Filed under: Activism
Question:
Let me quote him exactly, because it’s important to get this right. Kerry said, "I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government." His words, ladies and gentlemen. While the United States was at war, John Kerry went to Paris and spoke with the enemies of the Republic.
Of course when he met with them he was attempting to account for and secure the relaease of POWs/MIAs. But they don’t mention that little detaill. People say that what happened thirty-plus years ago doesn’t matter, shouldn’t matter in this campaign. Perhaps, in most cases, that should be true. But in this case it certainly does matter. Does any sane person really believe that whether or not George W. Bush showed up for a week’s worth of drills in Alabama thirty-three years ago is somehow more consequential than the admitted fact that Senator Kerry, as a nearly thirty year-old politician, travelled to a foreign nation to meet with the enemies of this country while the nation was at war and then returned in order to advocate that the United States accept peace on the terms of the communist Vietnamese (or, in other words, surrender)?
Expect that Bush was AWOL for anywhere from 8 months or longer. And they’ll be right: it is an attack on Senator Kerry’s patriotism. But, much more importantly than that, it is an accurate attack on his patriotism. Worse still (for Kerry’s dwindling legions) is that it feeds into perceptions of how Senator Kerry would behave as President.
And of course what was Geoge Bush doing when Kerry was protesting the war and attempting to secure the release of POWS/MIAs? He was a football cheerleader. In 1985, the newly-elected Senator Kerry took a trip to Nicaragua, where he met with the communist dictator of that country. When he returned to the United States from that trip, the Senator had brought something with him: the Sandinistas’ offer for peace with the United States. Once more John Forbes Kerry voluntarily conveyed the demands of a hostile foreign power to his own government. Yet again John Kerry called upon the President of the United States to accept, in whole, the terms offered by an enemy of the Republic.
Go to google, do a search on Iran Contra, Oliver North, and the biggest whopper of them all…Ronald Reagen knews nothing about Iran Contra. All of this takes on even greater importance since Kerry proposes to, as President, base his entire foreign policy upon seeking negotiated solutions to the world’s problems and since Senator Kerry apparently believes that "negotiating" means "accepting uncritically whatever those sophisticated foreigners tell me" this means that a President Kerry would almost certainly have a foreign policy revolving around the calculated sale of America’s national interest.
He can’t. Bush/Chenney have already sold them off (much of it going to Haliburton……take a wild guess who the CEO of Haliburton was. You get five gueesses and the first four don’t count. In 1971, John Kerry wanted the US to unilaterally begin withdrawing from Vietnam and trust the North Vietnamese Communists to return US POW’s of their own volition.
Of course that was also the time when Nixon had his "secret plan to end the war." It was so secret Nixon didn’t even know what it was. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
Swiftys Kicking KKKerry’s Ass Again! Insight on the News. A Death Blow To Kerry’s Campaign. September 22, 2004. By Adam Yoshida I think that many people who have seen the sixth ad being put out by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth will agree with me when say that the ad, entitled "Friends" had the potential to do as much damage to the Kerry campaign as the entire Rathergate/Danron fiasco. Don’t believe me? Watch the ad yourself. And, in case you can’t see it, here’s a transcript. The beauty of this ad is that it is simple, verifiably true, and utterly devastating. We know that John Kerry met with the Vietnamese Communists because he admitted it to us. We know that, as American boys fought and died in the muck of Vietnam, John Kerry sat with their perfumed diplomats in Europe and conspired to hand victory in the war to the Communists. We know this to be true. We know it because John Kerry told it to us. Let me quote him exactly, because it’s important to get this right. Kerry said, "I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government." His words, ladies and gentlemen. While the United States was at war, John Kerry went to Paris and spoke with the enemies of the Republic. People say that what happened thirty-plus years ago doesn’t matter, shouldn’t matter in this campaign. Perhaps, in most cases, that should be true. But in this case it certainly does matter. Does any sane person really believe that whether or not George W. Bush showed up for a week’s worth of drills in Alabama thirty-three years ago is somehow more consequential than the admitted fact that Senator Kerry, as a nearly thirty year-old politician, travelled to a foreign nation to meet with the enemies of this country while the nation was at war and then returned in order to advocate that the United States accept peace on the terms of the communist Vietnamese (or, in other words, surrender)? If this gets out (and since the Swift Vets are reportedly set to spend $2 million running this ad, it will) how does the Kerry campaign respond to it in a credible fashion? In essence, they’re left with a handful of options, all of them bad. They can ignore the accusations altogether, but I don’t think they’ll try that one again, seeing as it worked so well with the first Swift Vet assault. Attempting to deflect attention by attacking Bush on his National Guard service is out now since, thanks to CBS (and probably the DNC too), pretty much anything to do with Bush’s guard service is going to be radioactive for the rest of the campaign. Perhaps they can trot Senator Kerry out to, in the mother of all flip-flops, apologize for some of his anti-war activism. Alternately, they can act outraged that anyone would, "question Senator Kerry’s patriotism." This, in all probability, is the course that they’ll take in the coming days. And they’ll be right: it is an attack on Senator Kerry’s patriotism. But, much more importantly than that, it is an accurate attack on his patriotism. Worse still (for Kerry’s dwindling legions) is that it feeds into perceptions of how Senator Kerry would behave as President. The most obvious point that must be taken from his claims as to Vietnamese intentions at the time is that either Kerry is a liar or he is an extremely gullible man (or perhaps both). Also in his Senate testimony in 1971, John Kerry told the American people that, at the most, the lives of perhaps two thousand to three thousand South Vietnamese would be at risk if the United States withdrew from Vietnam. As we would later see, the numbers would be substantially higher. This, of course, was not a surprise to anyone with a lick of common sense. He entire world had already seen the crimes of communism in Russia, in Eastern Europe, in China and, indeed, in North Vietnam. Only a very easily deceived person could have believed that the pattern would not repeat the moment the Vietnamese Communists gripped the South within their claws. Even worse, this wasn’t the only time that Senator Kerry allowed himself to be deceived by foreign enemies of the United States, nor was it the only time that Kerry was used to deliver the demands of an enemy of the United States to the American government and people. In 1985, the newly-elected Senator Kerry took a trip to Nicaragua, where he met with the communist dictator of that country. When he returned to the United States from that trip, the Senator had brought something with him: the Sandinistas’ offer for peace with the United States. Once more John Forbes Kerry voluntarily conveyed the demands of a hostile foreign power to his own government. Yet again John Kerry called upon the President of the United States to accept, in whole, the terms offered by an enemy of the Republic. Once the American people know this history, once they’ve taken it all in, they’ll be left with the same frightful question that I’ve carried with me for nine months: what happens if the person receiving that offer is no longer Lieutenant Kerry or Senator Kerry, but President Kerry? What happens if there’s no one higher on up for Kerry to call upon to accept the enemy’s terms: what if Kerry himself is in a position to accept the enemy’s terms? This is significant because the John Kerry of 2004 shows every sign of being every bit as gullible as the John Kerry of 1985 and the John Kerry of 1971. He’s claimed that foreign leaders are eager to see him become President. I’ll bet they are. All of this takes on even greater importance since Kerry proposes to, as President, base his entire foreign policy upon seeking negotiated solutions to the world’s problems and since Senator Kerry apparently believes that "negotiating" means "accepting uncritically whatever those sophisticated foreigners tell me" this means that a President Kerry would almost certainly have a foreign policy revolving around the calculated sale of America’s national interest. Kerry pretends to talk tough on North Korea, but then he says things like, "We must be prepared to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that addresses the full range of
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Death Toll for Bush’s war of Lies and Empire reaches 993 US dead. "Meanwhile, a report says that the number of US soldiers injured in Iraq in August is the highest since the war began. "About 1,100 soldiers and marines are thought to have been wounded last month [August 2004]" = = = Story: US marines killed in Iraq ambush Seven US marines and three Iraqi soldiers have been killed by a car bomb on the outskirts of Falluja in Iraq, the US military says. The ambush on the military convoy is thought to be the single deadliest strike on US forces in recent months. Falluja, 65km (40 miles) west of Baghdad, has witnessed some of the strongest resistance to US-led [occupation] forces. US troops have not patrolled inside the city since April after a three-week siege there in which hundreds died. The US military has launched several air strikes on suspected insurgents in the city in the past few months, with reports of many Iraqi casualties. The attack took place at Saqlawiya, some 15 km (nine miles) north of Falluja. "The vehicle-borne improvised explosive device which killed both Iraqi National Guard personnel and marines was detonated late this morning near Falluja," a US military statement said. "The explosion killed seven marines who were assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and three Iraqi National Guard soldiers." A military official told the Associated Press that the strength of the blast sent the engine from the vehicle used in the bombing flying "a good distance" from the site. The deaths raise to at least 985 the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq since the US-led forces invaded the country in March 2003. Record number of wounded Meanwhile, a report says that the number of US soldiers injured in Iraq in August is the highest since the war began. About 1,100 soldiers and marines are thought to have been wounded last month. Intense fighting in the city of Najaf last month is partly to blame for the high toll, the Washington Post newspaper suggests. The number of fatalities among US troops was 66, the highest since May, but considerably lower than the 135 combat deaths recorded in April. There are no official figures available for the number of Iraqi insurgents and civilians killed or hurt. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3630966.stm 1) Support Our Troops! Bring them home now! So say families of GI’s used by Bush as his playtoys and cannon fodder in Iraq. Instead, US families of GIs, the ones who *really* Support Our Troops, say: Bring Them Home Now. Families or GIs at: http://www.BringThemHomeNow.com "BRING THEM HOME NOW! is a campaign of military families, veterans, active duty personnel, reservists and others opposed to the ongoing war in Iraq and galvanized to action by George W. Bush’s inane and reckless challenge to armed Iraqis resisting occupation to "Bring ‘em on…" 2)See also Military Families Speak Out at: http://www.mfso.org/main_f.html = = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT’S GOING ON? = = = = Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general) ** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don’t work. Email to ** m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org instead
– The ultimate analysis of the Iraqi resistance; lists and analyzes 100 (!) Iraqi insurgent groups: http://www.iraq-news-net.de/?/news/inn-statements/ The Jewish People’s Liberation Organization (JPLO) http://tinyurl.com/2jkeo The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) http://www.pflp.net/
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Death Toll for Bush’s war of Lies and Empire reaches 985 US dead. The number is 993 as of this morning. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html According to the Russians, The Bush administration is not counting the deaths of foreign nationals that enlisted in the US military to accelerate the citizenship process. The Russians say that the body count of soldiers in the US military is double what has been reported.
2,000 U.S. troops killed in Iraq: Russian expert By Vladimir Radyuhin MOSCOW, JULY 23. The United States suffers far heavier casualties in Iraq than it officially admits, a Russia military diplomat claimed. The actual U.S. military losses in Iraq may have reached 2,000 personnel, more than twice the official figure of 900, as Washington badly understates its casualty statistics, a military diplomatic source told the Itar-Tass news agency. "Official statistics do not include casualties among non-U.S. nationals who sign up to serve in the American armed forces in order to get a U.S. `green card.’ According to reliable information the share of non-Americans in the U.S. force in Iraq may be as high as 60 per cent," the source said. "The real number of U.S. losses may be as high as 2,000 casualties and up to 12,000 wounded," the military diplomat said. http://www.hindu.com/2004/07/24/stories/2004072402401400.htm — "Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens." – William H. Beveridge, 1944
Response:
Death Toll for Bush’s war of Lies and Empire reaches 985 US dead. "Meanwhile, a report says that the number of US soldiers injured in Iraq in August is the highest since the war began. "About 1,100 soldiers and marines are thought to have been wounded last month [August 2004]" = = = Story: US marines killed in Iraq ambush Seven US marines and three Iraqi soldiers have been killed by a car bomb on the outskirts of Falluja in Iraq, the US military says. The ambush on the military convoy is thought to be the single deadliest strike on US forces in recent months. Falluja, 65km (40 miles) west of Baghdad, has witnessed some of the strongest resistance to US-led [occupation] forces. US troops have not patrolled inside the city since April after a three-week siege there in which hundreds died. The US military has launched several air strikes on suspected insurgents in the city in the past few months, with reports of many Iraqi casualties. The attack took place at Saqlawiya, some 15 km (nine miles) north of Falluja. "The vehicle-borne improvised explosive device which killed both Iraqi National Guard personnel and marines was detonated late this morning near Falluja," a US military statement said. "The explosion killed seven marines who were assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and three Iraqi National Guard soldiers." A military official told the Associated Press that the strength of the blast sent the engine from the vehicle used in the bombing flying "a good distance" from the site. The deaths raise to at least 985 the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq since the US-led forces invaded the country in March 2003. Record number of wounded Meanwhile, a report says that the number of US soldiers injured in Iraq in August is the highest since the war began. About 1,100 soldiers and marines are thought to have been wounded last month. Intense fighting in the city of Najaf last month is partly to blame for the high toll, the Washington Post newspaper suggests. The number of fatalities among US troops was 66, the highest since May, but considerably lower than the 135 combat deaths recorded in April. There are no official figures available for the number of Iraqi insurgents and civilians killed or hurt. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3630966.stm 1) Support Our Troops! Bring them home now! So say families of GI’s used by Bush as his playtoys and cannon fodder in Iraq. Instead, US families of GIs, the ones who *really* Support Our Troops, say: Bring Them Home Now. Families or GIs at: http://www.BringThemHomeNow.com "BRING THEM HOME NOW! is a campaign of military families, veterans, active duty personnel, reservists and others opposed to the ongoing war in Iraq and galvanized to action by George W. Bush’s inane and reckless challenge to armed Iraqis resisting occupation to "Bring ‘em on…" 2)See also Military Families Speak Out at: http://www.mfso.org/main_f.html = = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT’S GOING ON? = = = = Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general) ** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don’t work. Email to ** m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org instead
Response:
Death Toll for Bush’s war of Lies and Empire reaches 985 US dead.
The number is 993 as of this morning. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Meanwhile, a report says that the number of US soldiers injured in Iraq in August is the highest since the war began. "About 1,100 soldiers and marines are thought to have been wounded last month [August 2004]" = = = Story: US marines killed in Iraq ambush Seven US marines and three Iraqi soldiers have been killed by a car bomb on the outskirts of Falluja in Iraq, the US military says. The ambush on the military convoy is thought to be the single deadliest strike on US forces in recent months. Falluja, 65km (40 miles) west of Baghdad, has witnessed some of the strongest resistance to US-led [occupation] forces. US troops have not patrolled inside the city since April after a three-week siege there in which hundreds died. The US military has launched several air strikes on suspected insurgents in the city in the past few months, with reports of many Iraqi casualties. The attack took place at Saqlawiya, some 15 km (nine miles) north of Falluja. "The vehicle-borne improvised explosive device which killed both Iraqi National Guard personnel and marines was detonated late this morning near Falluja," a US military statement said. "The explosion killed seven marines who were assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and three Iraqi National Guard soldiers." A military official told the Associated Press that the strength of the blast sent the engine from the vehicle used in the bombing flying "a good distance" from the site. The deaths raise to at least 985 the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq since the US-led forces invaded the country in March 2003. Record number of wounded Meanwhile, a report says that the number of US soldiers injured in Iraq in August is the highest since the war began. About 1,100 soldiers and marines are thought to have been wounded last month. Intense fighting in the city of Najaf last month is partly to blame for the high toll, the Washington Post newspaper suggests. The number of fatalities among US troops was 66, the highest since May, but considerably lower than the 135 combat deaths recorded in April. There are no official figures available for the number of Iraqi insurgents and civilians killed or hurt. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3630966.stm 1) Support Our Troops! Bring them home now! So say families of GI’s used by Bush as his playtoys and cannon fodder in Iraq. Instead, US families of GIs, the ones who *really* Support Our Troops, say: Bring Them Home Now. Families or GIs at: http://www.BringThemHomeNow.com "BRING THEM HOME NOW! is a campaign of military families, veterans, active duty personnel, reservists and others opposed to the ongoing war in Iraq and galvanized to action by George W. Bush’s inane and reckless challenge to armed Iraqis resisting occupation to "Bring ‘em on…" 2)See also Military Families Speak Out at: http://www.mfso.org/main_f.html = = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT’S GOING ON? = = = = Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general) ** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don’t work. Email to ** m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org instead
– "Ignorance is an evil weed, which dictators may cultivate among their dupes, but which no democracy can afford among its citizens." – William H. Beveridge, 1944
Response:
Question:
Economic Democracy – Your general point is well-taken,
Actually we posed the less damning of the two articles here (so my refernece to tornados and other statistics would not have made any sense) the more damning we had posted elsewhere. Here it is again below. EVERY person in FL absolutely must read this article… ttp://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=558368 Summary: *** "experts are getting increasingly worried. Last month beat all previous US records for big hurricanes and tornadoes and equalled them for tropical storms. *** "We expect this to be the eighth of the past 10 seasons that have had hurricane activity much above the last 55-year average," he said. *** NOAA reported last week that 173 tornadoes had been reported across the US in August, far exceeding the previous record of 126, set in 1979. *** NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, based at Princeton University, says on its website: "The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the Earth’s climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." *** This admission is the second official embarrassment for the Bush administration over climate change in less than 10 days. Just over a week ago, a report to Congress – signed by Mr Bush’s two cabinet members in charge of commerce and energy – conceded that the warming of the world’s climate over the past 30 years could only be explained by pollution from carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases". [why on earth do US media not tell us these things?] = = = = Full Story: A storm the size of Texas whips through Florida resorts State prepares for devastation as global warming comes home to Bush’s America By Andrew Buncombe in Palm Beach, Florida and Geoffrey Lean 05 September 2004 Hurricane Frances – a vast storm the size of Texas – yesterday began to hit the Florida coastline, bringing 100mph winds and torrential tropical rain. But a US government body admits – despite President George Bush’s refusal to join international action to combat global warming – that it is likely to be only a foretaste of things to come as the climate changes. Few parts of the state were expected to escape devastation last night as it anxiously awaited the full force of the storm, expected to hit the east coast in the early hours of the morning. It is forecast to move slowly across the state, finally blowing out over the Gulf of Mexico late today or early tomorrow. "It is more of a marathon than a sprint," said Matt Mitchell of the Florida Emergency Operation Centre. Yesterday the hurricane dumped about 20in of rain over the Bahamas, and it is expected to do much the same over the "Sunshine State", causing widespread flooding – which is usually the main cause of death in a storm such as this. Two and a half million people have been ordered to leave their homes in the biggest mass evacuation in the state’s history, many crowding into emergency accommodation in schools and community centres. In Fort Pierce, Grace Teffel, 71, fled her mobile home, which is expected to be demolished by the winds. "I was crying. I took the things that were precious to me, my pictures," she said. But 34-year-old Rachel Costigan, from Woking, had decided to open her Irish pub – O’Sheas – for business, even though it is in West Palm Beach, where the very centre of the storm is expected to make landfall. "We’re on high ground so we won’t flood and we didn’t want to evacuate," she said "Everyone else did. The motorway was looking like a car park and we didn’t have anywhere to go." John Dennis, an IT project manager from Sunderland who lives in Miami Beach, was equally phlegmatic – though he had booked a hotel room 20 miles inland in case he needed to evacuate. "I think the American media are using the hurricane to push their ratings up," Mr Dennis said. "If you believe what the news is saying, you’d think everybody had battened down the hatches and left town. There are still people around." But experts are getting increasingly worried. Last month beat all previous US records for big hurricanes and tornadoes, and equalled them for tropical storms. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), part of the US government’s Department of Commerce, said that this was partly due to a warmer Atlantic Ocean. One of the world’s leading authorities predicted two more big hurricanes before November’s presidential election. And things are expected to get worse as global warming takes hold. NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, based at Princeton University, says on its website: "The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the Earth’s climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." This admission is the second official embarrassment for the Bush administration over climate change in less than 10 days. Just over a week ago, a report to Congress – signed by Mr Bush’s two cabinet members in charge of commerce and energy – conceded that the warming of the world’s climate over the past 30 years could only be explained by pollution from carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases". The Bush administration has consistently played down the problem, and tried to scupper the internationally agreed Kyoto Protocol designed to combat it. Two years ago, the President personally repudiated a report by his own Environmental Protection Agency, which warned of climate change. Last Friday, Professor William Gray of Colorado State University – one of the world’s leading authorities on hurricanes, who has been predicting them for the past 21 years – increased his projections for this year. He said that, for the first time since detailed investigations began 60 years ago, three major hurricanes had developed in the Atlantic. [No you did not misread that. One can play all sorts of games with statistics and find some things that are "less severe today than in 1950!!!" but hard statistics like this article plus the tornados "beyond the stratosphere" breaking of all past records, plus NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, and now this 60 year (ie the entire record) breaker, are too much for most folks in FL to let the wool be pulled over their eyes that "everything's fine folks, honestly! go back to shopping at wal mart and vote for another 4 years of flushing the environment down the toilet and getting more climate change" -ED] The first, called Alex, grazed the Outer Banks of North Carolina on 3 August. The second, Charley, which devastated Florida last month, is expected by Professor Gray to be the "second most destructive" US hurricane ever, after Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Meanwhile, five people were killed in Virginia last week as the state was lashed by Gaston, the third tropical storm to hit the US in August. And yet another, Ivan, was yesterday gathering in the Atlantic. NOAA reported last week that 173 tornadoes had been reported across the US in August, far exceeding the previous record of 126, set in 1979. [No you did not misread that. If anyone had said this 10 years ago as a prediction they would have been called (yaaaawn) a commie and all the other boring predictable idiotic terms of far-right nuts who can't deal with reality. But it's not just record breaking, but 173 versus the previous all time record of 126. Jesus flying christ, how's the corporate media going to keep lying to folks about global warming like this to keep denial, denial, denial as their religion? Just so the money changers can get a few pennies (billions) richer? -ED] rofessor Gray predicts two more major hurricanes for this month and now expects this year to end with a total of 16 named storms, eight hurricanes and five major hurricanes. "We expect this to be the eighth of the past 10 seasons that have had hurricane activity much above the last 55-year average," he said. [And finally no you did not misread THAT statistic...then act..Kyoto isn't enough but it's an urgent, critical first step... -ED] Additional reporting by Malcolm Fitzwilliams http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=558368 DON’T MOURN, ACT! WEBSITES FOR ACTION: http://www.earthshare.org/get_involved/involved.html http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/climate.asp http://www.greenhousenet.org/ http://www.solarcatalyst.com/ Overview and local actions you can take: http://www.PostCarbon.org = = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT’S GOING ON? = = = = Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general) ** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don’t work. Email instead ** to m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org
Response:
Economic Democracy – Your general point is well-taken, but fortunately a few US business magazines are beginning to acknowledge reality. "Business Week" had a cover story on global climate change in August. Considering the absurdly disproportionate influence that corporations have in the US political system,
And the media where it’s not that the media are in league with corporate America, the media are a *part* of corporate America, with a stronger control it’s good news that at least a few business journalists are paying attention to the climate. Most US corporate media, though, are still in total denial on this issue.
Three points to make, one,article below, is the latest example of businesses taking climate change seriously. But the matter of hurricanes is one for spreading the word to florida voters. They can get a candidate who is going to take (too) small steps against it, or a candidate who will take large steps to make things worse. It’s unfortunate that our choices are that pathetic, but until we rebuild the political-economy from the ground up that’s what we hav to live with. Second, it’s too easy to look at the dellusional deniers of climate change, and poke fun at them, but they are not the biggest threats. "All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing". It’s the ones who are worried but don’t act, that cause more damage, than the "flat earth" deniers of climate change. So we need to act.. As in, forward to everyone in FL you know…the article originally posted on the number of tornados being way way higher than the previous 1979 record for the month, yet more Bush white house officials admitting we are to expect more hurricanes, and the rest from that article..and see our links page: DON’T MOURN, ACT! WEBSITES FOR ACTION: http://www.earthshare.org/get_involved/involved.html http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/climate.asp http://www.greenhousenet.org/ http://www.solarcatalyst.com/ Overview and local actions you can take: http://www.PostCarbon.org As for the business community, we posted this elsewhere just earlier today but here it is again since you raise the important point of the ever broader cross section admitting there is a problems and even asking how to minimize the damage (too late to completely eliminate it). http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=6509 "Global Warming Becoming an ‘Urgent Priority’ for Business" Source: PR Newswire Sep 08, 2004 Reports that the well known business gruop the <bConference Board</b working with the <bmerican Association for the Advancement of Science</b is taking climate change very seriously. = = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT’S GOING ON? = = = = Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html (Climate) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general) ** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don’t work. Email to ** m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org instead
Response:
Economic Democracy – Your general point is well-taken, but fortunately a few US business magazines are beginning to acknowledge reality. "Business Week" had a cover story on global climate change in August. Considering the absurdly disproportionate influence that corporations have in the US political system, it’s good news that at least a few business journalists are paying attention to the climate. Most US corporate media, though, are still in total denial on this issue. ***** – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "There is little dispute, either, about the underlying cause. Every expert contacted by the Sunday Herald last week blamed the global warming triggered by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere." More BS, as usual. If you actualy read the data instead of parroting pseudoscience scammer lies, you would realize that according to your claims, the earth is cooling. The data shows precisely the opposite of the BS you are parroting. Hurricanes have been greater frequency and greater intensity in years past. Here’s the facts: Top 10 Most Intense Hurricanes Rank Hurricane Year Category Pressure 1 FL (Keys) 1935 5 892 mb 2 CAMILLE 1969 5 909 mb 3 ANDREW 1992 5 922 mb 4 FL (Keys) 1919 4 927 mb 5 FL (Lk Okeechobee) 1928 4 929 mb 6 DONNA 1960 4 930 mb 7 TX (Galveston) 1900 4 931 mb 8 LA (Grand Isle) 1909 4 931 mb 9 LA (New Orleans)1915 4 931 mb 10 CARLA 1961 4 931 mb http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/ Table 5 (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table5.htm), which lists hurricanes by decades since 1900, shows that during the twenty year period 1960-1979 both the number and intensity of landfalling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply! Based on 1900-1959 statistics, the expected number of hurricanes and major hurricanes during the period 1960-1979 was 36 and 15, respectively. But, in fact, only 27 (or 75%) of the expected number of hurricanes struck the U.S. with only 10 major hurricanes or 67% of that expected number. The decade of the eighties showed little change to this trend. Even the decade of the nineties, showed below average landfall frequencies. It could be noted that of the most recent four decades, only the 70’s and 90’s were significantly below normal. … A comparison of twenty-year periods beginning in 1901 indicates that the major hurricanes tended to be in the western Gulf Coast states at the beginning of the 20th century, shifting to the eastern Gulf Coast states and Florida during the next twenty years, then to Florida and the Atlantic Coast states during the forties and fifties, and back to the western Gulf Coast states in the sixties and seventies. … REFERENCES Gentry, R.C., 1966: Nature and Scope of Hurricane Damage, American Society for Oceanography, Hurricane Symposium, Publication Number One, 344p. Hebert, P.J., J.G. Taylor, and R.A. Case, 1984: Hurricane Experience Levels of Coastal County Populations -Texas to Maine, NOAA, Technical Memorandum NWS-NHC-24, 127pp. Hebert, P.J., J.D. Jarrell, and B.M. Mayfield, 1997: The Deadliest, Costliest and Most Intense United States Hurricanes of this Century (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts), NOAA, Technical Memorandum NWS-TPC-1, 30 pp. Jarrell, J.D., P.J. Hebert, and B.M. Mayfield, 1992: Hurricane Experience Levels of Coastal County Populations-Texas to Maine, NOAA, Technical Memorandum NWS-NHC-46, 152 pp. Neumann, C.J., B.R. Jarvinen, C.J. McAdie, and G.R. Hammer, 1999:Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1998, NOAA, Historical Climatogy Series 6-2. Pielke, Jr., R.A., and C.W. Landsea, 1998: Normalized U.S. Hurricane Damage. 1925-1995, Weather and Forecasting, 13, 621-631. Simpson, R.H., 1974: The Hurricane Disaster Potential Scale. Weatherwise. 27,169,186. U.S. Weather Bureau: Climatological Data and Storm Data, various volumes, various periods, National and State Summaries (National Weather Service 1971-1998). U.S. Weather Bureau: Monthly Weather Review, 1872-1970 (National Weather Service 1971-1973, and American Meteorological Society 1974-2001). William R. James
Response:
"There is little dispute, either, about the underlying cause. Every expert contacted by the Sunday Herald last week blamed the global warming triggered by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."
More BS, as usual. If you actualy read the data instead of parroting pseudoscience scammer lies, you would realize that according to your claims, the earth is cooling. The data shows precisely the opposite of the BS you are parroting. Hurricanes have been greater frequency and greater intensity in years past. Here’s the facts: Top 10 Most Intense Hurricanes Rank Hurricane Year Category Pressure 1 FL (Keys) 1935 5 892 mb 2 CAMILLE 1969 5 909 mb 3 ANDREW 1992 5 922 mb 4 FL (Keys) 1919 4 927 mb 5 FL (Lk Okeechobee) 1928 4 929 mb 6 DONNA 1960 4 930 mb 7 TX (Galveston) 1900 4 931 mb 8 LA (Grand Isle) 1909 4 931 mb 9 LA (New Orleans)1915 4 931 mb 10 CARLA 1961 4 931 mb http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/ Table 5 (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table5.htm), which lists hurricanes by decades since 1900, shows that during the twenty year period 1960-1979 both the number and intensity of landfalling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply! Based on 1900-1959 statistics, the expected number of hurricanes and major hurricanes during the period 1960-1979 was 36 and 15, respectively. But, in fact, only 27 (or 75%) of the expected number of hurricanes struck the U.S. with only 10 major hurricanes or 67% of that expected number. The decade of the eighties showed little change to this trend. Even the decade of the nineties, showed below average landfall frequencies. It could be noted that of the most recent four decades, only the 70’s and 90’s were significantly below normal. … A comparison of twenty-year periods beginning in 1901 indicates that the major hurricanes tended to be in the western Gulf Coast states at the beginning of the 20th century, shifting to the eastern Gulf Coast states and Florida during the next twenty years, then to Florida and the Atlantic Coast states during the forties and fifties, and back to the western Gulf Coast states in the sixties and seventies. … REFERENCES Gentry, R.C., 1966: Nature and Scope of Hurricane Damage, American Society for Oceanography, Hurricane Symposium, Publication Number One, 344p. Hebert, P.J., J.G. Taylor, and R.A. Case, 1984: Hurricane Experience Levels of Coastal County Populations -Texas to Maine, NOAA, Technical Memorandum NWS-NHC-24, 127pp. Hebert, P.J., J.D. Jarrell, and B.M. Mayfield, 1997: The Deadliest, Costliest and Most Intense United States Hurricanes of this Century (and Other Frequently Requested Hurricane Facts), NOAA, Technical Memorandum NWS-TPC-1, 30 pp. Jarrell, J.D., P.J. Hebert, and B.M. Mayfield, 1992: Hurricane Experience Levels of Coastal County Populations-Texas to Maine, NOAA, Technical Memorandum NWS-NHC-46, 152 pp. Neumann, C.J., B.R. Jarvinen, C.J. McAdie, and G.R. Hammer, 1999:Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1998, NOAA, Historical Climatogy Series 6-2. Pielke, Jr., R.A., and C.W. Landsea, 1998: Normalized U.S. Hurricane Damage. 1925-1995, Weather and Forecasting, 13, 621-631. Simpson, R.H., 1974: The Hurricane Disaster Potential Scale. Weatherwise. 27,169,186. U.S. Weather Bureau: Climatological Data and Storm Data, various volumes, various periods, National and State Summaries (National Weather Service 1971-1998). U.S. Weather Bureau: Monthly Weather Review, 1872-1970 (National Weather Service 1971-1973, and American Meteorological Society 1974-2001). William R. James
Response:
"There is little dispute, either, about the underlying cause. Every expert contacted by the Sunday Herald last week blamed the global warming triggered by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere." You have to surf the internet for news from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada… …anywhere English speakout but outside the US to get much of a break from the vow of silence most of the US corporate media has taken with regard to natural disasters and global warming And, way back on August 22nd this article states: "orecasters from University College London are predicting at least 14 tropical storms in the Atlantic this year
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 2) At the same time, and becoming much more clear since the 1990s and now overwhelming evidence shows, the human-made greenhouse emissions, due to, as the EPA, the commerce Dept too under Bush, as The US Geophyisical Union and American Academy of Science and roughly 98% of scientists who are independent of the oil industry agree, fossil fuel usage (at abuot 82 million barrels per day in 2004, or about 30,000,000,000 or 30 billion barrels per year) is affecting CO2 levels and other atmospheric gasses which are causing the planet to warm up. Interesting that you exclude "scientists" who you consoder from the oil industry because you (or your puppetmaster) doesn’t like their data, yet you carefuly select (see "data mining") those who you want to consider scientists but who ignore the scientific method because their Chicken Little claims fit your agenda even though they are paid to find bad news whether it’s real or not.
You’re actually claiming, that of scientists not employed by the oil industry, roughly 98% ignore scientific method and are paid to do so? — Dan Clore My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_: http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro Lord We
Question:
The Boston Globe has been shown to be nothing more than than a part of the propagana department of the DNC. Like you they have no credibility. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "the administration program doesn’t really address the underlying problem. Rather, the purpose is either to help an industry ally, stir up the party base, or advance an ideological goal (or all three)" Published on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 by the Boston Globe Bush’s Ruinous Economic Plans by Robert Kuttner WE WILL shortly hear from the president himself, but the outlines of his domestic program for a second term are already all too clear. Take five key areas of economic policy — health, Social Security, energy, taxes, and the deficit. All five have this in common: In each case the administration program doesn’t really address the underlying problem. Rather, the purpose is either to help an industry ally, stir up the party base, or advance an ideological goal (or all three). Health Coverage. Health insurance premiums have risen by more than one-third since Bush took office, leaving more and more people uninsured or underinsured. Families USA calculates from Census Bureau data that one nonelderly American in three was without health insurance at some point from 2002 to 2003. Meanwhile, employers and insurers are moderating their own costs by increasing "copays" and "deductibles" paid by consumers. The president’s proposed health program, a massive expansion of so-called health savings accounts, doesn’t address the twin problem of dwindling coverage and rising costs. It simply accelerates the shift of those costs onto consumers and gives affluent people one more tax break. Health savings accounts are useful mainly for the healthy and the wealthy because they don’t buy coverage that is both comprehensive and affordable. Social Security. The Bush plan to privatize Social Security, in whole or in part, is back. But there is no way that privatizing the system will shore up its finances. Rather, it will do just the opposite by diverting payroll tax revenue needed for Social Security payouts into new private accounts. To keep the promise of Social Security intact, Bush would need either massive new borrowing or massive tax hikes. But the more likely result is reductions in benefits. Of course, these cuts, like the damage from his deficits, would hit long after Bush left office. Energy. There’s a growing consensus among experts that the most recent wave of oil price hikes is not mainly the result of market manipulation, refining bottlenecks, or the Iraq occupation but the harbinger of the long-predicted depletion of the world’s extractable oil reserves. With the huge populations of China, India, and other emergent economies joining the global consumer society, demand is simply outstripping supply. Bush’s program is essentially deeper and wider drilling, lubricated by friendly tax and environmental policies. His support for conservation or alternative energy sources is token at best. Last week three Bush Cabinet secretaries, just in time for the Republican National Convention, belatedly conceded that science has proven the reality of global climate change caused by carbon emissions. Bush said he was unaware of the report. [Was "unaware" of it?? Ok, anyone thinking of a career in standup comedy or satire can quit and give up now... -ED] Taxes. The tax program for a second Bush term will be more of the same. One goal will be to make the tax cuts of 2001 to 2004 permanent. A new twist will be a shift to consumption taxes — either a value-added tax, a national sales tax, or new tax breaks for money saved rather than spent. The result will be an overall reduction of taxes paid by those wealthy enough to save substantially and a shift onto workaday voters who spend most of what they earn. This will be advertised as a program to create jobs and reward entrepreneurship, but it sure didn’t work in Bush’s first term — the only presidency since Hoover with fewer payroll jobs at the end than the beginning. The deficit. Hardly anyone, Republican or Democrat, truly believes that the Bush tax-and-spending program will do anything other than make the deficit problem worse. The Congressional Budget Office, whose director is appointed by congressional Republicans, projects endless deficits in excess of $400 billion a year. If Bush succeeds in making recent tax cuts permanent and adding new ones, the deficits will be even more serious. With military outlay rising, the administration’s only game plan is to backload the effect of tax cuts until after this president leaves office and cut domestic spending even further. As the latest Census report makes clear, the typical American is economically worse off than in 2001. The GOP game plan is to keep voters’ attention riveted on the memory of 9/11 and the threat of terrorism. Otherwise John Kerry will eat Bush’s lunch on the pocketbook issues. It’s a remarkable commentary on the ability of the administration to wave the flag and change the subject that Bush isn’t held more accountable for the huge gap between his policies and their results. As the president himself so memorably attempted to say, "Fool me once, shame on you . . ." Robert Kuttner’s is co-editor of The American Prospect.
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And create huge deficits. The financial press reports: "Viewers can expect his stated goal to be to make the economy more productive, make the government more efficient and give people more control over their own destinies. "But critics say the plan will shift the tax burden from the upper to the middle and lower classes, while ensuring massive budget deficits for years to come. "…The president has so far offered few details of his plan, and there may be some surprises Thursday night — anything from a reform of the tax code to a call for some kind of national sales tax may be possible.." Neither has Kerry. IF the human race is to avert it’s present, dedicatedly vigorous course towards suicide, a good first step might, just might, be to not to make the psychotic non-sequitor assumption, that anyone who criticizes the Bush fascists must somehow be a "fan" of the Kerry group. Enough said. Kerry has offered extensive details on many proposals. You can download a 250 page "book" which includes many details. You can find more at Johnkerry.com THe press does not cover Kerry speeches in which he goes into details. They have more important matters to bring to us, such as Mrs Kerry saying "shove it," a matter of grave concern to the nation. But that does not mean Kerry has been silent on specific proposals. As to the ownership society, the idea is to get the tax on capital income to zero, meaing that the tax must go way up on labor. THe idea is that there will be a big spurt in growth. It’s central planning. If the govt favors capital, as opposed to labor, we will get more growth. Some people think that markets are better at allocating economic resources than are central planners such as Bush. Those who believe in the market would prefer a tax code which is neutral, taxing labor and income from capital the same. IN that view, the economy itself will send signals as to how much capital should be deployed as opposed to how much labor should be. It’s odd conservatives favor Bush since Bush is, like Fidel Castro, a central planner when it comes to the economy.
Don’t agree with everything above but much of it is accurate. In fact both Republicans and Democrats have a dirty little secret of State Economic Planning through state-guaranteed markets through the now half-trillion dollar military budget. State public planning to get taxpayer-paid things like pharmaceutical drugs and computers (1950s) under state planning via the pentagon…then turned over , as soon as it’s profitable to corporate powers without any ownership given to the people who paid for it — the US taxpayer. That’s one of the more scandelous aspcts, but yes, you’re right, there is no bigger a social engineer than Bush, a central planner than Bush (read up on last 5 years in Cuba’s reforms, which mean now that Bush is the greater of the two in terms of central planning, no joke!) and Bush is the greatest in Class Warfare, as billionaire Warren Buffett puts it: "Supporters of[Bush's tax policies] like to paint critics as promoters of class warfare. "The fact is, however, THEIR proposal promotes class welfare — for my class" wrote Mr Buffett, who is the chairman of holding company Berkshire Hathaway, world class investor capitalist, billionaire. [emphasis added] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3045391.stm But yes, in terms of class warfare, state central planning, Big Government, anti-family values (cutting aid to children) anti-vet (Bush cut vet’s benefits) and 100 other aspects, the reality is 180 degrees from what the fake-convervative, really statist-reactionary Republican party of today paints on TV. Too bad the Democrats are only "the lesser evil" rather than supporting majoritarian American initiatives like national health coverage like the rest of the industrialized countries on the planet have, but at least they’re not bozo reactionaries endangering the world and our frail economy the extreme way Bush is
Response:
It’s odd conservatives favor Bush since Bush is, like Fidel Castro, a central planner when it comes to the economy.
Conservatives don’t favor Bush, they just hate him less than they hate Kerry. Bush is no more conservative than a typical liberal, he just talks as if he is. The election will come down to which candidate more people vote against. The clueless kooks on the left who have bought into the lies will vote against Bush, of course. The conservatives will vote against Kerry, of course. The blind party puppets will vote for their prospective puppet masters, of course. For the rest, it’s which is worse. For some (myself included) neither is acceptable and so will be voting third party or independent. Most will simply choose the lessor evil or nor vote at all. Ironic isn’t it, that those are the ones who will decide the election? William R. James
Response:
Most will simply choose the lessor evil
You’re even against landlords? HH
Response:
Most will simply choose the lessor evil You’re even against landlords? HH
That would be leasor evil.:) William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And create huge deficits. The financial press reports: "Viewers can expect his stated goal to be to make the economy more productive, make the government more efficient and give people more control over their own destinies. "But critics say the plan will shift the tax burden from the upper to the middle and lower classes, while ensuring massive budget deficits for years to come. "…The president has so far offered few details of his plan, and there may be some surprises Thursday night — anything from a reform of the tax code to a call for some kind of national sales tax may be possible.."
Neither has Kerry.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And create huge deficits. The financial press reports: "Viewers can expect his stated goal to be to make the economy more productive, make the government more efficient and give people more control over their own destinies. "But critics say the plan will shift the tax burden from the upper to the middle and lower classes, while ensuring massive budget deficits for years to come. "…The president has so far offered few details of his plan, and there may be some surprises Thursday night — anything from a reform of the tax code to a call for some kind of national sales tax may be possible.." Neither has Kerry.
IF the human race is to avert it’s present, dedicatedly vigorous course towards suicide, a good first step might, just might, be to not to make the psychotic non-sequitor assumption, that anyone who criticizes the Bush fascists must somehow be a "fan" of the Kerry group. Enough said.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And create huge deficits. The financial press reports: "Viewers can expect his stated goal to be to make the economy more productive, make the government more efficient and give people more control over their own destinies. "But critics say the plan will shift the tax burden from the upper to the middle and lower classes, while ensuring massive budget deficits for years to come. "…The president has so far offered few details of his plan, and there may be some surprises Thursday night — anything from a reform of the tax code to a call for some kind of national sales tax may be possible.." Neither has Kerry. IF the human race is to avert it’s present, dedicatedly vigorous course towards suicide, a good first step might, just might, be to not to make the psychotic non-sequitor assumption, that anyone who criticizes the Bush fascists must somehow be a "fan" of the Kerry group. Enough said.
Kerry has offered extensive details on many proposals. You can download a 250 page "book" which includes many details. You can find more at Johnkerry.com THe press does not cover Kerry speeches in which he goes into details. They have more important matters to bring to us, such as Mrs Kerry saying "shove it," a matter of grave concern to the nation. But that does not mean Kerry has been silent on specific proposals. As to the ownership society, the idea is to get the tax on capital income to zero, meaing that the tax must go way up on labor. THe idea is that there will be a big spurt in growth. It’s central planning. If the govt favors capital, as opposed to labor, we will get more growth. Some people think that markets are better at allocating economic resources than are central planners such as Bush. Those who believe in the market would prefer a tax code which is neutral, taxing labor and income from capital the same. IN that view, the economy itself will send signals as to how much capital should be deployed as opposed to how much labor should be. It’s odd conservatives favor Bush since Bush is, like Fidel Castro, a central planner when it comes to the economy.
Response:
And create huge deficits. The financial press reports: "Viewers can expect his stated goal to be to make the economy more productive, make the government more efficient and give people more control over their own destinies. "But critics say the plan will shift the tax burden from the upper to the middle and lower classes, while ensuring massive budget deficits for years to come. "…The president has so far offered few details of his plan, and there may be some surprises Thursday night — anything from a reform of the tax code to a call for some kind of national sales tax may be possible.." Budget Deficit or YEAR (SURPLUS IN PARENTH)%GDP 1991 $269 billion 4.5 <—-Under Bush Sr.(inherited by Clinton) 1992 $290 billion 4.7 1993 $ 255 billion 3.9 1994 $203 billion 2.9 1995 $164 billion 2.2 1996 $107.5 billion 1.4 1997 $22 billion 0.3 1998 ($69 billion) 0.8 <—deficit turned into SURPLUS 1999 ($126 billion) 1.4 2000 ($236 billion) 2.4 2001 ($127 billion) 1.3<–Surplus inherited by Bush II from Clinton 2002 $158 billion 1.5 2003 $375 billion 3.5 2004 $477 billion 4.2 <—In just 3 and a half years, Bush II turns a 127 billion dollar surplus into a $477 billion deficit Privatizing social security into non-social in-security… "Supporters say this could help solve some of the problems affecting Social Security, which some analysts warn could break down when Baby Boomers start retiring at the end of this decade." But critics warn that reductions in payroll tax revenue will drain money from Social Security, which will still pay benefits to those who choose traditional retirement. Critics also say that, by letting individuals gamble with their retirement money, the government will raise the number of financial failures it’ll have to clean up anyway.. Of course privatizing social security WILL make billions of dollars of profits for Wall Street firms. -ED And it will mean the end of the social compact as we know it. As noted i the Progressive back in 1999, those who want to privatize social security want to play games and have it both ways: "If indeed the economy is going to undergo a historically unprecedented slowdown as far into the future as we can see, then the stock market is going to undergo a sharp slowdown, too. You can’t have it both ways. This is not a particularly radical criticism. You can read it in Business Week." They claim the economy’s growth rate will slow down indefinitely in a historically unprecendented way…which if true would mean that Wall Street would suffer a major long term bear market…exactly where they want us to put our life savings and our security in old age. But there’s more. It’s not just that the privateers want a profits bonanza for wall street. Whether the government invests money in Wall Street is (bad as that idea is) a completely separate issue from whether one also privatizes account (that is, gets rid of the ’social’ in ’social security’) Namely, ” The Social Security Act said, "We care if some other elderly person starves. We don’t want that to happen." The idea of putting it in the stock market, though it’s framed in all sorts of fraudulent gobbledygook, is to break down that sense of social solidarity and say, "You care only about yourself. If that guy down the street when he gets to be seventy starves to death, that’s not your problem. It’s his problem. He invested badly, or he had bad luck." That’s very good for rich people. But for everyone else, it depends on how you evaluate the risk. Social Security’s been very effective in that respect. Starvation among the elderly has dropped considerably." ” (http://www.progressive.org/chom999.htm) = = = In keeping with the "ownership" theme, Bush likely will also call for tax-free Lifetime Savings Accounts and Retirement Savings Accounts, offering further incentive for private saving and investment, which supporters say will spur greater productivity and economic growth in the future. Critics say these plans will shift the tax burden to those who live from paycheck to paycheck, who can’t afford to save. Such plans will also drain tax revenue, with upper-income families able to sock away several thousands of dollars in income, tax-free, every year. Without significant spending cuts to match them, critics say, government debt will rise, which will undercut national saving. "We need to figure out how to help more lower- and middle-income people save for retirement," said Robert Greenstein, founder and executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank that’s frequently criticized Bush’s policies, "not lose large amounts of money by giving people breaks at high-income levels, who already have substantial assets to fall back on." Health "Savings Accounts"?!? Of course despite the fact that close to 70% of Americans favor a choose-your-own-doctor freedom based universal coverage, Kerry is still too timid to go there. Never mind it’s what Europe plus Australia plus New Zealand plus Canada plus Japan have all implemented in one form or another. But really socking it to the weak is Bush’s forte, so his latest whopper is this "savings account" idea; "Critics say they won’t go far enough to fix the serious problem of rising health care costs, and they say the plan will eventually force people out of the safety net of traditional, employer-provided insurance and into the individual insurance market, where some shoppers will have hard going. "If you’re young and healthy, this can work well," Greenstein said. "If you’re not young and healthy, it can be a disaster, and you can end up much worse off than you currently are." Bush also has pushed for the creation of "re-employment" accounts, which would provide money for worker re-training so they can find new jobs as the economy evolves. Critics say more needs to be done to spur job creation in the here and now and to stop jobs from moving overseas. http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/01/news/economy/election_bush_plan/index… = = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT’S GOING ON? = = = = Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)
Response:
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Brazil slashes Mozambique’s debt Brazil has cancelled 95% of debt owed to it by Mozambique, and called on other nations to make similar financial gestures toward poorer nations. Brazil said it had forgiven about $332m (
Question:
"When we’re talking about Afghan women, people listening to the speeches tonight need to remember that — How much money was there allocated in the 2004 budget from this administration for the Women’s Department in Afghanistan?
Bush’s policies result in millions of Afghani and Iraqi women having the freedom to VOTE and attend school, and you’re bitching because some quasi-government group doesn’t get enough funding. Ann Coulter was right when she equated the "femininity" of the left with small-mindedness… :O|
Response:
"When we’re talking about Afghan women, people listening to the speeches tonight need to remember that — How much money was there allocated in the 2004 budget from this administration for the Women’s Department in Afghanistan? Bush’s policies result in millions of Afghani and Iraqi women having the freedom to VOTE and attend school, and you’re bitching because some quasi-government group doesn’t get enough funding. Ann Coulter was right when she equated the "femininity" of the left with small-mindedness… :O|
Imagine if China did what the US did. Imagine if the Chinese government murdering 10,000 Iraqis by taking out of office the mass-murdering dicator China had kept in power for years in Iraq by supporting him with military, economic, and diplomatic means. Now imagine China ignores the rest of the world and the UN and with raw military might takes over Iraq and murders 10,000 or so in the process and, oh, by the way, installs a hand-picked (we’d call it by a certain name; think Sesame streat) government where the 2nd largest oil country is. Now imagine the Chinese official, with utter indignation, "what??? you ungrateful dogs!?!? Iraqi women can now vote!? you small-minded person for daring to criticize Chinese action!!" [I dont' expect this (or anything) to change StanD's position that 1+1=17.43 But his ilk will be judged by history the same way as that hypothetical indignant Chinese hack -ED] About 99.9% of Demopublican crap about foreign policy can be debunked by "would it be ok if another country did the same thing? I believe in elementary moral truisms — if something is a crime when it’s committed against us, it’s a crime when we commit it against others. If there is a simpler moral truism than that, I’d like to hear it. -Noam Chomsky Sorry Chomsky, your standards are too high; in the US political discours and anslysis hasn’t reached kindergarten level yet.. 
= = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT’S GOING ON? = = = = Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general) ** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don’t work. Email to ** m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org instead
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – AMY GOODMAN: Wasn’t Laura Bush the first first lady to do the presidential radio address on Saturday? And I remember listening to it as she talked about the liberation of Afghan women. LAURA FLANDERS: Absolutely, and the timing was brilliant, and it shows the role of women in this administration. If you remember, Bush came out very strong after 9/11– the beginning of the war on Afghanistan was all about, ‘Smoke ‘em out, shoot ‘em out, bring ‘em home dead or alive.’ That wasn’t going so well by November. By November the war was going badly. The air force was deciding to use the daisy cutter bombs-the biggest in our arsenal. You have to drop them out of a cargo plane. They destroy everything in a three-mile radius. Who do they bring out onto the television to cast this war — not as a war of revenge, the most powerful nation in the world against one of the world’s most underdeveloped states? They bring out Laura Bush to say, this isn’t about revenge, this is about protection — defense, not just of Afghan women and girls, but of women and girls in the world; and she said, women and girls in the world are threatened by the Taliban, and we are coming to liberate them. Afghan women haven’t been liberated. They have been denied the support they were promised. But Laura Bush will be used again to put a soft face and a kind of feminist-friendly face on a devastating bombing campaign, and on the abandonment of women who were counting on them for support.
classy broads, those republicOn wives… — TheTruthHurts.
Response:
"When we’re talking about Afghan women, people listening to the speeches tonight need to remember that — How much money was there allocated in the 2004 budget from this administration for the Women’s Department in Afghanistan? Not one cent. It was only when women’s organizations made a fuss that any money came from this administration to go to the Women’s Department in Afghanistan." Tuesday, August 31st, 2004 The W Effect: Bush’s War on Women Listen to: Segment || Show Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/31/149200 A group of 900 Republican women gathered Monday at the Waldorf Astoria to hear about why women should rally behind George W. Bush. We hear former first lady Barbara Bush and Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney at the event and we speak with radio host Laura Flanders about her new book The W Effect: Bush’s War on Women. [includes rush transcript] President Bush’s supporters frequently cite the number of women in his cabinet as proof of his support for women’s rights. But numerous women’s groups this week have held protests against Bush’s agenda and what they call the war on women. In response, a group of 900 Republican women gathered on Monday at the Waldorf Astoria to hear about why women should rally behind George W. Bush. The "W Stands for Women" event featured members of both the Bush and Cheney families, including the Bush twins, Jenna and Barbara, who sat silently on stage; the president’s sister, Doro Bush Koch, and mother, 76-year-old former first lady Barbara Bush; as well as Dick Cheney’s wife Lynne and daughter Liz. * Barbara Bush, Former First Lady speaking at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, August 30, 2004. * Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney speaking at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, August 30, 2004. # Laura Flanders, author of the book Bushwomen: Tales of a Cynical Species and the editor of the new book The W Effect: Bush’s War on Women. She is also the host of "Your Call" heard on KALW-FM in San Francisco, and on the Internet. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: President Bush’s supporters frequently cite the number of women in his cabinet as proof of his support for women’s rights. But numerous women’s groups this week have held protests against the Bush agenda and what they call ‘the war on women.’ In response, a group of 900 Republican women gathered Monday at the Waldorf-Astoria to hear about why women should rally behind George W. Bush. The ‘W Stands for Women’ event featured members of both the Bush and Cheney families, including the Bush twins, Jenna and Barbara, who sat silently on stage; the president’s sister, ‘Doro’ Bush Koch and mother, 76-year-old former first lady, Barbara Bush; as well as Dick Cheney’s wife, Lynn, and daughter, Liz. This is an excerpt of what the former first lady, Barbara Bush had to say. BARBARA BUSH: I must tell you that being around so many supporters like this, renews my faith. I’ve tried to avoid watching the news lately. Because it does raise my blood pressure. Unfortunately, the President’s father can’t resist. He hates to miss a word. So while he’s spends his evening cursing at the TV set and occasionally even throwing things, I calmly sit by, needlepointing and listening to books on tape. I don’t need to hear all that stuff. I can look at you and get great strength. [cheers and applause] Now all of you — all of you mothers know what it’s like when someone says mean things about your — someone you love. Imagine what it’s like when these terrible, untrue things are said on national TV for the whole world to hear. Sometimes I just want to give people a piece of my mind. [cheers and applause] But of course, you know, I would never do that. As George would say: ‘Wouldn’t be prudent!’ AMY GOODMAN: Barbara Bush, former first lady and mother of the current president, speaking last night at the ‘W Stands for Women’ event in New York. Also in attendance was Vice President Dick Cheney’s wife, Lynne Cheney, who took the stage minutes later. LYNNE CHENEY: It’s such an honor to be here today. Looking at the women sitting on this stage, I mean, it is so remarkable. The stories of women’s advancement. I can remember when Dick and I first came to Washington, and it was a rarity to spot a woman cabinet officer. It was a rarity (maybe it didn’t even happen) that women rose to high-level policy positions within the White House. I think that took longer to happen than women being in the cabinet. So this is — this is such a wonderful moment, to look back here and to see all of these women of high achievement working for George W. Bush. [applause] And it is always an honor for me to be any place that Barbara Bush is. [applause] I can remember how much I admired her when she was first lady and Dick was Secretary of Defense. And one of my favorite pictures (and you don’t even know this) [addressing Barbara Bush], it’s when you had cabinet wives come over and, well it was just this wonderful picture of you greeting me and being warm as you always are, and I love that picture, and thank you for everything you’ve done. [applause] And Doro — [applause] What a great sister! You’ve been a good friend to Liz and me, too, and we appreciate that. And it really is terrific to see Jen and Barbara out here. Thank you for being here today. You know, one of the things that’s happened to me over the last three years, is I will have people come up to me and they say the same thing. It’s in different — different versions of it. But basically, it’s something like this: ‘We are so glad that George Bush and your husband are in the White House.’ [applause] And I know exactly what they mean. We live in times of peril. There is no question about that. These are times of great challenge for the American people. And it is such a comfort to all of us to have these good men, who are so solid, so stable, so strong, leading our country. AMY GOODMAN: Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, former head of the National Endowment of Humanities, speaking yesterday at ‘W Stands for Women’ event at the Waldorf-Astoria. We’re now joined by radio talk show host and author Laura Flanders. She has written several books, one of them, Bush Women: Tales of a Cynical Species and, the latest, editor of The W Effect: Bush’s War on Women. She’s also host of ‘Your Call,’ heard on KALW FM in San Francisco, and a host on Air America. Welcome to Democracy Now!. LAURA FLANDERS: Glad to be with you, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: So
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Now they have finally accepted that CO2 is causing global warming, they have absolutely no excuse for not rejoining the Kyoto process. Every day they continue to stall will now be held to be criminally negligent by future generations." The Kyoto scam wouldn’t do squat about the CO2 even if CO2 were causing global warming. All Kyoto is designed to to is transfer weath from US citizens and taxpayers to third world dictators and make "transfer [wealth] from US citizens and taxpayers to third world dictators You must be thinking of the military budget…" americans buy the right to produce from the distators of countries which don’t produce. Wiliam R. James A fool who’s never heard of weeds that are more hardy than the particular food crop one is planting. Must be living in a cave. Not unless you thing the 21st century is a cave. Ans not unless you think being educated is a cave. And not unless you think understanding the scientific method is a cave. BTW, some food crop plants are as hardy or hardier than the hardient weeds. See if you can figure out what they are. responded to in separate post. Addendum follows. Have you ever seen crops grow? In todays farms, the weeds have virtually no chance anyway. Feel free to visit the south. I’ve lived in the south for years
South Dakota doesn’t count. But let’s not confuse two different things: the fact that we drench the earth in poison (herbacides) so that hardly anything but the crop intended can live, is completely separate from whether CLIMATE can affect the crop in question, more than the weeds, or more than at least one weed or a few.
I coulnd’t help but notice that you failed to even attepmt to address the question, as usual. The other point, that the article said "there exist weeds" not "All weeds" being hardier was in my other post. timeout
Your BS claim was that somehow increased CO2 would harm food production by helping the weeds. That’s BS no matter how you try to explain it away. William R. James
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Now they have finally accepted that CO2 is causing global warming, they have absolutely no excuse for not rejoining the Kyoto process. Every day they continue to stall will now be held to be criminally negligent by future generations." The Kyoto scam wouldn’t do squat about the CO2 even if CO2 were causing global warming. All Kyoto is designed to to is transfer weath from US citizens and taxpayers to third world dictators and make "transfer [wealth] from US citizens and taxpayers to third world dictators You must be thinking of the military budget…" americans buy the right to produce from the distators of countries which don’t produce. Wiliam R. James A fool who’s never heard of weeds that are more hardy than the particular food crop one is planting. Must be living in a cave. Not unless you thing the 21st century is a cave. Ans not unless you think being educated is a cave. And not unless you think understanding the scientific method is a cave. Have you ever seen crops grow? In todays farms, the weeds have virtually no chance anyway. Feel free to visit the south. I see miles of crops every day without a weed in sight. Contrary to what you might believe, we in Mississipi don’t have slaves out in the fields pulling weeds all day, the pre-emergent herbicides take care of most of it and the various other treatments, including simple Roundup with the wicks wipe the rest out easily. Farming isn’t about controlling weeds anymore. Today it’s about maximizing yield for every square foot. Farmers use tracters with GPS systems tied into computer controlled machinery to put the fertilizer precisely where it’s needed. Science is solving problems while you parrot your pseudoscince nonsense which does nothing but try to draw in gullible idiots to parrot with you. BTW, some food crop plants are as hardy or hardier than the hardient weeds. See if you can figure out what they are. William R. James Who still cannot understand the difference between "All X’s are Y" and "There exist X’s which are Y" the latter being what the article quoted, indicated.
It’s called "data mining" and simply "lying". You should recognoize that with your experience of doing the same. So what’s your exist strategy William R. James?
My strategy is to exist, yes. 
What’s more important, saving face or the fate of the only liveable planet we have?
Saving the planet from scamspeddled by pseudoscience hoax peddlers like yourself. What will you say when it’s everyone except the Press Secretary for ExxonMobil, and you, who pretend there’s not climate change that’s human induced? Even Bush’s commerce Dept now admits it, on top of Bush’s EPA and the American Academy of Science and the US Geophysical Union and the IPCC and the vast, vast majority of scientists in every country on the planet.
Unlike you, I feel no compulsion to parrot anyone’s BS. I reaally don’t care who or how many are parroting BS, I’ll still note the scent. If you ever run across any actual science to support your claims, I assume you will point it out. Until then I’ll not hold my breath. You have painted yourself into a corner. I don’t get any thrill of out winning debates,
Good, otherwise, you might never have any thrills. I have bigger fish to fry, like pretending disasters on the planet.. I gain no satisfaction in humilating you,…
If you did, perhaps you would try harder to attempt to do it at least once. so, don’t reply to this question, but just ask yourself, as it becomes clear that you have been duped by the corporate pseudo science and propaganda, and you become the last 1% on the planet who denies climate change, how will you get out of the corner you’ve painted yourself into? Don’t paint yourself without an exit. It will be harder to play this "Denial is not just a river in Egypt" game in 2005 Wm James, and harder still in 2006. Have an exist strategy.
ROTFLMAO! This from a parrot who hasn’t a clue about science and does nothingbutparrot pseudoscience propaganda on a daily basis. I hhave no "exist strategy" other than to exist. If you mean "exit" strategy,I don’t need one. I’ve been quite consistant in my spport of the scientific method. That’s the basis of my opposition to your pseudoscience BS parading as science in direct opposition to all evidence, and your complete dismissal of real science,real physics, real chenistry,and reality in general. I know Limbaugh’s strategy: never ever ever admit he was wrong, and just scream in agner at those libr’ls and how we need even MORE deregulation to get us out of the mess he’s denied exists all these years…that’s his extreme level of Chutzpah.
Limbause is a superstitious practitioner. Like you, he believes in BS which defy the laws of nature. Hopefully our exist strategy will have more class…
Hopefully, you will some day attend a science class. William R. James
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Now they have finally accepted that CO2 is causing global warming, they have absolutely no excuse for not rejoining the Kyoto process. Every day they continue to stall will now be held to be criminally negligent by future generations." The Kyoto scam wouldn’t do squat about the CO2 even if CO2 were causing global warming. All Kyoto is designed to to is transfer weath from US citizens and taxpayers to third world dictators and make "transfer [wealth] from US citizens and taxpayers to third world dictators You must be thinking of the military budget…" americans buy the right to produce from the distators of countries which don’t produce. Wiliam R. James A fool who’s never heard of weeds that are more hardy than the particular food crop one is planting. Must be living in a cave. Not unless you thing the 21st century is a cave. Ans not unless you think being educated is a cave. And not unless you think understanding the scientific method is a cave. BTW, some food crop plants are as hardy or hardier than the hardient weeds. See if you can figure out what they are.
responded to in separate post. Addendum follows. Have you ever seen crops grow? In todays farms, the weeds have virtually no chance anyway. Feel free to visit the south.
I’ve lived in the south for years But let’s not confuse two different things: the fact that we drench the earth in poison (herbacides) so that hardly anything but the crop intended can live, is completely separate from whether CLIMATE can affect the crop in question, more than the weeds, or more than at least one weed or a few. The other point, that the article said "there exist weeds" not "All weeds" being hardier was in my other post. timeout
Response:
Bush u-turn on climate change wins few friends Gary Younge Friday August 27, 2004 The Guardian In a dramatic reversal of its previous position, the White House this week conceded that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming.
Oh, so now you think he’s a genius? Citing the "best possible scientific information," an administration official, James Mahoney, delivered a report to Congress that essentially reversed the previous White House position set out by George Bush, who had refused to link carbon dioxide emissions to climate change.
He was right. Two years ago, when his administration last published a document claiming that global warming over the last few decades had been prompted by human behaviour, Mr Bush dismissed it as something "put out by the bureaucracy".
He was wrong. Itwas and is a scam put out by frauds. One of Mr Bush’s first acts on the international scene as president was to refuse to ratify the Kyoto treaty, which aimed to cut emissions by 5.2% from 1990 levels by 2012 – prompting outrage throughout the world.
As if the kooks in the rest of the world matter… "We must argue with the Americans and get them to agree we have to have a global solution, and America is a very important part of that solution," the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, said at the time. But Mr Bush also alienated himself from members of his own cabinet as he overrode the recommendations of his newly-appointed head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Christine Todd Whitman. This was widely seen as a payback to the energy lobby which had donated a huge amount to his campaign.
Sounds good, doesnt it? Never mind reality if thew accusations sound good, right? At the time Mr Bush cast doubts on the science, claimed restrictions would hamper economic growth, and said the treaty was "unfair to the United States and to other industrialised nations" because it exempted developing countries.
There’s no "science" to cast doubt on! The global warming nonsense is no more scientific than "creation science" or "psychics". However, it will be far more difficult for him to distance himself from the current report, because it has been signed by the secretaries of energy and commerce in his administration. Coming just days before the Republican convention opens in New York, it is thought to be another attempt by the administration to show moderate leanings.
Yep, political pandering. He’s known for that. The report, which also quotes studies that indicate that carbon dioxide stimulates the growth of invasive weeds more than it does crops, is part of a regular series submitted to Congress to monitor global trends.
ROTFLMAO! Yeah right! Man made CO2 takes part in a conspiracy to only help the plants we don’t want, huh? Your pseudoscience BS is geting pretty funny. Mr Bush’s former allies in the energy industry criticised the findings. Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the New York Times it was "another indication that the administration continues to be incoherent in its global warming policies".
So? Why not be incoherent regarding non-science nonsense? Environmentalists say the report’s conclusions simply highlight the distance between what the Bush administration has done and what good science suggests should be done.
Good science is real science, the practice f the scientific method. That’s a foreign concept to the "global warming" Chicken Little scam peddlers. "For four years the Bush administration has brought the international global warming negotiations to a virtual standstill by claiming that uncertainties in climate science do not justify the cost of tackling it," said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
ROTFLMAO! There’s a credible source! "Now they have finally accepted that CO2 is causing global warming, they have absolutely no excuse for not rejoining the Kyoto process. Every day they continue to stall will now be held to be criminally negligent by future generations."
The Kyoto scam wouldn’t do squat about the CO2 even if CO2 were causing global warming. All Kyoto is designed to to is transfer weath from US citizens and taxpayers to third world dictators and make americans buy the right to produce from the distators of countries which don’t produce. Wiliam R. James
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Now they have finally accepted that CO2 is causing global warming, they have absolutely no excuse for not rejoining the Kyoto process. Every day they continue to stall will now be held to be criminally negligent by future generations." The Kyoto scam wouldn’t do squat about the CO2 even if CO2 were causing global warming. All Kyoto is designed to to is transfer weath from US citizens and taxpayers to third world dictators and make "transfer [wealth] from US citizens and taxpayers to third world dictators You must be thinking of the military budget…" americans buy the right to produce from the distators of countries which don’t produce. Wiliam R. James A fool who’s never heard of weeds that are more hardy than the particular food crop one is planting. Must be living in a cave. Not unless you thing the 21st century is a cave. Ans not unless you think being educated is a cave. And not unless you think understanding the scientific method is a cave. Have you ever seen crops grow? In todays farms, the weeds have virtually no chance anyway. Feel free to visit the south. I see miles of crops every day without a weed in sight. Contrary to what you might believe, we in Mississipi don’t have slaves out in the fields pulling weeds all day, the pre-emergent herbicides take care of most of it and the various other treatments, including simple Roundup with the wicks wipe the rest out easily. Farming isn’t about controlling weeds anymore. Today it’s about maximizing yield for every square foot. Farmers use tracters with GPS systems tied into computer controlled machinery to put the fertilizer precisely where it’s needed. Science is solving problems while you parrot your pseudoscince nonsense which does nothing but try to draw in gullible idiots to parrot with you. BTW, some food crop plants are as hardy or hardier than the hardient weeds. See if you can figure out what they are. William R. James
Who still cannot understand the difference between "All X’s are Y" and "There exist X’s which are Y" the latter being what the article quoted, indicated. So what’s your exist strategy William R. James? What’s more important, saving face or the fate of the only liveable planet we have? What will you say when it’s everyone except the Press Secretary for ExxonMobil, and you, who pretend there’s not climate change that’s human induced? Even Bush’s commerce Dept now admits it, on top of Bush’s EPA and the American Academy of Science and the US Geophysical Union and the IPCC and the vast, vast majority of scientists in every country on the planet. You have painted yourself into a corner. I don’t get any thrill of out winning debates, I have bigger fish to fry, like pretending disasters on the planet.. I gain no satisfaction in humilating you,…so, don’t reply to this question, but just ask yourself, as it becomes clear that you have been duped by the corporate pseudo science and propaganda, and you become the last 1% on the planet who denies climate change, how will you get out of the corner you’ve painted yourself into? Don’t paint yourself without an exit. It will be harder to play this "Denial is not just a river in Egypt" game in 2005 Wm James, and harder still in 2006. Have an exist strategy. I know Limbaugh’s strategy: never ever ever admit he was wrong, and just scream in agner at those libr’ls and how we need even MORE deregulation to get us out of the mess he’s denied exists all these years…that’s his extreme level of Chutzpah. Hopefully our exist strategy will have more class…
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Now they have finally accepted that CO2 is causing global warming, they have absolutely no excuse for not rejoining the Kyoto process. Every day they continue to stall will now be held to be criminally negligent by future generations." The Kyoto scam wouldn’t do squat about the CO2 even if CO2 were causing global warming. All Kyoto is designed to to is transfer weath from US citizens and taxpayers to third world dictators and make "transfer [wealth] from US citizens and taxpayers to third world dictators You must be thinking of the military budget…" americans buy the right to produce from the distators of countries which don’t produce. Wiliam R. James A fool who’s never heard of weeds that are more hardy than the particular food crop one is planting. Must be living in a cave.
Not unless you thing the 21st century is a cave. Ans not unless you think being educated is a cave. And not unless you think understanding the scientific method is a cave. Have you ever seen crops grow? In todays farms, the weeds have virtually no chance anyway. Feel free to visit the south. I see miles of crops every day without a weed in sight. Contrary to what you might believe, we in Mississipi don’t have slaves out in the fields pulling weeds all day, the pre-emergent herbicides take care of most of it and the various other treatments, including simple Roundup with the wicks wipe the rest out easily. Farming isn’t about controlling weeds anymore. Today it’s about maximizing yield for every square foot. Farmers use tracters with GPS systems tied into computer controlled machinery to put the fertilizer precisely where it’s needed. Science is solving problems while you parrot your pseudoscince nonsense which does nothing but try to draw in gullible idiots to parrot with you. BTW, some food crop plants are as hardy or hardier than the hardient weeds. See if you can figure out what they are. William R. James
Response:
"Now they have finally accepted that CO2 is causing global warming, they have absolutely no excuse for not rejoining the Kyoto process. Every day they continue to stall will now be held to be criminally negligent by future generations." The Kyoto scam wouldn’t do squat about the CO2 even if CO2 were causing global warming. All Kyoto is designed to to is transfer weath from US citizens and taxpayers to third world dictators and make
"transfer [wealth] from US citizens and taxpayers to third world dictators You must be thinking of the military budget…" americans buy the right to produce from the distators of countries which don’t produce. Wiliam R. James
A fool who’s never heard of weeds that are more hardy than the particular food crop one is planting. Must be living in a cave.
Response:
Difficult concept but we consume 25% of the worlds resources (oil/gas). We are 5% of the worlds population. We are ’supposedly’ the worlds leader. So why is it exactly that we are going to shoulder the burden of cutting pollution on those who use the least of our resources? Even if they had 100% compliance with whatever standards that may be made, their impact on the problem would be little to nothing. We are the users. We are the ones who must act.
And in fact, the rest of the world seems to be learning from our past mistakes, and implementing better pollution controls as they grow their economies. <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/weekinreview/29revk.html It’s still no excuse for us not to clean up our own act. — Where was AWOL George W. Bush? <http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm Any government will waste money. Only the worst waste lives.
Response:
Well, I guess third world countries need to follow our example and reduce emmissions. Prime examples of heavily polluted air I’ve seen first hand are in coutries like Malaysia, Egypt, Thailand, and western Europe. SikOfLibs
Difficult concept but we consume 25% of the worlds resources (oil/gas). We are 5% of the worlds population. We are ’supposedly’ the worlds leader. So why is it exactly that we are going to shoulder the burden of cutting pollution on those who use the least of our resources? Even if they had 100% compliance with whatever standards that may be made, their impact on the problem would be little to nothing. We are the users. We are the ones who must act. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Bush u-turn on climate change wins few friends Gary Younge Friday August 27, 2004 The Guardian In a dramatic reversal of its previous position, the White House this week conceded that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming. Citing the "best possible scientific information," an administration official, James Mahoney, delivered a report to Congress that essentially reversed the previous White House position set out by George Bush, who had refused to link carbon dioxide emissions to climate change. Two years ago, when his administration last published a document claiming that global warming over the last few decades had been prompted by human behaviour, Mr Bush dismissed it as something "put out by the bureaucracy". One of Mr Bush’s first acts on the international scene as president was to refuse to ratify the Kyoto treaty, which aimed to cut emissions by 5.2% from 1990 levels by 2012 – prompting outrage throughout the world. "We must argue with the Americans and get them to agree we have to have a global solution, and America is a very important part of that solution," the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, said at the time. But Mr Bush also alienated himself from members of his own cabinet as he overrode the recommendations of his newly-appointed head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Christine Todd Whitman. This was widely seen as a payback to the energy lobby which had donated a huge amount to his campaign. At the time Mr Bush cast doubts on the science, claimed restrictions would hamper economic growth, and said the treaty was "unfair to the United States and to other industrialised nations" because it exempted developing countries. However, it will be far more difficult for him to distance himself from the current report, because it has been signed by the secretaries of energy and commerce in his administration. Coming just days before the Republican convention opens in New York, it is thought to be another attempt by the administration to show moderate leanings. The report, which also quotes studies that indicate that carbon dioxide stimulates the growth of invasive weeds more than it does crops, is part of a regular series submitted to Congress to monitor global trends. Mr Bush’s former allies in the energy industry criticised the findings. Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the New York Times it was "another indication that the administration continues to be incoherent in its global warming policies". Environmentalists say the report’s conclusions simply highlight the distance between what the Bush administration has done and what good science suggests should be done. "For four years the Bush administration has brought the international global warming negotiations to a virtual standstill by claiming that uncertainties in climate science do not justify the cost of tackling it," said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace. "Now they have finally accepted that CO2 is causing global warming, they have absolutely no excuse for not rejoining the Kyoto process. Every day they continue to stall will now be held to be criminally negligent by future generations." http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1291986,00.html DON’T MOURN, ACT! WEBSITES FOR ACTION: http://www.earthshare.org/get_involved/involved.html http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/climate.asp http://www.greenhousenet.org/ http://www.solarcatalyst.com/ Overview and local actions you can take: http://www.PostCarbon.org = = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT’S GOING ON? = = = = Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general) ** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don’t work. Email instead ** to m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org
Response:
Well, I guess third world countries need to follow our example and reduce emmissions. Prime examples of heavily polluted air I’ve seen first hand are in coutries like Malaysia, Egypt, Thailand, and western Europe. SikOfLibs
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Bush u-turn on climate change wins few friends Gary Younge Friday August 27, 2004 The Guardian In a dramatic reversal of its previous position, the White House this week conceded that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming. Citing the "best possible scientific information," an administration official, James Mahoney, delivered a report to Congress that essentially reversed the previous White House position set out by George Bush, who had refused to link carbon dioxide emissions to climate change. Two years ago, when his administration last published a document claiming that global warming over the last few decades had been prompted by human behaviour, Mr Bush dismissed it as something "put out by the bureaucracy". One of Mr Bush’s first acts on the international scene as president was to refuse to ratify the Kyoto treaty, which aimed to cut emissions by 5.2% from 1990 levels by 2012 – prompting outrage throughout the world. "We must argue with the Americans and get them to agree we have to have a global solution, and America is a very important part of that solution," the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, said at the time. But Mr Bush also alienated himself from members of his own cabinet as he overrode the recommendations of his newly-appointed head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Christine Todd Whitman. This was widely seen as a payback to the energy lobby which had donated a huge amount to his campaign. At the time Mr Bush cast doubts on the science, claimed restrictions would hamper economic growth, and said the treaty was "unfair to the United States and to other industrialised nations" because it exempted developing countries. However, it will be far more difficult for him to distance himself from the current report, because it has been signed by the secretaries of energy and commerce in his administration. Coming just days before the Republican convention opens in New York, it is thought to be another attempt by the administration to show moderate leanings. The report, which also quotes studies that indicate that carbon dioxide stimulates the growth of invasive weeds more than it does crops, is part of a regular series submitted to Congress to monitor global trends. Mr Bush’s former allies in the energy industry criticised the findings. Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the New York Times it was "another indication that the administration continues to be incoherent in its global warming policies". Environmentalists say the report’s conclusions simply highlight the distance between what the Bush administration has done and what good science suggests should be done. "For four years the Bush administration has brought the international global warming negotiations to a virtual standstill by claiming that uncertainties in climate science do not justify the cost of tackling it," said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace. "Now they have finally accepted that CO2 is causing global warming, they have absolutely no excuse for not rejoining the Kyoto process. Every day they continue to stall will now be held to be criminally negligent by future generations." http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1291986,00.html DON’T MOURN, ACT! WEBSITES FOR ACTION: http://www.earthshare.org/get_involved/involved.html http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/climate.asp http://www.greenhousenet.org/ http://www.solarcatalyst.com/ Overview and local actions you can take: http://www.PostCarbon.org = = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT’S GOING ON? = = = = Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general) ** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don’t work. Email instead ** to m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org
Response:
Bush u-turn on climate change wins few friends Gary Younge Friday August 27, 2004 The Guardian In a dramatic reversal of its previous position, the White House this week conceded that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were the only likely explanation for global warming. Citing the "best possible scientific information," an administration official, James Mahoney, delivered a report to Congress that essentially reversed the previous White House position set out by George Bush, who had refused to link carbon dioxide emissions to climate change. Two years ago, when his administration last published a document claiming that global warming over the last few decades had been prompted by human behaviour, Mr Bush dismissed it as something "put out by the bureaucracy". One of Mr Bush’s first acts on the international scene as president was to refuse to ratify the Kyoto treaty, which aimed to cut emissions by 5.2% from 1990 levels by 2012 – prompting outrage throughout the world. "We must argue with the Americans and get them to agree we have to have a global solution, and America is a very important part of that solution," the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, said at the time. But Mr Bush also alienated himself from members of his own cabinet as he overrode the recommendations of his newly-appointed head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Christine Todd Whitman. This was widely seen as a payback to the energy lobby which had donated a huge amount to his campaign. At the time Mr Bush cast doubts on the science, claimed restrictions would hamper economic growth, and said the treaty was "unfair to the United States and to other industrialised nations" because it exempted developing countries. However, it will be far more difficult for him to distance himself from the current report, because it has been signed by the secretaries of energy and commerce in his administration. Coming just days before the Republican convention opens in New York, it is thought to be another attempt by the administration to show moderate leanings. The report, which also quotes studies that indicate that carbon dioxide stimulates the growth of invasive weeds more than it does crops, is part of a regular series submitted to Congress to monitor global trends. Mr Bush’s former allies in the energy industry criticised the findings. Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the New York Times it was "another indication that the administration continues to be incoherent in its global warming policies". Environmentalists say the report’s conclusions simply highlight the distance between what the Bush administration has done and what good science suggests should be done. "For four years the Bush administration has brought the international global warming negotiations to a virtual standstill by claiming that uncertainties in climate science do not justify the cost of tackling it," said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace. "Now they have finally accepted that CO2 is causing global warming, they have absolutely no excuse for not rejoining the Kyoto process. Every day they continue to stall will now be held to be criminally negligent by future generations." http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1291986,00.html DON’T MOURN, ACT! WEBSITES FOR ACTION: http://www.earthshare.org/get_involved/involved.html http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/climate.asp http://www.greenhousenet.org/ http://www.solarcatalyst.com/ Overview and local actions you can take: http://www.PostCarbon.org = = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT’S GOING ON? = = = = Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general) ** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don’t work. Email instead ** to m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org
Response:
Question:
Old-timers (and now myself!) tell stories of a frozen-over Columbia River or severe blizzards and ice storms that once made their annual visits to Clark County. Extended periods of cold weather and ice are few and far between locally. Our overnight lows have been warmer for many years now, and our summers and falls are increasingly getting warmer. Hotter summers and half the annual rainfall would definitely have an impact on our region… – - – In Barrow, Alaska, the average annual temperature has risen 4.16 degrees in the past 30 years. – - – Weather Eye: Old-timers’ tales tell story of global warming Sunday, August 22, 2004 PAT TIMM for The Columbian I mentioned in Friday’s column about global warming and a very interesting section about it in the September issue of National Geographic. The magazine makes for good reading and is a book worth keeping and sharing with your children. Then in their lifetime they can compare the predictions and current trends. I have heard in the past couple of years in climate and weather discussions that the climate of southern Oregon Medford will in 20 years or so be the average in the Vancouver-Portland area. Our overnight lows have been warmer for many years now, and our summers and falls are increasingly getting warmer. Hotter summers and half the annual rainfall would definitely have an impact on our region. In Barrow, Alaska, the average annual temperature has risen 4.16 degrees in the past 30 years. Alaska has had a fourfold increase in wildfires this summer. In a few decades, Glacier National Park may be void of any glaciers at all. The park has seen a decline of the ice packs by three-fourths from the early 1900s. And, of course, while it is very warm and dry in one region, it is very wet and cool in another due to the changing jet stream and weather patterns. While the Western U.S. is dry and dusty, the Midwest is getting soaked this summer. From everything that I have read, and from my own observations over the past 30 years, the facts tell me that it has gotten warmer in our area. Old-timers (and now myself!) tell stories of a frozen-over Columbia River or severe blizzards and ice storms that once made their annual visits to Clark County. Extended periods of cold weather and ice are few and far between locally. Last winter, we got just a taste of old times. Pat Timm is a local weather specialist. His column appears Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Write to him at P.O. Box 65031, http://www.columbian.com/08222004/life/180029.html Weather Eye: Old-timers’ tales tell story of global warming DON’T MOURN, ACT! WEBSITES FOR ACTION: http://www.greenhousenet.org/ http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/climate.asp http://www.solarcatalyst.com/ Overview and local actions you can take: http://www.PostCarbon.org = = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT’S GOING ON? = = = = Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general) ** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don’t work. Email instead ** to m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org
Response:
This summer has been unusually cool here. There are few ticks and fleas to be seen this year for some reason. A few years ago they were all over the place. There have been many flash floods this year from intense thunderstorms with large hail that put dozens of dents in my car. Water main breaks are occuring now in the summer instead of the winter. Last winter was very mild. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Old-timers (and now myself!) tell stories of a frozen-over Columbia River or severe blizzards and ice storms that once made their annual visits to Clark County. Extended periods of cold weather and ice are few and far between locally. Our overnight lows have been warmer for many years now, and our summers and falls are increasingly getting warmer. Hotter summers and half the annual rainfall would definitely have an impact on our region… – - – In Barrow, Alaska, the average annual temperature has risen 4.16 degrees in the past 30 years. – - – Weather Eye: Old-timers’ tales tell story of global warming Sunday, August 22, 2004 PAT TIMM for The Columbian I mentioned in Friday’s column about global warming and a very interesting section about it in the September issue of National Geographic. The magazine makes for good reading and is a book worth keeping and sharing with your children. Then in their lifetime they can compare the predictions and current trends. I have heard in the past couple of years in climate and weather discussions that the climate of southern Oregon Medford will in 20 years or so be the average in the Vancouver-Portland area. Our overnight lows have been warmer for many years now, and our summers and falls are increasingly getting warmer. Hotter summers and half the annual rainfall would definitely have an impact on our region. In Barrow, Alaska, the average annual temperature has risen 4.16 degrees in the past 30 years. Alaska has had a fourfold increase in wildfires this summer. In a few decades, Glacier National Park may be void of any glaciers at all. The park has seen a decline of the ice packs by three-fourths from the early 1900s. And, of course, while it is very warm and dry in one region, it is very wet and cool in another due to the changing jet stream and weather patterns. While the Western U.S. is dry and dusty, the Midwest is getting soaked this summer. From everything that I have read, and from my own observations over the past 30 years, the facts tell me that it has gotten warmer in our area. Old-timers (and now myself!) tell stories of a frozen-over Columbia River or severe blizzards and ice storms that once made their annual visits to Clark County. Extended periods of cold weather and ice are few and far between locally. Last winter, we got just a taste of old times. Pat Timm is a local weather specialist. His column appears Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Write to him at P.O. Box 65031, http://www.columbian.com/08222004/life/180029.html Weather Eye: Old-timers’ tales tell story of global warming DON’T MOURN, ACT! WEBSITES FOR ACTION: http://www.greenhousenet.org/ http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/climate.asp http://www.solarcatalyst.com/ Overview and local actions you can take: http://www.PostCarbon.org = = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT’S GOING ON? = = = = Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general) ** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don’t work. Email instead ** to m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org
Response:
Previous page