The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)
 

I really like the new Democratic slogan for the coming elections:

"Had enough yet?".


I may have to get a T-shirt with that on it.

I think Newt Gingrich was the one who suggested it. Seriously, I recall reading it somewhere.

How about:

"Vote Democrat in 2006: a different color of inept."

:D

I wasn't aware they had adopted the slogan that Newt suggested tonguely in cheekly.


It would be brilliant if they did.

Ever go to the Quick Links tab and see Who's Online? Sometimes it's creepy because some of the political threads will be viewed by a 'Guest' or two. It could be Gonzales or Rove. You never know!
:D

Picky, picky, picky.. I'm adopting it on their behalf. :p

Random political thought: Bush Sucks.

Auuughhhh!

(From the homepage of CNN.com.)
Yikes. What a photo. Ya don't hit an officer, Congresswoman!
:D

I wish Pelosi would shut the hell up.

McKinney has some serious mental issues. I really think she does. The sad part is her cries of racism only serve to lessen the impact of real racism.

Seriously. (But I don't think she's alone.)

C'mon let's all go out and punch a cop.
Oy!:rolleyes:

Support Our Troops! Bring Them Home!

You can support our military without supporting the administration or the war.

Kites rise highest against the wind - not with it.
~ Winston Churchill

Aphorisms have never seduced anybody, but they have fooled some into considering themselves worldly-wise.
~Mason Cooley

(not that I disagree with the use of the Churchill quote in this context)

Does this dress make my ass look fat?
~ Gemini Cricket

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude. I have the munchies
~ sactown chronic

:derail:
Did I say that? If so, I need to find that frock and toss it. Just had my physical yesterday. I lost 8 pounds! 10 more and I'll be 160 lbs again! Woo hoo! :)
:derail:

"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." ~ Gandhi

Someone on the radio this morning was saying she looks like Ben Wallace of the Detroit Pistons. Separated at birth?

Source

Secret provider to the press about prewar intelligence... Why?

Edit: Here's CNN's take on it.

I'd like to show you guys something interesting. Bear with me it's going to take 3 posts to show you...

Here is the AP version of the story I was mentioning above:
I copied this to Microsoft Word and did a Word Count.

Results:

Pages: 2
Words: 704
Characters (no spaces): 3726
Characters (w/ spaces): 4414
Paragraphs: 20
Lines: 79

Now here's CNN's take on the AP release:

Pages: 2
Words: 722
Characters (no spaces): 3823
Characters (w/ spaces): 4525
Paragraphs: 20
Lines: 80

And now the FoxNews version of the AP release:

Pages: 1
Words: 281
Characters (no spaces): 1548
Characters (w/spaces): 1823
Paragraphs: 8
Lines: 32


Quite a difference, don't you think? News sources do abbreviate stories, but this version is cut alot.

Now...

Look at the positioning of the following paragraph in the Fox version:

It's right up front.

I find that interesting. Not surprising but interesting...
;)

What I find also interesting is the addition of "his bosses said" in the CNN version. And what's with the weird little "whatch what the court document says" parenthetical"?

It's from the website. You can click on the hyperlink and go to their video footage section that they really really want everyone to watch.

What facts do you think are missing from Fox's version?

I don't see that big of a deal in moving that sentence from paragraph three to two (from sentence #4 to sentence #2).

Personally, I don't care how it is written as long as all the same facts are in it. But you realize that the right will say that it is not suprise that the AP version waits longer to reveal that the information does not support Bush or Cheney having done anything illegal, leaving alive longer the idea that somehow this revelation (which was revelated a couple weeks ago so I'm not clear why it is news now) implicates Bush or Cheney in the revealing of Plames CIA status?

We'll all find the bias we want to find.

It is probably more accurate in the CNN version since Libby probably never spoke to Bush he could only recount what Cheney told him Bush had said.

Both of their sources are the same. The original source is much more detailed. Which, it seems, CNN caught on to. If your only source of news was FoxNews, you wouldn't be getting all the information. And why not show all of the AP release? What, are they trying to save paper on their website?

Moving sentences is common, but in this case it emphasizes Bush and Cheney's possible innocence up front. Everyone knows that people not fully engaged stop reading a news article a couple of paragraphs in. They obviously didn't want anyone to miss that sentence.

Nothing. Except the backstory...

Attention spans? I'll be honest and confess that I didn't read any of the three articles beyond the headline - this is often the depth I'll go to in a political story - so perhaps they're just catering to my indifferent demographic?

When I read the headlines, you know what I think? That Libby gave up Bush as the person who told him to leak Valerie Plame. When I read the headlines of the stories, I see the the AP and CNN stories attempting to make that impression with their headlines. What does one think of when they hear Libby and leak? Valerie Plame was what I thought of, and I'm sure most people did (though admittedly I could be wrong).

For this reason, I think the Fox story and headline are much more to the point than are the AP and CNN version. The Fox headline says what the leaks were about to clear up to the headline only readers what the story is really about. Moving the Plame paragraph up one is not a big deal and not much closer to front than in the other version.

The headline is key to me. The Fox headline is much more descriptive and to the point and not misleading in the least.

If one's only source of news was Fox, they would not be getting the whole story. Not to mention the whole backstory.
Moving the paragraph isn't a big deal. But what is the reason for doing that?

Of course, I'm of the opinion that non one will get the whole story until all the key players are dead and the archives release the unclassified documents some 50 years from now.

So, wait 50 years to worry about now?
:D

What is the reason for less than descriptive AP and CNN headlines, which I interpret to be done in such a way as to intentionally make the casual news headline reader link Bush to the Plame leak?

Like Alex said, anyone can find bias wherever they choose to do so.

All three headlines say the same thing.
And anyone can choose to be blind about the obvious when they want to.

On that we can certainly agree.

Yes, and everybody will find different things obvious.

All three headlines do not say the same thing. In an article about the Valerie Plame case (where the charge is that someone illegally leaked the name of Plame) the AP headline says:

Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak

In case involving an illegal leak, what leak do you think this headline would refer to?

The CNN headline says:

Libby court papers: Cheney said Bush OK'd intelligence leak

This headline give the information that the leak probably wasn't Valerie Plame's name (but that depends on whether you consider that an intelligence leak). It also contains the clarification that CNN inserted in the article that Libby doens't know what Bush said but just what Cheney told him Bush said.

The Fox headline says:

Libby: Bush Authorized Leaks About Iraq

This one specifically says that Bush authorized a leak but removes the possibility that it was Plame's name.


Sure, it is easy to argue that Fox was trying to diffuse the story by making this point clear from the beginning. But it is equally easy to argue that the AP was trying to make it a bigger story than it is by obfuscating that point. Pick the bias you want. All three headlines are true but they don't all say the same thing and if you think they do, then who is being blind to the obvious?

As for the background information, even if Fox News is your only source do you think that this is the only article they've ever had on the entire Valerie Plame affair? Perhaps they feel it unnecessary to re-report the entire trial and history every time there is a development. I don't know. Perhaps they were just letting it in as a placeholder until they got their own reporting of the story together. A version that comes in at a whole 200 words more than the AP version and seems to have all the background information you felt to be missing.

Fox News leans to the right and AP leans to the left (though not far). They all lean in some direction.

Fox'News' is trying to brush this controversy under the carpet and ignore it. Just like the Bush administration is. The news media is supposed to be a unbiased look at every issue. Fox'News' is trying to cover the president's butt. If the AP is left leaning, then why would they use their reporting for their stories at all? The Fox version of the story still implies Plame's identity was leaked. And backstory is common in reporting any issue to fill the reader in on the events had they not previously heard about before reading the article. Lots of times when there is a development on any issue, a retelling of the issue is included in the article. Cutting 200 words is a lot. Contrary to what you may feel, it is a big story.

I stick to what I said about the headlines. All three say the same thing.

Fox'News' has a new article up about the story:
Hmm, this one's much longer and there's backstory now... I thought they weren't into re-reporting...?

Who's being blind to the obvious. First of all, I provided the link to that article in my last post. Second of all I didn't say Fox wasn't into re-reporting, I just said that "perhaps" they weren't. Then I said "perhaps" they just put through the AP story as a placeholder until their version was done. Perhaps.

I'm not part of the staff at Fox News, I have no idea what reasons they might have for their editorial decisions. I'm just suggesting reasonable alternatives to your paranoid view of the world. So, if Fox published a story that includes all the things you initially found fault for, were you wrong in your initial indignation or are you blinded by the obvious and feel you must remain all puffed up and angry? Perhaps it is all part of a big conspiracy. I don't know. You seem confident you know, but I doubt the confidence is justified.

It is fine with me if you want to stick by the idea that all three headlines said the same thing. You're wrong, but that's fine with me. You're also inconsistent (moving a paragraph two lines forward is a sign of great conspiracy but a less explicit headline is essentially the same as the more explicity one).

Actually, the initial Fox version of the AP story cut 500 words not 200. The later Fox story is 200 words longer than the AP story. Why is the AP whitewashing this vital issue (and what exactly is the scandal in the story? that the president authorized giving heretofore confidential information to a reporter to support its case? that is a standard presidential power and isn't particularly controversial)?

Beyond the way it's covered, the political rhetoric is heating up.

The President has the legal authority to declassify information. If he has the power to declassify information, then whatever he authorizes to be released is no longer classified, and therefore it is not a leak of classified information.

The political aspect now comes into play with some clips I just saw of John Kerry, who is as well linking this to Plame, though this is not connected to Plame in any way (as ALL of the articles state). Kerry said (not a direct quote) "The President has said that whoever leaked this information should be fired. I guess all this time he's been looking for himself.".

Well, as I recall, he said whoever leaked Plame should be fired. Kerry knows this, but is choosing to be dishonest.

Let the record stand that I was ignorant as to the contents of this thread regarding reporting on the latest info on the Libby investigation. I read the AP account today on Comcast, then switched to Faux News to get their take, as I generally like to post links from there for our conservative friends. (I'm nice that way). I was going to comment on the differences in reporting, both in tone and substance, between the two agencies. Also, on Faux, the story is buried under the stunning news that the crazy lady from Atlanta (a Dem) had a rather boisterous press conference when she apologised to the DC police.

Uhm, okay. Crazy lady vs complete subversion of Democratic principles and virtually ALL that our government stands for..........

I know this is an excercise in futility. I know what all the Cons will say, and all the Straddlers, and all the Apologists. I really am not interested in arguing semantics anymore- this is an outright admission of the highest breach of security; our President has (apparently) authorized the leak of classified material in a political maneuver to cover his ass and shoot down the naysayers. Naysayers who have a right and an obligation to question the powers that be, all supposedly part of our illustrious system of checks and balances. Libby could be lying, but it sounds like the spin has begun again, and that usually indicates otherwise. I don't give a flying **** what the rational for this was, it's wrong and anyone who supports it is far more 'unpatriotic' than the most rabid Communist or Anarchist. This really makes Nixon look like a choirboy.:rolleyes:

Then why not annouce it at a press conference and be up front with the public about it? He didn't do that. He's been avidly outspoken about newspapers leaking vital information which he believes compromises us. Yet he can do it. Isn't that hypocrisy?

Source

That I will agree with. He should have come out and just told the info, not done a back channel. Hypocritical, yes. Illegal, no. Politically motivated, yes. Uncommon, no.

Fvcking the neigbor's wife wouldn't make me a criminal, but it would make me a total asshole.

Leaking classified intelligence in an attempt to boost support for a war that he so desperately wanted and then parading around the country claiming that "no president wants war" makes Bush a total asshole.

Leaking classified intelligence in an attempt to boost support for a war he so desperately wanted and then calling the leaking of his illegal wiretapping activities a "shameful act" makes Bush a total asshole.

I think he's channeling John Kerry: "I was for leaking classified intelligence information before I was against it."

Getting back to the randomness of this thread, which I derailed, I apologize:

Is Iraq in a civil war? At what point would it be classified as one? And why would being classified as one be of vital importance compared to the fact that it's just a mess period?

While I can see that point of view, I don't think the leaking of that info meant he wanted war, it was an issue of showing why he thought war was necessary. I understand we will never see eye to eye on it.

Historically, I would say no. Looking at the amounts of bloodshed in what is typically deemed a civil war, Iraq is nowhere close. I would look at it more like I would a Bosnia, in that racial and religious hatred dating back to the beginning of time was leading to violence that required UN peacekeepers to quell the worst of it. While not a perfect analogy, I think that's closer than "civil war".

Are you saying Bush didn't want this war and did everything in his power to avoid it? Or are you simply saying that the leaking of intelligence isn't evidence that he wanted war?

I'm saying the second, as it was done to show (and build public support, no doubt) why he thought war was necessary.

I do believe the first as well, with a caveat, being that of course he didn't do everything. He could have simply ignored it and let the UN continue to appease Saddam and issue more and more ignored resolutions. He didn't do everything, but I think he did enough, and I firmly believe that it was Saddam who firced the war, not Bush. Saddam starts abiding by the agreements from the cease fire, no war. It's that simple to me.

Just as a point of order, it is impossible for the president to leak classified information since by the very fact of him giving permission for its distribution it is no longer classified.

I challenge you to find a president who didn't bemoan unauthorized leaks while simultaneously targetting information releases to preferred journalists, frequently "off the record." I know how hated it is to say "but previous presidents did it" but previous presidents have always done it (at least in the modern political era going back to WWII). Howard Kurtz (of the Washington Post) wrote a fantastic book about it in 1998 call Spin Cycle: How the White House and the Media Manipulate the News. While the case in point was the Clinton White House it wasn't hardly making the case that it was unusual or unique.

Just because Bush has been better than most at supressing the unauthorized leaks from the White House, I don't see as an argument for hypocrisy at using using authorized "leaks." John Dickerson at Slate wrote an interesting piece yesterday about this and I think he mostly gets it right (though I disagree with him on whether this constitutes hypocrisy). But the point he makes that I think is key is that because Bush has so successfully suppressed unauthorized leaks you kind of have to begin to assume that anything that appears to be an unauthorized leak may actually be authorized.

Would I prefer Bush had just openly made his case, absolutely. Am I outraged that he did it through time-honored Washington back-corridor methods? Not really, just disappointed.


As for is Iraq a civil war*, to a degree it is just semantics, but I'd say that it is about as much a civil war as the Watts Riots and similar actions were back in the '60s. At the top levels the leadership of the various sides seem to still be working at resolution. I think reasonable people can argue either way though applying the term or not doesn't really change anything.


* The other Jon Stewart did get off the absolutely brilliant line about how we had our own Civil War and just 150 years later blacks and whites (showing Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Powell) came together to start one in another country.

I agree with this. Bush can make de-classify any classified information he desires. There's a formal procedure which he didn't follow, and it was done for purely political motives ... but it's not illegal and it's not unique.

It is hypocritical and Bush is taking a bit of heat for it. Not only because it looks so craven ... but because, for the first time, Bush is implicated in the chain of events that led to the outting of Valerie Plame.

It is believed that Libby leaked Plame's identity to Judith Miller of the NY Times during the same conversations that he leaked the information declassified by the President, under the President's order to leak the information. And while there is no testimony yet known that Bush specifically ordered the leak of Plame's identity ... Bush is now knee-deep in this mess - since the order to leak was a direct effort to defend the Adminstration against the published allegations of Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband.

If the ordered de-classification leak were not directly tied to discrediting Wilson, Bush would have some plausable deniability. But now that grand jury testimony links Bush to the defense-manuever leak that also resulted in revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative, this treasonous mess is lapping at the president's feet ... any may yet pull him under.

Yeah, I know. But my anti-Bush bias compells me to call it "leaking classified intelligence" instead of "declassifying intelligence". I'm jerky that way.

On the subject of misleading headlines...

This will only last a short while until MSNBC updates their front page, but check out the top story, about Iran's nuclear announcement. www.msnbc.com

Notice that the bullet point says, "Iran to 'join the club of countries' with nukes, leader say", implying quite blatantly that Iran has admitted to developing nuclear weapons. In reality, of course, the president said they are NOT planning the enriched uranium for "nukes". Now, I'm not saying that that's proof that they aren't, but that's not what he said. Someone felt the need to spin that story lead.

It now reads "Iran: Joining nuclear 'club' soon"

In other news, karma is biting someone's backside: Katherine Harriss on the outs with GOP.

Heh heh....might we expect an embittered tell-all book soon?:D

Random Political Thought:
WHEN will this election be over? (And election day isn't until 4/22! - and there's just about a lock that there will be a run-off for New Orleans Mayor - only 23 candidates - there is no way one person is going to get 50%+1 of the vote!)

Bush's supporters can play all the linguistic games they want. It doesn't change the fact that the White House made the identity of a covert CIA operative public in order to punish her husband for telling the truth.

If a Democratic administration had done the same thing, Republicans would be up in arms. But since it was a Republican administration, all we get are justifications and word games.

If we attack Iran next, will there be a draft?

I could post a link to John Kerry discussing a deep cover op by name during some senate hearings. That didn't result in anything.

I find myself being less and less of a Bush supporter (I have 4 big things that are a must, and right now he is failing mightily in two and the another of the four he is not doing well enough....for those that know me, take a guess as to what I'm referring to) but this whole Plame thing is ridiculous to me. I could discuss reasons as to why, but it's all been hashed out many times before here and it would lead to a grand debate of unbending and unchangable opinions on this issue.

Interesting question. I don't see an invasion, frankly. I see surgical strikes with lots of support from our allies, though not the UN, Russia, or China.

Perhaps special forces will end up in the country covertly assisting with those strikes.

Hmm, isn't that what Iraq was supposed to be?

I read this the other day:
Source
What do you make of it? I'm not an avid New Yorker reader. Someone forwarded this to me.

Ummm....no.....the goal was to oust Saddam. Here the goal is to stop development of a nuclear program.

GC - I would not be surprised at all if there are currently US special forces inside Iran doing such things. I would suspect high tech classified surveillance planes and drones are also operating with regularity.

Yes, but they planned it as a quick in-n-out with minimal troops, and heavy reliance on surgical air strikes. The absolute worst thing that could happen is to repeat the same mistake of arrogantly assuming we're just going to breeze in and get the job done sans-complication and have zero backup plan for if and when things go wrong.

It isn't the same thing. The goal in Iraq is to topple and rebuild a government and it was mistakenly attempted with inadequate post topple planning.

The goal in Iran would be to destroy an asset, not topple the government. We don't want to replace the Iranian government (we wouldn't mind seeing it changed).

As for the story that the White House won't rule out the nuke option, I would ask this: when has the White House (of any president) explicitly ruled out using nuclear weapons? This story comes up every once in a while. "Ohmygawd!!!!!1 The president won't rule out nukes in situation X! What a homicidal maniac he must be."

The president asks for plans on how we might go about destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. If the reports of how they are hardened are accurate, the only way it could be done simply with bombs is nuclear. To say so is not to say that will happen. Frank Kaplan at Slate (a rabid anti-Bush man) is reasonable on his evaluation of this story.

By the way, just to get this out of the way now in case it does happen. I do not support military action to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. I believe that development of nuclear weapons (as well as chemical and biological and mechanical) is a right of a sovereign nation regardless of U.N. treaties otherwise. The only difference with Iraq is that they had signed away their rights to do so when they invaded another sovereign country and, particularly, when they lost the ensuing war.

So if it happens, I will not support it (or the troops who do it).

In Hawai'i, I would see these old men on the beaches. They'd stick a fishing pole in the sand and fish all day. There'd be a beer filled cooler at their feet. You look at these guys and they seem to be having the times of their lives. You look at them and figure out that their ages put them right in their teens or 20's during WWII and the boming of Pearl Harbor. How stressful for them then, how not so much now. I've decided I want to be one of those old men one day. Weathered but zen.
:)

Sources please.

So, outing a CIA operative, destroying her operation, endangering the people she was working with, and lessing our intelligence effectiveness - all in the name of petty political revenge - is ok with you? Alrighty then.

BTW, do you know what she was doing (in part)? Keeping watch on Iran's nuclear capabilities. Kinda ironic, huh?

Ever hear of "rods from God"? It is a rumored kinetic energy space weapon specifically developed as bunker busters to replace any need for "tactical nukes".

The "rods from God" are gigantic titanium rods (edited to add: they are actually tungsten. I misspoke. Not that I really know the difference between the two.) that are propelled from a satillite at tremendous velocity with some sort of precision guidance system. They are non explosive, but the kinetic energy is so extreme that they are able to penetrate very deep into the ground and have a meteor like destructive force.

Should these actually exist, I would suspect that a few rods could take care of it.

Before he provides the source, if indeed John Kerry did what scaeagles says he did, will you support whatever punishment you feel is appropriate for Bush against Kerry? Or will you find a way to justify what the guy you like did while condemning the guy you don't like/

This is a clip from an article in the NY Times. I have not linked to it because it is a subscription site.


I disagree with the premise of what you are saying for a wide variety of reasons. Should that be what happened, I would agree with you. I do not agree that this is what happened.

However, old news. I realize you are new to this on this board, JW, but it has been discussed here ad infinitum.

Should they actually exist then I'm sure they're included in the plans provided by the Department of Defense on how such a goal could be reached and presumably Sy Hersh just wasn't given that information with the rest.

Then again, should Charlie McGee really exist she could be very helpful in this situation as well.

agreed- it is totally ridiculous.

#1- she was not covert
#2- her and her husband are liars- confirmed by a senate report


I have never seen so many people want to believe the pure BS spewed by Wilson and Plame. The desire to "get Bush" outweighs any kind of rational thought about it. If the media says it, it must be true.....let's ignore anything else that contradicts it.

The Senate report contradicts much of what Wilson said-
Link

Starting on page 39.

(edited to add- what Leo said)

Not according to this:

and yet according to many sources she was not-that her name was common knowledge and so was what she did. She was also working a desk job-

It's all a boondoggle- but one thing I know for damn sure. Joe Wilson is a liar. A proven liar. And a liar with a purpose- and that purpose is to undermine a sitting President- and Joe Wilson makes me sick. Add their publicity whoring tendencies (photo spreads???) seems to put a lie to this whole "it destroyed her life" BS.

Yes, absolutely – if he had done what Bush did.

According to the info Scaeagle posted, it was a totally different situation. Kerry (and a Republican Senator... Scaeagle conveniently left him off of his original post) didn’t “out” him. He had been outed as a CIA operative 2 years earlier. And, they didn’t do so in an attempt to punish a family member of his. It wasn’t done maliciously for political and personal gain. A big difference, in my book.

Yawn....if my motivation was partisan, I could have very easily clipped his name out of the NY Times clip. I am no fan of Richard Lugar.

We can argue about who was covert, who did what was worse (even with the CIA specifically requesting he not be named), blah blah blah. All I know is that with all these "revelations" about leaks, etc, Fitzgerald hasn't found squat except to say that Libby was withholding and/or misrepresenting information, and even some of that has had to be revised by Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald corrects part of court filing

Yawn.

:snap: can't mojo you- gotta give it a snap!

LOL- I love how Republican seems to automatically mean something to people- there are some Pubbies I will gladly give to the other side, TYVM. An I'll take a couple of their Dems in exchange.

So... Anyone who disagrees with the president, and who dares to tell the truth, is a "liar" and is trying "to undermine a sitting President". Huh. Ok.

And of course... No Republican would try and undermine a sitting president. No. Never. Not unless he was a Democrat!

random political thought

If we had less career politicians we'd get more accomplished.

It's politics. Of course people try to undermine the leadership of the other party.

As any good liar knows (not that I claim to be a good liar), what makes your lies more effective is if you mix them with partial truths. Or only tell part of the story. As an example, you tried to accuse me of withholding the name of Lugar in an attempt to tell only half the story (though clearly as I introduced the name of Lugar in the clip this was not the case).

Many things WIlson said were true. Many things Wilson said were not the complete story. Many things Wilson said were lies.

Again, I honestly feel a bit sorry for you in that you've missed these discussions on the board from long ago. To me anyway, and I would guess it is to Scrooge and many others, it isn't worth going through it all again when it is quite easy for all of us to find stories and quotes and opinion pieces that agree with the point of view in question, and the opinions here are not likely to change from it all being hashed out again.

Um, no.

Joe Wilson lied. Check the link to the Senate report. This doesn't have diddly to do with "disagreeing" It has to do with lying, and in this case lying with a purpose to destroy.

Joe Wilson has not told the truth. That would be why I called him a liar.

And the most recent Democrat President undermined himself- um, by LYING. Perjury, ya know. And getting someone else to lie as well- yeah, LYING.

Ok, done now.

(edited to say again- what Leo said- cause he says it so well)

Amen and amen- now if we could get them to pass term limits.

Yeah-right.....

Agreed.

Random thought about politics.

Debate can be fun.

Yelling, screaming, talking down to people or attacking them will never change anyones mind. In fact it will make them more set in their beliefs.

Screw that, you moron! I'll MAKE you see it my way!:) ;)

How dare you imply that I'm a terrorist because I wish you a never ending ride on IASW!

Random political thought:

John McCain is a moron. At a recent speech, speaking of the need for illegal labor (and his bill for turning them all into guest workers), he said that no American would take $50/hour to pick lettuce in Yuma for the season. He even offered to pay it.

Should he come through on his offer, he'll spend his wife's fortune pretty quickly. I know a whole lot of Americans who would take $50 to pick lettuce for a month (or however long the season is).

Out of curiosity, how many fewer? Would having just one do? You cut back on politicians and they get replaced by bureaucrats.

Term limits are also a bad idea because they shift power from the person to the party.

In other words, my view is that we don't need to reduce or limit politicians but simply reduce or limit what government is allowed to do. I don't really care if there are 536 politicians making decisions about defense but I do care if there is one politician making decisions about what I can put in my body.

Is this where I get to call people mentally twisted and throw bugs at you to make you cave into my way of seeing things?;)

Talk about random- did you notce that I agree with you. Not everything is divided by a political gap......we DO need less career politicians!

Hell yes! I'll sign up, and make my kids work illegally too!:D

Alex- can you explain this more?

Your view would work too.

If we had less people in office spending time trying to figure out how to cater to whatever group will get them re-elected we may get some actual work done. Or have less fruitless bills and laws trying to micromanage our lives.

Or you could just appoint me as your occasionally benevolent dictator.

Politics is not an easy game to play (as much as we'd like it to be; but it is made difficult by the fact that we want politicians to ignore special interests except our own) and it takes a lot of time and energy to build the networks and power that allow you to get things done.

With term limits, the politician himself is not really able to develop that power (and what is the point of another person putting a lot of capital into supporting a person who will just be gone in a few years anyway?) and they have to rely on a party to provide it. Instead it is better to scratch the back of the party and let the party scratch back than to scratch the back of the politician and have nobody scratching back in a couple years (and to say that all decisions in politics should be altruistic is the same as saying dark chocolate should fall from the sky on Sundays as a sign of benevolence from our lord savior).

Also, term limits are an embodiment of the idea that there is no such thing as "the best person for the job." That anybody can do it and the most important thing is that as many people as possible cycle through. If Person A really is the most effective person for whatever people want "a senator" to be, why should they be forced to replace him with inferior Person B after a few years? And if you're Person A and want to be involved in getting things done, which is better to be the senator or to be the person at the party who gets to pick and control senators?

Now, there nothing wrong with moving all power to the party instead of the person (most representative democracies work under this method and they generally work fine) but it isn't the way we're set up so if we're going to do it we should do it explicitly and rewrite the constitution.

In looking at the federalist papers (and don't ask me which one....I don't remember), the Senate was designed for the "career" politician, whereas the house was never intended to be filled with those. That was to be the "house of the people" with turnover designed to bring the common man into the process.

Some career politicians are necessary. The House was never intended to be that, however.

Yes, and those same federalists were perfectly capable of designing in term limits and had considered them.

The Senate was never intended to be directly elected by the people, either.

Plus, by handing over the power to the party you don't avoid career politicians you just create career politicians who are beholden more their party than to their constituents.

Isn't that what we already have? Particularly with campaign finance laws that allow large contributions to the party and smaller ones to the candidates? When the party controls the money, as they do, they can give the money to candidates that will tow the line. Both parties punish their elected members that may have voted the wrong way on a bill by withholding party money from their reelection campaigns.

I say outlaw monetary donations to the parties and allow unlimited and fully disclosed contributions to individuals.

Yes, and I oppose campaign contribution limitations in any form (so long as they are publicly reported). I certainly wasn't saying that term limits were the sole cause of an imbalance in party power.

Could you please? I'm beginning to miss my old " :cool: Mentally Twisted :cool: " signature.

Believe what you want. The truth (and history) shall speak for itself.

Of that I have no worries.

I'll vote for that!:D

There are three sides to every story.

Their side
Your side
And the truth

There is some truth in every lie

Some people don't believe in truth

Some people just make up truth

Sentences that fit in fortune cookies are the path to understanding.

Your lucky numbers are 4, 23, 29, 32, 35, 36

My fortune cookie said my lucky numbers were 4 8 15 16 23 42.

Real fortune cookie that I received (lucky numbers changed to protect my winnings):

Keep your expectations realistic
Your lucky numbers are 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42

eta: damn you BTD, those are MY numbers

There are three sides to every fortune cookie.

The fortune side
The lucky numbers side
The fake lucky number side

I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of people play those numbers and what would happen should any major lottery hit those.

Of course, I did not play them in my $220 million powerball for tonight.

What side is going to get me on an island with Josh Holloway?

Wrong thread, Bartop. Please move the Holloway lust to the Lost thread.

(However, Kate and Sun lust are welcome anywhere)

Best post ever - and he even got mojo. :D

Them there are fightin words you redneck commie.*




*JOKE for those who who can't tell!

Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

Could Iran be coming to a confrontation soon?

Iran could have a nuke in 16 days?

If that is true, and I have no idea how long it takes from having enough enrisjed uranium to build a bomb to actually doing it, then something is going to be happening soon.

There is no way Isreal lets them have one. If Isreali intelligence believe that Iran has a nuke in a matter of weeks, then Isreal will do something about it. That fact alone will cause the US to act, because if Isreal acts on it, then it's no longer an issue of Iran having a nuke to other Arab countries (many of whom I would suspect don't want Iran to have a nuke either), it is an issue of Jews launching a strike on Arabs.

I will point out that this takes Iran at their word that they have 54,000 centrifuges. Who knows?

I had a fortune cookie that said the following a couple of weeks ago:

"You have a voice in success for working." (Or something to that effect.)

(No lucky numbers included.) :D

Source

I'm wondering what the status of the levees are. Were permanent fixes made?

What! I'm sure Libby must be lying! He must be! He's not saying what we want him to say! (please note the sarcasm)

Libby Says Bush, Cheney Didn't Authorize CIA Agent's Name Leak

"A former top administration official said President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney authorized him to discuss with reporters intelligence on Iraq's weapons program and didn't authorize leaking a CIA agent's name."

Um, no one EVER said that Libby's testimony pointed to Bush authorizing the Plame leak. That has never been the issue. It's simply that Bush authorized the leak of informally, politically declassified information and, during same conversation where the authorized secrets were leaked (the ones that weren't criminal), other secrets were leaked (that were criminal).

Ball in motion.


* * * * * *

As for Iran ... they stunt they pulled with enriching uranium a few days ago puts them, by most estimates, 5-7 years from building a nuclear weapon.

Don't breathe a sigh of relief just yet. Geopolitics should be 12 times more fuktup by then ... and we'll all likely still be around to experience the fun.



We'll keep this thread open.

Oh, I agree. But are you going to deny that the buzz was that he was going to do so? And that there was great hope (even among some posters on this board, I might add) that Libby would do so?

Maybe, but who cares about details when you're throwing insults?

Or when being ignored....:p

Did someone say something?

Dan Quayle has some interesting things to say...

A few of my favorites...

"I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican" or "I am not the problem. I am a Republican."

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."

(I guess he could see the future...)

And finally...

"I deserve respect for the things I did not do."

Eight more days and I can start telling the truth again.

-- Sen. Chris Dodd (D, Conn.), on the Don Imus show, on campaigning

Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, "Thank God, I'm still alive." But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.
-- Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D, Calif.)


"It isn't pollution that is hurting the environment,
it's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
-Dan Quayle

"I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix."
-Dan Quayle

HAHAHA..... Oh that Dan Quayle. What a card!! (that Boxer one is priceless too.)

Sheila Jackson Lee (D, Texas), while viewing a live feed (well, live if you don't count the 4 minute delay) of the Mars Rover -

"Can you point the camera where the astronauts planted the flag?"

Could have been. Sometimes, when I read what certain people post, I hear the sound of the "Adult" voices from the Peanuts TV shows in my head.

WHA-wha-wha-wha-WHA.

More truth and history- for anyone willing to think outside their box and consider other possibilities-

Link


snip

More in answer about Plame being covert-
Link

The most frustrating thing for me is that it seems that some people want to believe that Bush lied more than they want to find out about truth. They want to see the devil in the shadows and believe negative and bad things rather than open their mind to the possibility that it might not be what they have believed it to be-

Bush lied and people died.

A memo that does not identify Plame as being covert? What good is that? The writer of the memo would be breaking the law if it identified, even to Colin Powell, that the named agent was covert.

Bumper sticker mentality???

and the convenient selective memory trick.

Impressive.

Not

If you are referring to me.. I'll point you back to the title of this thread. Random Political Thoughts.

and my response was a random response to a random comment- inspired by yours.

What's the point?

Wait..never mind.

If we've taken over a country full of oil, how come our gas is still so expensive?

[quasi-sarcasam peoples]

The whole point is to make it even more expensive ... but to have the money line the pockets of Exxon/Mobil's CEO (who, it was just recently reported, during the period 1993 thru 2005, had a salary of $150,000 PER DAY!!!!)

For years we've been told we're going to run out of gas, that peak oil is in the rear view mirror. That the oil companies have overstated their reserves. Well, if all of that is true then perpetually rising oil prices (without necessarily a concomitant increase in cost of production) is going to be the product.

If we're not pumping more oil out of the ground but a lot more people want oil for a lot more puposes then that is going to spell a whole lot of wealth for the people with the oil without any market manipulation required.

For me, I don't really care how much the oil companies make, it isn't like I was shedding tears for them when they were all going broke in the '80s.

iSm: I haven't seen the story and it doesn't make a huge difference, but was that actually salary or realized bonuses and incentives?

That was pure salary.

It's not that I mind oil companies making profits, even huge ones for something so in demand. But it is so in demand that it's an essential commodity that has passed the tipping point of availability. Without alternate sources of energy within a century, all recognizable economic activity on the earth will stop.

I'm of the opinion that anything that essential should be regulated. And the ever-increasing costs of something that essential should be controlled by governments such that oil company executives get filthy rich, but not obscenely rich.

Sorry, but that number of $150,000 a day just stunned me. An amount I aspire to make in a year is earned in salary alone by one man in a day. Socialist or not, I don't want the food or water or health or justice or essential energy industries run for the same profit motive as general capitalism allows.

Such a thing may stifle innovation, but it would also stifle greed. I think a balance should be struck. And the Exxon/Mobil CEO making $150K each time the sun rises is not the kind of balance I find properly balanced.

But as the cost of oil and gas rise, the alternatives become cheeper and people become both both more entrepenurial and inventive. I think this is where the market plays a good role here. Rationing and regulation won't spur the development of alternatives.

Sorry, but I think taxes should fund research into energy alternatives, and into health solutions. I think great, vast, unbearable evils come from running life-essential endeavors for the standard profit motive.

And yet it seems to have worked quite nicely up to this point - the government has too much politics around it, favors to play - research funneled into pet projects for a given district corn based ethenol for example.

You can use the taxes to fund research into alternatives but if you cap prices those alternatives don't necessarily become economical until the commodity simply runs out.

If fuel cells become economical when gas hits $90 a barrel then it will never become economical if government caps it at $75 a barrel. Plus, unless you have a world government imposing a global cap, a cap will just encourage oil to flow away from capped nations to nations without caps and we begin to set up a repeat of what caused the power shortages in California back in 2000.

As for the salary, can you point me to the story on that iSm? I was shocked by that number myself and looking at the 2005 proxy for ExxonMobil it shows that Raymond's salary in 2005 was $4 million with a $4.9 million bonus. That's a lot of money but nowhere near $150,000/day (which would be $54 million/year). Are you sure you're not talking about his retirement package?

You cannot tell another country at what price to sell their oil. Simple supply and demand. OPEC restricts production, prices rise. They raise production, prices fall. The only alternative is to saturate the market place to bring the prices down. (This, of course, does not bring into consideration natural disasters and political unrest.)

Hmmm....how can we do that? Sadly, we don't have the production capacity to do anything about it, and while I won't go into discussion of those I beleive responsible for our inability to produce domestic oil, the only solution to ensure the free flow of oil to meet our needs is to produce oil domestically.

Anyone who wishes can go read various information at the USGS website, and I have in the past, but there is a whole mess of oil we could access in a wide variety places domestically.

Aside from that, though, I believe the shortest and most practical answer lies in the trillions of tons of shale throughout the rocky mountains. If I recall what I've read correctly, shale oil can be extracted at a cost (to the purchaser) of about $90/barrel. That will cap what the price of oil is coming from foreign sources. What needs to happen is development and streamlining of existing processes to enable extraction more inexpensively. Should we lower what it costs to extract that by 20%, OPEC then has incentive to raise their production limits to lower the costs to again be significantly below that production cost of shale oil, making it impractical from a profit standpoint to continue to pursue shale oil.

My personal favorite, though, is US investment in Mexico oil exploration and production, They have a hell of a lot of oil, so if they become a major player in the oil market, they have more money locally, and Mexican citizens can find work in Mexico, solving their economic problems as well as our illegal immigration problem.

Mexico has a hell of a lot of resources, but they've got a hell of a lot of political corruption, too.

Did some more poking around and it appears that the $150,000/day number refers to his 2005 income only, not 1993-2005. Most of the $51 million he made in 2005 came not in salary or bonus but in exercising previously granted stock options.

On tonight's Daily Show Jon Stewart said the total retirement package of $400 million (most of which is tied up in outstanding stock options as well as participation in the same pension plan that all Exxon people are part of) was equal to $150,000/day for every day Raymond worked for Exxon. This is neither true of his full run at Exxon (46 years) nor his time as Chairman (12 years). At $150,000/day that equals about 7 years. Still a lot of money, though.

What's interesting to me in looking deeper at this is how screwed up the general media is at reporting financial numbers. Headline after headline says he is getting a $400 million dollar retirement package. As near as I can the source of this number is a cobbling together of money mostly unrelated to his retirement and the biggest chunk of it is pretty much statutorily required.

Components of the $400 million number seems to be:

$4,000,000 - 2005 salary
$4,900,500 - 2005 bonus
$32,087,000 - 2005 restricted stock award
$7,484,508 - 2005 incentive plan payout
$450,800 - other compensation

You can argue that these are excessive and I'd generally support that notion. But they have nothing to do with his retirement. That is compensation for 2005, prior to his retirement. Also, the third item there is not actual cash payout, according to the proxy statement he can't sell any of those shares for five years so the value could go down significantly before then. That's about $48 million of the $400. The other expenses are mostly non-cash such as bodyguards, club memberships, cars, personal use of company aircraft.

Then there is this stuff:

$3,089,400 - Restricted stock dividends paid in 2005.
$21,212,022 - Exercised stock options in 2005.

Again, neither of these have anything to do with his retirement. They also have nothing to do with compensating him for work in 2005. This is the result of compensation given in previous years.

Then we have some pseudo-money:

$69,630,280 - unexercised stock options
$151,027,200 - value of previously granted restricted stock
$4,900,500 - future payouts from existing long-term incentive program


Again, nothing to do with either retirement or 2005 compensation. These are grants that accumulated in previous years. Approximately 1/3 Raymond's existing stock options are under water and by the time he can exercise it is possible they all would be or they could be worth much more than this amount. Same with the restricted shares which can't be sold for 5-9 years depending on grant date.

The incentive plan I can quite figure out but I believe it also derives from past years and not current years.

$98,437,831 - lump sum pension payout
$1,000,000 - post-retirement "consulting" fee
Other services exptected to be under $1,000,000 year

Finally, these are the only things in the $400 million retirement package that actually have anything to do with his retirement. The lump sum payment is part of the defined pension plan at ExxonMobil and the executives participate in the exact same plan as everybody else. The man has been an executive in the company for 46 and gets a huge payout. But this big piece of change was not a gift from the Board of Directors; there was absolutely no discression in its receipt. The consulting thing is a sham that most major companies do to "ensure a smooth transition" and the other services mostly have to do with continuing bodyguards, club memberships, and other personal services.


Sorry to go into such detail but I didn't really have another venue for it and the way the non-financial press covers these things always pisses me off. Yes, Raymond was paid a lot. But they've essentially screwed up the $400 million thing completely. Also, they act like this was all a surprise.

The man did not negotiate a retirement package and get a big old bear hug from the directors. If in January 2005 you had been told Raymond would retire in January 2006 you could put together almost the entire $400 million detailed here by looking at the public informatin in the last few proxy reports. The only uncertain spot would be the 2005 bonus and restricted stock grant.

I have no problem with the argument that the market has overvalued CEOs and chairmen (they have) but when people show so little understanding of what they are talking about it just distracts the discussion from where it should be.

^ Thanks for the detail, Alex. I was too lazy to go digging for confirmation of what I heard on the car radio and then glanced at in the newspaper. What a cool thing this here intraweb is.

That is amazing detail, and I share your disgust of the laziness of the news media. I am curious - how long did it take you to compile the information you post, Alex?

It took me longer to write the post than to compile the information. All it can be found in the 2005 ExxonMobil proxy statement. Not only that, it is all on just 10 consecutive pages of the proxy statement.

People are too afraid of SEC filings. Yes, they can sometimes be arcane but 90% of the time everything is laid out in relatively plain English. Just remember to read the footnotes.

What I am amazed by is that no reporters decided to do the same thing as you did. Laziness? Sensationalizing? Figuring the stupid public (which is what I think most in the media think of the public in general) couldn't grasp it?

I'm sure there are reporters who have done what I did. But most of the headlines you're seeing are based on the same wire story and wire stories are rarely re-reported.

And there is always the chance that I am wrong and there are other retirement package components I've missed. But the stories I found referenced the proxy statement so if it is in there I'm completely missing it.

And here's another logical flaw I'm starting to see pop up in the reporting. Admittedly this is from a blog but I've seen it elsewhere this morning:

So not only is the $51 million included in the $400 million it is then highlighted to show just how out of line his compensation was for his last year of employment. This, of courses, counts the $51 million twice. It also fails to note that 70% of the $51 million is from compensation given in previous years and not compensation awarded in 2005.

Getting rid of Rumsfeld is like firing Homer at the Springfield Power Plant. The real problem is Mr. Burns.

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Gemini Cricket again.

Moussaoui clearly wants to die. Whether it's because he's afraid of prison, or if he wants martyr status, who knows? Probably a little of both. But clearly he was just an annoying hanger-on, desparate for the attention, but completely on the outside of the real workings. So now he's just trying to bolster his role to make himself look more important. And, unless he's completely off the deep end, I can't imagine he thinks he's fooling Allah into givin' him the virgins, he must just really want some mortal recognition. I find myself leaning more towards pity for the pathetic bastard (not pity as in, "I think he's a good soul gone astray," pity as in, "You're gonna spend a miserable life in prison because you're filled with hate, and yet astoundingly ineffectual. Sucks to be you.")

Regarding Moussaoui - Can a US court sentence someone to life in solitary confinement? He'd be too much of a hero or teacher while spending a lifetime in prison with others. That's not good.

Source

Uh, that's kinda scary.
:eek:

Well, you know, he is The Decider.

There is an old saying among musicians that when you are in a situation where you might have to perform a song that you haven't learned beforehand and don't really know, you play it "wrong but strong". The idea being that if you are confident in your playing and look like you know what you are doing, the people watching just might think you know what you are doing. You can get away with a lot of bad notes that way.

That to me best describes Bush's way of handling things...wrong but strong.

Has any president since James Garfield promised not to use nukes to change the mind of people who wanted to keep the nation on the silver standard ever publicly ruled out the possibility of using nuclear weapons in a conflict?

Not to the best of my ability to recall. And yet everybody gets all excited every few years with the "president won't rule out nukes; reveals self as monstrous maniac!" headlines. You can find the same headlines about Clinton, Bush, and Reagan. I don't know how far back it could go because I don't know when peole developed the silly idea that the president might actually publicly reject a specific military tactic ahead of time.

I would be strongly opposed to the use of any nuclear weapon to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I also would be opposed to the president saying ahead of time that he wouldn't use them.

Gotta love a voice of reason-

Actually, I would adore a president who said flat out that the U.S. would only use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear strike.

As means of aggression or unmatched use of force, weapons that have the potential to destroy all higher forms of life on earth should be taken off the table by the president of the United States.

I wonder what the reaction here would be if another country took a "premeptive strike" against us.

Oh wait...

Probably about the same as the last time it happened.

Why don't people see that what we're doing to other countries in the name of a "premeptive strike" is pretty much what was done to us. :(

Can you really blame them for wanting to cause us harm? What was our reaction? Let's bomb em! We should be thankful that so far the countries involved don't have the ability to get a bomb to us on their own. If they did we'd be playing a different ball game and maybe we'd stop acting like such a bully.

While I'm still against the concept of preemptive strikes, there's a big difference between directly targeting a civilian building and military action against another military (which is what the war in Iraq started as).

Other countries? Which other countries?

Afghanistan wasn't a preemptive strike. They were assisting the terrorists who planned and funded 9/11.

I can see the argument that Iraq was a preemptive strike, but I do not subscribe to it myself, as the reality is that Iraq repeatedly violated cease fire agreements from the first gulf war.

Where else have we preemptively struck? We haven't done anything to Iran. We haven't done anything to Syria.

I do blame them for wanting to cause us harm. I do not think we are a bully. We deposed a terrorist sympathetic government in Afghanistan, and deposed the leader of a country who wouldn't abide by agreements he made after he was removed from Kuwait.

What were we doing prior to 9/11 that should in any way been seen as excusing 9/11? Supporting Isreal?

Surely you jest?

How far back do you wanna go in the history of U.S. blowback?

I don't jest. You are saying that we deserved the attacks of 9/11 and that they were justified? Sorry, but I do not subscribe to that school of thought.

I don't think any attacks are justified, but I can certainly see why our world actions and bully presence got us into a situation where it did happen.

Please talk to me about our bully actions. Seriously. I have never considered us to be a bully nation. Are we talking militarily?

In the last century, what can I think of?

Participation in WWI.
Participation in WWII.
Korea.
Bay of Pigs.
Vietnam.
Failed rescue attempt in Iran.
Afghanistan (assisting rebels)
Grenada.
Nicaragua (assisting rebels)
Panama.
Gulf War I, and the extension of it in Gulf War II.
Afghanistan.

I see all of those as reaction to other bullies or as a direct action to protect allies or our citizens. I can see two exceptions to that, being the Bay of Pigs and ousting Noriega from Panama (it was Noriega, right?). We can argue about the logic of particiapting in Korea or Vietnam or helping Afghan rebels when the Soviets invaded (now there's a bully nation, thankfully having returned to dust) or whatever, but how can those things be regarded as us being a bully or an aggressor?

Are we talking economic bullying? I suppose I don't know enough about that to say yes or no.

Are we talking about not giving in to what the rest of the world wants, like Kyoto?

I see bullies out there. Plenty of them. Oppressors of their own people. Saber rattlers who proclaim that Isreal must be run into the sea and that Jews must be exterminated. Warlords who starve people to control them. Plenty of former ones as well that no longer exist, like (Nazi) Germany and the USSR. I do not consider us to be in that company.

Edited to add: I have no doubt my list is incomplete. I have been thinking of others since I posted, most significantly the naval blockade of Cuba.

Well, your list of facts is impressive, but it doesn't seem to help the impression and perception of many others in the world that we are the big bully's as opposed to the benevolent leaders and protectors. It's always a sad wake up call to hear how many citizens of other countries the world over percieve us. It doesn't really matter if the perceptions are based in facts or not, it's a perception that needs some attention IMHO or we will will be in for more terrible catashtophes.

Let's look at Somalia. Our primary mission there was humanitarian, if not solely, even to the point that we wouldn't provide troops with armored personel carriers to avoid the appearance of looking like we were trying to be bullies. Did it do us any good? Not in the least. The result was the troops that were there to pass out food ended up getting shot at and killed.

No matter what we do, there will be opposition from someone. Those who perceive our actions as unacceptable or wrong. The simple fact is that in a big world there is no way to please everyone. So you do what you think is best. I realize that this means other groups or countries will do what they think is best. Sadly, this means that conflicts arise. The difference is that we typically win. I won't go into the numerous reasons why we do, but when you are at the top of the food chain economically and militarily, others are gunning for you because they want to be in that position.

In a world of unending conflict, where there will always be conflict, I will make no apologies about being happy that we usually come out on top in those conflicts, because I am on our side. I am not saying in any way that anyone here is not on "our side", but I think many here have an unrealistic view of the world in that conflict can and should be avoided at all costs. I don't think many governments or peoples in the world think that way, though they often play the part when it suits their interests. Considering that I believe us to be the most free country there is (based on rights we have gauranteed to us in our Constitution that no other country has), I want us to be in a position to be able to continue to ensure that freedom. And that means when conflict arises that it is our responsibility and in our best interest to have it come out our way.

Let's look at the current situation in Palestine. And, because looking at an individual situation in isolation without looking at the larger world picture is particularly pointless, let's combine it with the larger world picture. In fact, let's start with the larger world picture which, for the last three or so years, has been about Bush's drum-beat about freedom and democracy. Freedom and democracy is the Middle East's path to being a player in the world economy without sanctions. Freedom and deomcracy is what we respect. Hold free, democratic elections, and the will of the people will guide your countries to happiness and prosperity!

Unless you elect Hamas.....

Do you see the inherent bullying b.s. of that attitude? Here we are in Iraq, dozens of people dying nearly daily, and our whole message is that we're bringing them the glory of free elections. And yet we turn around and pull the rug out from under the Palestinians, who have just held the freest elections the Muslim world has seen in a long time.

Now, I'm NOT saying I disagree with cutting off aid and political negotiations with Hamas. They are terrorists and until they move the way of the PLO, they should be treated as such. But the lesson that I think needs to be drawn is that we need to shut the hell up with this whole, "Our ways of democracy and freedom are your ticket to splendor" bullsh!t. It's the hypocritical attitude of "We're going to fight for your freedom...as long as it's our brand of freedom!" that gives the US its reputation. By all means, join in support of those fighting for freedom, but running around the world espousing free elections as the one, absolute answer for everyone is guaranteed to land us in this exact position, because there is no absolute answer for everyone.

While I see your point, I disagree with your conclusion.

I don't think the point has ever been that free elections is the end to your problems. We have enough problems in our own country to know this is not the case. However, it is a first step.

I am not surprised that the Palestinians voted as they did. They danced in the streets when 9/11 happened (prior to "pulling the rug out from under them", as you put it), and financially support suicide bombers killing innocent civilians. I think this is exactly what was expected. What happened is we went from a position of having to deal with Arafat and the PLO, who were never interested in peace (as Clinton was able to demonstrate when he got Isreal to agree to 96% of the land the Palestinians were demanding and they turned it down), to having exposed them as a country that truly does not desire peace in that they elected Hamas, who as a group has sworn to eliminate Isreal.

You see bullying. I see great foreign policy.

Once again you've narrowed your view to an isolated situation, rather than the world perspective. I told you I don't disagree with the decission to not deal with Hamas. I disgree with us throwing our weight around spouting our ideals when we (correctly) don't hold to them when it's convenient for us.

Once again you fail to see the uniqueness of this situation.

I understand you agree with the decision, and you clearly stated so. I think you are misreading what happened. There was an election. We have not gone in and overthrown the government and installed a different one. We have simply said "OK, you've made you choice. We don't support terrorist governments." It is most certainly holding to two of our foreign policy philosophies, being the pursuit of democratically elected governments and not dealing with terrorists. It is completely consistent with our stated foreign policy goals.

I understand all that. But from the perspective of the citizens of the countries we've invaded and have threatened to invade, that's not the message. When we spend 3 years spewing rhetoric about freedom, this looks like complete undermining of what we're spouting.

Madeningly, so much can be fixed simply with a change of attitude, not a change of action. If Bush had focused on the situation at hand, rather than going on and on about the spread of freedom across the world, it wouldn't look nearly as bad. But all of his posturing has set us up to look like bullies.

"Shake it up" ~ The Cars
 

I thought Scott McClellan was the worst press secretary EVER. And that's saying a lot!

Random political thought:

Should I post random political thoughts while I have four vicodin in my system. Probably not.

For the record, these are my first vicodin ever (been prescribed many times, never taken). They don't seem to do much in the actual way of pain relief, just a feeling of blickiness.

Are you combining the drug thread and political thread?

Sorry to hear that you have had to take vicodin. Hope the pain goes away.

When I was on drugs, the stuff the liberals were posting did make more sense.:)

Scaeagles has done more posting under the influence than anyone else on these boards. I figured it was his coping mechanism.:p:D

What, pray tell, is wrong with you that you have taken 4 Vicodin? I had 1/4 of a boob removed and I wa only up to two a day.

Wisdom tooth removal. I took one and it seemed to have absolutely no effect. I took the second and while it didn't seem to have much effect I slept for most of the afternoon so I don't. I'm on the second cycle now.

I think I'm somewhat impervious to painkillers. For a root canal last year they had to inject me with novocaine five times before I got the numbness they wanted. Once I had to get stiches in my face and they had to inject lidocaine four times since feeling kept returining too quickly.

Ahhh, I have the same problem. I am a 4 Advil gal.

Wisdom teeth are the worst. I had all 4 done at once and I was glad I didn't have to do it again.

I may have to go back. Because of the root placement they used a less common technique of removing only half of each of the bottoms. Odds are good that they'll heal and that little bit of tooth will just remained buried in my forever. There's also a fair chance I'll have to get it get infected or rejected so that my body will naturally move the tooth bits so that they can go in and remove them.

From the description of your vicodin reaction, I'd say you were indeed impervious to proper painkiller effects. The symptom you describe is how vicodin usually effects people who have no pain symptoms.

That's why I dispose of vicodin once the pain is over. The drug acts entirely differently on systems with and without pain. For those with pain, it is a usually excellent painkiller with no druggie effects. For those without, just a general downer, drugged out, "blicky" effect.

My medical advice to you, Alex: Don't get hurt.

Nonesense - there's always morphine

Vicodine, codine, morphine, heroin, laudnum, oxycodone, etc are all opiods or opium dirivitives. They all act basically the same way but some are semisynthetic or synthetic.

Some people don't react the same as other to opiates and they don't seem to work. I find that Advil does more for me than the opiate family.

And none of them work on me as well as Advil. Although if I actually take vicodine I get to experience the joy that is projectile vomiting.

According to recent reports, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are now costing us 10 billion dollars a month, twice as much as the first year.

This breaks down to approx. $231,481.00 per minute.

How much of that is spent in-country and how much State-side? The State-side money should mostly go right back into our economy and the money spent over there can't hurt their economies any.

The time I had a kidney stone a morphine drip did seem to act quickly. But that is the only time before today that I've ever taken non-local painkillers (the kidney stone passed before I came off the morphine). My sample size is so small who knows what works and what doesn't.

Steve, since they don't seem to be acting as anything other than a sleeping pill I'd already decided to skip them unless pain becomes absolutely unbearable or I can't get to sleep.

sleepyjeff: a bullet that does a $0.04 boost to the stateside economy can do a lot more than in damage to the warside economy and vice versa.

I don't follow:confused:

Wow ... and here I was complaining (in one thread or another) that the Exxon CEO was making $150,000 a day.

Kinda puts things in perspective.

Have some vicodin. It seems to help scaeagles understand. :)

Well, the total U.S. budget outlay for 2006 is $3,026,000,000,000 ($3.026 billion) which works out to $5,761,035 per minute. Or $96,017 per second. So maybe you can see why scaeagles gets upset.

Seems kind of hard to believe that the United States received $96,000 worth of benefit from the government every single second.

I'am strictly an Advil kind a guy;)

Well, I don't don't about how this helps us (stateside) over all, but I do know that the guy who got the Pentagon contract for body armor (David Brooks) gave his daughter a $10,000,000 bat mitzvah and provided employment for such illustrious groups as Aerosmith, Don Henley, 50 Cent and the like. Of course, this was before his defective armor was recalled and he got in trouble with the SEC and investors started filing lawsuits......

I'm just sure that's gonna trickle some direction to us. Really.

(Even Eisenhower knew what the hell was going to happen, Jeff- and what he was afraid of is happening now).

No, no, no.....I'm a percocet man. Vicodin made me hurl big time. Not fun after abdominal surgery.

Exactly who do you suppose would invade our country if we dismantled the Department of Defense and went back to calling it, and using it as, the Deparment of War ... i.e., no having no significant military power unless and until a time of war (war being declared, per that pesky Constitution thingy, by the Congress and not the president)?????


I think we could get things down to spending only $50K per second, and still pump up our vital infrastructure, our health services, our education services, our justice systems, our energy futures, our economic picture, our disaster response capabilities, and our internal & border security measures. All for less than what we are currently spending on "defense."

Is our military really protecting us from invasion? Note I say "invasion," and not "attack." It's been proven that petty criminals can mount a fairly credible attack. I mean a true military threat to our country? Where exactly would that be coming from???

No such thing as a perfect economic or political system.

"Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." Winston Churchill.

Same could be said for capitalism and economic systems, I suppose.

Wasteful spending is wasteful spending. Plenty of it in the military, plenty of it in social programs, plenty of it in education.....suffice it to say anywhere in government. Not good anywhere.

Regardless, I am not a deficit hawk. I have always struggled to put into words why not, but here is an absolutely brilliant explanation as to why.

Is there a federal deficit?

It depends on what you mean by military attack. Do psychotic leader such as North Korea's Kim Jong (mentally) Ill and Iran's whatever-the-heck-his-name-is scare me? Absolutely. N. Korea already has nukes (I won't bring up how they got them, as that might be seen as slamming previous administrations, and who cares about history). Iran is closing in on them.

China scares me a bit in that they have nukes, and now have ballistic missile ability (please see previous parenthetical comment), have puppet governments in their neck of the woods, and are most likely going to invade Taiwan at some point. If we protect Taiwan, our ally, then we will basically be at war with China, who is quite formidable.

So.....yeah. There are true military threats to our country.

But, insanity aside, what would be the economic or military motive for invading the United States?

Though there have been cases of insanity-wars, most military adventures throughout history have been economic in nature. Would someone want to enslave our population? Would it be our vast coal resources? Colonization of a land with lots of water and agriculture? What are we so in danger of?

Saying we are in danger of kooks with nukes is like saying you are in danger of being hit by a bus today.

It's possible, but I wouldn't advise spending half of your weekly paycheck on avoiding that bus accident.

I find it sad that when there is a group out there who want us converted or dead- who kill gay men for the act of simply being gay- who want to impose their religion on those who claim to want freedom from such things- who want to subjugate women-the response is "we don't need the military, we're the bad guys, and we need to just stop defending ourselves"

Sad......and blind

Why is it that soooo many people don't see the grey. It must be boring in black and white. Or, maybe it is just easier to understand that way.

when people want you dead Lisa- there is no grey.

They are using our lax illegal immigration laws to sneak in and get false papers.

They are setting up camp in our country, for the purpose of destroying us.

If we stop fighting them-we will welcome their threat into our homes.

YOU of all people-with some of the dear friends you have close to your heart-should not be seeing grey when it comes to such a threat.

You can't paint this with grey paint and make Islamic radicals into your friends- you value your independence, your ability to travel, you treasure free thought and art and expression- you're a free spirit- and these people want to take that away from you- for being a woman, for being NON-Muslim.

So you want to tell me how I see the world- in black and white- I guess I would have to say that I think you are seeing it through rose colored lenses that refuse to acknowledge the threat to all that you love.

What I find sad is that we are not going after the terrorists, just all the people that look like them- except in our airports, of course.


Scaeagles, I am surprised at your restraint regarding the slamming of prior admins- is this some new policy?;):p

Sane people don't scare me with nukes. Insane people do. I regard the leaders of N. Korea and Iran to be insane. You are attempting to apply logic to those that are not logical. You are attempting to apply economic sense to those who don't care about economics. The "kooks with nukes" phrase spells out exactly why we must be prepared - kooks aren't exactly predictable. Should North Korea decide to do something stupid like nuke Japan, or should Iran be far ahead of where we believe they are with regards to acquiring nukes and take out Isreal, or somehow they got one into LA, the buzz would be that not enough attention was paid to those two countries and that we didn't do enough to prevent it. Isn't that what happened with 9/11? Why weren't we more prepared? Shouldn't we have been able to prevent it?

What bothers me, and I do it as well, is second guessing everything. Whenever something bad happens, the cry is that we should have been able to prevent it. If we are actively working to prevent cetain things, and nothing on those fronts happens, then often the cry is that we are doing too much to stop something that is not the threat. It's a no win.

I do not fear a direct invasion by the Chinese anymore than I feared a direct invasion by the Soviets. However, I do fear what will happen when China decides to finally invade Taiwan.

As far as economic, crippling the US economy would bring great joy to Kim Jong Ill and Iran's guy (I just have no idea how to spell his name), as well as to a whole bunch of other smaller players in the world, like a Syria or the Palestinians or Chavez in Venezuela or Cuba or.....the list goes on and on. China needs our dollars in trade too much to directly attack us, and I believe that fact alone is why they have yet to invade Taiwan.

I guess I'm just not as paranoid. I realize the threat that ALL radicals have on my life and those I love, but I just can't make a blanket statement about one race or belief system because of a few radicals. Nor can I justify being reactionary just for the purpose of attempting control or something we have little control over.

I also think it is important to look at our own actions and take responsability for them and , perhaps, change our ways a bit. The old, point one finger and there's three pointing back at you phrase applies here.

Islamic radicals are not my friends.

Neither are Christian radicals who bomb abortion clinics, who want us converted or dead, who kill gay men for the act of simply being gay- who want to impose their religion on those who claim to want freedom from such things- who want to subjugate women.

Yup Nephy, I can take your entire statement and apply it to Christian radicals as well. Can we use our military against them too? Pretty please with sugar on top? Heck, they're already in our country, it will be cheaper then going overseas.

I got tired of being told that history didn't matter, and that everything in the world that has gone wrong or could go wrong is as a direct result of this administration.

So yeah....perhaps it is a new policy, but not because I don't think it still applies.:p

Repeat after me....."posse comitatus".

I realize your comment is tongue in cheek, but just for the record, someone who bombs abortion clinics is no Christian.

You do understand that the rights of religious freedom and the rights of women in Iraq is decreasing post-invasion, rather than increasing, right? Iraq was a secular nation. Now, it's new constitution clearly states that Islam will be the official language. If you think that bodes well for women, gays, religious freedom, or the US, I fear you are mistaken.

But someone who bombs a restaurant in Baghdad is a Muslim?

You bring up an interesting point.

I believe that Islam is moving more and more in the direction of violence in order to achieve their goals. I do not believe this is the case with Christianity today. Today, "radical Chirstians" are those who would try to use the political process to achieve their goals. There are idiots like you Fred Phelps crowd, but I am not aware of daily violence (or even monthly violence) as a method of acquiring power.

Radical Islam most certainly does. And you don't find many Muslim leaders - whether Imams or whomever - condemning violence against Jews and Israel.

See this just proves my point. 10 million dollars on a bat mitzvah that may of not have happened had the pentagon not spent that money. I am sure that most of those working the mitzvah were middle to lower class. Some of that money would make its way back to the feds thru taxes......all I am saying is that what looks like an incredible amount of money is not just being flushed down the toilet.......

I gotta disagree with you on that one, sleepy. While not "flushed", whenever the government spends money that is wasteful or unnecessary, it takes money out of the private sector, and I see nothing good about it.

I would think that each soldier that didn't receive their body armor as a result of the money going to Aerosmith, might not look as favorably on the situation as you do.

You have got to be kidding.

Not really. Where do you think that 10 million went?

And "Islamic" terrorist bombers are no Muslims, either.

Please refer to my post a couple posts after the one you quoted in response to GD's similar question (#217 in the thread).

Sheesh. All I got was a DJ. I think I'll sue my parents or something now.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=19444

What do I win?

I find it appalling that there are people that immediately associate “Islamic” with “Terrorist”; people who condemn all of Islam for the actions of a fanatical and deranged few. And before some says “But mainstream Islam is evil because it does not condemn the fanatics!”, stop and think about the resounding silence of mainstream Christianity in this country when it comes to fanatical Christians – not just the Fred Phelps and the Pat Robertsons, but the Scalitos, and the Wildmons, and the Reeds, too. Where is the Christian outrage at the hate these people spew? When mainstream Christianity starts chastising people like this for their un-Christian behavior, then they can condemn mainstream Islam, and only then.

I suppose that for some it is far easier to live in hate and fear than it is to think for themselves – far easier to reduce the world to “us” vs. “them” than to try and gain understanding of those who are different. I just can not understand the mindset that says we must fear and hate that which is different, simply because it is different. It shocks me that, in this day and age, with our ever shrinking global community, there are still those who consider everything that is “foreign” to be a threat; something to be contained and destroyed lest it attack us in our sleep. How sad.

And I find it sad (and quite inexcusable, frankly) that you equate political processes and words with the daily bombings in Isreal.

Deranged "few"? Just how small do you think Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Al Qaida and Al Aqsa Matryrs Brigade and (insert the other numerous Islamic terror organizations here) are?

Edited to add: I just want to reinforce that I have not said that all Islamic people are radical Islamists who support bombing and/or terrorism.

I'd respond, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

The extremists may have large numbers, but they are in the minority. I suspect that the majority of Muslims privately do not condone the bombings, but remain silent publicly out of misguided loyalty to their religion (or fear of being labled heritics) - much like Christians here at home.

So the motivation comes down to "hatred" (Nephythys) and "insanity" (scaeagles).

One is a dangerous motive without capability, and the other is capability without a credible motive.

I'm talking INVASION, not a mere attack. An endangerment of our nation, not the slaughter of some of our people. Sheesh, more people die in traffic accidents everyday than died in 9/11. And the vast majority of "terror cells" in the United States are comprised of Americans.

Does anyone want to either take over our country or wipe it off the face of the earth, with the ability to do so? If someone with their hand on the button is so crazy that they want to wipe out a billion people, what kind of threat is their own retaliatory destruction?

In other words - if suicide bombers start using nuclear bombs, how is there any way to stop them? Why waste the money on trying?

It's quite simple, really. I am expressing disgust with the violence performed by Islamic radicals. You said:

The "fanatical Christians" as you put it, by and large, aren't out killing people they disagree. Radical Islamists are. Daily. And they want more of it. You are making a comparison between non-violent Christian "radicals" and ultra-violent Islamic terrorists by saying that equal comdemnation should exist of words and of killing people.

Edited to add:
Another quote:

I would agree with that sentiment, but again you have compared a lack of vigorous opposition to spoken word as equivalent to lack of opposition to blowing up restaurants.

I will agree that invasion is not something we are likely to face. At least militarily. One might argue with validity that 11 million illegals constitutes an invasion of sorts, but that isn't what we're talking about here.

If we stop trying to prevent a suicide bomber with a nuke, then we will certainly end up facing one. We may anyway.

I find your comparison to traffic accidents like saying since we can't stop traffic accidents, we should throw out stop lights and speed limits. After all, they'll happen anyway.

President Hu?

I loved that the Chinese President was heckled today. So nice for him to be exposed to something here without the power to imprison the heckler.

Do you think that hate speach doesn't cause violent actions? When someone goes out and beats or kils a gay man because their church leaders taught them to hate gays, I find those church leaders just as responsible, moraly, as the person doing the physical act. They may not have struck a physical blow, but by their words, they incited the actions of others. And those that remain silent about those words must also carry part of the guilt.

How, exactly, would that be possible?

That's awesome.

Couldn't disagree more. Words are words. Those who do the actions (or plan the actions) bear the blame themselves.

Prevention of terrorist states, like Iran, from acquiring them is a good first step.

Right now there are machines being installed (or that have been installed - I am not sure of the time line) that scan ports and ships for radiation signatures common to nuclear weapons.

There is monitoring of terrorist "chatter".

And there are probably hundreds of other things going on that I have no idea about.

The interesting thing about the gathering of intelligence and successes in the intelligence world is that revealing successes will often lead to revealing the methods employed in those successes, therefore rendering those methods less successful.

There is no fool proof method, however. It is an ongoing tricky process that cannot be relaxed. It is only a matter of time until the next attack (nuke, dirty bomb, or otherwise) that will leave the press and the populace screaming "why weren't we doing more to prevent it?!?!".

If words are the issue can I charge several members of certain forums with hate speech for the outrageous and hateful things said about what I believe in?

(sarcasm..tounge in cheek- for those who forget that I do that sometimes too)

But we should be. It's PRECISELY the kind of invasion that our prime enemies, the radical muslims, are expert at perpetrating. They are systematically taking over Europe. But a military is not the solution to this true colonization threat.

Which again begs my question, why waste half our GNP on military "defense?" when the only credible threat comes from legalized immigration?


* * * *

We are indeed defending our country's economic interests throughout the world. Wars and military adventures have rarely been waged for anything else. As with almost any human endeavor, follow the money.

But are we getting the proper bang for our buck by defending our economic interests with wars, invasions, military occupations, maintaining overwhelming military superiority, and maintaining military readiness via bases spanning every corner of the globe? If our military purposes are economic, are we spending more than we are receiving?

How could we ever stop shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles from getting into the US?

Guilty plea in missile smuggling

Similar to things that would go on to prevent a nuke from being smuggled i, I would suppose.

In regards to President Bush meeting with Hu today, I would love it if Bush asked him why a Chinese General was implicated, but somehow I doubt that's going to happen.

100% agreed. However, if I recall, you are against building a high tech wall to prevent (or at least drastically slow) this invasion. This is an area that I completely agree Bush is failing drastically in, and it should be his highest priorty, as those very few Constitutionally mandated federal responsibilities include protecting the borders of the US.

And how much does all this cost, compared to the cost of -say- occupying Iraq? The measures you listed are indeed akin to the traffic lights and stop signs of the motoring world. They are reasonable, and reasonably priced preventive methods. Would you find a cop on every corner in America a reasonable method of preventing traffic accidents? Or would that be excessive and wasteful?

And right here is a great illustration of where some of the fundemental differences are between various poters on this board - and probably the world over (since we are such a perfect little microcosm ;) )

I happen to agree with JWBear on this because the hate that is taught can and DOES lead to violence. The church or whichever institution is teaching intolerance can deny direct responsability for the actions but they still had a part in getting the radical thinker to that point of insane action.

There is so separation, no black and white, it's all just a continium - a domino effect. That's where I think we have a great deficite in our national intelligence. There is not a whole lot of understanding about cause and effect. Maybe Candide shoule be required reading again.

Um, the problem in Europe is legal immigration. Muslims are not sneaking across borders; they are legally inflitrating Europe with the intention of creating a Muslim continent within four generations. And they may succeed. But not without the complicity of the individual European nations' individual immigraton policies.

Those are what must change. A wall does nothing to stop the legal Muslim tide.



We are facing a similar problem with latino immigration, and I'll admit that I don't know what portion of such immigration is legal or illegal (oops, maybe it's time for me to merge all the Daily Grind threads after all).

But if they are trying to make the U.S. into a latin nation, that's something I've never heard of. Maybe they're just being more surrepticious than the Muslims ... but I somehow doubt that. (Many muslims brag quite openly about taking over Europe ... it would be laugable if it weren't so demonstrably happening.)

I understand you sentiment, but disagree with the premise of your opening statement. Occupation implies control of the government. I do not agree that we are an occupying force.

Be that as it may.....should a nuke explode in LA, would it not be said that we weren't doing enough or spending enough to have prevented it?

Of course it would not be reasonable to have a cop on every corner. It is reasonable, though, to install traffic cameras to prevent red light running (Phoenix has a bunch and they are proving effective). They aren't at every intersection, just the busiest with a history of a problem of red light running.

We aren't monitoring Finland for terrorist activity or trying to depose the leader of Monaco because we have suspicions. That would certainly be excessive. I do not find our middle eastern activities to be excessive.

^ hmm, actually decent points. Must be why you're my favorite right-wing conservative nutjob!


Oh, and gak:
and my edit of her post was just to fix her quote blocks

LOL! I feel special. ISM can't mojo me. LALALALALALALWHEEEEEEE! ;)

Right. But thats changing the subject. I don't think we have a legal immigration problem (though there are problems within the system, the system isn't a problem).

We do face a similar situation with illegal immigration here, though.

This could be the highest praise I could ever expect from you. Though I did get mojo from you once....for mocking GD.:)

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Not Afraid again.

Hate to tell you but the heckler was taken into custody and has been charged with disorderly conduct and intimation of a foreign official.

At least that is the headline at Drudge right now.

Oooh I feel all squishy inside.:)


How do you change the subject in a random political thoughts thread? ;):mad:

Well, thanks for ruining my day.

Alex is a buzzkill!

Is he going to be be charged with doing a bad Chinese "intimation," or is he seriously being charged with intimidating the Chinese president via heckling?

If so, oh the delicious irony.




But it's nice to know we're able to make visiting heads of state feel right at home. Maybe we can arrange a beheading next time a Saudi prince visits Georgie at Crawford.

I just thought of it as payback for the "locked door" incident:D

"Hu's President" by scaeagles

"Hu's at the White House."
"I don't know. You tell me."
"It's Hu."
"I thought you were going to tell me. Who is visiting the White House?"
"That's right."
"Hang on....Who is with Bush?"
"Yes. Bush is with Hu."
"Who?"
"Yes. President Hu."
"The President is Bush."
"Yes. President Bush is with Hu."
"What is the name of the guy at the White House?"
"No, Hu is the name of the guy at the White House."
.......

I'm bored today.

Now that Katie Couric is going to do the nightly news, I wonder what's going to give? Is cutsie Katie going to get into a more serious mode of reporting, or is the news going to include more cutsie to accommodate Katie's style?

Whatever makes money for the corporation will prevail.

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.

Yeah, I thought I was the morbidly pessimistic one.

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.

You are.

Not according to those who subscribe to global warming.

http://news.com.com/Global+warming+t...3-5895784.html

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.

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).

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.

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.)

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.)

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

This guy here is just an atmospheric scientist at MIT:

Climate of fear

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?

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.

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?

Conservation is always smart. Panic is not.

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

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 ;)

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.

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.

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.

See, he's even smarter than I am!

'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...

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.

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

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"?

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

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?

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.

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

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...

I don't follow

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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)

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.

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)

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.

....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.

No, but they were eventually proven right. It's a matter of whether or not you believe eventually has already passed in this case.

^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;)

Whereas others believe eventually has come and gone.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's an interesting way to put it.

I thought so. Very accurate as well.

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

:cheers:

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).

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.....

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)

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. 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.

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.

With all due respect, all of YOUR scientific analysis isn't going to trump what many scientists the world over believe, what respected new sources are treating with respect and what I can see as trends with my own un-educated eye. If we were talking about Basketball, I'd believe every word you said but, I'm afraid, in this case, I'm going to have to go with the thoughts of the majority of people who study this stuff and we'll just have to wait and see.....or our children will.

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.

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.

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....;)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

An attempt to keep this random before iSm locks this thread.
 

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...) :)

Here are links to the last most recent IPCC Evaluations.

And an interesting article that is a couple years old but still relevent in it's overall information.

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

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.

MIT vs Harvard?

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

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.

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.

^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/a...s/landsea.html

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.

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

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.

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.

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.


""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!

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?

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?;)

^^heh, heh....lol.

Well put.

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

http://www.ecomagination.com

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

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




Speaking of withholding data...

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)?