever could.

sleepyjeff

04-23-2006, 05:51 PM

^The article was written by a critic of Taylors...I thought it would be better accepted here for that reason. I can, of course link directly to his website at Oregon State if you want a biassed link((so you can say it is a biassed link;))

Since we are ripping each others sources:

The IPCC is losing some of its top scientist since they disagree with the way they(IPCC) are starting with a conclusion and filling in data to support said conclusions; and data that supports anything other than the decided conclusion is silenced((((that's how science by majority works you know)))
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

scaeagles

04-23-2006, 06:18 PM

Depends on your definition of "reputable", I suppose. A little checking on google reveals that Bob Carter, the author of your first cite has received almost 100K in funding from Exxon. Richard Lindzen, the author of your second cite has received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal, and ARCO and at one point was charging the oil and coal industry $2,500 a day for his consulting services.

Perhaps you could find a researcher that supports your opinion that hasn't been paid off by the oil industry.

I'm sure that all the scientists spouting hysteria over impossible scenarios have nothing to do with the Sierra Club or Al Gore, and that intimidation of those with data that suggests other than panic scenarios really aren't pressured to withhold data.

sleepyjeff

04-23-2006, 06:24 PM

MIT vs Harvard?

How often do Harvard scientist do this?

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field....Dr. Landsea; IPCC

wendybeth

04-23-2006, 06:30 PM

Any scientist with a political agenda that influences his/her findings on a particular subject regardless of data indicating otherwise is in the wrong, and in the wrong business. I apply that to scientists on both sides of the issue. As laypeople, we depend on their expertise to help us determine our own stand on issues. When the information is tainted by politics and business interests it becomes worthless. Hell, worse than worthless- it's dangerous. Galileo, Copernicus, Tycho, etc all had to deal with people willing to go to great lengths to supress or distort their findings and it is sad to see such shenanigans continuing on to present day. I would never and will never knowingly support behavior, so I am very cautious with regards to studies and such.

Stan4dSteph

04-23-2006, 07:56 PM

FYI, there was an interesting documentary on HBO2 tonight: Too Hot Not To Handle. It's playing on HBO2 West at 10 PM CA time.

One of the people on it, Stephen Schneider, is at Stanford and I took a global climate modeling class from him. I loved his statement toward the end comparing the politicians asking for the detailed how much and when on global warming to a patient being advised by his doctor that he should lower his cholesterol and exercise due to heart disease responding with "well tell me when and how bad the heart attack will be and I'll deal with it then."

The doc. details what effects global warming are having and will likely have on the US, and also what can be done to help slow the progress of warming.

wendybeth

04-23-2006, 08:45 PM

I'm gonna try and catch that tonight, Steph- ty!

Okay, in keeping with the randomness of the thread, here's a fun little nugget from CNN: WMD intell dismissed early on (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/index.html).

""It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure," Drumheller told CBS' Ed Bradley. "This was a policy failure. I think, over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time."

Don't bother us with WMD intelligence- we're all about regime change now!

sleepyjeff

04-23-2006, 08:54 PM

Fossill Fuells warming up the planet?

Nuclear energy just too scary?

How about Wind Power?

Oh wait; enviromentalist, who have been calling for wind power now for some 40 odd years are starting to see those turbines may actually one day work. New designs are making it possible that one giant turbine can turn out more energy than 30 smaller 1970s desgins.

Can't have that.....might be good for those Evil American corporations...must find good reason to abandon wind as an alternative.

Senator Kennedy(one of the key proponets of the Kyoto treaty) decided that wind power may harm waterfowl and so should not be placed anywhere where it might obstruct his nice view;)

My family has a long history on Cape Cod. After growing up and raising my children here, I understand the enormous national treasure we have in the Cape. We have an obligation to preserve it for future generations, which requires us to know the impact of our decisions on the landscape, seascape, and environment."
~Senator Kennedy, 2003 regarding a proposed wind farm to be placed off the shore of Cape Cod

"Mr. Kennedy is not against windmill power per se but he is opposed to those projects in his immediate view and would be offended to see and smell the rotting corpses of waterfowl washing up on the beaches of Cape Cod. He would much prefer that these bird blenders be situated elsewhere, such as in your backyard."~New Republics Dan Evans

Once again the arrogance of the elite left baffles me:confused: Does Kennedy honestly think none of us have nice views we would rather not see destroyed by immense wind turbines or does he just not care?

wendybeth

04-23-2006, 08:59 PM

Sen. Kennedy hardly has a monopoly on elitism. Maybe it's just less forgivable when it comes from someone purportedly on the side of the less fortunate? Or is it that a lefty who can afford to be elitist is so rare these days?;)

sleepyjeff

04-23-2006, 09:00 PM

^^heh, heh....lol.

Well put.

Stan4dSteph

04-23-2006, 09:12 PM

Please keep buying wind power; it helps pay my bills.

http://www.ecomagination.com

sleepyjeff

04-23-2006, 09:21 PM

^I can't get over that guys tie..........couldn't concentrate on anything he was saying as tie was very distracting:eek:

Motorboat Cruiser

04-23-2006, 11:31 PM

I'm sure that all the scientists spouting hysteria over impossible scenarios have nothing to do with the Sierra Club or Al Gore,

Except that I doubt that Gore has the thousands of scientists that are in agreement about global warming on his payroll.

and that intimidation of those with data that suggests other than panic scenarios really aren't pressured to withhold data.

Speaking of withholding data...

In a statement issued February 18, more than 60 highly respected American scientists, including 20 Nobel Prize winners, blasted the Bush administration for suppressing and manipulating scientific evidence in order to promote a predetermined agenda.

The report first looks at last June’s well-publicized White House efforts to redraft sections of the EPA’s Report on the Environment dealing with global warming. Major amendments demanded included the deletion of a 1,000-year temperature chart and its replacement with, according to an internal EPA memo, “a recent, limited analysis [that] supports the administration’s favored message”; the deletion of any reference to a recent National Academy of Sciences report—one ordered by the Bush White House itself—that confirmed the role of human activity in climate change; and the elimination of a scientifically inarguable summary statement that “climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.”

Rather than accede to these and other White House demands, EPA officials opted to delete the entire section on climate change from their report, prompting a storm of protest. EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman resigned soon thereafter. Having pulled out of the Kyoto treaty on global warming as one of its first actions upon taking office, the Bush administration still refuses to adopt meaningful regulations that would require American manufacturers to reduce emissions of “greenhouse” gases.

sleepyjeff

04-24-2006, 12:09 AM

Except that I doubt that Gore has the thousands of scientists that are in agreement about global warming on his payroll.

Are there really "thousands" of scientists doing field study on this subject((because I've been doing a lot of web surfing on the subject the last couple of days and I keep seeing the same couple of dozen names over and over again)) or is it just a few hundred scientist who have submitted reviews that have been read by the other thousdand(s)?

innerSpaceman

04-24-2006, 07:49 AM

Just going back to windmills in your neighborhood for a moment ... I don't see what's wrong with not wanting them to intrude on a beautiful environment that should be preserved for generations beyond one's own.

I suppose we could simply burn all the trees in National Parks if we were more concerned with energy production than nature.

Truth is, there's plenty of barren, windswept spots in this vast nation for those ugly turbine fields. It's true that seacoasts are windy, but they are also a vast natural treasure that should not be ruined so we can play Nintendo.

(Of course, if they learn to disguise the big turbines as quaint Dutch windmills of yore, then we may be able to plant them in picturesque locales.)

Alex

04-24-2006, 09:30 AM

Yeah, but somebody things those "barren windswept spots" are vast natural treasures that should not be ruined so we can play Nintendo.

Also, they tend to be far away from the places where the people actually want the electricity. I'd guess Dutch windmills are also much less quaint if you have 8 of them per acre for 10,000 acres.

Tehachopi (SoCal) and Altamont Pass (NoCal) are visually interesting and don't really bother me (and I live almost within visual distance of Altamont). But I don't know that I would like them reproduced anywhere on the scale necessary to provide broad energy relief.

That's part of the reason I don't understand the fear of nuclear power. Yes, it has a small potential for significant environmental if something goes wrong. But almost every other form of power generation (that can produce the levels of energy we need) has the significant environment impact designed into it. Coal produces more polution, by design, than nuclear would produce in an anything-but-worst-case containment failure. Industrial solar and wind would require distorting and destroying the land equivelant of the Rocky Mountain states. Hydroelectric is the cleanest energy we've ever produced on a mass scale and it has resulted in the most destructive land use policies in the history of world.

In 40 years of nuclear energy in this country using mostly first generation designs we have never experienced either a radiation fatality nor a significant radiation release. Our one mechanical failure should actually have been trumpeted as a success. Three Mile Island did exactly what any nuclear reactor should do in case of failure. Many other countries get a significant source of their power from nuclear using 3rd or 4th generation designs and haven't experienced even minor failures.

Chernobyl was a ****-up but it was almost cocked-up by design. It had barely even rudimentary safety features and was misdesigned to almost make containment failure inevitable. It's kind of like abandoning cars because the Pinto tended to explode.

Storage of waste is a problem, but at least it is one that can be worked on and is mostly skewed by the inability of most people to make rational evaluations of risk. Storage of waste byproducts from our other sources of energy isn't really even a technical feasibility.

I am heartened because while nuclear is still mostly tabboo in "green politics," we are starting to see more and more prominent environmentalists saying it is at least something that needs to be put back on the table.

Gemini Cricket

04-24-2006, 09:33 AM

Tehachopi (SoCal) and Altamont Pass (NoCal) are visually interesting and don't really bother me (and I live almost within visual distance of Altamont).
I recently found out that the windmills in Tehachapi (Ralphie's parents live there) were owned by Enron at one time. I'm not sure who owns them now...

sleepyjeff

04-24-2006, 09:38 AM

Truth is, there's plenty of barren, windswept spots in this vast nation for those ugly turbine fields. It's true that seacoasts are windy, but they are also a vast natural treasure that should not be ruined so we can play Nintendo.

The problem is that even though windmills are getting more effecient they still need to be placed reletively close to end users as they do create less power than other tradidtional means and the loss of power due to transport is more keenly felt. Also because they are still a dicey investment(its not always windy) in order to maximize production they have to be placed in the most windy places....often the most windy places are also the most picturesque.

(Of course, if they learn to disguise the big turbines as quaint Dutch windmills of yore, then we may be able to plant them in picturesque locales.)

That's not a bad idea but these new mills are quite imposing in size so the artistic task here will not be easy.

Gemini Cricket

04-24-2006, 09:41 AM

They could paint them to match the landscape. But that would be a huge task. Maybe Disney could help.
:)

sleepyjeff

04-24-2006, 09:45 AM

They could paint them to match the landscape. But that would be a huge task. Maybe Disney could help.
:)

Great idea; maybe Tokyo University has something that might work....

http://projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/oc.html

Alex

04-24-2006, 09:51 AM

Enron only owned about half of the turbines there (there are, I think, four majore power companies with turbines and then lots of little companies that sell up the grid). GE Power Systems bought the assets of Enron Wind Corporation (including Tehachopi) in the early days of the Enron bankruptcy and so far as I know still owns them.

innerSpaceman

04-24-2006, 10:39 AM

Oh, I like the painting them to match the landscape idea ... since my Dutch sea of 800th scale quaint windmills was a joke.

I'm with Alex on this one. Find me a way to deal with waste, and include mega safety features - and nuclear is the way to go. Other energy production methods have environmental destruction built right in.

Of course, I'd much rather have nuclear fission rather than fusion, and have it done safely on the moon, with the energy beamed via microwave to the satelitte system also collecting energy pouring endlessly from the sun, for packet beaming to the earth. And I'll take my flying car and cup of joe to go with that, please.

Geeez, it's frelling 2006 and we have, whoop, cell phones!

€uroMeinke

04-24-2006, 01:36 PM

Is it time for me to bemoan my lack of Jet Pack? - Tomorrowland indeed, we need the real Epcot powered by a GE Nuclear Power plant - that's the future that was promised me.

scaeagles

04-25-2006, 08:34 AM

Sigh. The government wants to launch an investigation of gas prices. I have an investigation right here. It's symbolic, I realize, and political, but stupid. Oil is a commodity and the market dictates the price. Anyway....

Oil/Gas companies make an average profit of about 7.3-8 cents per gallon. That's profit. When you stop to think of the millions (billions?) of gallons sold daily in the US, that's a lot of profit.

The taxes (which vary by state) run an average of 40 cents/gallon. 18.4 cents federal, and anywhere from 14 to 44 cents state.

So let's see...who is getting more money from a gallon of gas?

Yeah, yeah, I know....taxes go to "the public". I still find it disgusting that taxes on gas are about 5 times the profits on a gallon, yet the government who levies the taxes wants to investigate the oil companies about them making too much money.

Sigh.

€uroMeinke

04-25-2006, 08:51 AM

But politicians need to get re-elected and the public by and large doesn't understand economics, they just want free stuff.

Stan4dSteph

04-25-2006, 08:52 AM

FYI, you can't paint windmills to match the landscape, because then things like birds can't see them. Oops.

I actually like the simplicity of design of a wind turbine, and I don't mind having them off the coast. That beloved coast may get flooded out anyway if the oceans keep rising.

Ghoulish Delight

04-25-2006, 09:00 AM

Yeah, yeah, I know....taxes go to "the public". I still find it disgusting that taxes on gas are about 5 times the profits on a gallon, yet the government who levies the taxes wants to investigate the oil companies about them making too much money.

Sigh.All those numbers don't change the fact that price fixing is illegal.

Oil is a commodity and the market dictates the price.Unless it's being run as a monopoly or cartel.

Now, personally, I don't think American oil companies are doing anything illegal, based on the price of oil per barrel. According to these numbers (http://money.howstuffworks.com/gas-price.htm) when oil was at $37/barrel in 2004, pump prices were about $1.70/gallon. Now that we're at about double the price of oil, we're at about double the price of gasoline. Seems about right to me.

The only thing I notice that's a little fishy is that when oil prices go up, there's an instant rise at the the pump to match. But when oil prices go down, it takes a month to see a drop at the pump. But even that is just pennies here and there.

But, that being said, I welcome an investigation. If it turns up nothing, as I suspect, so be it. But collusion and price fixing are a very real possibility and blindly saying "the market dictates the price" without keeping an eye on it is a sure way to allow price fixing to run a free market into the ground.

scaeagles

04-25-2006, 09:30 AM

All those numbers don't change the fact that price fixing is illegal.

Really? Price fixing is illegal?

Ghoulish Delight

04-25-2006, 09:37 AM

Really? Price fixing is illegal?If it's done by communication and agreement between different companies, yes it's illegal.

Gemini Cricket

04-25-2006, 09:38 AM

I hug my Subway T Pass joyously.
:)

scaeagles

04-25-2006, 09:39 AM

If it's done by communication and agreement between different companies, yes it's illegal.

(psst....I think you missed my sarcasm)

innerSpaceman

04-25-2006, 09:51 AM

Forget that the price of gas goes up as soon as oil prices do, but delays going down when the contrary happens. It's bogus in the first place. The price of producing gas is not tied in any way to the current market price of oil. True gasoline price adjustments reflecting a rise in oil prices would take nearly a year to wend through the system in place.

Raising gas prices in reaction to news of oil price increases is purely a market tactic. And if it's done in colusion with other oil companies, it's a criminal market tactic.

Yes, an investigation is called for. Too bad it's the foxes always guarding the hen house.

BarTopDancer

04-25-2006, 09:55 AM

How does potential action in Iran in the future effect gas prices now. The oil supply is the same. Are they calling it preventitive action or what?

scaeagles

04-25-2006, 09:58 AM

Well, it's a bit more involved than that. Right now there are genuine shortages driving prices up, which always happens at this time of year. All the refineries are having to go through their summer reformulation process, and from what I've heard (no confirmation or link on this aspect) it takes 3 days to completely finish that process.

It is all speculation. It is a commodity open to speculation. The gas price is not based on the production cost of the current stocks of fuel, but the speculation on what it will cost the companies to replenish their stock that they will then sell.

It is true, however, that the companies use two different arguments. If the price of oil is increasing, they base their prices on speculation of what the oil to replace their stocks will cost them. If the price of oil is decreasing, they base their prices on produciton costs. Sucks, but not illegal.

Gemini Cricket

04-25-2006, 10:00 AM

Does Bush saying he's going to look into it have anything to do with a 32% approval rating that just came out?

Ghoulish Delight

04-25-2006, 10:01 AM

Sucks, but not illegal.Unless they are communicating with each other to make those decissions.

Actually, the things that are having the biggest effect on the price of crude right now is the significant under-production in Iraq and Nigeria. If they were producing to capacity, there'd probably be about a 15-20% drop.

Gemini Cricket

04-25-2006, 10:02 AM

This makes me want to talk to my friend in Monterey who made his Jetta run on french fry oil from McDonalds...

wendybeth

04-25-2006, 12:54 PM

Hey, now that Bush had relaxed EPA standards for gas, maybe we will get to test that GW theory a little sooner than we all thought!

Why do I get the feeling this was the ****ing plan all along?:rolleyes:

scaeagles

04-25-2006, 12:59 PM

Does Bush saying he's going to look into it have anything to do with a 32% approval rating that just came out?

Yeah. I'm sure it does. It just makes me like him less, though - not that he has been ranking highly with me lately, though.

Gemini Cricket

04-25-2006, 03:20 PM

Pelosi today:
"If you want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and therefore improve our national security situation, you can't do it if you're a Republican because you are too wedded to the oil companies. We have two oilmen in the white house. The logical follow-up from that is $3 a gallon gasoline. There is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect. How dare the president of the United States make a speech today in April, many, many, many months after the American people have had to undergo the cost of home heating oil. A woman told me she almost fainted when she received her home heating bill over this Winter. And when so many people making the minimum wage, which hasn't been raised in eight years, which has a very low purchasing power have to go out and buy gasoline at these prices? Where have you been, Mr. President? The middle class squeeze is on, competition in our country is affected by the price of energy and of oil and all of a sudden you take a trip outside of Washington, see the fact that the public is outraged about this, come home and make a speech, let's see that matched in your budget, let's see that matched in your policy, let's see that matched in and you're separating yourselves yourself from your patron, big oil, cut yourself off from that anvil holding your party down and this country down, instead of coming to Washington and throwing your Republican colleagues under the wheels of the train, which they mightily deserve for being a rubber stamp for your obscene, corrupt policy of ripping off the American people."

scaeagles

04-25-2006, 03:31 PM

I would argue that Pelosi is wedded to radical environmental extremists so she opposes any and all domestic oil exploration and/or production.

Pelosi, let me know when you're willing to talk about reducing the taxes on gas and oil prodicts or you are willing to support increased domestic production. Perhaps then I'd be more willing to listen to your drivel.

Edited to add....the middle class squeeze? Right now, in spite of high oil prices, consumer confidence is high and the economy is doing well.

wendybeth

04-25-2006, 03:59 PM

We're middle-class and definitely being squeezed- and not in a good way. I know so many people who are struggling to get by, and this past winter we had to (and were glad to) help several family members pay their heating bills.

Get used to the anger- it's going to get a lot worse.

scaeagles

04-25-2006, 04:06 PM

While I do feel for you having gone through "the squeeze" at times myself, and of course there are always people hurting regardless of conditions, economic numbers do not agree anger will get worse. There isn't a whole lot of it now.

Consumer confidence highest in four years (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/25/D8H73VI01.html)

Oil decreased yesterday from 75 to 73. It isn't going to go higher in the near future, but declines will be a bit slower than $2/day. And in terms of inflation adjusted dollars, gas prices are still lower than during the late 70s.

Not Afraid

04-25-2006, 04:07 PM

Edited to add....the middle class squeeze? Right now, in spite of high oil prices, consumer confidence is high and the economy is doing well.

I got out of my car not 10 minutes ago and they were talking about how comsumer confidence was dropping.

scaeagles

04-25-2006, 04:08 PM

I got out of my car not 10 minutes ago and they were talking about how comsumer confidence was dropping.

Who is "they"? Read the link I just posted.

Not Afraid

04-25-2006, 04:09 PM

It was a new program on KCRW. Most likely NPR-related.

innerSpaceman

04-25-2006, 04:16 PM

Whatever you think of her, that was a firebrand statement Pelosi made ... and I love her for that alone. I'm tired of politicians sounding so frelling tentative.

Alex

04-25-2006, 04:44 PM

Somehow I doubt you'd love David Duke for firebrand statements alone so I doubt that is literally true. But at least she does say whatever she is thinking.

But if it is a conspiracy then why is Citco's gas so expensive too? Surely Bush and Hugo Chavez haven't come to a secret pact?

Why do people have such a problem accepting two things:

1) There are market effects that will at times cause increases in the cost of gasoline and heating oil and at other times cause a decrease in cost (such as through most of the '80s and early '90s).
2) There are market-distorting effects (such as Balkanization of blends, regulatory shifts, and taxation) that will almost always simply increase the cost of gas and heating oil.

When #1 and #2 are both creating increases then prices will go up quickly, particularly in speculative spot markets.

I have no particular problem with the idea that someone is gaming the system but so far haven't really seen anybody point to anything real other than simply crying "it costs a lot and those guys are getting rich!" The possibility that we have entered into oligopolistic pricing should be considered and if necessary break up the ownership a bit. But on the surface this doesn't look like it would have much effect since the commodity is already being sold in an open market and not at prices set by the producers. The same forces that appear to be causing this uptick and making oilmen rich are the same ones that made a ghost town of Houston in the early '80s, they're just moving in the other direction now.

I still haven't seen any of the Democrats calling for Bush's head on this provide an answer for how they would have prevented this or fix it. There was the one congresswoman this morning saying "Mr. President where is all the Iraqi oil you promised us!" I wonder what happened to no war for oil.

innerSpaceman

04-25-2006, 05:48 PM

What happened to it is that no one believed it for a second. We invaded that country for oil, pure and simple. Every school girl knows that nasty dictators in countries with no valuable resources do not have their regimes changed by military means costing billions of dollars a month.

So, since the rebuilding of Iraq was designed to pour money into the hands of multinational corporations and not the economy of Iraq, the reconstruction has not gone as common sense would have envisioned it. Contrary to popular opinion, the reconstruction was not bungled by the Bush Administration. It went exactly as they designed. And yet - 3 years later - there is less oil flowing, less electricity, and less employment in Iraq than before the invasion. Most people consider that a failure, but the rebuilding effort was not designed to have more oil flow.

It should have been, and politicians of all stripes and the American people and the Iraqi people have every cause to be outraged that it's not. Because you shouldn't spend billions of dollars a month of the national treasury to have less oil flowing.

It would be heinous enough if Bush were serving the ecomonic interests of the U.S. in invading an oil-rich nation. What he's actually doing is far worse.

scaeagles

04-25-2006, 06:06 PM

wendybeth

04-25-2006, 06:42 PM

I disagree with that post on so many levels that I don't know which part to quote or what to begin with, but as it would simply lapse into a back and forth done so many times before, it isn't worth it.

Suffice it to say, then, I disagree.
What iSm said in his post is precisely what I was thinking, so you'd no doubt disagree with me as well. I started to respond to Alex, and then I just threw my hands up in the air and switched threads. It absolutely amazes me that you cannot draw a line between the big business/political ties of this administration- a five year old would have no problem connecting the frikking dots. Make no mistake about it- the Bush regime will go down in history as one of- if not the most- corrupt this country has ever known. And guess what? You're not getting squat of what they have pilfered- instead, you get to pay and pay and pay, and when you're dead, your kids will pay. Maybe that works for you, but not me.

wendybeth

04-25-2006, 06:50 PM

It would seem the Public Safety officials in our area are lacking in confidence these days: Fuel costs straining Public Safety budget (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12485233/) . I'm sure this is a scenario being played out across the country.

scaeagles

04-25-2006, 07:04 PM

a five year old would have no problem connecting the frikking dots.

So, WB, it comes down to people who do not see the world as you do being less mentally able than a five year old. That's nice.

I won't be quite as insulting - a junior high student would have no problem understanding market forces and supply and demand. No....I take that back. I know my 6th grade daughter understands them, and I bet it wouldn't be too hard to explain to my first grader, who is 6.

I won't comment on the historical comparison of corruption between administrations. Not worth it. But let's just say it isn't hard to find corruption that I consider to be much more severe.

What have they pilfered? What have they stolen? What am I paying and paying and paying for? I pay less taxes now than I used to under previous administrations. Inflation, even with energy prices surging, is minimal.

But, since I'm not a five year old, perhaps I just don't get it.

wendybeth

04-25-2006, 07:42 PM

Halliburton. Bechtel Group. The Shaw Group, etc. Not too damned hard to connect the dots- I'm not saying you're not smart enough to, you simply won't. Or, if you do, you make excuses and indicate that is just the way of the big, bad business wolrd- laissez faire, and all that. Gets very, very old, and my apologies for taking out my frustration on you as I know you have nothing to personally do with it, but as I indicated earlier- people are getting pissed and getting less shy about saying so.

scaeagles

04-25-2006, 07:49 PM

Well, now it isn't that I can't see it, it's that I won't see it. I still disagree. It's that I see it differently. You see excuses. I see reasons.

You are obviously among the pissed. I am not (about this issue).

JWBear

04-25-2006, 09:15 PM

...a junior high student would have no problem understanding market forces and supply and demand...
True, but beside the point. If you truly think the higher gas prices are simply the result of supply and demand, I’ve got a bridge in New York you might want to buy.

Greed. Greed and price gouging – ignored, if not actively supported by, the current administration.

scaeagles

04-25-2006, 09:30 PM

Hmmm....evidence? Not to try to be insulting, because I really don't want to be, but you have no concept of the oil commodities market or how it works.

JWBear

04-25-2006, 09:40 PM

Hmmm....evidence? Not to try to be insulting, because I really don't want to be, but you have no concept of the oil commodities market or how it works.
How would you know?

scaeagles

04-25-2006, 09:51 PM

Reading.

Edited to add: I do not claim to know all of the numerous complexities of a commodities market, particularly the most complex, being oil.

sleepyjeff

04-25-2006, 09:58 PM

Price of gas in April of 1980---$1.19

Price of gas(adj. for inflation) now---.89 cents

http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html

Ghoulish Delight

04-25-2006, 09:59 PM

I'm moving to Malaysia and never doing my homework again. (http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=363e4d1e11fe38dd&cat=76fb320dcacdad95)

wendybeth

04-25-2006, 10:02 PM

From the "How stuff works" site:

Historical Gas Prices
(Adjusted for inflation)
Year Price Per Gallon 1950$1.91 1955$1.85 1960$1.79 1965$1.68 1970$1.59 1975$1.80 1980$2.59 1985$1.90 1990$1.51 1995$1.28 2001$1.66 2002$1.31 2003$1.52 2004$1.79 2005$2.28 2006 (so far)$2.68 Source: U.S. DOE

wendybeth

04-25-2006, 10:06 PM

Heh heh- total derail, but I just ran across this: No gas here! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/04/25/health.beans.reut/index.html)

Now, if they can just figure out how to de-gas Happy Meals.:rolleyes:

Alex

04-25-2006, 10:32 PM

iSm's post is so thoroughly asinine that I can't even respond. I'm boggled that adults think that way.

So we invaded a country to destroy infrastructure to take out of circulation oil that was already out of circulation but that wasn't really it, baby just wanted to avenge daddy but that isn't really it the monkey just wanted to distract the world away from his machiavellian domestic social policies by controlling the populace through fear instigated through the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center but that isn't it the Infant in Chief is actually a masochist that is willing to implode his own reputation to give money to people who were already billionaires. But that's not it he just made poor decisions since he fell off the wagon in May 2002 due to the stress of 9/11. But that's not it, he's simultaneously the biggest idiot in the world and the most masterful manipulator of world politics ever seen. BUT THAT'S NOT IT HE'S JUST A FIGUREHEAD AND THE REAL POWER BEHIND THE THRONE IS A BUNCH OF COMPUTERS THAT HAVE DESIGNATED HIM TO BRING ABOUT THE END TIMES SO THAT DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE CAN FINALLY REIGN SUPREME!!!!!

But that's not it. Sometimes **** happens and people really want it to be the result of a hidden hand so that they can have someone to blame. It is the same ****ty thinking that results in religion.

wendybeth

04-25-2006, 10:34 PM

Who said I was an adult? I'm still into connect the dots, remember?;)

Alex

04-25-2006, 10:42 PM

Yeah, but give me a hundred dots and I can draw you a pretty good kitty cat. Give me a thousand and I can draw you a self portrait. Give me a hundred thousand and a good imagination and I can draw whatever you want.

Did you know that in 1978 former governor Ronald Reagan spent several minutes talking to Gene Simmons? Did you know that each word in the name Ronald Wilson Reagan has 6 letters? Connect the dots.

Ghoulish Delight

04-25-2006, 10:52 PM

Heh heh- total derail, but I just ran across this: No gas here! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/04/25/health.beans.reut/index.html)
How does one derail a "random" thread?

wendybeth

04-25-2006, 10:54 PM

wendybeth

04-25-2006, 10:55 PM

How does one derail a "random" thread?

Well, I wasn't too sure about the political aspects of beans and their effects.

Not Afraid

04-25-2006, 10:56 PM

LOL! I just said to Chris....read the Random Political Farts thread.

I really did!

Ghoulish Delight

04-25-2006, 11:01 PM

Will writing to my congressman about the anemic pace of roadwork around here actually do anything (other than give me some good venting time)?

wendybeth

04-25-2006, 11:01 PM

No.

€uroMeinke

04-25-2006, 11:07 PM

Will writing to my congressman about the anemic pace of roadwork around here actually do anything (other than give me some good venting time)?

Depends how much you contributed to his last campaigne

Ghoulish Delight

04-25-2006, 11:11 PM

Fvckin Measure M

Alex

04-25-2006, 11:13 PM

Do you know someone who knows Kevin Bacon?

Yes, I do. (Really)

wendybeth

04-25-2006, 11:27 PM

Yes, I do. (Really)

Me, too! Well, actually, Kyra Sedgewick. But she knows him, right?

Alex

04-25-2006, 11:30 PM

Probably not in the way that I know him.

(Actually, I know this guy (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0003771/) who knows him, but not in the way that Kyra knows him.)

wendybeth

04-25-2006, 11:44 PM

Well, I doubt this guy (http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=jeff+ament&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D2 fbe4cf4a4f9206d%26clickedItemRank%3D9%26userQuery% 3Djeff%2Bament%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%2 52Fwww.imdb.com%252Fname%252Fnm0024610%252F%26invo cationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DnsBrowserRoll%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Fname%2Fnm00 24610%2F) knows him quite like Kyra, but in Six Degrees anything goes, right?

Alex

04-25-2006, 11:47 PM

Other than recognizing the name Pearl Jam I don't know who that is but yeah, if he knows Kevin then it counts for something. My father-in-law also has a couple screen credits so I get a Bacon number through him as well (2, I think).

wendybeth

04-25-2006, 11:49 PM

Uhmmm....I think the Bacon Bros just played at some casino here....odds are I know someone who works there.

Okay. I give. (Sigh). You are more Bacon than I.

Gemini Cricket

04-26-2006, 06:38 AM

President Bush announced his new White House press secretary on Wednesday: former Fox News host Tony Snow.

"As a professional journalist, Tony Snow understands the importance of the relationship between government and those whose job it is to cover the government," Bush said during a White House appearance.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/25/snow/index.html)

A former Fox 'News' host is the new White House voicebox. So how is this different from his previous job?

snow : (verb)
1. To cover, shut off, or close off with snow: We were snowed in.
2. Slang. To overwhelm with insincere talk, especially with flattery. (From Dictionary.com - emphasis is mine)

Ha ha. :D

Scrooge McSam

04-26-2006, 07:05 AM

So how is this different from his previous job?

In his former job, he was paid by a corporation to lie.

In his new job, he will be paid by the government to lie.

See the diff?

scaeagles

04-26-2006, 07:10 AM

Two words - George Stephanopolis.

Gemini Cricket

04-26-2006, 07:14 AM

See the diff?
Yep.
Two words - George Stephanopolis.
No, Stephanopolis was much cuter.

Scrooge McSam

04-26-2006, 07:24 AM

Two words - George Stephanopolis.
:rolleyes:

Have fun beating that dead horse.

Gemini Cricket

04-26-2006, 07:30 AM

As long as Snow can pick out the Jeff Gannons during question time, I'm sure he'll do fine...
:D

scaeagles

04-26-2006, 07:35 AM

:rolleyes:

Have fun beating that dead horse.

Hmm....it isn't a dead horse to talk about the (supposed) Fox News bias?

Simply pointing out this is nothing unique. I'd also point out that Snow was a speech writer for Bush Sr. prior to working at Fox News.

Gemini Cricket

04-26-2006, 07:42 AM

Tony Snow quote:

In November, he wrote that Mr Bush's "wavering conservatism has become an active concern among Republicans, who wish he would stop cowering under the bed and start fighting back".
Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4945752.stm)

So the lesson is is that you can insult the president and still get a good job. Maybe even in the White House. But I'm sure that depends on who you are...

Hmm, so I wonder if he'll call on more of his conservative buddy journalists for softball questions. If I sat in that room, my eyebrow would be raised. Someone should take tallies. I'm sure someone with a lot of time on their hands will...

Scrooge McSam

04-26-2006, 07:42 AM

...the (supposed) Fox News bias?

LOL You should take that show on the road.

Motorboat Cruiser

04-26-2006, 12:51 PM

Alex

04-26-2006, 12:57 PM

Gemini Cricket, surely you don't think that Snow is any more or less a partisan than the guy he's replacing? At least now, for the first time since McClellan the press secretary is someone with a pleasing voice for television and radio.

Also, Tony Snow has never been presented as a journalist. His entire career on TV (and at NPR before he moved to Fox) has been as a pundit. Criticizing him as not fair and balanced is like saying CNN is skewed because James Carville only presents the left side of the equation.

As for George Stephanopoulis I was very skeptical that he could successfully move from political hackdom to straight journalism (rather than punditry as all the others do) and have been pleasantly surprised with how successfully he's pulled it off.

scaeagles

04-26-2006, 01:09 PM

The only reason that Tony Snow has ever been critical of Bush is when he doesn't think that Bush is far enough to the right. If that's an example of "fair and balanced", then Michael Moore is a moderate.

I find this to be hysterical. Really.

That means that since a large majority of journalists are mostly critical of Bush because he isn't far enough to the left (or is too far rto the right) that they can not be considered fair and balanced. Is that what you are meaning to say?

And I agree with Alex. Tony Snow has never tried to present himself as a journalist. He is in the business of talking about opinion.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have never watch George Stephanolpolis, so I cannot say as to whether he is "fair and balanced".

Ghoulish Delight

04-26-2006, 01:15 PM

"fair and balanced" is the biggest load of crap ever. When did the definition of journalism switch from "present the facts" to "let nutjobs on both extremes spew their opinions"?

scaeagles

04-26-2006, 01:19 PM

I disagree. Selective reporting of facts most certainly skews the news, as do undertones (whether subtle or overt) as to the reporters opinion itself. It also has to do with throwing softball questions at those the journalists like as opposed to tough questions to those they don't. Ever hear Helen Thomas ask Clinton questions like she does Bush, or interrupt Clinton while he was answering? Perhaps it happened, but I don't recall.

Alex

04-26-2006, 01:24 PM

"fair and balanced" is the biggest load of crap ever. When did the definition of journalism switch from "present the facts" to "let nutjobs on both extremes spew their opinions"?

About the same time CNN interrupted its presentation of facts to pretend that Crossfire served some journalistically useful function.

Nephythys

04-26-2006, 04:47 PM

Nephythys

04-26-2006, 04:50 PM

But politicians need to get re-elected and the public by and large doesn't understand economics, they just want free stuff.

amen and amen- ain't that the truth

BarTopDancer

04-26-2006, 04:52 PM

I can get to Kevin Bacon in 4. Fvck measure M. Maybe if they worked on one project at a time it would be done faster. Though the 22 is progressing nicely.

The only nice thing about lower consumer confidence are the sales that start popping up.

Our government needs a regime change.

Random enough for ya?

Ghoulish Delight

04-26-2006, 04:56 PM

I can get to Kevin Bacon in 4. Fvck measure M. Maybe if they worked on one project at a time it would be done faster. Well, the good news is that the massive project that was going to totally destroy my commute is a no-go at this point. 16 companies were supposed to bid, only 1 did, and it came out $8.3 million over the original estimates, so they've gone back for some more bake sales.

BarTopDancer

04-26-2006, 04:57 PM

Well, the good news is that the massive project that was going to totally destroy my commute is a no-go at this point. 16 companies were supposed to bid, only 1 did, and it came out $8.3 million over the original estimates, so they've gone back for some more bake sales.

What project is that?

And does anyone know WTF they are doing along PCH in HB?

Ghoulish Delight

04-26-2006, 04:59 PM

What project is that?You know how Culver dips under the train tracks just south of Walnut? They want to do the same thing to Jeffrey.

Not Afraid

04-26-2006, 05:03 PM

BarTopDancer

04-26-2006, 05:07 PM

You know how Culver dips under the train tracks just south of Walnut? They want to do the same thing to Jeffrey.

Oh THAT project. Good.

Alex

04-26-2006, 05:25 PM

The only nice thing about lower consumer confidence are the sales that start popping up.

Sadly you'll have to wait at least a month. Scaeagles was right that yesterday's consumer confidence numbers were up and the highest in a long while. When NPR reported the numbers on Marketwatch, however, they noted that the number was compiled using data preceding the current spike in prices and that this might drive the number down though that didn't really happen after last September's spike.

innerSpaceman

04-26-2006, 05:55 PM

I'm glad Neph quoted Alex's response to my post, because I didn't see it before.

He completely misinterpretted what I said. And perhaps many others did too. I've no time to go correcting anyone's misperceptions. Google Paul Bremmer's 100 Orders if you have a mind to know what I had in mind. Think World Bank policies. Nothing to do with revenge. Where the hell did Alex get that? I said nothing about that.

I cannot be responsible for other people putting words into my posts.

CoasterMatt

04-26-2006, 06:00 PM

I cannot be responsible for other people putting words into my posts.

But who'll think of the children?!? :cool:

Alex

04-26-2006, 06:18 PM

My apologies. I did not intend to put words into your mouth. As I read what you said, the war in Iraq is an intentional attempt to destabilize the region and therefore keep gasoline prices elevated, thus enriching the oil companies and also to prolong the reconstruction as long as possible to that funds can flow into the pockets of companies who will conveniently fail to so. That we ****ed up Iraq on purpose and that in actuality post-war Iraq is proceeding completely according to Iraq. If that is what you were saying then what followed in my response was just me putting it in with all the other crackpottery out there where I think it belongs, not an attempt by me to read all the crackpottery into what you said.

If that is not what you were saying then I hope you'll find the time to set me straight.

As for the 100 Orders, have you actually read them or just internalized what you read in blogs? Here they are (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/#Orders). Here's a rundown (http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2005/02/28.html) of the criticism of them (some of it certainly warranted). There is some creative misrepresentation and some legitimate policy disputes and a whole lot of simply saying something that is true but isn't really bothersome (oh no, they allowed foreign companies to own businesses in Iraq -- except in natural resources).

Nephythys

04-26-2006, 07:06 PM

Ghoulish Delight

04-26-2006, 09:20 PM

Did somebody else get killed?

They built the first underpass on Culver after a family was trapped in traffic on the tracks. They were in a Mercedes which was no match for an Amtrack. I believe a Mom and 2 kids died.A few months back someone parked their car on the tracks and comitted suicide. But I think the project was being planned before that. They've just built a HUGE new development on Jeffrery down our way, there's going (already is) a large increase in traffic, so they are (too late) trying to widen and safen it.

BarTopDancer

04-27-2006, 11:30 AM

Prez Bush in an attempt to give tips on dealing with the gas prices

"Don't buy gas unless you have to"

Dang you Bush! Always the voice of reason! I'd much rather put the $50 of gas into my car instead of buying a new pair of jeans!

Gemini Cricket

04-27-2006, 11:42 AM

One of the interns in my office went to Nicaragua for 2 weeks. He came back a changed man. He said the experience was eye opening. He says it broadened his mind. He thinks every American should travel to another country in their lifetime. I agree.
:)

DreadPirateRoberts

04-27-2006, 11:53 AM

And does anyone know WTF they are doing along PCH in HB?

taken from: http://www.stockteam.com/wetlands.html
"PCH Bridge. Before construction can proceed for the bridge that is to allow PCH traffic to pass over the ocean inlet to the restored wetland, detours around the construction site had to be provided. The northbound PCH detour is now completed and in use, the southbound lanes should be completed by the end of February. PCH bicycle lanes have been rerouted through Bolsa Chica State Beach. The bridge, consisting of four traffic lanes, two bicycle lanes, a beach maintenance /emergency lane and an additional oil well maintenance bridge will be completed by October, 2005. "

scaeagles

04-27-2006, 12:07 PM

One of the interns in my office went to Nicaragua for 2 weeks. He came back a changed man.

In what way?

Gemini Cricket

04-27-2006, 12:20 PM

In what way?
Well, he said felt two things. He said he appreciated certain things about the US that he didn't before. (The area he in was a poverty stricken area where he was helping rebuild housing. He said the water in the area was bad. He said the medical facilities in that area was poor. I don't remember where exactly he was...) But he also got differing perspectives about our country that he said made him think. (He talked to people who liked and disliked America and the casual criticism of the US opened his eyes.)
When he left, Reed seemed kind of out-of-touch with the world. It's hard to explain. I mean, he's really young. Like 21 or something. I think he grew up a little in Nicaragua. A total learning experience. I don't think he knows much about the world outside of his Boston College experience and his home in a small town in Connecticut...
(He also shaved his head and grew a beard. Which I thought was pretty cool.)

BarTopDancer

04-27-2006, 12:22 PM

taken from: http://www.stockteam.com/wetlands.html
"PCH Bridge. Before construction can proceed for the bridge that is to allow PCH traffic to pass over the ocean inlet to the restored wetland, detours around the construction site had to be provided. The northbound PCH detour is now completed and in use, the southbound lanes should be completed by the end of February. PCH bicycle lanes have been rerouted through Bolsa Chica State Beach. The bridge, consisting of four traffic lanes, two bicycle lanes, a beach maintenance /emergency lane and an additional oil well maintenance bridge will be completed by October, 2005. "

Thanks!!

October 2005? They're a little late.

It sounds like they are going to start routing traffic into the wetlands? I'm so confused :(

scaeagles

04-27-2006, 12:33 PM

Interesting, GC.

I had two experiences, one similar to that. I went on a summer missions trip (during HS - summer 1984) to some areas of Mexico that were particularly poverty stricken. Before that I really had no idea what true poverty was. Little to no food, little to no shelter (the purpose of our trip was to haul building materials and construct some homes), no sanitation or plumbing of any kind, and doctors that would come every couple months for a day or two....just beyond the scope of anything you would find in the US.

The other was a two week trip to Europe (summer 1985). During the trip (mostly in Austria) we went to the Austria-Hungary border to a rather unique place called the desert lake. It was a massive lake that was no more than 4 feet deep at any point and dried up every year, refilling during the rainy season. Anyway.....the border ran through the lake. About 50 yards across the border were gaurd towers, about 30 feet high, spaced about 100 yards apart, as far as the eye could see. With my binoculars I could see gaurds in those towers with machine guns, ready to shoot anyone who tried to leave Hungary. Our guide told us that people were shot there and in the surrounding forest on a regular basis.

Scared the hell out of me. Made the whole Soviet Block a reality and shaped much of my view of the world.

Gemini Cricket

04-27-2006, 12:37 PM

With my binoculars I could see gaurds in those towers with machine guns, ready to shoot anyone who tried to leave Hungary. Our guide told us that people were shot there and in the surrounding forest on a regular basis.
Holy cow! That's some pretty scary stuff.

DreadPirateRoberts

04-27-2006, 12:48 PM

Thanks!!

October 2005? They're a little late.

It sounds like they are going to start routing traffic into the wetlands? I'm so confused :(

I guess that's old info. The bridge is so the Bolsa Chica wetlands will have a channel that goes underneath PCH to it is linked more closely to the ocean, currently all the sea water goes through Huntington Harbor. It will be interesting to see how that changes the surf around that area. They scooted PCH over a little bit, so they could build the bridge.

BarTopDancer

04-27-2006, 01:10 PM

I guess that's old info. The bridge is so the Bolsa Chica wetlands will have a channel that goes underneath PCH to it is linked more closely to the ocean, currently all the sea water goes through Huntington Harbor. It will be interesting to see how that changes the surf around that area. They scooted PCH over a little bit, so they could build the bridge.

ooo I get it! Do you live in HB?

Motorboat Cruiser

04-27-2006, 03:24 PM

That means that since a large majority of journalists are mostly critical of Bush because he isn't far enough to the left (or is too far rto the right) that they can not be considered fair and balanced. Is that what you are meaning to say?

No, that isn't what I meant to say. First of all, I can't agree with your premise that journalists are critical of Bush due to his political leanings. The press has always been critical of whoever is in power, democrat or republican. They were highly critical of the last administration and they are highly critical of this one. That is their purpose and it seems fair to me.

But Fox takes it a step further by being pro-republican, anti-democrat regardless of who is in power. At that point, it isn't news anymore, it's propaganda. And you know what, so be it. If that is how they want to run their news organization, that's fine. Where my problem lies with Fox is that they call themselves "fair and balanced". That is a lie (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067).

Therefore, it is no surprise at all that the administration would choose someone from Fox to get their message out. Nobody has more experience at this then someone from Fox. But to combat the appearance of their own bias, they all start talking about how critical this guy has been of Bush and this is what rubs me the wrong way. What they fail to mention is that the ONLY time he is critical is when Bush tries to do something even remotely moderate.

Therefore, Mr. Snow will fit in just fine in his new position. It's not really any different from his last job, neither of which required him to be fair, nor balanced.

That was my point.

scaeagles

04-27-2006, 03:31 PM

Mr. Snow will fit in just fine. Again, he is not a journalist. He is a pindit who offers opinions. He was a speech writer for Bush Sr.

You want me to take FAIR seriously? That's funny. That would be like me quoting something from the Heritage Foundation to you.

I could go through the opinion talking heads at CNN or MSNBC and give you the left leaning pundits, but that isn't evidence that their news is biased.

Are you seriously suggesting that a Helen Thomas treated Clinton in the same way she treats Bush? Or that Dan Rather treated the Bush family with the same kid gloves he did with the Clintons?

C'mon, MBC. We can each point the finger all day with quotes and/or examples.

DreadPirateRoberts

04-27-2006, 03:55 PM

ooo I get it! Do you live in HB?

No, but I cruise by in my pirate ship all the time.

wendybeth

04-27-2006, 08:49 PM

I think Bush missed an opportunity to turn things around for him by appointing Snow. He already has the conservatives (largely) in his corner- he really needs to reach out to all Americans, not just the conservatives, and he could have chosen a more moderate person to do so. Instead, it sent a message loud and clear: expect more of the same, and the divisions will only continue to grow. I mean, really- did he have to choose someone from Fox? Talk about pouring gas on the fire. Now all the other outlets are going to be pissy and Fox will be even more unsufferable than they already are.

scaeagles

04-27-2006, 09:12 PM

Well, you don't have to watch Fox, now do you, WB?

A moderate press secretary? A press secretary is supposed to go out an answer questions for the administration. You should pick someone who can articulate your positions willingly and effectively. Snow was a great choice, as he knows the members of the press already and also knows about the inner workings of the Presidency, having worked for Bush Sr.

sleepyjeff

04-27-2006, 10:03 PM

I think Bush missed an opportunity to turn things around for him by appointing Snow. He already has the conservatives (largely) in his corner- he really needs to reach out to all Americans, not just the conservatives, and he could have chosen a more moderate person to do so.

The reason his poll numbers are down so far is not because liberals all the sudden started disliking him.....it's because he was losing support from conservatives. Snow was an excellent choice. Try to hold on to those who are predisposed to like you rather than go after those who never will no matter what.

wendybeth

04-27-2006, 10:41 PM

HIs support couldn't possibly be eroding due to people actually starting to think for themselves, could it? Do you really believe that everyone is leaving because he's not conservative enough?

And Scaeagles, I made an observation, that's all. He is under no obligation to try and reach out to people like me, but it might have been wise to try- you can bet there will be others who will in the coming elections. And I am under no obligation to watch Fox news- in fact, I don't. I read it on the net- I don't watch tv. I read many sources, and question all of them- not just Fox. I find it interesting that the same people who are so very vocal about the liberal bias in mainstream media have no probs when it's biased to their viewpoint- I disdain any discernable bias, but I know it's inevitable. I get equally cranky at CNN and MSNBC, but at least they don't look like the National Enquirer. (Usually).

sleepyjeff

04-27-2006, 11:12 PM

HIs support couldn't possibly be eroding due to people actually starting to think for themselves, could it? Do you really believe that everyone is leaving because he's not conservative enough?

Who was thinking for these people before?

Why are these people just now "starting to think for themselves"?

Were the people who supported him before and now don't non-conservatives?

-----------Yes, I really do believe that his support is/was eroding mainly due to his(Bush) lack of conservatism.

wendybeth

04-27-2006, 11:50 PM

I seem to recall a few dems in the congress and senate who fell in line for the war.

I also know more than a few private citizens who voted for Bush who are very, very disappointed with him.

It's really too bad that it has become so 'us' against 'them'- last time I checked we were all Americans. I don't look for the divide to narrow anytime soon.

Gemini Cricket

04-28-2006, 05:27 AM

Well, you don't have to watch Fox, now do you, WB?
During a briefing led by White House spokesman Scott McClellan as President Bush was traveling to New Orleans, Louisiana, the Washington Post's Jim VandeHei asked why the White House televisions always seemed to be tuned to Fox News and if it was possible to have them tuned instead to CNN.
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/whitehouse.fox/index.html)
:D

scaeagles

04-28-2006, 06:14 AM

I also know more than a few private citizens who voted for Bush who are very, very disappointed with him.

Count me among them. But I have always thought for myself.

I don't care about poll numbers, but I agree with SleepyJeff.

Do I wish I had voted for Kerry instead? Not in a heartbeat. Instead of Bush disappointing me in 2.5 of my 4 (possibly 5) areas of major importance (one he isn't totally blowing it, but isn't doing great in), I'd be looking at a big zero.

Gemini Cricket

04-28-2006, 06:19 AM

Do I wish I had voted for Kerry instead? Not in a heartbeat. Instead of Bush disappointing me in 2.5 of my 4 (possibly 5) areas of major importance (one he isn't totally blowing it, but isn't doing great in), I'd be looking at a big zero.
And you know that... how?

I didn't vote for Bush but I don't know what our country would look like today under Kerry. But all I can really do is wonder. I can't definitely say it would be better or worse. To say it would definitely be either is playing partisan politics. No one really knows.

scaeagles

04-28-2006, 06:27 AM

First of all, I didn't relate it to the country, I related my non vote for Kerry to my areas of importance. For example, I like the Bush tax policy. Do I think for a second that Kerry adapts that tax policy? Wouldn't happen.

Of course, I happen to think that tax policy is best for the country.

Do I think Kerry would spend less? No. I think (and have said it many times here) that Bush spends too much. Way too much. I don't see Kerry being any different.

Do I know what Kerry would have done? No. Do I have a pretty good idea what he'd have done based on his record and campaign? Yes.

Scrooge McSam

04-28-2006, 06:34 AM

Were the people who supported him before and now don't non-conservatives?

Possibly. It's become painfully obvious to me that most people pay no more attention to our politicians and leaders than what is spoon fed to them 30 minutes before they have dinner.

Gemini Cricket

04-28-2006, 07:18 AM

An antigay pogrom is taking place in Iraq. Gratuitous killings of gays are permitted under Iraqi law, and it is a fact that George W. Bush approved the wording of the Iraqi constitution that makes it so. Mainstream U.S. media are not reporting on the plight of Iraqi gays, nor are they discussing how to rescue them. This points out the urgent need for LGBT Americans to participate more in our democracy.
Source (http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid30412.asp)
:(

Yeah, I think I'm going on a media diet again...

Alex

04-28-2006, 08:26 AM

Do I think Kerry would spend less? No. I think (and have said it many times here) that Bush spends too much. Way too much. I don't see Kerry being any different.

Kerry would spend less, at least with this Congress. As soon as a Democrat is in the White House, Republicans in Congress would rediscover their fiscally conservative roots. I'm not saying that splitting the branches in opposing parties is a net good (though I think it might be) but when it comes to spending a Democratic president with a Republican congress is probably going to almost always spend less money than a Dem or Rep dominated government.

Gemini Cricket

04-28-2006, 08:36 AM

I think I may have posted this already, but I was watching the way the British Parliament works (on CSPAN) and thought it was such a cool forum. I would love to see us do that here in the US. The open debate, the immediate response to things. Would be cool to see.
:)

scaeagles

04-28-2006, 10:46 AM

Kerry would spend less, at least with this Congress.

This is true. One thing that I get caught up in is talking about how much Bush spends....well, technically it isn't Bush, as all spending originates in the House. Bush could use his veto pen, certainly. I am irritated with the Republican led House on the spending just as much as I am with Bush.

innerSpaceman

04-28-2006, 11:23 AM

How pandering is it to offer a $100 check-in-the-mail to every American? The GOP is desperate indeed.

scaeagles

04-28-2006, 11:24 AM

Indeed ridiculously stupid.

Gn2Dlnd

04-28-2006, 11:29 AM

How pandering is it to offer a $100 check-in-the-mail to every American? The GOP is desperate indeed.

Yeah, 28 and a 1/2 gallons. Big fvckin' whoop.

:mad:

Gemini Cricket

04-28-2006, 11:45 AM

He bought everyone's love for $300 that one time ($600 for families). Why the drop?
:D

scaeagles

04-28-2006, 12:03 PM

Yeah, 28 and a 1/2 gallons. Big fvckin' whoop.

I see it more like 250 gallons, looking at it in terms of the elimination of the average of 40 cents in taxes paid per gallon. If we look at it in terms of just the fed tax, we're close to 600 gallons.

Still stupid, though.

Gemini Cricket

04-28-2006, 12:06 PM

I woke to a talk radio program on my alarm clock/radio. The DJ said that the price of gas in Saudi Arabia is $.78 a gallon. Is this true?!

scaeagles

04-28-2006, 12:09 PM

I have heard similar numbers, but it was in reference to per liter, not per gallon.

3.79 liters/gallon, which means $2.95/gallon.

Gemini Cricket

04-28-2006, 12:14 PM

I have heard similar numbers, but it was in reference to per liter, not per gallon.

3.79 liters/gallon, which means $2.95/gallon.
Leo, check this link out. Click (http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/)
It has a listing of the prices around the world.

scaeagles

04-28-2006, 12:16 PM

I stand corrected. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising, though, that oil producing economies pay so much less. Perhaps we should produce more of our own oil?????:)

Gn2Dlnd

04-28-2006, 12:21 PM

I see it more like 250 gallons, looking at it in terms of the elimination of the average of 40 cents in taxes paid per gallon. If we look at it in terms of just the fed tax, we're close to 600 gallons.

Still stupid, though.

I see it in actual, factual terms. Not spin.
Today, down at the corner, I can buy 28 & 1/2 gallons of gas with $100.00.

That's 2 tanks plus 2 & 1/2 gallons. Or, slightly less than two weeks worth of gas.

Big :mad: Fvckin':mad: Whoop:mad:

scaeagles

04-28-2006, 12:39 PM

Not trying to spin it, just playing along. Like I said, it's stupid no matter how you look at it. But I think it's stupid for a different reason. I don't think this is the responsibility of government. Politically, if they want to do something, take off the gas taxes for a while. Eliminate special and geographically mandated fuel blends. So many practical things they could do, but they'd rather try to sound good.

Ghoulish Delight

04-28-2006, 01:07 PM

scaeagles

04-28-2006, 01:15 PM

If so, great. I support it wholeheartedly. I have not read that, though.

Ghoulish Delight

04-28-2006, 01:20 PM

If so, great. I support it wholeheartedly. I have not read that, though.
I heard it yesterday...I think it's gotten burried because it was proposed before the $100 proposal and that's gotten all the press.

innerSpaceman

04-28-2006, 04:08 PM

Suspension of the tax, I'm in favor of. Suspension of requirements for less polluting and unhealthy blends, I'm not. Get ready for plenty of gas shortages and really expensive petrol prices for ... um, the rest of our lives. Now that we've finally had the good sense to ban MTBE (or whatever the acronym is for that toxic chemical), should we just turn around and re-pollute all our ground water because gasoline isn't artificially cheap any more?

Though it's debatable, we either have passed Peak production or soon will. After that, prices go up and up and up until all the gooey black stuff is gone.

It's 2006. We may not have our flying cars, but don't be fooled into thinking that the future never happens.

Nephythys

04-28-2006, 04:17 PM

Durbin was just on Cavuto saying no to getting rid of the tax...

I would need better sources.

Ghoulish Delight

04-28-2006, 04:32 PM

Durbin was just on Cavuto saying no to getting rid of the tax...

I would need better sources.That interview neither confirms nor denies what I heard. Like I said, I herad it once yesterday as a proposal (don't even know that it was Durbin who proposed it), and it was quickly overshadowed by the $100 rebate talk. It was a 6 month suspension of the federal per-gallon gasoline tax, it wasn't about taxing oil company profits/windfalls, which is what was discussed in that interview. I'm still looking for details, though. It seems that they quickly gave up on the concept.

Ghoulish Delight

04-28-2006, 07:12 PM

Found one source (http://www.nj.com/newsflash/statehouse/index.ssf?/base/news-19/1145996663119610.xml&storylist=njxgr)

Gemini Cricket

04-29-2006, 04:36 AM

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/sheriffrush-717582.jpg

Talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh surrendered to authorities Friday on a charge of committing fraud to obtain prescription drugs, concluding an investigation that for more than two years has hovered over the law-and-order conservative.
Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042801692.html)

Moral compass of talk radio gets arrested for committing fraud. I picked the wrong day to go on a media diet.
:D

scaeagles

04-29-2006, 06:30 AM

Hmmm....another quote from that article -

The agreement is not an admission of guilt to the charge, which was fraud by concealing information to obtain a prescription.

A spokesman for the state's attorney's office, Mike Edmondson, said the agreement dropping the charge is "standard for first-time offenders who admit their addiction."

So it is standard operating procedure to investigate first time offenders for 2 years? That's funny.

Alex

04-29-2006, 06:51 AM

Essentially an admission by the D.A. that they'd never be able to convict Limbauh of anything significant.

But at least those who don't like him will always have a mug shot.

wendybeth

04-29-2006, 08:19 AM

Limbaugh is fortunate that they didn't have the types of drug laws in place that he used to advocate.

Gemini Cricket

04-29-2006, 09:12 AM

If we followed Rush's own black and white logic for everything, he's guilty. He's a druggie. He should just say 'no' to drugs like Nancy said. He should be put away. And this is using his own logic.
:D

Scrooge McSam

04-29-2006, 12:33 PM

Limbaugh... haha you know, the name, the history just makes me wanna condemn him.

But I'm not going to. Rush Limbaugh is, after all, just a man. Pain can drive people to act in ways both destructive and illegal. I've seen people addicted to drugs. They usually don't need my criticism. Plus, I can't imagine how embarrassing it must be to have your business in the street like his is now. I don't take any pleasure from seeing anybody go through that.

Yes, Wendybeth, he is fortunate. He's also fortunate to have a bank account that allows him to sail through this, where someone of lesser means wouldn't fare so well.

scaeagles

04-29-2006, 04:01 PM

While I appreciate that, Scrooge, I would also argue that someone without his noteriety would not have been pursued for two years in regards to this. Even the ACLU sided with Limbaugh on the issue of his medical records. The DA couldn't prove anything (in regards to "doctor shopping"), so they wanted to get at his medical records.

So yes, he is fortunate enough to have the means to go to a top notch clinic in Wickenburg, AZ to deal with the addiction and also to have the means to fight off what I would consider to be malicious prosecution.

Gemini Cricket

04-29-2006, 04:21 PM

Rush on the topic of drugs:
On drug users:
Kurt Cobain died of a drug-induced suicide, I just -- he was a worthless shred of human debris.

(on the death of Grateful Dead guitarist Jerry Garcia) Just another dead doper. And a dirt bag.

And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them.

And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia (former Grateful Dead guitarist) destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks.

Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too

I've seen people addicted to drugs. They usually don't need my criticism. Plus, I can't imagine how embarrassing it must be to have your business in the street like his is now. I don't take any pleasure from seeing anybody go through that.
I see what you're saying, SMcSam, I've known people who have been addicted to drugs as well. However, they were not trying to push a highhanded moral agenda and condemn others while putting on an air of being perfect. Even a closest friend who tried that would stir the same dose of schadenfreude in me. They would hear it from me, too. I have little tolerance for hypocrites.

As for his business in the street.

"That's showbiz, Kid." ~ Roxie Hart (Chicago)

Sorry, this guy's an asshole. He deserves what he gets.

A Rush gem:
Imagine we identify the gene — assuming that there is one, this is hypothetical — that will tell us prior to birth that a baby is going to be gay…. How many parents, if they knew before the kid was gonna be born, [that he] was gonna be gay, they would take the pregnancy to term? Well, you don't know but let's say half of them said, "Oh, no, I don't wanna do that to a kid." [Then the] gay community finds out about this. The gay community would do the fastest 180 and become pro-life faster than anybody you've ever seen. … They'd be so against abortion if it was discovered that you could abort what you knew were gonna be gay babies.