Hysterical Liberals

Democrats are in a nearly constant state of hysteria. According to them we are living in the worst country, with the worst economy, worst unemployment rate , and worst leadership, We are breathing the worst air, suffering the worst educational system, beset by the worst crime rate and it is going to get worse. Everything is getting worse.

Some Democrats have have ideas but most are just randomly angry. They substitute gnashing of teeth for alternative ideas. Like Seven Up in the old UnCola commercial, they are the Un-Bush.

We have real challenges in this country. We are not sure of the real cost of the Iraq War, we have a looming crisis of entitlements, Federal spending is on a steep uptick, and of course the unknown terror threats. We don't ignore these problems, but we believe they can be addressed and should be addressed, but in order to tackle real problems, we need to give up the pretend ones. Dick Cheney's hunting accident is not a crisis. A 4.7% unemployment rate is not a catastrophe. Reductions in major pollutants (such as a 29% drop in SO2 and a 10% drop in NO) is not an ecological collapse.

The fact is that most things are good today. The economy is doing well with low unemployment. The quality of our lives is good as measured by heath trends, pollution levels, crime rates and individual net worth. You don't have to credit President Bush if you prefer not to. It doesn't bother me very much if you want to claim this happened in spite of him, but you should recognize the base truths from which we are working. Unfortunately the defenders of the truth lack all conviction while the attackers are full of passionate intensity. Surely some revelation is at hand and I will tell you what it is.

It is hard to sell yourself as the negative of something or someone else. Beyond that, come 2008 it we will all be the Un-Bush. So even if you are right, you will send up with a handful of air when it really counts.

You will never get George Bush. He has escaped your wrath. He doesn't care if you don’t like him. In fact, he seems to enjoy your impotent rage. Move on from this and get to the real problems. And come up with some new ideas if you can. Anger is an emotion, not an idea.

And you know where it leads.

Posted by Jack at February 20, 2006 1:47 AM
Comments
Comment #127673

Jack, thanks. I got a real chuckle out of this. The hysteria is enormously humorous if I put aside the large costs of a divided nation.

I usually get my daily dose of humor from political hysteria from C-Span’s call in show, Washington Journal, where you can listen to the most absurd right and left extremists spout out how the other side is destroying our nation.

Sad fact is, however, both sides have their extremists and they are harming our nation in complicity with the media by commanding media resources as if extremism is what America is about. America is not about extremism, it is about concensus. Concensus lies at the core of our political system and system of governance. What is truly harming our nation is this one party federal government which is bringing out the extremes on both sides.

Hopefully, this is a situation that will be remedied in November.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 20, 2006 3:29 AM
Comment #127690

Jack, you need to wean yourself from right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institutute.

For a challenge, try to make the same point using articles from left-wing think tanks like the Center for American Progress. :)

As for this article, it’s a prime example of how pessimistic Republicans are. After the Golden Age of Clinton, it’s obvious that America can do better than it is right now. Why don’t you want America to be better, Jack?

Here’s a good Democratic idea: start by eliminating the deficit like President Clinton did. Lots of good things happen when America is on solid financial ground.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 20, 2006 4:36 AM
Comment #127693

Golden Age of Clinton?? Well, all I can remember from that Golden age is how much money was being hacked out of my pay check each and every week. Since tax reductions (am yes, I am middle income) I have actually be able to invest in the stock market and have seen huge gains in my savings.

I believe these Liberals are ruining the country as I just heard Bill Press say that it is OK for Al Gore to be over in Saudi Arabia apologizing for the round up of Arabs in America after 9/11. He actually said that all Americans should apologize for that. WOW, I wonder what the families of the victums of 9/11 think of that statement??

Posted by: Everett Hatton at February 20, 2006 5:00 AM
Comment #127710

Everett, I saw my paycheck quadruple during the Golden Age of Clinton. Good times…

So are you saying that balancing the budget is a bad thing? Just curious.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 20, 2006 6:30 AM
Comment #127712

Trillion dollar deficits
Iraq War
Gas/oil/energy prices at new highs
Tax-deferals for the ultra-wealthy
Consumerism down but CLI going up 12%
Cuts in education
Cuts in environmental
Selling off National parks
Selling off ports to the UAE
Illegals running wild
Phony Medicare that is pork
No balanced budgets
Free Trade fascillitating outsourcing
Lame duck dollar causing outsourcing
Trickle down economics causing Lame duck dollar
High tarrifs
Corporate welfare through the roof with extentions instead of pay-backs

Meaningless stimulus packages
Half-assed appointments (although I like Roberts)
Bush giving same speech for last five years
Rummy—senile
Cheney, Scooter and The Fitz
Jack Abramoff and there will be more
Tom Delay
Hughes and Rove—just plain nasty
Ken Mehlman human scorpion

Cuts in every needed program should Neo-cons have their way but first they have to destroy the budgets with spending.

No child left behind leaves entire schools and school districts behind
We are going to turn into a third world country if we don’t do something
Lack of competitiveness with other countries
Being called unpatriotic and even un-American for not supporting this rediculous misadventure of a war.

Any dems have the rest of this list?????????


Posted by: Translator at February 20, 2006 6:59 AM
Comment #127713

I’m not surprised at this topic. The liberal postings have been exceptionally pessimistic of late. I feel that America is strong in many areas, particularly when viewed in context with other nations. I also think that America has accomplished some unbelievable achievements during the Bush administration such as aiding Afghanistan and Iraq to establish freely elected governments and breaking the impasse in the Israel/Palistinean conflict.

There are still many problems ahead and there will be missteps, but at least we don’t have the same laudry list of global problems. Diplomacy, prior to Bush, had become a stalling measure implemented primarily to prevent unacceptable situations from eroding. We can argue about the next step, but at least we aren’t standing at the same spot on the road as in 2000.

Since it seems impossible to deny any positive developments, I decided to examine the progressive resistance to any sort of silver lining and I discovered a secret energy source being developed and tested in liberal think tanks, bushhate. Bushhate, a self-regenerating fuel is currently powering many of the negative sentiments expressed by progressives. Bushhate is very versatile and can be used to operate any type of liberal vehicle, from heavy weights, like global warming or the growing deficit, to light weight romp-arounds like Chenygate.

Early research has indicated two problems with reliance of bushhate are that it is totally addictive and the ultimate source is endangered. Unlike Carter, when President Bush leaves office he will not go about fomenting discontent and supplying bushhate precursors. Bushhate is the binding agent for a diverse mix of progressives. I wonder what will happen to this interesting coalition when Bush isn’t around to oppose.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 20, 2006 7:05 AM
Comment #127715

K street run amock
Chinese Debt for war
Asian debts also
Pakistan still growing nuke stockpiles
North Korea still has Nuclear stockpiles
Horror Show in Sudan
Civil war potentiality with Iraq
Hamas takes Palestinian elections
Inability if we have to have a real war to be able to defend our nation
Lame duck dollar making costs of Procurement double the cost
Military procurement from Chinese companies
US Manufacturing drying up
Gm and Ford in hard straits

I’ll think of more

Posted by: Translator at February 20, 2006 7:19 AM
Comment #127722

You talk about Liberals being pessimistic about the public school system, and yet you support the party that demands NCLB, and vouchers, two programs supposedly meant to salvage a system in shambles.

You talk about our pessimism about the economy, but is it unwarranted to question the apparent growth when so many of us feel no more prosperous in our lives? Economies can be top heavy, you know, at it seems much like that to people like me who don’t see growth in our purchasing power.

You talk about pessimism about jobs, but how do you expect many to feel good about unemployment rates that low, when those rates don’t consider those who only have work part-time, who are working for less than their education could afford them, or who have simply fallen off the unemployment rolls?

As for the Crime Rate, who are the ones continually appealing to such fears by telling people they’ll be tough on crime? Who was it who saw fit to declare a war on drugs?

Let’s go a step further. Who is it who continually tells the American people that their defenses will be dropped and America will be betrayed if Democrats get into office? Who is it who says that any change in plan in Iraq will ruin everything, despite the fact the public doesn’t believe them? Who is it who thinks that somehow people will drop thousands of years of tradition about heterosexual marriage if gays are allowed to marry?

Who is it who continually worries about secular humanism, and who sees the far left as trying to take away their religious rights?

To be frank, both our sides play on fears. That’s politics, always has been. When things are good, the politicians have the most motivation to say things are going downhill.

What worries me is that they’re not telling us when certain things are getting worse, or when they bullshit about it. Taxes and the war, for example. It’s hard, if not impossible to get these people to admit that they’re policies are causing problems.

Worse yet, I have to listen to one Republican post after another not critiquing some position, not analyzing policy needs, not even trying to come up with some new analysis of events, but rather kicking the liberals in the ass again about their being liberal and telling us on the left that we’re inferior citizens.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 20, 2006 8:23 AM
Comment #127725

I used to get angry—now I try to stay amused. BDS has rendered the course of our debate into new territory. And that is not a good thing. But in less than 2 years, Bushitler McChimpy HaliburtonRoveCo. will smirk off into the history books. History will judge him. I’m guessing very favorably—kinda like the Gipper.

Posted by: nikkolai at February 20, 2006 8:37 AM
Comment #127726

Jack, very good post! You provided good examples for the “hysteria” that the anti-Bushies have displayed. You’re right, we do have serious issues that face this country and we need to address them and come up with a solution. War on Terror, energy dependency, military, taxes, social security, etc. are all serious issues that the dems haven’t shown any backbone or any solutions to. Now, I don’t particularly care for some of the solutions the Repubs have brought forth with some of those issues; however, they’ve at least took a stance and offered a solution. Yet, when it comes to attacking the Bush Administration, the dems are first in line. Ridiculous! And, the ones (bloggers) that have been defending this behavior ought to be ashamed. I’ve been leaning right and I wouldn’t (and didn’t) have attacked Clinton when he was in office. Just get the job done!!

Posted by: rahdigly at February 20, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #127727

Translator,

Thanks for making Jack’s point. I don’t know how you get up every morning.

AP,
“Why don’t you want America to be better, Jack?”
I laughed my ass off. Great stuff.

I agree we need to balance the budget. I have a feeling we would go about it in totally different ways.

Posted by: JimmyRay at February 20, 2006 8:52 AM
Comment #127729

I need to find Jack’s email address. It looks like Eric Simonson hacked into his account and posted as Jack.

Not good.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 20, 2006 8:57 AM
Comment #127731

Translator

This one stat thrumps all of your lists by a factor of twenty:

ZERO


That’s how many attacks have taken place on US soil since September 11,2001.

Chew on that for a while.

Posted by: Sicilianeagle at February 20, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #127733

SicEagle, as many years spanned between the first attack on the Twin Towers and the second. Chew on that for awhile. Doesn’t mean anything. Certainly doesn’t mean we were prepared for the second despite the first one, now does it? Lapses between attacks of that kind of years preceded 9/11. So, there certainly does not appear to be any evidence on that basis that Bush has made us any safer.

Plain truth is, if Bush wanted to protect us he would have done what any 10th grader would tell you to do, secure the borders. Nah, protecting us is prima facia not a high priority on Bush’s list.
I had a greater chance of dying of an auto accident before 9/11 than from a terrorist attack, and the same is true today, even with unsecured borders.

Since security is the only leg Bush’s poll numbers are currently standing on, it kinda begs the question, are our unsecure borders unsecure for political reasons? Certainly is no rational and logically defensible reason in the aftermath of 9/11 and the Commission’s recommendations.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 20, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #127734

Unfortunately, the definition of “dealing with reality instead of false pie in the sky” has been lacking for years in Republican’s education.

Pessimism as defined by the Republicans is merely the rest of us attempting to deal with reality…of course, fake terrorist alert colorsthat fill the right-wing followers with fear are the only “real” that Republicans can seem to see in their blinded position.

Posted by: Lynne at February 20, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #127736
Democrats are in a nearly constant state of hysteria.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Conversatives bitch and moan at least as much as liberals: activist judges, liberal media, Hitlery, liberal media, unions, liberal media, radical professors, liberal media… To hear you guys talk, you would think you were surviving in a cave while liberals tyrannize the country. At least some of us have the excuse of not being in power.

Consider the title of Bernard Goldberg’s latest tract: 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. Why does he think America is so screwed up? Doesn’t he realize that this is a great country? Why are conservatives so full of negativity?

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 20, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #127743

Stephen:

You talk about pessimism about jobs, but how do you expect many to feel good about unemployment rates that low, when those rates don’t consider those who only have work part-time, who are working for less than their education could afford them, or who have simply fallen off the unemployment rolls?

Has the method for determining unemployment rates changed, or is the method the same as it has always been? If its changed, could you please link something so I can read up on it.

If the method has not changed, then its accurate to compare today’s unemployment rates with past unemployment rates, since both numbers will contain the same variables.

Thanks for the help.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 20, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #127744

So if I may sum up this article:

Of the biggest problems you cite facing our nation: out of control spending, an increasingly costly war of which there is no end in sight, terrorist threats, it’s the Democrats’ fault.

The real victims here are not the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis who are enjoying our freedom, are not the millions of people suffering with cuts in education, are certainly not the veterans enjoying less governmental assistance, are not the thousands of troops who are being shot at as we speak (with less and less combat pay), are not the thousands of minorities abandoned in NOLA, it’s you and George Bush who are sick and tired of all this whining and no plan. Maybe someday the GOP will grace us with theirs? Democrats just need to fall in line and know their places like good house negroes. To speak out is disgracing the memory of Coretta Scott King. Why can’t dems figure this out?

I have to admit I was wrong. When the Republicans gained control of the senate and the house, the Whitehouse and the courts, I told myself, “At least they’ll have no one else to blame.”

Posted by: Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout at February 20, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #127750

joebagodonuts:

If the method has not changed, then its accurate to compare today’s unemployment rates with past unemployment rates, since both numbers will contain the same variables.


You must realize that 4% of today’s population (and 4% is the norm of unemployed during “full employment”) is a much larger number of unemployed
people that 4% was 10 or 20 years ago…as a population grows, a percentage that holds steady is actually growing in actual numbers of people that that number represents.

4% of 10,000 = 400
4% of 100,000= 4,000

That fact never seems to break into the discussion.

Besides, the number of unemployed isn’t a “number”, that “number” represents a real person and real families.

Posted by: Lynne at February 20, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #127751

David

Let me get this straight:

Since no attacks have occurrred in 4 and a half years,it is no lomger an issue?

You’re kidding,right?

WTC 1 and WTC 2 are mega-light years apart.Last I knew,after the first incident they 2 building still were standing plus 3,000 weren’t killed.

The second issue has legs,though.Securing the borders.

How?

Shall we hunt down the Mexicans who come here looking to survive?Are they the enemy?

Shall be put up a wall..or have a Mexican turkey shoot by West Texans?

I think not.

I happen to agree with the president on this one.There are economic….vast ecomomic considerations here,and a balance has to be struck.

That being said,letting the UAR control our ports is beyond assinine and gives new defination to the dolt who ok’d that one.

Prediction:Within 10 days or so,a new entity will be formed to act as a buffer between the UAE corporation and the port issue.

One more thing,David.Why don’t you support having 3 parties….conservative….moderate…and liberal….as opposed to our present system?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 20, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #127754

>>I also think that America has accomplished some unbelievable achievements during the Bush administration such as aiding
Afghanistan and Iraq to establish freely elected governments and breaking the impasse in the Israel/Palistinean conflict.

gkn,

Aiding? Did either country ask for us to democratize them? Forced democracy is not freedom. That’s just more Rovean Spin for nation building. I think Canada should invade the U.S. and force parlamentarianism on us. I’m sure they’d think we would be better off.


Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #127760

Translator
When you get cured of paranoia I would like to see your list. Until then it is just occupied space.

Posted by: tomh at February 20, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #127762

Thanks to Translator for giving an example of the hysteria. Do you really believe that times are so bad now? I wonder about your frame of reference.

Re Golden Age - We are talking about the 1998 until about March of 2000. The individual most responsible for the good times was Alan Greenspan. But we are mostly talking about technologies coming on line, seemingly (turns out not true) benign international security environment, the benefits of corporate restructuring of the late 1980s, and favorable demographics. We also had the dot.com bubble that pushed the euphoria to unsustainable levels. So we have a combination of a couple of things. One the one hand, we have the sprint at the end of a race and we have the feeling you get after drinking a couple beers. But you can’t sprint a whole marathon and after those beers come an hangover.

So it is disingenuous to make roughly 22 months of irrational exuberance with a little bit of froth the minimum standard. We may well achieve that sort of thing again, but it also won’t last and if you are only happy with these conditions, you better be prepared for misery.

We will never solve all our problems at the same time. But in order to solve any problems at all, you have to recognize where you are today – that means recognizing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

Our strength is a sound economy, low crime, good environment. Our weakness is growth of entitlements and growing debt. Our opportunities are changing the balance in the Middle East and developing new technologies. Our threats are global environmental problems, terrorism and stagnation.

If you see nothing but strengths and opportunities, you will be squashed by the weaknesses and threats. But if you don’t see the strengths, you will be perpetually poor and unsuccessful. And maybe hysterical most of the time. Losers are like that. If you want to be that, it is easy to accomplish.

I expect we will have many hysterical liberals giving us the long lists of things they think are going wrong. I have noticed an autocorrelation (autoeroticism?) among many of these lists.. Thanks in advance. We promise to give them the consideration they deserve.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #127764

Goodkingned… that was inspired. However, I fear the hatred may well be transferrable.
Sarah… why would we give you our plan? It’s quite a big part of our secretive nature. And its our plan, not your’s. Just giving it out to anyone would certainly ruin our reputation.
Frankly… I like the Dem plan. Captain Kirk couldn’t have said it better. “There IS…(dramatic pause) a better way.”
Finally… It seems that those who most often act hysterically are not predisposed toward logical problem solving and are incapable of comprehending their current situations. Lashing out at others uncontrollably is also an unavoidable consequence of this condition. The only solution for this I can think of is constant heavy drinking. Cheers!

Posted by: Doherty at February 20, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #127766

The libs hysteria is born out of one signicant problem they are out of control of the government. In addition they can not find an agreed coherent message except as previously stated they are anti Bush. Will Rodgers said it well ” I am not a member of an organized political party, I am a democrat.” I allmosts wish the D’s could get it together so that there could be a real debate on the issues. The D’s and libs are now nothing more than the party of No.

Posted by: Bud at February 20, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #127770

Jack,

Regarding your original article, thanks for the links. Some interesting stuff there. It makes me wonder why your message sounds so hysterical. It’d be much more convincing if you could point to truly influential liberals who are making the arguments you say they are. Until then, I think perhaps you need to talk yourself down.

I doubt it’s the toothless liberals who are making you so nervous. And if they actually are, you can look to the so-called conservatives (an Orwellian use of the term, of course) in Washington for your balm, as they control all branches of government. Unless, of course, it’s the gang who literally and figuratively can’t shoot straight that is actually the source of your hyperbole.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at February 20, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #127779

Reed:

All you have to do to find an example is to channel Howard Dean. He’s said that Cheney needs to resign. That’s a bit over the top, but even more so, its stupid.

IFFF Cheney resigned, Bush gets to pick his VP and basically set the guy up with a three year head start for 2008. That would be a good thing for Republicans, assuming Bush picked a good candidate. Of course the scandal would hurt, but people tend to forget about such things.

So, if you want examples of hysteria, just follow Dean. There are many other examples—-Cindy Sheehan, Pelosi, Clinton etc, but you can’t do much better than Dean.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 20, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #127784

Strange, but discussing the issues of the day, and complaining about ineffective leadership, warrantless searches, raging national debt, ineffective and illegitimate war, lying and dishonorable, and corrupt officials, become hysterics when Democrats do it.

I guess the only sane, intellegent discussion is by the rightie robots who spout the faithful Cheney/Bush crap?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #127785

Lynne:

Of course I understand that….but what’s your point. We were talking about statistics, not individuals. We can care about individual anecdotes, but you can’t make policy based on them. Otherwise, the unemployment of even ONE person would force us to change our employment laws because that person is an individual.

The point you seem to have missed is that in the 90’s, many people claimed that the unemployment rate was very good. Now they look at similar numbers and find reasons to not consider them good. To use your idea that the actual number of unemployed grows even though the percentage stays the same would hold true in the 90’s as well. There were more people therefore more unemployed in the 1990’s than, say, in the 1890’s.

By that kind of logic, one can never actually consider a level of unemployment acceptable, even though everyone with even a middling understanding of economics recognizes that there will always be some unemployed in society.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 20, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #127789

Forced Freedom?

Well I think we can call a spade a spade.
The disinformation about the true nature
of this war. Is summed up here
http/www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=59774
This also explains why we have so many
Iraq people saying we are not there to
free but to occupy. It only begins to
address where some of the missing billions
have disappeared to. It also dumbfounds me
that besides handing UAE our ports we are
also selling them Butt loads of Military
weapons. Dispite the fact that the UAE were
one of the few countrys who recognized
Alqida as a legitimant goverment.
Could this have something to do with the
amount of oil they produce daily? YES
once again our leaders show who rules them.
The long term money train. Not the voteing
public.

Posted by: Honey P at February 20, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #127790

>>To use your idea that the actual number of unemployed grows even though the percentage stays the same would hold true in the 90’s as well. There were more people therefore more unemployed in the 1990’s than, say, in the 1890’s.

joe,

The gap between Wealth and poverty is spreading, and the middle class is shrinking, and those who fall through the cracks and are no longer counted are more abundant. Figures can say almost anything you want them to say. During the ninetys things were improving, unemployment were on the way down, folks had more spendable money in their pockets and they felt good about life. What has changed?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #127798

Reed

Re whose hysterical - Joe already mentioned Dean. You cant get much more hysterical than Howard Dean. But how about Al Gore’s speech to the Saudis where he talked about how the big round up of Arabs that never happened? How about all those people calling their President a criminal. Or the fevered reaction to the VP’s hunting accident.

You don’t have to go far, however. Just look at the comments on the blue side. When I wrote my lead paragraph, I was merely repeating some of the things I saw there.

Let me ask a question to my liberal guests. I was being ironic when I wrote about our country, economy, and environment being the worst. If you saw that post on the left side, would you think the author was being ironic?

Consider this for a blue side column.

Bush’s Debacle
Republicans just cannot accept that we are living in the worst country, with the worst economy, worst unemployment rate , and worst leadership, We are breathing the worst air, suffering the worst educational system, beset by the worst crime rate and it is going to get worse because of their monkey president.

There’s your sign. If you find yourself actually agreeing with this, you could be hysterical.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #127800

David Remer,

Last I remember the nation was incredibly divided in 2000. Now, if little ole stupid GWB did that all whilst he was governor of Texas … Wow!!! Maybe he’s more capable than you thought!!!

The Democratic Party: The Party of “Wahhhh!!!”

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #127801

Jack,

This post only serves one purpose….DIVISION…

Yes, there are liberals who hate everything this congress and this administration does. There are equally (I would like to think many more) of us left leaning folks who see some things this administration has done right.

Please stop painting with such a broad stroke. Clinton did some things I disagreed with and I made them known at the time. He did some things I agreed with and I silently shook my head with pleasure.

The extremes of both parties are driving a wedge between the two parties that is severly dividing the country. The problem is the moderates of both parties are standing by a letting it happen. Dems and Repubs have never totally agreed and never will. That’s why there are two parties. However, there was at one time a respect for one another. The dems abused power when they controlled both houses in congress….this is true. I voted for several Repubs because I got sick and tired of having a second minority party (that I agree with on some issues) totally shut out. Now I see the Repubs are no different.

Most of your posts are well tought out and I enjoy reading them even if I sometimes disagree with your post. I will continue to respect your opinion….but let’s get out of the mud slinging and back into debating issues.

Regards

Posted by: Tom L at February 20, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #127802

uh, just me, or slippery slope?

Posted by: dbpitt at February 20, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #127803

Just once I wish I could read a discussion from Dems that actually had something constructive to contribute. All I ever hear is whine, whine, blame, blame, complain, complain and whine a little more.

If you have all the answers then show up with your running platform instead of blaming the current administration for the weather & accidents. Now that would be a challenge!! I come from Minnesota…land of great ol’ Dems like H. Humphrey - he had enough class to have original ideas without backbiting his opponents.

I can’t say I’m particulary proud of our current state Dems, but I’m trying to find solutions to our problems rather than complain about those in power!

Posted by: Cathy at February 20, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #127804

Translator’s list is accurate and short. What about:
Cronyism
Cutting FEMA Immediately when Bush took office
Configuring FEMA to be inept to natural disasters
Blaming FEMA and Brownie for the Katrina response
Failure to get Bin Laden
Torture
Earmarking at all time high
VA underfunding with so many injured veterans
FOX news out of control
There has to be more, keep it coming.

Posted by: Shawn at February 20, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #127805

Marysdude,

What has changed? . . you ask. Well, for one, people in higher numbers and even higher percentages than ever before … you know what they did? They went out and bought a house.

Now, I for one think it’s “junior high school” silly to think the President has an immediate and momentous impact on the economy. Any of their policies they put forth may have an effect . . but in my view and analysis the effect is anything but immediate. I’m more in the line of thinking that the economy ebbs and flows. Investment and retail spending ebb and flow. Interest and inflation rates ebb and flow. It’s all more of a product of human nature combined with capitolism which produce these cycles in my mind.

But, if you want to blame GWB for a horrible economy, I would direct you to extremely low unemployment rates, extremely high home ownership rates, very decent job growth, and very very controlled inflation rates … all just a handful of years after 9/11 and our stock market suffering a 35% hit.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #127807

Shawn,

Ah yes, FEMA. The organization which was never meant to be a first responder now deemed a first responder by the media and liberals. I guess when you have control of most media outlets you can do things like that.

And I understand why you’re so upset at FOX news. They did absolutely nutty things like also point out the errors at the mayoral and governor level as well. DAMN THEM FOR THEIR ALL-ENCOMPASSING REPORTING!!! WHAT ARE THEY THINKING GOING AGAINST THEIR LIBERAL ORDERS FROM ABOVE?!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #127808
But how about Al Gore�s speech to the Saudis where he talked about how the big round up of Arabs that never happened?

That didn’t happen? Wow, the MSM has been lying to us!!! I thought that the US government detained close to 1000 people after 9/11. That’s what the newspapers say anyway. I got it just shows what the liberal media will make up to make America look bad.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 20, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #127809

MORE LIBERAL/DEMOCRAT COMPLAINTS:

1. GWB and his family are responsible for hurricanes. I’m sure his ancestors had something to do with that horrible invention, the reciprocating engine. Ughhhh!!! Now, if I could only find my SUV car keys so I can head to that “WE WOULDN’T HAVE GLOBAL WARMING WITHOUT GWB” rally.

2. GWB and Bush 43 inserted and used WMD in Iraq back in the 80’s. They then convinced Saddam to yell “Death to America” every other minute. They then prodded Saddam into invading Kuwait. They then tricked him into not living up to the surrender agreement or 14 UN Resolutions. Why?! Because GWB loves war!!! He loves everything about it … the death, the blood … everything!!

3. GWB and his staff pretend a hunting accident isn’t an enduring national news story.

4. They didn’t cut and run as soon as we had a war that got difficult. What happened to the unwritten Gulf War I and Afghanistan rule which said: “We either win in a month or two or we go home!”

More later … I’m just too worked up to write anymore right now …

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #127812

Tom L

I appreciate your comment, but I do occasionally need to poke at the other side. If you notice my response post just above, you see that I am only paraphrasing the other side and turning it back.

I really do wonder about the Dem point of reference. What do they think is normal? It reminds me of a story.

This guy goes to NYC for the first time and takes a short cab ride. He doesn’t know the customs, so he asks the drive, “What is a normal Tip?”

The driver responds, “$50”.

The guy gives him the fare and the $50 tip and says, “With tips like this you must make a fortune.”

The driver responds, “No, this is the first NORMAL tip I ever got.”

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #127813

Picking up 1000 people on visa violations is not a round up. And picking up 1000 people in a country of almost 300 million is not a big round up no matter what the reason. Al Gore pandering makes me really happy he isn’t president.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #127815

Ewwww, Woody, really? We detained 1000 people for questioning after little ole 9/11? Questioning 1000 people with the murders of 3000 on our hands … you and Algore are right! Those poor, poor people having to answer all of those questions!!!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #127818

“Conversatives bitch and moan at least as much as liberals: activist judges, liberal media, Hitlery, liberal media, unions, liberal media, radical professors, liberal media… To hear you guys talk, you would think you were surviving in a cave while liberals tyrannize the country. At least some of us have the excuse of not being in power.”


Now, that’s a classic line: “At least were not in power”, that’s our excuse!!! Ha! Uhhhh, yeahhh! The dems aren’t in power and that’s b/c they don’t have an agenda to these complex problems. Maybe (just maybe) they could stop blaming republicans and start campaigning on issues that they’re about?! Why is this so hard for the dems?!

And, instead of blaming conservs for complaining about the unfair and balanced media and these outrageous (and out of control) judges and professors; you might want to point your fingers at the people responsible. I mean, if liberalism is so good and conservatism is so bad, then why do you have to have a bias media, supreme court and college professors to get your ideology across? Can’t the libs just tell us what they really believe and that’ll be enough?! Think about it.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 20, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #127819

Whatever you think about the state of our economy and our relationship to the rest of the world, one has to admit that come 2008, with the presidency 8 years to the republicans, the house 13 years to the republicans, the senate 6 years to the republicans and a court system primarily overseen by republican judges, that the economy, our justice system, and our foreign policy will be one that has been primarily created by republicans. It will not be a pretty picture. Regards

Posted by: charles Ross at February 20, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #127820

Frankly,I thought this post was a little hysterical.
I don’t know any “Liberals” who think we have the worst Anything.Well,maybe president,but what did you expect?
But I know many who think things have gotten worse under this president,this administration.
Having said that,many of us look about and wonder why all our capital is going overseas,we worry that our children will not have a good jobs when they seek them.We worry that the world’s perception of us as “The Good Guys” is over,with severe economic consequences by the way.We worry that our retirement is disappearing,that our soaring debt will also force us to work forever.
I am not optimistic about the path this administration has taken.
Oh,and Mr Gore also asked that someone do something about the Hyper-Corruption in the ruling elite in Tehran,and also asked that the Arabs stand up to the impending Iranian nuclear threat.Funny,the conservatives only saw the “We treated Arabs badly” part,which is arguably true.

Posted by: Terry......... at February 20, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #127821

Lawnboy:
“I need to find Jack’s email address. It looks like Eric Simonson hacked into his account and posted as Jack.

Not good.”

Lawnboy, Jack is now Eric’s hero. Eric said so in this recent thread.

This is because Jack desperately latched onto this statistic:

“Reductions in major pollutants (such as a 29% drop in SO2 and a 10% drop in NO)”

thinking that this somehow proved that Bush is a champion of the environment and that he’s been making things better.

The problem with that bogus claim is that if Bush’s “Clear Skies” initiative (which was to replace the Clean Air Act) had been passed by the Senate, we’d have seen an enormous increase in those particular power plant emissions.
The other problem with this claim is that Bush has been aiding his big polluter buddies anyway by lowering EPA pollution standards and by pushing back-door strategies through the regulatory process — things like weakening emissions controls and changes to the New Source Review provision in the Clean Air Act (so that the pollution spewing older power plants can be rebuilt without modern pollution controls).
On top of that, last March the EPA took power plant emissions completely off the list of toxic pollutants, and created a pollution trading scheme, so that some of the worst offenders can continue to poison the air in various locations across the country yet allow the overall statistics to appear as though pollution remains low.

Liberals are somehow “hysterical” for pointing things like this out.
But they’re the hysterical ones — hysterically inept at trying to argue against the uncomfortable fact that Bush only represents his friends in Big Business, rather than We the People.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 20, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #127825

Adrienne

I got those “bogus” numbers from the source you provided. I since looked them up on the EPA site and linked it in my original post above.

Your protestations remind me of the old Groucho Marx statement.

“Who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes.” In this case, I prefer the numbers to the words.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #127826

“GWB and his staff pretend a hunting accident isn’t an enduring national news story”

It isn’t!!! Do you think it is? Even better question would be, do you think that a Vice President accidentally shooting someone on a hunting trip should be a National news story over a Vice President going to the Middle East and spouting off nonsense about our treatment of Muslims after 9/11?!!

Posted by: rahdigly at February 20, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #127830

“I got those “bogus” numbers from the source you provided.”

The numbers weren’t bogus, just all your arguments on the subject.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 20, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #127831

In response to: “Bush’s Debacle
Republicans just cannot accept that we are living in the worst country, with the worst economy, worst unemployment rate , and worst leadership, We are breathing the worst air, suffering the worst educational system, beset by the worst crime rate and it is going to get worse because of their monkey president.”

Here’s a stellar idea! Why don’t all of those who actually believe this crap move to Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea, or some other MUCH BETTER country and hold their squawk sessions there? SHEESH!

I, for one, am proud to be an American, to live in America and to be a “righty”, and I’m certainly not alone in my pride…

Posted by: Tanya at February 20, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #127835

IM NOT FOR TELLIN THE ENAMIE WHAT WE ARE DOING AND IF YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT YOUR PHONE BEING TAPED THEN YOU MUST BE A TALABAN SIMPATHIZER AND IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT I FEEL SORRY FOR YA YOU KNOW HOW TO CREATE PROBLEMS WITH NO IDEAS HOW TO FIXEM SO IF YOU CANT DO BETTER FINE GET OFF YOUR APOLOGETIC BUTT AND TELL MR REID TO PAY BACK THAT 46000 HE GOT AND I JUST WONDER WHAT PLANTATION HILLARY GREW UP ON PROBLEMS HAVE SALUTIONS THIS IS AMERICA IF YOU DONT LIKE IT LEAVE IT!

Posted by: ALLEN STEPHENS at February 20, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #127836

jbod,

here are some real numbers for you, straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

When Bush took office, we had 131,785,000 people employed (total non-farm payroll, the basic measure of employment). Today, we have 133,463,000, for a net gain of 1.678 million jobs.

When Clinton took office, we had 108,726,000 employed. During his presidency we had a net gain of 23.059 million jobs - thats 1374% more jobs than under Bush.

The next worst president in job creation was daddy Bush. And I am not talking about percentages - simple raw numbers. Even Eisenhower created more jobs than either Bush. Given that we had half the number of people employed in the 1950’s, it should be twice as embarassing.

Are these numbers real enough for you?

Jack, do I sound hysterical?

The economy is strong - for some. Let’s talk about poverty for for a moment and let’s see if I sound hysterical while citing statistics.

At the end of 1992, When Clinton took over, we had 38.014 million people living in poverty, 14.8 percent of the population. At the end of 2000, we had 31.581 million in poverty, 11.3 percent of the population.

We have lost ground every year under Bush Jr. As of the end of 2004 (2005 numbers have yet to be released), we had 36.997 in poverty, 12.7 percent of the population.

But Bush is only the second worst modern president for the poor. Guess who was the worst president, who saw 6.269 million additional people move into poverty under his watch? That’s right, daddy Bush.

Do I sound even remotely hysterical? Yes, the economy is sound - corporate profits are up, CEOs and senior executives are making more than ever. Sounds like the rich getting richer - something we manage to do regardless who is in office. But if more people are not getting by - how is that a sound economy?

And here is the punchline for me - neither poverty nor the economy are on Jack’s list of things that have to get better.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #127842

>>I, for one, am proud to be an American, to live in America and to be a “righty”, and I’m certainly not alone in my pride…

Tanya,

I, for one, am proud to be an American, to live in America and to be a “Leftie”, and I’m certainly not alone in my pride…and, i’m proud enough to lay it on the line when America seems to be going astray…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #127843

Good post CPAdams, you ought to do it more often…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #127844

Oh, and Jack,

I am proud to be an American, I don’t wish to live in another country. I am proud to be free to disagree with the actions of my government. In spite of the left-right rhetoric, this government is accountable to me, is it not? What if I didn’t vote for Bush - as a citizen, is he not accountable to me?

Is it unpatriotic to question why one in five hispanic people live in poverty? Or one in four black people? Or three out of ten women who are the head of their household live in poverty?

Your partisan divide, which you feed with vigor, simply gives you an excuse to ignore the people whom this government has failed and the people who are willing to demand accountability.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #127849

Marysdude,

Thanks, I post when I can, work permitting.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #127851

Ken Cooper,
FEMA under Clinton was an effective agency which Bush dismantled and underfunded.
If you know your history Sadaam used chemical weapons on Iran and subsequently was visited by a smiling Rumsfeld and given 90 million in aid by the US and Britain. I guess WMD’s aren’t so bad if their used on the right people.
Osama is the one who attacked us with plenty of warning that Bush and company ignored, though he never tried to assinate Bush 43 like Sadaam.
Bush promised us he would get those responsible, yeah right.

Posted by: Shawn at February 20, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #127855

Do you know what fuels some of the problem-hunting (i.e. those that only seem to dwell on problems ?

Majority-party (which ever the in-party is at the time) hacks saying things are “very good”, and pretending there are no problems, and calling anyone who points out problems “doomsdayers” and “pessimists”.

The optimist has an advantage over the pessimist.
People don’t like pessimists.
So, anytime you point out any problem, you are labeled a pessimist.
It does not matter how valid or true anything you say is.
You are a pessimistic doomsdayer. You are un-American.

Of course things are not “very good” now.
It’s not hard to find a few cherry-picked positives.
The economy at the moment is merely stable.
Interest rates are increasing, inflation is increasing, trade deficits are increasing, debt is increasing, Debt to GDP is up to 67% from only 33% in 1980, entitlements are troubled, the PBGC and pensions are $1.6 trillion in the hole, foreign investors are starting to reduce exposure to the falling dollar, forclosures have increase for 13 months straight, median incomes have fallen for 4 years straight, the U.S. got richer, but it more of it went to the wealthiest 1% of the American population.

So, to say things are “very good” is as silly as saying the sky is falling. Neither is true.

The bigger question is the long-term outlook and how prepared are we to deal with the next, inevitable economic downturn?

So, there are many valid reasons to be concerned about the future. Blind optimism or party-image protectionism is dangerous.
Since there will be another recession some day.
Therefore, if we are too irresponsible now, then the next recession could easily turn into a depression.
And, there is a real potential for that.

Ignore the majority-party hacks making fun of your perfectly justifiable concerns.
We can and should be doing much better to recover from the next economic downturn. There are many badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms that can make things better now, and better prepare us for later, when we may need it most, so that recovery will be faster and less difficult.

Even if it is just a recession, many irresponsible things being done now, and many problems are being ignored now, that will make any recovery more difficult and painful.

This list of pressing problems has the real potential to make things more difficult later.

Even if things were actually very good or even just OK, the following should not be ignored, because these five things alone have the real potential to make recovery from the next recession more difficult and painful.
These five main things could easily turn a recession into a depression:


  • FISCAL IRRESPONSIBITY: $8.2 National Debt and $40.2 total nation-wide debt, decreasing options, lost opportunities, falling dollar (not backed up by real value), potential inflation, trade deficits, and the failure stop the debt from growing ever larger, and increasingly corrupt government too incompetent to deal with it;

  • GENERATIONAL STORM: 77 million aging baby boomers (that all vote), making less, spending less, pay less tax, expecting to draw from already troubled Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, & welfare.

  • ENTITLEMENT SHORTFALLS: The looming Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, & welfare deficits and short falls, and decreasing number of tax-payers per entitlement recipient.

  • LIMITED GROWTH & INCREASING FOREIGN COMPETITION: The limited capacity for growth due to declining quality of education, a generally less educated population failing to develop new technologies, coupled with a steady increase of foreign competition.

  • ENERGY VULNERABILITY: Of all the responsible, insightful things government could have done, they failed miserably to research and foster alternate energy sources, more energy efficient homes, automobiles, etc.

There are many factors, and no one knows where it will all lead. But, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to suspect the following are valid reasons for concern:
[] based on historical norms, Debt to GDP percentages have never been higher since WWII.
[] The Debt (adjusted for inflation) has never been higher (there has been growth in GDP too though).
[] The size of the government has never been higher.
[] The trade deficits have never been higher.
[] The amount of wealth belonging to 1% of the population has never been higher since the Great Depression.
[] Foreign competition has never been higher (and increasingly better educated).
[] Global Corporatism has never been higher.
[] The troubled entitlement systems and dependency on government has never been worse, and likely to get worse, with huge deficits in Medicare already.
[] Not, to mention all of the rest of the pressing problems (see link above), growing in number and severity;

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #127856

CPAdam

Not hysterical, just misinformed. A few questions.

When a president takes office, when does his first budget take effect?
How long do you think any policy takes before you see the effects?
Is employment a lagging indicator?
Is poverty a lagging indicator?
Does the President create jobs anyway?

When you answer these, I have another.

If the numbers started to go bad the very year Bush became president, do you think it was the Bush policy that did it?

You probably have to add about two years to presidental term to understand the effects. You can start blaming Bush around 2003 and you can keep blaming him until about 2011. Of course, no president really has such complete influence.

You can demand accountability, but first you must know who is accountable. If you want to check the economy, you will find that it started to go up in March of 1991 and started to go down in March of 2000. Now check who was president during those respective years and then figure in lag times.

This is not like a football game where you start with a blank scorecard and a level playing field. In addition, the president is not in the job creation business, although he tends to be in the taking credit business.

A persistent problem with all analysis is that is doesn’t take into account the effects of time, lag time, and change in general.

Think of it like this. If a woman meets a man three months before she is due to have a baby, and they get married the day before she delivers, is that man the biological father?

Lag time between cause and effect and the fact that the U.S. is much more than its president is the source of your error.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #127857

LawnBoy,

I need to find Jack’s email address. It looks like Eric Simonson hacked into his account and posted as Jack.

Not good.

No one has a monopoly on the truth. It’s not my fault that the truth sounds remarkably like my writing. Jack is free to tap into that if he wants to. ;)


AP,

Here’s a good Democratic idea: start by eliminating the deficit like President Clinton did. Lots of good things happen when America is on solid financial ground.

The budget was balanced under Clinton for two reasons: 1) military cuts, 2) an economic upswing. The only federal budget items that have been cut in the last 40 years, rather than having their rate of growth slowed, are military items. Clinton did not balance the budget by cutting overspending. He cut only the military.

The left is fond of calling a 5% increase rather than a 10% increase, for social programs, a cut. The military had actual budget cuts. True, this was started by Bush 41.

Before Bush took office the internet bubble had burst and the economy was starting a downswing. Revenues fall in downswings and rise in upswings. Then we had 9/11 which had a huge negative economic impact. As a result we had to increase military spending. There was also the airline bailout (something we probably shouldn’t have done). Yet all along we have never cut any other items of the budget.

As a liberal what social programs would you volunteer we cut?

Posted by: eric 'on the payroll' simonson at February 20, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #127861

Rah,
Hey - it’s me again - one of the ones you love to hate. I just wanted to remind you that Cheney is our CURRENT Vice-President, whereas Gore is no longer a Vice -President, simply a citizen. So the basis of your post is is incorrect. As for the accident, it doesn’t appear that the VP did anything illegal, just stupid, and that type of accident apparently is not rare. Maybe the NRA should take their gun lessons a tad more seriously.

Honey,
I tried your link :
http/www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=59774
But got no where. Would you please check on it again?

As for the ‘Democrat hysteria’ - I don’t think there is such a thing. Both sides have their crosses to bear. The Democrats have Dean, and the Republicans have Delay.

Democrats are simply looking towards the future - and worry about losing more of our freedoms. Wiretapping is a serious crime - and I don’t care WHO tries it. Two wrongs still do not make a right.

Bush got caught. And the country is upset. Johnson didn’t. But I believe he was just as wrong. He merely got by with it.

It does appear however that Reps do seem to get caught more often than the Democrats (NOT a good thing, just an observation).

Most of my problem with the Bush Administration is the fact that we INVADED another country without honest and true facts. I do wish he had checked the facts a lot more carefully. We have never invaded another country until now. It is no wonder that many of the Moslems are afraid of us - and consequently hate us.(more so than ever) We changed our behavior in mid-stream, changing the entire image of the U.S. In one move. Maybe that is good - and maybe it isn’t. History will be the only way to tell.

I also do NOT APPROVE of the Patriot ACT. In the mist of confusion I can see why it passed - but I would have hoped that cooler heads would be prevailing now - and we still have most of it. Making decisions from a fear mentality does not necessarily mean they are GOOD decisions.

As for the plans that Republicans say Democrats need to state - I ask why? The Republicans are not offering their plans up for scrutiny - they just get mad when they suddenly try to force them down the throats of others, and then wonder why they lack support.

As for whether Bush’s security changes are working - it is entirely too early to even think about that. For all we know, maybe the terrorists figure our own reactions will be enough to ensure our down-fall. They may be sitting back watching and laughing at us. Running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Or maybe they haven’t really really tried anything major since 9/11. There could be numerous reasons why we have heard nothing from them. Who knows maybe they believe we will get complaint.

I maintain, and will always maintain that until both groups join together and discuss their differences and jointly find a way to work together instead of against each other, we will continue to be divided. Compromise is good, division is not.

Sorry for the lenght…


Posted by: Linda H at February 20, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #127862
You can demand accountability, but first you must know who is accountable.

Forget the blame game and the circular partisan warfare,
Everyone is culpable.

Corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, FOR SALE incumbents in government are 51% culpable, and the voters are 49% culpable.

However, only the voters can remedy the problem now, or suffer the consequences later.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #127863

Jack,

I understand all the distinctions you pointed out. However, it was you who said our economy was strong and doing well.

You cannot tout low unemployment without being questioned about low job creation. You cannot talk about a strong economy without being questioned about increases in poverty.

You cannot take the economy off the table for discussion when criticized or questioned while taking credit for its success at the same time - it’s thoroughly dishonest.

As for the lag effect that you mentioned, from your logic I will assume that you credit CARTER with the economic improvements we saw in the early 80’s and blame REAGAN for the sinking economy we saw under daddy Bush.

I will also presume from your silence on the topic that you really don’t care whether five million more people are poor today than five years ago.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #127864

Here we go again. The Cons attempt to paint liberals in a certain light with no basis in reality. Kinda like how Rush Limbaugh went on and on for days about how liberals we obsessed with talking about “Cheney’s gotta gun” incident. Problem was that when I turned on the liberal talk radio station they were not talking about Cheney at all, they were talking about the sale of American ports to a country that supported the 9/11 terrorists, and about union busting. It seems to me it is the right that gets obsessed with trying to make the left look like doom and gloomers.

I guess if you only listen to the Cons then you would think that the liberals are all doom and gloom. Sure we are going to talk about the serious issues facing this country. But I guess the Cons would prefer we do like they do and pretend that everything is all roses and sunshine. Cheney shoots his friend in the face- Well isn’t that wonderful! A terroist organization that wants to wipe Isreal off the map is elected to run Palestine- best news I’ve heard all day! Bush sells our ports to a country that funded terrorists- Well its about time the President sold us to the terrorist, best move ever!

So libs, the next time the prez sends us down a river without a paddle, don’t worry, just slap on your rose colored glases, put back a few shots of cheap vodka and be happy!

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #127867

eric,

I’ve posted my budget thoughts before, but I will repeat them, not just which social programs I would cut.

I would phase out the Bush tax cut, rather than letting it expire, accelerating the revenue generation. Let those who have benefitted the most from the recent economic upturn give the most back.

I would accelerate our troop reductions and lean hard the UN to take up the slack, reducing our military red ink.

I would repeal the royalty break that oil companies got and dare them to sue the governmen.

I would restructure the tax code to force American companies who benefit from our market to pay there fair share of taxes and to keep jobs here. I would punish American companies who try to hide their profits.

I would freeze expenditures across the board for 2-3 years.

There you go, a budget solution that affects everyone, including the poorest who depend on entitlements.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #127869

CPAdams

I am not taking the economy off the table. On the contrary, it is good. Job creation has been very good since 2003, about the time you can begin to blame Bush. 4.7% unemployment is the envy of the developed world.

But as a conservative, I understand that government does not create jobs. At best it can help create the conditions for job growth, but one of the best things government can do is provide infrastructure and rule of law and then leave productive parts of the economy alone.

I don’t have a problem with President Clinton’s economic stewardship. On the other hand, I don’t make that much of it either.

BUT if you want to credit or blame the president, you don’ have a complaint coming against George Bush for this one

Re history (Once again with the caveat of limits to presidential power), I hold to my rule of thumb that it takes about two years for a president’ policies to have an effect. I would credit Carter with the early 1980s. I suggest you check on the economic situation of 1982/3 before you celebrate, however. The recession of 1990 was shallow and short. I don’t expect perfection.

Re the poor, poverty is a lagging indicator too. As the economy improves, so will the condition of the poor. I believe strongly in opportunity, but equality of results is not one of my concerns. You can be outraged if you like. I have been poor and it wasn’t that bad. But I didn’t like to stay that way so I stopped.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #127871

Jack,

Don’t you guys on this side have anything better to talk about? Why do you care so much about what liberals think anyway?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #127872

d.a.n.:

I keep hearing that the solution is to oust all the incumbents. Assuming we did so and muddled through with totally novice lawmakers until they became marginally competent at managing the complicated procedures for creating legislation, would you then suggest that we start all over again when they did something that some voters didn’t like?

If we treat our lawmakers like replaceable temp workers, then we are doomed to have no long term planning. That is already a critical weakness in our governmental system with politicians afraid to institute long-term plannings. Instead our planning is geared to the election cycle. Some cultural problems are inherently intergenerational and can only be solved with long term plans.

What are your thoughts on this problem?

Posted by: goodkingned at February 20, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #127873

hey JayJay,

don’t go criticizing the prez when he’s revving up that economic engine. Selling those ports is just one of them economic stimulous programs. If the terrorists are going to hurt our economy, we might as well let them pay for it.

And I didn’t want to reveal this top secret security initiative, but by selling the ports we reduce our risk in the airports and at the border. I mean, from now on, where do you think the terrorists are going to try to enter the country? [wink, wink]

sshhh, I’m hunting wabbit, hehehehehe

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #127874

Hysterical moaning is mostly characterized by lack of constructiveness. Read through this string counting complaints and subsequent solutions. The numbers are a bit lopsided. If you have no better ideas, then fold your hands and quit typing.
I believe the yawning chasm between the parties has its roots in the fact that one fourth(roughly) of the country believes that fully one third(again roughly) is completely insane for trusting their very lives and those of their children to what, in the mind of the colletive one fourth, amounts to a figment of the imagination. Imagine meeting someone who based their decisions on what they believed the tooth fairy would want. You would look at them as mentally defecient nut cases, and most likely treat them as such; which is to say without courtesy or respect. This is how the progressive left looks at the religious right. Now imagine that these tooth fairy acolytes ran your country for you. This is where the disdain, if not hatred, comes from.

Posted by: Doherty at February 20, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #127876

JayJay

How precious. You guys have made an industry attacking the president and you wonder why I want to comment on what liberals think. Read the blue side. I am really trying to understand. I honestly don’t understand the wellsprings of the vitriol. In one of my response posts above I redid the post to make it fit the blue side. Do you think you would be really surprised if you saw that paragraph leading something by Paul or Andre?

CPAdams

A British firm is selling the management company to an Arab firm. A foreign firm already manages these ports, but we trust the Brits. Maybe those who say we should not trust Arabs are right, but they might be a little more precise in their statements.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #127879
goodkingned wrote: d.a.n.: I keep hearing that the solution is to oust all the incumbents.
No. Just the irresponsible incumbents. Do you know any responsible incumbents? Any that don’t vote on pork-barrel. Any that don’t look the other way?
Assuming we did so and muddled through with totally novice lawmakers until they became marginally competent at managing the complicated procedures for creating legislation, would you then suggest that we start all over again when they did something that some voters didn’t like?
First of all, you can’t vote them all out at once. Senators have 6 year terms with staggered elections every 2 years, and no term limits. Representatives have 2 year terms with elections every 2 years, and no term limits. Executive branch has 4 year terms, a 2 term limit, and elections every 4 years.

Second, voting out irresponsible incumbents, always, every election, is what voters were supposed to be doing all along.

If voter do this one simple, common-sense, non-partisan, inexpensive, peaceful, and responsible thing they were supposed to be doing all along, you will suddenly see a lot of problems getting fixed, and a lot of badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms being passed.

If we treat our lawmakers like replaceable temp workers, then we are doomed to have no long term planning. That is already a critical weakness in our governmental system with politicians afraid to institute long-term plannings. Instead our planning is geared to the election cycle. Some cultural problems are inherently intergenerational and can only be solved with long term plans.
We are already doomed to no long-term planning (as you say yourself). The object is to retain responsible incumbents and oust only the irresponsible incumbents. Unfortunately, for some time now, few (if any) are responsible. You are right. There is already no long-term planning. Something we need now, to be prepared for the next recession so that it does not turn into a depression.
What are your thoughts on this problem?
goodkingned, I and others have put a great deal of thought into this for years. And, in the end, the answer boils down to simple common-sense.

We, the voters have succumbed to The Cheaters’ Dialectic . This scam is nothing new. It has been going on for many thousands of years. Still, its longevity should tell something about its powerful effectiveness. I too once succumbed to the petty partisan warfare, and it distracted me for years from reality. It finally (better late than never) occurred to me that incumbents (from all parties) are just taking advatange of The People. Newcomers would like to pass reforms, but incumbent politicians won’t allow any reforms or changes that will reduce their power or opportunities for self-gain. You’ve seen it. No reforms can ever get passed. Congress can not eliminate the marraige penalty tax, but they can vote themselves raises, perks, and cu$hy retirement plans in a heartbeat.

Here is the Problem and Solution.

The solution depends on voter education.
The voters will someday resolve the problem.
However, the question is:
(a) Will it be the responsible, peaceful way,
(b) Or, the hard, painful way (again).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #127881

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!! Utterly and woefully wrong.

Those of us on left ARE for many things that have become left ideas. You mention air quality, econimc stability (for ALL of our sakes). There is more. The right wing has seen fit to attack the legal profession with the same sort of hateful vigor that is typical of truly paranoid. Now the left has the support of those who most understand and respect American law and the REAL foundations of our country. That DOES NOT mean we believe this is the worst country. Far from it. It means we recognize that we are moving in the wrong direction. If we hated the country, we would take up arms against it, not work to change it from within. The change we are working towards is directly in line the values that were triumphantly espoused by our FOUNDING FATHERS! Which means, in a nutshell, it is the ‘left’ that is busy working to ‘CONSERVE’ This country while the reactionary right wingers are working to undermine the constituion, set us up as world police, establish an American EMPIRE (Something our founding fathers understood as abhorant and undesireable), defend corporate interests over the rights and freedoms of individual citizens, etc.

We only SOUND reactionary because the right wing is, tragically for us all, getting away with far too much of it.

We on the left are NOT just the UNBUSH!!! have you forgotton the tens os MILLSIONS spent by KEN STARR in a witch hunt which ultimately only proved that Clinton had personal problems to deal with? Have you forgotten that KEN STARR was initially appointed to investigate the WHITE WATER scandal and only came up Monica Lewinski tangentially, as a character witness, to show that Clinton was CAPABLE of lying even though it could NOT be shown he lied about White Water?

I continually argue that it is those of us on the LEFT who ACTUALLY beleive in this country and all that it stands for while the right undermines, subverts and destroys the very foundations of our democracy! Which makes the waving of the flag by those who don’t even UNDESTAND AMERICA, that much more offensive to us. It isn’t the flag, or America we take issue with. It is much like those who were angered by the direction that NAZI Germany was going in. It wasn’t that they hated their country. They only hated the direction it was be forced into by those who were misguided and dangerous who had subverted German patriotism into something it should NEVER have represented.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 20, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #127883

goodkingned: The Problem and Solution.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #127884

Jack,

If you do not believe that our future political stability depends on the conditions of our least fortunate, then you are as myopic as you are callous. I am glad that being poor wasn’t a big deal for you. Try it with one income and a house full of children.

And I grew up poor. My folks absolutely pulled themselves up out of poverty by strength of will, but also because they caught a few breaks where many didn’t. There was no ‘equality of opportunity’ - a phrase on my top ten list of lies - rather success in spite of the cards stacked against them(both minorities with little education plus my mother succeeding in a male dominated workplace).

I know my parents succeeded inspite of cultural attitudes towards the poor and the ‘I got mine, you are on your own’ mentality of the upper class. CPAdams, thanks for the stats. Jack, did you know that in 1959 one half of single women and 55 percent of black people were poor?

Posted by: fed up in CA at February 20, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #127890

Linda
type in www.tomdispatch.com
scroll down to Permanent Basis for withdraw?

Posted by: Honey P at February 20, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #127891

Fed up

You mistake causes and effects. I believe in opportunity. We should help the poor stop being poor. The best way to do that is to create opportunity and the best way to create opportunity is through economic growth. Clinton didn’t do anything special to help the poor. In fact, spending on poverty programs is up 39% during the Bush administration. Poverty dropped in the last years of the Clinton Administration because it was the tail end of an economy that began to grow in 1991. It is very likely that poverty will drop again this year or next as the effects of low unemployment are felt.

Your story about escaping poverty is a common one. I hear all the time people saying that they got out of poverty but that they were given no help or that they were the exception. Actually not. Success is supposed to be possible, not easy.

And don’t mistake equality for opportunity. They are very different and sometime mutually exclusive.

The other assumption you seem to be making is the need for a government solution. The worst thing we did to the poor was to take away their independence during the great society and one of the best was welfare reform in the 1990s.

There also are choices. I waited to have kids until I was financially able to care for them. Had I chosen to start five years earlier, we would have required assistance. Because of good decisions, my daughter is not eligible for financial aid. We should encourage these good decisions.

Posted by: jack at February 20, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #127892

RGF,
They’ve got you fired up a bit. Nothing wrong with that.
And there’s nothing wrong with rejecting their labels (hysterical, liberal, doomsdayer, pessimist, whiner, etc.), but the best way to fight the propaganda is to find and show the facts to disprove it.
There’s a lot of cherry-picking of a few positive facts, and “very good” and rosy outlooks that can not possibly add up to their conclusion that everything is “very good” and Republicans are the ones to thank for it.
And, have you noticed, if they ever concede to a problem, it is Clinton’s fault and it started before Bush got into office. Or, presidents get to much credit and focus.

No, avoid all those clever tangents, and stick to the most important issues, and what you think it all adds up to.

Then, think about the solutions. Voter education is the key.

Voters would like to not have to deal with this so much.
Voters would like politicians to just fix it.
However, that is not how it works.
Voters have forgotten their duty.
Voters must always, every election, do the one simple, common-sense, non-partisan, preaceful, and responsible thing they were supposed to be doing all along: vote out (or recall) all irresponsible incumbent, always, every election. It’s that simple. But, difficult to convince voters to reject the partisan warfare. Thus, voter education is needed. Voters must learn to do their duty always. Not just once in a great while (like in 1958, 1978, and 1994). Otherwise, corruption, which is always trying to find a foothold, will start to grow again. The longer it is allowed to grow, the harder and more painful it will be to undo it.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #127893

Jack,

the vitriolic was started by Gingrich against Clinton and never let up his entire presidency. Now you resent partisan rancor in the face of divided public opinion about policy and majority concern about the economy (that means some Republicans are concerned as well).

Under current conditions, it won’t happen. Look who consistently complains about the partisan Democrats - Bush, Rove, Cheney, DeLay, Frist, Limbaugh, FoxNews, James Dobson, RNC Chair Ken Mehlman.

You took the first shot and now you want the last word, using some misguided appeal to a liberal’s sense of fairness.

Remarkable. Funny. And unlikely.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #127895

I am not appealing to a sense of fairness, which I don’t expect from liberals. I am do not even think you will stop. I am just pointing out how stupid it is.

Since you mention Newt, I will point out that you need a Newt. Whether you like him or not, he is an idea man. That is what Dems are lacking - ideas. I may have missed it, but do you (Dems) have anyone in the Newt postion, someone who is recognized as your intellectual leader, someone who can articulate an alternative you can mostly get behind? Serious question, cuz if you do I would like to know who it is.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #127898

Jack, you managed to do it again. You follow Republican SOP: Don’t explain Republican actions. Demonize liberals.

Instead of explaining the culture of corruption that has seized the Republican Party, telling us why we must tear apart our political freedoms to keep us safe, or giving us a reason why huge deficits are OK, or describing what Republicans plan to do about the Iraq War, you just unload on the liberals.

Republicans are in power. You can do what you want. Why are you still screaming against liberals who today do not have any power? Could it be you do not have much good to say about the current Republican administration?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at February 20, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #127899

Hey Jack,

success is easy if you are born into wealth. Why don’t you Conservatives tell poor people the truth when you are asking for their vote? You want their vote, but you offer neither assistance nor will you try to level the playing field. But you can’t retain power without their help.

It’s their own fault for being born into a poor family. There education will be substandard, but you are still entitled to critique them for making choices that will keep them poor. Their healthcare will be much worse than yours and that’s OK, because those who can pay for it deserve it more.

Those who want to succeed will have to work many times harder than your daughter will ever have to and if they should fall short, tough luck and stop whining - it’s not your problem.

It’s called Social Darwinism, Jack. The idea that the poor are inferior and less deserving than the wealthy. It was an idea that encouraged economic exploitation and, many argue, led to fascism last century.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #127902
I am do not even think you will stop. I am just pointing out how stupid it is.

Stop what Jack? Pointing out the lies and failings of this administration?

If there is any intelligent action here, it is consistently pointing to what I think is wrong with the administration - you see, I did learn from Newt. I learned from Newt that being relentless moves the electorate, even if you are lying(it’s Rush Limbaugh’s formula too).

Except I don’t need to lie and go off on a Whitewater or Monica witch hunt- I have the American economy, Iraq, Guatanamo, the deficit and wiretapping.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #127904

CPA,

And you call Republicans “fear mongerers”?!!

“Conservatives hate the poor!”

“You can only be a republican if you’re rich by birth.” (Never mind the fact that only 0.5% of the millionaires in this country got their wealth through an inheritance.)

“Conservatives want to steal all of your health care and shove it down a Texas oil well.”

Nice objectivity! How about looking at the facts that GWB has out-spent Clinton on social spending? … or are you just going to continue your fear mongering ways?

And with the rich Californians, New Yorkers, Chicagoans, and all of the affluent New Englanders leaning overwhelmingly towards Kerry in the election … isn’t amazing that Bush got more than a few votes with just us middle class and poor folk left?

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #127906
You mistake causes and effects. I believe in opportunity. We should help the poor stop being poor. The best way to do that is to create opportunity and the best way to create opportunity is through economic growth.
That’s hard to do when the rich are getting richer:
  • wealth for a mere 1% of the U.S. population, highest gap since the Great Depression.
  • median incomes have been falling for 4 years straight.
  • foreclosures have been rising for 13 months straight, nation-wide (not a historical high).
  • The total nation-wide debt is now at an all time high of $40.2 trillion. National Debt is now $8.2 trillion. The interest on $8.2 trillion represents another $38 trillion in interest alone if we started paying it down now, which would require us to stop borrowing or printing $1 billion per day, and also pay back $1 billion per day, and 139 years to do it, and that is if interest rates don’t go any higher than now.
  • $8.2 trillion National Debt, highest Debt to GDP percentage since WWII
  • Debt to GDP percentage is now 67% (up from 33% in 1980)
  • Trade deficits have never been hihger.
  • Troubled entitlement systems have never been in worse shape; Medicare has all time high looming shortfalls.
  • The PBGC and pensions have an all time high shortfall of $1.6 trillion; many pensioners are also being ripped off by greedy corporations;
  • Interest rates are rising (not at a historical high)

  • Inflation is rising (not at a historical high)

  • We still continue to lose manufacturing to foreign competition

  • Never has foreign competition been higher.

  • Foreign competition is increasingly better educted, while we are not;

  • There is a brain drain, and it will grow worse as the economy grows worse. And technology won’t save us with the decreasing quality and sky rocketing cost of education;

  • We have a nation that graduates more lawyers than engineers and scientists, where lawyers are in league with bought-and-paid-for government that are perverting the laws to do the very things they were originally supposed to prevent

  • the size of government is at one of the all time highs, and growing fast to nightmare proportions;

  • There is an increase of legal plunder; just from 1998 to 2002, there have been over 10,000 cases of nation-wide eminent domain abuse, and the Supreme Court cleared the way

  • Tax Payers are being ripped off and the tax system is severely abused; Do you wonder why Congress likes it the way it is ? Wonder why they refuse any type of tax reform ?

  • Future American generations are being ripped off and burdened with massive debt.

  • Bought-and-Paid-For governments are pandering to corporations, giving rise to the ugly side of capitalism and elitist government;

  • government is fiscally and morally bankrupt

  • We have lost untold number of opportunities due to crushing national and private debt, reducing our options, even threatening national security

  • It may already be too late, but that’s no reason to hasten it, making it worse for us and future generations, or making recovery from the next recession more difficult;

  • We can not grow, immigrate, or tax our way out of the debt or pressing problems that are growing in number and severity, and increasingly ignored by bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians, who are constantly trying to distract us from their miserable behavior.


Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #127908

Paul

If you follow the links, you will find all the statistics that show how good things are. I don’t need to say it; the numbers do it for me. I just agree.

CPAdams

The poor may have to work as hard as I did. My daughter has an easier time than I did when it comes to money. What is your solution to that? She benefits from my saving and not pissing away my money on cigaretts and whiskey and wild,wild women. You could maybe equalize that. But she also benefits from my experience. I have been able to advise her to make the right moves in ways my father (HS dropout) never could. How do you equalize that?

We need to work on public schools. I am entirely the product of public schools. So are my kids. Poor kids suffer from poor schools becuase they don’t have choices. That is why I believe in vouchers, but that is a different subject.

BTW - my father got a medical exam in 1945 when he left the army air corps and never saw a doctor again until he died in 1998. I go more often than that, but not much. How would you equalize health (not health care)?

I am also just over six feet tall (good), but I am bald and not great looking (bad). Does that equalize it for you? I had a girlfriend who was rich, but really stupid. She has not done so well. Is that fair? My poor but smart was worth more over twenty years than her father’s money. Equality is hard. That is why we can’t do it.

So provide good opportunity. Not equality.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #127909

The Republicans have gotten too use to measuring things by abstract achievements (like growth in GDP) rather than real world gains. Our economy can grow for reasons that later contribute to collapse. The Golden Age at the end of Clinton’s second term was a bubble, created by dishonest accounting. If you looked at growth alone, you would see they were doing something right. But if you peered behind the scenes, you would begin to have your doubts.

Things aren’t always as they seem, nor are they always positive. It becomes easy for those who would benefit from a positive image of current conditions in the economy and elsewhere to simply block out negative issues to keep their reputations pristine for election day. But that doesn’t take care of the problems, and eventually the the problems overwhelm our illusions of real progress.

We need skeptics. We need people who are willing to say no when everybody else is saying yes, if they have good reason to do so. What we don’t need are the Republicans viciously attacking everybody who speaks poorly about their performance. The Republicans need to go beyond the unconvincing arguments they’ve come to rely upon, and look for themselves how their country is running and their plans are unfolding.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 20, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #127910

Paul S.,

This comment made me chuckle, thank you.

“Jack, you managed to do it again. You follow Republican SOP: Don’t explain Republican actions. Demonize liberals.”

You see democrats don’t do that, do they? Of course they don’t. Well, let’s be honest, they do half of it . . they demonize republicans. But, without question, no one expects you to explain the actions of liberals seeing how there are no actions to speak of, are there?

You have some efforts at non-action, like calling in filibusters from a ski slope … but I certainly don’t expect you to explain that. Nor do I expect you to explain Algore in Saudi, or Carter saying “Bush lied about WMD! Bush lied about WMD!” when his democratic successor talked about it ad nauseum. Nor do I expect you to explain Murtha’s Iraq plan of “over the horizon troops” in Okinawa. (Now that’s one helluva a horizon!!) I mean, who could explain it? You also don’t have to explain the liberals plan to fix social security … again, it’s hard to comment on “empty set”.

So, if you work on not demonizing republicans you can then say “We don’t demonize anyone and there’s nothing explainable that we haven’t already explained” … for all the reasons mentioned above. Congratulations on this potential moral high ground.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #127911
Stephen Daugherty wrote: We need skeptics. We need people who are willing to say no when everybody else is saying yes, if they have good reason to do so.

Good point. I agree completely.
Skeptics should not be ignored.
Especially when they armed with the data.
The reality is that there is sufficient data, history, and stats to justify concern.

But, I don’t have any of those rose-colored glasses they hand out in the rose-colored column.

Not to knock Republicans only.

Their rosy outlook is partisan motivated, and backed up with cherry-picked stats. For every positive they find, I can find other stats of more weight to discount it.

There is definitely cause for concern.
There is definitely cause for suspicion when some always want to portray everything as “very good”.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #127913

Charles Ross,

your quote,

“Whatever you think about the state of our economy and our relationship to the rest of the world, one has to admit that come 2008, with the presidency 8 years to the republicans, the house 13 years to the republicans, the senate 6 years to the republicans and a court system primarily overseen by republican judges, that the economy, our justice system, and our foreign policy will be one that has been primarily created by republicans. It will not be a pretty picture.”

Yeah, damn that government for the people by the people stuff … it’ll never work!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 20, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #127916

Ken,

I am saying that Conservatism, as espoused by Jack, favors someone who is already affluent. I won’t contest your millionaires quote, but I know that the last study on economic mobility supports my point:

The greatest predictor, by far, of social class at death is social class at birth. It says that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, much more so than fifty years ago.

So what? Well, other studies say that being poor means you will exercise less, be fatter, smoke more, have more children, have inferior healthcare, live closer to toxic waste, commit a crime or be the victim of a crime, be less educated, have less educated children and die younger.

I am saying, Christian values and common sense morality aside, it is smart to work to reduce poverty. I am saying that making more poor people with less opportunity threatens to destabilize our country and is the source of future societal ills, including crime and terrorism.

I am also saying that the party that claims to have the inside track to God and Jesus Christ shouldn’t be dismissing the poor or claiming that the government should have nothing to do with it. You seem to want the government involved in religion and religious groups to get government contracts, yet you deny any responsibility to the poor?

Do you not see the way your stands contradict themselves?

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #127917
You guys have made an industry attacking the president and you wonder why I want to comment on what liberals think. Read the blue side. I am really trying to understand. I honestly don’t understand the wellsprings of the vitriol.

I guess you think that liberals are not allowed to say anything about the President, unless we are heaping praises upon his feet, like the Cons do. This President already thinks he’s a King becuase you p%#!&*s on the right won’t stand up to him. The Presidential attack industry was invented by the right during the Clinton years. Perhaps, you are just mad because you lost your vitriol monopoly.

I do read the blue side, and try to get through the liberal bashing on the red side without laughing. Out of the last 10 posts on both sides, I would only classify 1 on the blue side as being an attack on the right, and then only partly. On the red side I would call 4 posts an outright attack on liberals. I think it is time to knock the hollier than thou right off their soapbox.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #127921

sorry, holier-than-thou

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #127922

Touche JayJay. Its an eternal mystery why Cons (big generalization here) on these boards dish it out but can’t take it. Oh, I forgot. That’s because they are right eternally. :) NOT!
Regards.

Posted by: cp at February 20, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #127923

You just cant help yourselves.
You whine about Bush Bashing
Yet you put down Dems and Libs.
All that anyone ever seems to
come away with is the HATE
you have for any person who
does not agree with your Views.
Its all clear now according to
Repubs anyone not Republican is not
American.

Posted by: Honey P at February 20, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #127925
We have real challenges in this country. We are not sure of the real cost of the Iraq War, we have a looming crisis of entitlements, Federal spending is on a steep uptick, and of course the unknown terror threats. We don’t ignore these problems.

You don’t ignore them. You cause them.

Now let me get this straight. The Republicans have totally what they want. You guys are in power. You have made a total mess of things. And your complaint is that the Democrats haven’t fixed it? Your problem is that we haven’t stepped in taken control? This is the same party that bitched and moaned about how it would fix everything if only it was in charge during Clinton’s administration?

Posted by: Max at February 20, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #127927

If the left attacks King Bush then its out of HATE! But if the right attacks liberals then its out of LOVE. Right Jack?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #127929

All

Wayyyyyy tooo much vitrol here today on President’s Day.

This will lighten up the talk and show everyone that republicans do have a sense of humor!

One morning Dick Cheney and George W. Bush were having brunch at a
restaurant. The attractive waitress asks Cheney what he would like and
he
replies,” I’ll have a bowl of oatmeal and some fruit.”

And what can I get for you, sir?” she asks George W. He replies, “How
about
a quickie?”

“Why, Mr. President,” the waitress says, “How rude! You’re starting to
act
like Mr. Clinton and you’ve been in office for your second term for
only a
short time now!”

As the waitress storms away, Cheney leans over to Bush and whispers,
“It’s
pronounced “quiche”.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 20, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #127930

Jack,

When I was saying you earlier, I meant in the wider sense (you conservatives), not claiming a particular point of view on anything but what you have divulged.

I am not a socialist. I like making money. I am not tall (bad) but not bad looking (good). I still have all my hair, though my sister tells me I am kidding myself. I have lots of education, which I am eternally grateful for.

I like the opportunities my family has because of my effort. But I didn’t do this myself. I have the unique opportunity to remember what it was like to be poor and to be aware of the opportunities I got as a result of leaving the ‘hood. If my parents had not made it out, I am not sure I would have pulled it off like you (congrats to you).

I know difficulty of getting out of the ‘hood and the low probability proves my point on poverty.

My initial point was that the economy is not as rosy as the administration claims it is and that things are worse for the poor than they were five years ago, in part because of the actions of this administration, and that my complaint about it was not a hysterical reaction.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 6:06 PM
Comment #127931

se,

very funny! I used to know some good clinton jokes, wish I could remember one to offer it in response. happy prez day to you as well!

se, olive branches do work, as your gesture aptly proves. we need more of them from both sides.

i’ll take your suggestion (for once) and lighten things up, at least for the rest of the day…

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #127932

I know this isn’t what this board is normally used for, but I am a babysitter looking for advice. I sit two kids I call Red and Blue. I asked Red to watch the cookie jar while I was away. I come back and find the jar broken and red has chocolate all over his face and hands. When I asked him why he broke the jar he said that Blue didn’t stop him and didn’t give him any ideas for alternative treats so it’s really Blue’s fault.

Now I understand making mistakes, but how hard do I have to slap this kid’s behind for him to start showing the slightest bit of responsibility for his own actions? How do I help him step to and start acting like a grownup?

Posted by: Mary at February 20, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #127933

Max

My point you made “you have made a total mess of things”. I don’t think 4.7% unemployment is a mess. I don’t think growth rates of 3.5% are a mess. I don’t think low inflation is a mess. I don’t think reduced pollution (SO2 down 29% etc) I don’t think increasing spending on the poor (up 39% since 2000) is a mess. I see challenges on the things we are doing less well, but it would be too much of a boast to take credit for all these good things. However, being blamed for them is just silly.

JayJay

I don’t think I used the word hate. My post was actually inspired by “America’s Future” on your side. It is hard for me to believe anyone thinks those things are true. I then had an interesting exchange with some people who don’t understand their own statistics. So I concluded that they must be so angry or passionate that they don’t see reason.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #127935

Jack,
[] By the way, the Index of Economic Freedom for 2006 is 1.84
Did you notice that is the next to the lowest score in the last 11 years?
I’m not sure that’s helping your case.
[] The Competitiveness Index didn’t change from 2004 to 2005. We used to be in 1st place.
[] Sure, unemployment is down since 2003, but were are still down 581,000 jobs since 1999.
[] Polution rose slightly for CO2, fell slightly less for SO2, and down fell 9% for Nitrogen Oxides. So, that’s a positive. Still, talk to someone at the EPA. The neglect and looking-the-other-way would shock you.
[] The improvements in SAT scores is because they teach-to-the-test. Ask a teacher. They will tell you all about this. What about the cost of a college eduction? The cost is skyrocketing. And, we are graduating more lawyers than scientists and engineers. Have you been to a college graduation lately?
[] Crime is down? OK. But that general trend started in 1993. Did you notice it spiked up in 2003 to 2004 (during Bush’s stint? : )). OK, I let you have that one. Crime is down. But, the borders and sea ports are wide open. When terrorists finally get some WMD, there will be nothing to stop them. Also, here is some crime that Bush allows every day. In fact, he wants to give ‘em all amnesty.
[] GDP to DEBT has never been higer except during WWII. Debt is 67% of GDP, up from 33% in 1980. Annual Spending is 20% of GDP. And deficits will exist for many years.
[] Weatlh distribution is at the worst since the Great Depression. The weatlh distribution between the top 1% and the remaining 99% has never been so large since the Great Depression.
[] The Inverted Yield Curve is considered by many to bad signal for investments, and is considered to be a predictor of economic recession? I don’t know, but with many other signs, I wouldn’t dismiss it too quickly.
[] The entitlements picture doesn’t look good. But, that’s not Bush’s or Republican’s fault is it? They tried to fix it, but those bad bad Democrats killed it. The fact is, they both killed it. It was a stupid plan, and an admission (which may be true) that government can’t be trusted to manage entitlements. By the way, why are they still plundering the surpluses to Social Security? Those systems would have never been in trouble had they not been plundered since a few years after being started.
[] Corporate net-worths are up? That’s exactly what Americans want to hear, as their median incomes have fallen for the last 4 years. Wonderful.

I don’t know Jack. I think you still way behind. You’re going to have to do a lot better to convince everyone that everything is as you say: “very good”

But, forget all that.

How about discussing some badly-needed, common-sense reforms ? Why can’t we ever get any no-brainer, common-sense reforms passed ? Perhaps the problem is too many irresponsible incumbents? That’s why I’m going to start voting out all irresponsible incumbents. No one in my state or district is getting my vote. They all vote on pork-barrel (while troops risk life and limb), and look the other way. Therefore, they don’t deserve to stay.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #127937

CPA

Nobody succeeds on his own in this country or any other. I didn’t either. But my problem is with trying to create complete equality. It is not possible to do and lead in the best case to bureaucratic ineptness. At worst it leads to communist murder.

I expect we would disagree about the degree of inequality to tolerate.

It would be an interesting discussion in itself. I am not sure I could write it. For example, if you establish complete equality of inputs (education, training etc) and eliminate random events, you will create a society completely determined by genetic talent. Talent is already a big factor. We like that idea, as long as it doesn’t really work.

You also have a problem in equal in what way? And if you have diversity where people make different choices, you can’t have equality.

People with natural intelligence or talent are always very fond of making that the only determiner of success. People who inherit money prefer that avenue. Kids from educated families think that the erudite should rule. Hard workers think we should reward effort. Those with none of those things want everyone to just get things no matter what they do. What do we do?

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #127938
I don’t think 4.7% unemployment is a mess.
Nevermind that over 581,000 jobs have been lost since 1999.
I don’t think growth rates of 3.5% are a mess.
That’s questionable and probably short-lived, since inflation and interest rates are climbing, and the Federal government is printing to much money.
I don’t think low inflation is a mess.
Nevermind that it is rising now.
I don’t think reduced pollution (SO2 down 29% etc) is a mess.
Actually, it is only down 9% since 2000. And, CO2 increased slightly. Nitrogen Oxides dropped 27%.
I don’t think increasing spending on the poor (up 39% since 2000) is a mess.
That’s funny, since the government has to get the money from tax-payers. You make it sound like the benevolent government gave them something. Many of them are just getting back what the government took from them. And the government takes plenty, and it is increasing. It is now 20% of GDP. And as GDP grows, the government makes sure they get their bigger cut too. And that’s still not enough. So they borrow some more and print some more. $2.14 billion per day (and increasing).

OK, so you say it is not a mess. Some of it is a mess. Some of it is just OK. A very few things show improvement (maybe). But, it ain’t nothin’ to start celebrating about either. Especially, when these problems still exist.

I see challenges on the things we are doing less well, but it would be too much of a boast to take credit for all these good things. However, being blamed for them is just silly.
I don’t blame just Republicans. I blame all parties and the voters. All are culpable. But politicians bear slightly more fault, because they have abused the trust voters gave them. All irresponsible incumbents. That’s why we need to start doing what we were supposed to be doing all along. Vote out (or recall) all irresponsible incubents, always, every election, until no more irresponsible incumbents exist, and incumbents begin to pass badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms. Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #127940

Let’s make a wager.
I think the Republicans have misidentified the biggest threat to our nation; in fact, I’m sure of it. So rather than talk about whether one side or another is wrong, let’s make a gentleman’s bet, and let’s put together some fair metrics.

I believe climate change, popularly known as Global Warming, will cost more and kill more Americans on American soil than terrorism. In fact, I believe that will be true every year for as long as you care to extend the bet. In fact, I will wager the cost and the casualties caused by climate change will exceed terrorism by a factor of 10.

Why? Last hurricane season saw more named storms, more powerful storms, storms occurring earlier and later (tied record) than previously recorded, and more category 5 storms in the Atlantic basin than previously recorded.

The official line of the Bush administration is that this is part of a natural cycle. Scientists from the NOAA suggesting otherwise have been muzzled, especially any suggesting Katrina might be related to Global Warming.

Meanwhile, the month of January saw the highest temperatures every recorded in this country. This record crushed the previous one.

I’ve already made a similar gentleman’s bet with Rhinehold, that there would be no terrorist attacks within the US for the next year. Six months to go- and it’s not as if any terrorists have even been arrested for an attempt lately.

But I digress. When it comes to Global Warming, Bush is a “dissenter.” (Don’t you love it when Bush supporters “dissent” from facts. Right out of Stephen Colbert). I believe the Bush administration will be cursed by posterity for its inaction and obstructionism.

So! Feel free to respond if the terms aren’t favorable enough. I will bet liberals are right and Bush supporters are wrong.

By January 1, 2007 there will be ten times as much cost, and 10 times as many lives lost due to Global Warming than there will be due to terrorism. Events are limited to the continental United States.

In order to attribute costs and casualties due to hurricanes, at least two of the following criteria must be met:
1) new record for earliest named tropical storm
2) new record for latest named tropical storm
3) new record for either most major hurricanes, most hurricanes, or most category 5 hurricanes.

Feel free to play with criteria, include other forms of climate change, and so on.

Posted by: phx8 at February 20, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #127942

Phx8

Global warming is a threat, but what do you do about it? Kyoto won’t work. I have advocated increased use of nuclear power, and we need to develop new technologies. The best way to do that is for the price of energy to rise. I am willing, in fact eager for this to happen.

You probably know that the EU won’t meet its Kyoto goals. Since Kyoto was negotiated the U.S. CO2 has risen by 4.7%. That may be bad, but the EU is up 5.3%. When it is all said and done, much will be said an little done politically. Our only salvation is through technology (and high prices).

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #127944

If you run out of unemployment, would that mean you are nolonger counted as one of the unemployed?I wonder if that is one of the ways, you would make the numbers look good…..

Posted by: layne45 at February 20, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #127946

phx8,

That’s great. I wouldn’t take you up on that bet. The also sort of makes the argument about the enviroment being better a bit weak.

About us being a attacked?
The only reason that has not happened yet is because they have not obtained WMD yet.
When they do, there will be nothing to stop them.
Government won’t even prevent this, despite Arizona and New Mexico declaring a state of emergency.
Our ports and borders are practically wide-open.

Global Warming is on my list of problems, but I fail to give it as much attention. Perhaps this topic deserves much more attention?

However, no reforms, no solutions, nothing can be fixed until we oust all irresponsible incumbents, and get newcomers that want to pass reforms, but have always been outnumbered by incumbents that won’t allow any reforms that will reduce their power or opportunities for self-gain.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #127948

One person’s “hysteria” is another person’s denial.

Posted by: Lynne at February 20, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #127949
It is hard for me to believe anyone thinks those things are true.

Jack,

And it is hard for me to believe that the Cons who declared war on Christmas, boycotted Target, because they sold “Holiday” trees and was all up in arms because the President acknowledged Kwanzaa, is now preaching about how Cheney shooting a guy in the face is a non-issue. Give me a break.

You are right about one thing though, the Cheney shooting is not a crisis, but it is an issue, because it gives us a look at how the V.P. reacted in a crisis. That is the issue, not the accident itself, but the events that took place after the accident. They speak to the V.P.’s character, you know that thing you Cons said Clinton was lacking?

BTW, remeber when Clinton’s gun went off? Liberals thought it was a non-issue, but the Cons spent millions and forced it into our living rooms for God knows how long.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #127951

>>Global warming is a threat, but what do you do about it?

Jack,

1: deny it exists. as Cheney/Bush does.

2: Call people traitors and unamerican when they disagree with number one…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #127953

Kyoto is a start, but some members are going to have to pay penalties that will make them sorry they joined it.

The price of energy will rise.
I’m already getting real tired of $220 (average) electricity bills.

But, who predicted gasoline prices were going to fall back down low in a few years?

Anyway, this is where the government could have provided some leadership. But, they didn’t. So, why do we need an Department of Energy (DOE).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #127955

Jack,
Climate change, or Global Warming, isn’t just a threat. It is by far the greatest threat we face. The Bush administration focuses on terrorism, and obstructs international efforts at cooperation on climate change. Yet we are supposedly a world leader. When it comes to contributing to Global Warming, the US is the proverbial gorilla in the woods. We contribute more, we have the technological means and the innovative spirit, and yet Bush “dissents.” We could have negotiated for Kyoto to take almost any form we desired; instead, we walked away.

I’m not even attempting to talk about solutions. First, let’s recognize the problem. Let’s recognize who is right, and who is wrong; let’s recognize who recognizes the most important problem facing our country. Let’s determine who is “hysterical.”

Posted by: phx8 at February 20, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #127958

Jack-
The question is, what does the party in power do about it? Mainly try to discredit the science. I mean, the Permafrost is marching north faster than the 3rd Army did in Iraq, Ice cores are showing a rise in CO2 levels to heights not seen in 600,000 years, The Greenland Ice pack is racing to the sea, and the Polar Bears are seeing their hunting season cut short by weeks, but many of your people are still trying to say that Global Warming is a myth!

Maybe they’re right, and there’s some aspect of climate change we’re not fully cognizant of. But they’re not making that assumption with scientific evidence backing them up, they’re making that assumption to contradict those who do have scientific backing for their findings, making their arguments for the convenience of businesses that rely on the petroleum economy remaining the powerhouse that it is, rather than becoming a relic of the times.

You ask what our plan is. I think by asking that, you reveal a major problem in your approach: You’re asking us. As the party in power, you folks have an obligation to have an effective plan out there to phase out our dependence on fossil fuels.

You guys sought out all this power. Now people are asking you for the solution. So tell me, what is your party’s solution, besides the status quo and waiting for the market to do it for you?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 20, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #127960

What gets me most about these liberal dems is all they are able to do is point at every issue that the Bush administration tackles. They never have and of thier own ideas or offer any solutions to the issues facing the USA.

Personally, I would rather have someone running this country who is a doer and not a BSer.

Posted by: Everett Hatton at February 20, 2006 7:21 PM
Comment #127967

Stephen & Phx8

I am not asking the the party in power to do much of anything. I remember the synfuels debacle of the 1970s. This should bother everybody. I understand some firms are still getting subsidies.

If the price rises on energy, we will solve the problem. I would like to tax gas and oil and drive the price way up. Then people will begin to develop alternatives.

Energy crisis showed the way. All the talk did nothing. Prices did. Energy efficieny went up through Democratic and Republican rule, until about 1988 when the price of oil dropped. Efficiency improvments plumeted under Clinton and improved again under Bush - not because of his policies, but rather because of price.

This is the key to all success.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #127969
Picking up 1000 people on visa violations is not a round up.

Jack,

This is probably futile, but let’s look at the dictionary:

round�up
n.
1.
1. The herding together of cattle for inspection, branding, or shipping.
2. The cattle so herded.
3. The workers and horses employed in such herding.
2. A gathering up, as of people under suspicion by the police.

Looks like we had a a “roundup” to me…

I find it pretty funny that you accuse Gore of “pandering”. You really think that defending the civil rights of Arabs is the path to popularity?

Ewwww, Woody, really? We detained 1000 people for questioning after little ole 9/11? Questioning 1000 people with the murders of 3000 on our hands � you and Algore are right! Those poor, poor people having to answer all of those questions!!!

You can disagree with Gore about whether it was justified. The question is whether he was lying.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 20, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #127972
Personally, I would rather have someone running this country who is a doer and not a BSer.

I would rather have a doer that knows what he is doing, than the doers in the White House who try to BS their way out of their failures. They even tried to blame poor Mr. Whittington for Cheney’s irresponsibility. But you yes men just keep kissing his ass.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #127973
They never have and of thier own ideas or offer any solutions to the issues facing the USA.

Everett Hatton,

Either you just don’t want to hear it, or you just really don’t care what happens to this country.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #127976

Woody

I have now be got that bigger check three times at the airport. My daughter and 14 year old son had one each. This is life in the age of terrorism. I have no trouble with this roundup and neither should Gore. I wasn’t trying to pass on the technical veracity of his statement. Only his very poor judgement and frankly the disservice he did his country.

My opinion is Gore did a very bad thing. I have lost much respect for him. I always thought he was a he was dull but had integrity. Now I am not sure he is dull, since he has called attention to himself, but at the expense of integrity.

BTW - we are allowed to round up visa violators any time we want. They have no legal or moral recourse.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #127977
Jack, wrote: …increasing spending on the poor (up 39% since 2000) is not a mess.
Actually, it may be a mess. The Medicaid spending is through the roof. And it will get worse until we get government and insurance companies (middlemen) out of the healthcare system, and let healthcare providers set up competing Health Care Funds.

But, you were trying to show that the mean Republicans are not cutting welfare, and you are correct. However, on the very next page, it shows the rampant pork-barrel.
Ofcourse, that’s not just the Republicans. All parties are doing it. All incumbents vote on pork-barrel. That is why we need a One-Purpose-Per-BILL amendment (along with many other badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #127979

Democrats are in a nearly constant state of hysteria. According to them we are living in the worst country, with the worst economy, worst unemployment rate , and worst leadership, We are breathing the worst air, suffering the worst educational system, beset by the worst crime rate and it is going to get worse. Everything is getting worse.

Jack,

You are 100% right, & it’a only going to get
worse under bush!…. We need to Impeach Bush
& cheney from power before the United States
of America turn’s into a third world country.

Posted by: shawn at February 20, 2006 8:14 PM
Comment #127982

Jack:
“My post was actually inspired by “America’s Future” on your side. It is hard for me to believe anyone thinks those things are true. I then had an interesting exchange with some people who don’t understand their own statistics.”

I’m one of those “some people” who were involved in the exchange Jack is referring to. He thinks I don’t understand statistics, but the truth is he tried to dishonestly claim that those two statistics regarding the 29% drop in SO2 and a 10% drop in NO are proof that things are getting better under Bush. But he couldn’t be farther from the truth, because instead they’ve been getting much worse. The source of the statisics in question came from this Jan. 2005 report which says plainly on it’s executive summary page:

Power plants are the nation’s largest industrial source of pollution, fueling global warming and causing other serious public health and environmental problems. The report examines U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data on power plant emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from 1995 to 2003 and finds that emissions are on the rise at MANY plants.*

*Bold text and use of capitals mine in order to show Jack that I am aware of how he tried to dishonestly twist the argument, and that he was the one who didn’t actually understand the purpose of the reports statistics.

Here is the recommendation page from that link :

Power plant emissions of CO2, SO2, and NOx will continue to increase unless we cap global warming emissions and enforce clean air protections already in the law. Specifically, national caps on SO2 and NOx alone will not protect the health of local communities. Rather, tighter national caps should be accompanied by rigorous enforcement of New Source Review and other Clean Air Act programs that ensure that every plant installs modern pollution controls.

The Bush administration has firmly rejected mandatory limits on CO2 emissions and instead relies on voluntary partnerships with industry to reduce emissions. The serious increases in CO2 emissions from power plants documented in this report show that this voluntary approach has failed. A mandatory limit on CO2 emissions is critical to minimize the effects of global warming.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration is working to delay and dilute SO2 and NOx reductions called for in the Clean Air Act, repeal New Source Review, and repeal and significantly weaken other plant-specific clean air programs to rely instead on pollution caps, while ignoring global warming altogether. These policies will prolong and exacerbate illness and suffering from air pollution.

Instead, EPA and federal and state lawmakers should:

Enforce existing Clean Air Act programs, including New Source Review, designed to ensure that every community has healthy air;

As a first step, pass a national cap that limits CO2 emissions economy-wide to 2000 levels by 2010.

Strengthen and finalize EPA’s proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to cap SO2 and NOx emissions from power plants in the eastern US at 1.8 million tons and 1 million tons respectively, by the end of the decade, as the law requires; and

Strengthen the Clean Air Act’s existing programs to further reduce all four major power plant pollutants.

But Bush didn’t follow any of those recommendations, and in fact, he has since then made things worse. If you are wondering in what ways, look at what I wrote in my previous post to this thread.

“So I concluded that they must be so angry or passionate that they don’t see reason.”

This is nothing but classic Straussian-Neocon tactics on display.
Lie about everything.
Twist an argument up in knots.
Claim that the exact opposite of the truth is true.
And then tell people they’re too angry and upset and unreasonable when they are forced to respond to this HORSESHIT.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 20, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #127984

Jack,

A couple of things. First of all, I must admit that I wasn’t 100% happy with Gore’s speech. It would have been better to give it in the US.

As for the legal and moral recourse - how would you feel if you overstayed your visa in say, France, and they locked you up for several months and denied you basic legal rights?

I think the basic problem here is that Bush has claimed that right to hold people indefinitely without legal recourse. Even American citizens. We have prisons that we won’t even publicly acknowledge. These are the powers of a tyrant. You can’t just waive your hand and say “We were attacked” and forget our basic values.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 20, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #127994

To quote Adrienne:
“This is nothing but classic Straussian-Neocon tactics on display.
Lie about everything.
Twist an argument up in knots.
Claim that the exact opposite of the truth is true.
And then tell people they’re too angry and upset and unreasonable when they are forced to respond to this HORSESHIT.”


That is awesome!!! Nicely said.

And Jack, Gore was the picture of integrity in that speech my friend. Defending the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic is the definintion of a true patriot, and that’s what he did. Regards.

Posted by: cp at February 20, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #127996

Adrienne,

This is nothing but classic Straussian-Neocon tactics on display. Lie about everything. Twist an argument up in knots. Claim that the exact opposite of the truth is true. And then tell people they’re too angry and upset and unreasonable when they are forced to respond to this HORSESHIT.

Straussian-Neocon tactics? Let’s see… who the hell are you talking about? You might as well reference 11th century french literature in an attempt to smear someone. At least if you stick to the Hitler/Nazi motif everyone will know what you’re talking about. No one I know has ever even read Strauss or would even be aware of him if it were not for leftists calling them ‘Straussians’.

Adrienne- you are frustrated because someone disagrees with you. That’s ok, but loosen up a bit. You can debate the facts without calling someone a liar.

I think you honestly believe what you believe. You’re also honestly wrong. But that’s different from saying someone is a liar and ‘purposely claiming the opposite of truth’. Do you think that Jack just brings up the fact that there is less pollution because he wants to lie to get you riled up?

For me your accusations of how hateful I am just say to me that you are angry and don’t have a logical reason to present.


dan,

That is why we need a One-Purpose-Per-BILL amendment (along with many other badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms).

I recall suggesting this myself. That and a requirement that the congressman or senator must read the entire bill, in front of witnesses, in order to vote on it…

phx8,

Climate change, or Global Warming, isn’t just a threat. It is by far the greatest threat we face. The Bush administration focuses on terrorism, and obstructs international efforts at cooperation on climate change.

Before global warming the threat to our existance was overpopulation. The same argument was put forward. The same scare tactics. The same hysterical baloney about how we are all going to die unless we do something NOW! But ask for some facts, ask to verify concretely the claims and the argument is that we can’t afford to wait until we’re sure.

There is no such thing as human induced global warming. There is only climate change. Our climate is variable whether or not we are here or not.

Posted by: esimonson at February 20, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #127997

Adrienne

That is the spin - misusing the average. That is what the intro to this report did. It is an old trick. They know that most people won’t read beyond the summary.

The average of all plants in the U.S. is down 29% for SO2 and 10% for NO. Some plants went down by more. Some didn’t go down by as much and some may have gone up.

You are educated. You must have taken a course in statistics. You know what the average means. When you were in school and you improved your grade average from a B to an A, would it have been valid for your professor to give you an F because some of your grades were not as good as the others?

The average has gone down. The average has gone down. If some plants went up that must mean that more went down or if some went up a lot, it must mean that others went down by a lot of that a lot of them went down.

You keep on supplying the information that negates your own argument, so I assume you are honestly confused or do you reject the idea of average improvement?

There is a valid method of measurement that sets a threshold requirement and judges that the whole program is a failure if ALL the components don’t make it. But that is not the standard we have used until now (and it is not generally a good way to measure a diverse system)

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #127998

Linda H, first and foremost, I don’t hate you. You of all people should know that; since I sent you a blog about the difference between dissent and hate. I certainly disagree with you more often then not, yet I do not hate you even one bit.

As far as your comment, a former Vice President is still very important. Going over seas to Saudi Arabia to bad mouth and apologize for our country to the Arabs is just plain disgusting; he got paid big bucks to do that, too! Chenney’s hunting accident pales in comparison to a National New Story then Gore and his big, fat mouth.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 20, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #127999

Jack,

Did you take statistics from a report but willfully ignore the key findings listed in the executive summary? Did you not see them, which would be a mistake, though a difficult one to make, or did you lie? You know what? I don’t care. I don’t trust people who would do either. You will clearly go to any lengths, like most rightwingnuts to keep up the illusion that everything is really, really great when it’s really, really not.

Posted by: Max at February 20, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #128006

Jack,

You took statistics from a report entitled “2005 - Pollution on the rise” and used statistics from it to show that pollution was actually decreasing?

So you took quotes like this:

“More than half (54%) of the nation’s dirtiest power plants increased their annual soot-forming SO2 emmissions from 1995 to 2003, even while annual SO2 emissions from powerplants decreased 10% nationwide.”

…and you just quoted the 10% part? The rosy part? Wow. Now I understand how you can believe everything is so wonderful, you just, you know, edit out all the bad news. The two numbers you quote are next to each other on page six, so it’s hard for me to believe you didn’t intentionally pull them out and use them out of context.

So when this report says the worst offenders are getting even worse, and that’s why we need caps on emissions to prevent global warming you would argue against that point by just presenting the average statistic?

But that doesn’t tell the whole story does it? That only tells half the story. The whole story is that its great that many companies (the smaller ones) have decided to voluntarily limit their dumping, but really sucks that the worst offenders choose to actually increase dumping, which for me would suggest these guys aren’t playing fair or responsibly and need to be supervised through a cap of some kind.

For you, however, I guess all that counts is the bottom line. So long as the economy is humming the debt doesn’t exist. So long as elections take place Iraq has been liberated. It must be wonderfully uncomplicated to have this kind of outlook. To read a report entitled “Pollution on the rise” and instead see “Pollution decreasing”. Pretty soon peace will be war and war will be peace.

Mission accomplished right?

Posted by: Max at February 20, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #128007

Max

The findings in the executive summary are not consistent with the data. I see what they wrote in the summary. Most people don’t read beyond that. It is an old but effective spin technique. I caught them. They generally write these things for believers who don’t question.

Don’t you understand that the executive summary can be no more valid than the data on which it is based and if the data disagree with the summary, the summary is wrong?

You guys just don’t get it. This is not a left/right thing. It is a data thing. Conclusions have to be based on the data. The data cannot be based on the conclusion.

Stephen caught me on data yesterday. I conceded the point, although I disputed other parts of the argument. You can do the same if you want, but, to put it impolitely, I got you on the data. Move on.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #128008

>>Do you think that Jack just brings up the fact that there is less pollution because he wants to lie to get you riled up?

esimonson,

This is an extract from your post to Adrienne. I have no idea how she feels about it, and I cannot speak for her, but as for me the answer to your question is…yes.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #128009

Good post max,

I love the “liar, liar pants on fire arguement”. The only retort is “I am rubber you are glue, it bounces off of me and sticks to you”

Posted by: Scott at February 20, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #128010

Jack,

I am the other guy you were trading posts with who doesn’t understand statistics. Before you decided to spin your version of the exchange, I was left with the impression that you weren’t disputing my statistics (I pulled plain vanilla numbers).

Instead you were arguing that the negative stuff- poverty and the weakest job creation in the modern era other than Bush Sr. - had a lagged effect and were really Clinton’s fault. Or really did not have much to do with the president. Or the government.

I’ve read your posts on pollution, so let me summarize your initial column with the updates from your latest posts:

Democrats are hysterical about nothing because, among other things, the economy is strong and we don’t pollute very much. Except that where the economy is weak, there is a lagged effect and those are Cliton’s fault. Pollution is down - now that we don’t count emissions from power plants. Regardless, global warming is a threat, we pollute less than the EU and things won’t improve until gas is more expensive, which will hurt the economy, which will still be Clinton’s fault. I mean, Bush has been in office since 2001 and none of the economy is his responsibility until 2004, when it started to show improvement.

Jack,

that’s a pretty embarassing post, don’t you think? Sounds like you are hysterical to defend your column at all costs.

And reading about it as you tried to do it has been hysterical.

So maybe you are right - us liberals are hysterical (with laughter) after all!

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #128013

>> a former Vice President is still very important. Going over seas to Saudi Arabia to bad mouth and apologize for our country to the Arabs is just plain disgusting; he got paid big bucks to do that, too! Chenney’s hunting accident pales in comparison to a National New Story then Gore and his big, fat mouth.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 20, 2006 09:07 PM

rah,

A FORMER VP is important, and this one spoke his piece in honesty and fairness. You may disagree with what he said, but he said what needed to be said by someone and it sure as hell wasn’t going to come from any body in the Cheney/Bush Bunch.

The current VP shot someone and put off visiting with law inforcement for reasons we’ll never know for sure, and you sluff it off as though it was unimportant.

Wow! Kick someone for speaking the truth and laud someone for acting as though he was above the law, and I thought your crowd was the high moral side.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #128015

>>So maybe you are right - us liberals are hysterical (with laughter) after all!

Posted by: CPAdams at February 20, 2006 10:01 PM

CPAdams,

You keep messin’ around an’ I’m gonna start a fan club…your THAT good. Let’s draft CP for VP!

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #128020

CPA

Yes, if I wrote that post you did, I would be embarassed.

I never blame Clinton. I like Clinton. I even wrote a whole post in this column praising him as a great statesman. Clinton did a good (not a perfect)job as president, just like Bush.

If you look at the link up top, you see it is a measure of pollution from power plants. Read the actual stuff and you won’t be fooled by the spin.

My point about the economy (and everything else) is that things take time. Many people seem to thing policies are like an on/off switch. Many people also overestimate the power of the president over the economy for good or bad.

Re this particular column, it has been one of the easier ones to defend. All I need do is stick near the facts and call people on them when they stray. Some people have legitimate disagreements. I don’t mind them. The name callers speak for themselves and they are saying that they lost the argument.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #128021

Mary, bad mouthing the US for rounding up muslims after 9/11, to a crowd in Saudia Arabia, is not “fair” and “honest”. And, Chenney waiting 40 minutes to tell the authorities is nothing compared to 12 hours later; and Chenney didn’t kill a woman.


The real point is that the public doesn’t care about Chenney’s incident as much as they do about Gore’s. Chenney’s incident didn’t embolden terrorists; Gore’s certainly does. The MSM were too lazy and biased to report on Gore; instead they went after Chenney and to no avail.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 20, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #128027

Every time you leftists/liberals whine and cry and talk about honesty/dishonesty I have to run outside to see if the sky is really falling. I come back in and just sigh and say to myself, “When are they going to say something worthwhile and truthful?” Maybe someday.

Posted by: tomh at February 20, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #128028

>>Every time you leftists/liberals whine and cry and talk about honesty/dishonesty I have to run outside to see if the sky is really falling.

tomh,

Now, there’s honesty for ya’.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #128029

Eric,
Yes, “The Population Bomb” by Paul Ehrlich turned out to be wrong. Technological innovations, The Green Revolution, and the introduction of population restraints such as ‘the pill’ proved Ehrlich wrong. Even more interesting, the price of almost every commodity dropped from his time until now.

But is his mistake a fundamental one, a matter of premise? Or is it just a matter of time?

Is the Malthusian argument wrong? Can exponential population growth continue to be outpaced by technological innovation and birth control? Or will population growth slow because of self-imposed restrictions?

The question of Global Warming, or more accurately, climate change, raises similar questions. Undoubtedly, human activity produces CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Since 1800, 48% of the human produced CO2 has been absorbed by the ocean. The remainder has gone into the atmosphere, where it has climbed substantially, to 350,000 ppm.

Projections suggest if we stop today, atmospheric levels will climb to 500,000 ppm. At the current level of 350,000 ppm for CO2, it is the highest in several hundred thousand years. At 500,000 ppm, temperatures would climb 2 to 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. That is an extremely conservative estimate, by the way.

We know this because of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project from 1998, as well as multiple other sources, which have obtained and measured core samples from various places on earth. For those of you with a geek gene somewhere deep inside, it’s fascinating stuff.

Btw, there are other greenhouse gases besides C02. However, CO2 constitutes 90% of those gases and over 60$ of the warming effect.

Since 1998, each year has neared or set new records for temperatures. Neither planetary precession, shape of earth’s orbit, sunspot cycle, heat of the sun, geologic activity, nor any other known influences account for this warming. In fact, factors such as earth’s orbital/precessional position favor neutral heating/cooling.

Perhaps, like Ehrlich, people like me will be wrong about climate change. Perhaps technological innovation will solve the problem.

But right now, everyone reading this is inside the biggest test tube in history, conducting an experiment on our planet and ourselves.

Care to bet nothing will happen?

Posted by: phx8 at February 20, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #128032

>>Chenney waiting 40 minutes to tell the authorities is nothing compared to 12 hours later;

Jack,

I assume you refer to Teddy’s little swim?

Let’s take it from the top. Assuming the girl died because of kennedy, and it took him 12 hours to report it (drunk?), and that’s a lot of assuming (you are familiar with the word A S S U M E aren’t you?), how does that excuse a sitting VP (who maybe wasn’t drunk) from speaking directly with the police as soon as he had done all he could do for his wounded friend? The fifty minutes you speak of is another of your smoke-screens. He put off the interview for several hours. We will never know why. So all we have is speculation. He contributed to that speculation by postponing the damned interview.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #128034

Phx8

We may have concerns about climate change, but only technological advance will solve the problem (if it is to be solved) and technological progess is best done by market incentives, not government fiat.

Energy effects every aspect of our lives. It is too important to be left to government.

But you know we are all in a big experiment anyway. Climate has changed rapidly several times in our history. It was warmer in about 12oo than it is today, much colder in 1700. Warm in the 1930s, colder in the 1960s. Human activities affect it, but it can be unstable anyway.

Where I was born in Wisconsin was under a mile of ice 10,000 years ago. Then it was tundra, grassland, tundra again, grassland, boreal forest, mixed forest and now oak, beech, maple. Which is the “normal” one?


Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #128036

No, not Jack, it’s rahdigly. And, you’re missing the point. Who cares! It’s yet another attempt to take down the Bush Administration and the effort (not to mention result) is futile. You still want to avoid the real issue, the issue that should’ve been covered last week, and that’s the ex-VP running his mouth “blaming America first” again. Cowtowing to the Saudis; Gore you punk!!!!! Show some backbone and stand up for this country, it’s not our fault that you couldn’t win you’re own state. Actually, big ups to Tennessee.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 20, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #128037

Marysdude

It wasn’t me who talked about Kennedy. The quote you have is from Rahdigly.

But as long as we are on the subject …

You know you are safer hunting with Cheney than driving with Kennedy.

You know more people have died in Teddy Kennedy’s car than in all the nuke plant accidents in U.S. history.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #128039

>>No, not Jack, it’s rahdigly.

rah,

Yeah, it was you and not Jack…well I can’t tell one Bushbot from the other…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #128043

You guys do prove my point. In the whole time I have written on this blog, more than a year and a half, I have never called anybody on the other side any name. I have never said anyone was a liar, never said anything about BS or HS. I have conceded points when someone else made a good one. I have written posts praising Democrats and defending liberals.

There are many good Dems on this blog. Then there are the hysterical ones.

As I wrote above, when someone calls names, I know they are saying that they lost and maybe are hysterical.

If you can’t tell one Republican from another, it says much about you and little about us.

It is really very funny. Thanks for performing for our amusement.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #128044
There is no such thing as human induced global warming. There is only climate change. Our climate is variable whether or not we are here or not.

That statement displays a great deal of ignorance (not you; the statement : ))

To say or imply human activity has no impact on the weather is incorrect.

Billions of tons of many different gases put into the air by burning fossil fuels definitely has an effect on weather (ever heard of acid rain?).

Temperatures can vary greatly from the suburbs to the inner city because of heat retained in concrete surfaces and increased pollution from automobiles (ever heard of an OZONE Alert?).

You’d better start doin’ some research before saying such a thing. Even the most stubborn scientists are accepting the theory of global warming.

However, I will say this. When Yellowstone erupts, our impact on the environment, in comparison, will be minuscule.

The most alarming potential for harm is the depletion of the OZONE. Ask Australians about this. There has been a jump in skin cancer as the OZONE hole above Antarctica increases in size.

Haven’t you noticed the melting glaciers?

How about coral reefs dying?

How about eratic weather patterns?

Are saying that we had nothing to do with any of it?
You can not know that.
But, I see a lot of that here in the rose-colored column, where many wear rose-colored glasses.

Have you not noticed the temperatures warming?

Have you not noticed rising sea levels and coastal flooding.

Did you know the sea level used to be much much lower? The ice is melting. Duh !

Like economic stats, are you also going to ignore the environmental stats? Hmmmm.

What about this? Are you so well-informed and possessing such superior knowledge and intellect that you believe this is totally unrealated to human activity?

Come you guys. You are startin’ to look like the three see-no-evil monkeys…

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #128045

Right. It is just all about hatred of Bush.
But, mind you, I’m not calling you names.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #128051

DAN

I believe human activity affects climate. But climate is variable without us. Your chart doesn’t go far enough back. We were coming out of the little ice age in the 19th Century.

It is also true that your data probably does not account for changes in land use around weather stations.

Finally, you have the problem of 1940-1980.

The whole topic is very interesting. This is not the first human induced warming, for example. And we have scary incidents of abrupt change that just happens.

Posted by: Jack at February 21, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #128055

Jack,

1940 to 1980 is still an increase (owerall).
Again, as with economic data, you have to look at the big picture.
And, similarly, regarding the economic stats and data, even if you were right, and everything is “very good”, it does not diminish the justifiable concern. As Stephen said, skeptics are good. Especially if they have some data. And data for concern about the economy and global warming do exist.

Jack, Eric,
Has it always been this way?
Have you always been on the defensive as of late?
Do you think perhaps, sometimes, you might be wrong?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #128060

>>Gore you punk!!!!! Show some backbone and stand up for this country, it’s not our fault that you couldn’t win you’re own state. Actually, big ups to Tennessee.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 20, 2006 11:16 PM

rah…it is rah this time, right?

Call a man a PUNK when he tells the truth, and sluff off the irresponsible actions of a sitting Vice President…yep, it’s the highly moral right speaking alright.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #128061

CPAdams:

Tip of the hat to you. I wish I was as facile and factually matter-of-fact as you. I always let my temper get the better of me.

I very much enjoy hearing your point of view—hope you continue to contribute. You and Adrienne I always look for when I come to this site.

Jack, you make an excellent foil.

TC

Posted by: Tim Crow at February 21, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #128062

>>It is really very funny. Thanks for performing for our amusement.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 11:38 PM

Jack,

You get your amusement cheap…thanks for the applause.

I pay a much higher price for my entertainment, I watch the mankey in the White House. And it costs us all.

You can boast about being such a mellow fellow all you want, but your put-downs and condesending Hurrah is just as bad as our little name tags.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2006 12:36 AM
Comment #128068

Jack:
“As I wrote above, when someone calls names,

I guess the word lie is just a bit too frank and honest for you? How about prevaricate, or equivocate from the truth? Does that fall a little softer on your ears?

“I know they are saying that they lost and maybe are hysterical.”

You argued from a dishonest position, tried to use a single statistic to try to make your entire case, and didn’t address any of the many facts I put up about the Bush administration’s entirely screwed up, big-polluter-serving stance on power plant pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

I am not hysterical, I am angered by your constant displays of arrogance. You seem to believe this attitude will somehow cover for your dishonesty. It doesn’t.
I concede nothing to you since your argument fell short of my facts, as well as the dangerous reality that you continue to deny.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 21, 2006 12:54 AM
Comment #128069

Re: “This deal for OUR ports….The individual that decided that this “is a good thing” needs to resign immediately.”

Uh.That would be the person calling himself your president. And stop whining about it. You sound like one of those bleeding-heart, commie fag,
hysterical liberals always finding fault with
this country. Suck it up like a good Repub.

Posted by: PSJohn at February 21, 2006 1:02 AM
Comment #128074

Re: Global warming;

While it is true that there are measurable increases in temperature in recent years, I don’t agree with the assignment of causality to human activity. Like many experts, I favor the theory that warming/cooling cycles on the planetary scale are too long for recorded history to present a clear pattern. We haven’t kept accurate records long enough to formulate a credible theory.

For instance, there was a mini-ice age in the 14th century that resulted in extreme increases in rainfall in northern Europe. With travel restrictions and crop failures, a nascient Northern European rennaisance was aborted until the Italian rennaisance when Europe finally emerged from the e Dark Ages. The climatic shift associated with this event, is not attributable ot human activity. This posits that there are other forces which affect global climactic change.

I am doubtful that humans have the ability to significantly affect the current rate of change through the methods proposed by the pro kyoto faction, the control of greenhouse gas. While it is not at all certain that the proposed Kyoto accord will affect the global temperature patterns, it is certain that the economic restrictions proposed for US development will adversely affect the US economy.

Does this mean that we shouldn’t reduce global pollution? No, it just means that the US is required to be it in the “good idea, you go first game”.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 21, 2006 1:29 AM
Comment #128084

Jack,

sorry, but your article has NOT proven your
point. But your responders HAVE. Yes we can
thank Marysdude, JayJay, Phx8, Translator and so on for proving your point for you. The last four
or more articles in WatchBlog R & C ; Archives
have thus far only received about 60 or under
comments. Not all those comments from “hysterical
liberals” of course. BTW. Did you mean hysterical
HA HA or hysterical/wild emotionalism? Or both?

Frankly I can’t tell the difference. There are
psychological terms that describe people who’ve
broken from reality and go into emotonal
hysterics. I believe it’s called Dementia Precox
or… oh yeah, schizophrenia. Look up the definition. You’ll be amazed how much it describes
“hysterical liberals”. Oh and by the way. This
article’s received well over 160 comments compared
to the last 4 or 5. Point made Jack.

Posted by: Dale G. at February 21, 2006 2:08 AM
Comment #128089

One other thing. Is it just me or has anyone
else noticed the similarities between the words
Democrat and demagogue? Are they the same
creature perhaps? Have recent speeches by Bill,
Hillary, Al G., Ted, Al S. ( at a FUNERAL!?! ),
Jimmy, ( should I go on? ), etc., not proven
that these two creatures inhabit the same body?
Kind of like a centaur. Only in this case, the
creature is half politician/half jackass. And all
they can scream is…”EEEEaaaaawwww!!!” Thus the
Demo-gog-ocrat is born. Giving at least half of
the material for late night comics and all of the material for Rush L. ( just ask Jay Jay ) and other radio talkers everywhere. Yes Jack, there
is a GOD. And HE’s laughing at them too.

Posted by: Dale G. at February 21, 2006 2:27 AM
Comment #128100

Dale G.,

Ever notice the similarities between the words Republican and Repugnant? I know they are one in the same creature.

repugnant adj:

1. Distasteful; disgusting.
Thesaurus: disgusting, repulsive, distasteful, disagreeable, offensive, revolting, repulsive, horrid, vile, putrid, terrible, foul; Antonym: acceptable, pleasant. 2. Said of things: inconsistent or incompatible with something else.

BTW, one of the definitions of a demogogue is:

dem-a-gogue noun: a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times

Oh, and you must feel real special being able to speak for God.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 21, 2006 3:18 AM
Comment #128102
BTW. Did you mean hysterical HA HA or hysterical/wild emotionalism? Or both?

Frankly I can’t tell the difference. There are
psychological terms that describe people who’ve
broken from reality and go into emotonal
hysterics.

This coming from the side that is ready to burn the U.S. Constitution because they are afraid that the big ol’ boogyman is gonna get’em while they sleep. Tell me can we expect another War on Christmas this December?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 21, 2006 3:37 AM
Comment #128108
They never have and of thier own ideas or offer any solutions to the issues facing the USA.

Everett Hatton,

If you want to hear some Democratic ideas, just go back and listen to Bush’s state of the union speech. I figure his dog must have eaten his real speech, so at the last minute he just printed out the house democrat’s website. That would explain why the next day, his yes-men said he didn’t really mean it.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 21, 2006 4:40 AM
Comment #128119

Jack:

You sure do know how to get people in a tizzy. Sometimes its by saying Clinton was a good President, sometimes by citing facts, sometimes by describing people as they are.

But you always draw a crowd, which is a compliment in and of itself. I’ve yet to see you lower yourself to the common insult, and of course name calling is the last vestige of intelligent thought. I enjoy how those who engage in that kind of senseless behavior try to justify it, as if it were in anyway justifiable. The outcome is a good chuckle.

Thanks for the fun.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2006 6:40 AM
Comment #128123

OK…

so the Lib Dems are have concerns about the VP’s Bird hunting accident while the world needs to find answers to the Bird Flu.

The Lib Dems have concerns about privacy issues….do they have something to hide? Shouldn’t the concern be to protect honest people from terrorist?

Lets face it, these Lib Dems are a “bitter has beens” and now they are screeching with thier last few breaths about any issue.

It is more then obvious that these Lib Dems only have narrow minded views while a majority in the USA have a much broader view of the world and the problems that are faced.

Let’s face it, liberalism has corrupted our country. Thank GOD for conservatives to finally clean up the mess.

Posted by: Everett Hatton at February 21, 2006 6:55 AM
Comment #128126

Jack,

I enjoy your columns, but I have to disagree about the name-calling. Look at the title of your post. It beats “Mother#$#%ing Liberals”, but it’s name-calling none the less.

And I still don’t see any evidence that “Democrats are in a nearly constant state of hysteria.” What I see are a lot of criticisms of Bush and Cheney. Even if everything you said about the economy, etc, were true, the conclusion would be “Liberals are wrong”. Not hysterical.

The Lib Dems have concerns about privacy issues.do they have something to hide?

What does this administration try to keep so many things secret? Do they have something to hide?

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 21, 2006 7:10 AM
Comment #128128

JACK

I was not trying to “PROVE” your point obviously. Why do you keep insisting that things have never been better. Like saying it makes it so. This is a total mystifier to me.

How do I get it through your head outside of name calling to let you know there are BIG inconsistencies? Sicilian Eagle I rarely listen to out of his lack of obvious knowledge on most things but for those with seemingly normal aptitudes why the pink and rosy glasses.

When Clinton was in I could look over his record fairly and see the short comings—maybe you aren’t smart enough to understand there are any. Is that what it is? Oh why am I asking you you wouldn’t know anyway, would you?

Maybe I should just smile and call you “adorable” kind of like kids. That’s all you have proven yourselves to be, children at best, bobblehead morons at worst who run everything straight into the ground.

George W. bush is just up your alley—just dumb enough for you to understand.

Posted by: Translator at February 21, 2006 7:14 AM
Comment #128131

Dale G,

Exactly how is the left any form of demogogery? Perhaps a dictionary would help you in this quest for mindless insults. Stretching aren’t we? Especially with the use of greek mythical creatures to defend a Millionaire Texan that would screw you out of the picture too and unbeknownst to you obviosly, currently is. My positions are not to deride George W. Bush but for anyone who would go along with it not knowing what it actually means.

See your hatred is directed at Democrats—Can you tell me why? No, because you need to have an enemy to defend the proposals that Bush has put forth, and I’m even willing to bet there are portions on the Republican platform that you are in disagreement with yourself—but your hatred of us, for whatever reason, is keeping you from having to face or even, on some level, own up to them existing within your party.

You swing without knowing for what you are swinging for, only that it’s those liberals that mama and daddy taught you were bad or something. The Centaur thing was a stretch give it up and be atleast remotely sensible.

Posted by: Translator at February 21, 2006 7:45 AM
Comment #128133

Woody:

I guess we could debate the definition of hysteria, but for me, I’ve written about how Democrats (or the “left” if you prefer) seem to want to fight every fight. That’s not necessarily hysteria, but it is an unhealthy desire for combat—and its almost always negative.

They do seem to expound on how our country is falling apart, the economy is bad, jobs are unavailable, Cheney is a bad shot, Bush went AWOL, Bush lied, Gonzalez is bad, Alito is bad, Bolton is bad, Roberts is bad, Miers is bad, Rove is bad, Libby is bad…..and on and on.

As I tell my kids, sometimes its best to figure out what fights are worth fighting. Is it worth fighting over the fact that Cheney played the media game a bit by waiting until Sunday to spread the news, and then did so by tweaking the Washington press corp? I’d say that’s a pretty minor issue and a NON fight, but the left just can’t not fight. And by doing so every time, they lose their lustre and their ability to fight the things that do matter.

Is that hysteria? Perhaps not, but its nothing good either.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2006 7:54 AM
Comment #128135

hey jbod,

I’ve learned from Newt - if you want to stay ahead of the news cycle, fight every fight.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 21, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #128146

Hysteria??? What hysteria??

Bush Fails To Prevent East Coast Blizzard
by Brain Williams NBC 02/12/06

As President Bush and his staff cowered in the White House, the snow continued to pile up on the many poor and African American victims who could not afford to get out of town or to safety in Florida. Crucial supplies of blankets, hot cocoa, popcorn and dark rum - so essential to surviving the stress of any major snowstorm - lay in stores undelivered.

“Where is the government? I need my sidewalk shoveled so I can get out to buy my danged lottery tickets!” said one D.C. resident from his living room. “Why are we wasting money in Iraq when we could be spending it here on me?” Progressive blogs blasted the President for his inaction. We find the timing terribly suspicious - just as the Domestic Spying hearings kick into high gear, what happens? A major northeast Blizzard. Why now?” wrote one blogger.

Hearings into the Blizzards’ effect on hearings are almost a certainty. Howard Dean has suggested he will call for an investigation once his new medications kick in and John Kerry took a break from the sporting activities of the glamorous super-rich in some exotic locale (random choice: Ice Sailing in Finland) to call for new legislation outlawing snowstorms. “The Republican Congress has dropped the ball once again. I have always been a staunch supporter of anti-snow legislation, except for certain locations where I ski. Snow has no business on our roads and the President and Congress knows that.”

Calls for impeachment over “SnowGate” as some are calling it already are mounting as deeply as the snow itself, and what will be discovered underneath will prove to have a truly chilling effect on the Republicans, as the inevitable thaw proceeds. Or something like that.

More breaking news……


Al Sharpton wants an investigation as to why snow is ALWAYS white.

Cheney has stock in Tru-Value Hardware.

Do you have any idea how many SNOW SHOVELS they sold today to the unsuspecting consumer?

I demand to know why FEMA has been so late in reacting to this storm. THEY KNEW IT WAS COMING! And yet they failed to have crews in place to fix the electricity as soon as it went off. It just shows that Bush and the Republicans just don’t care about the people in the N.E. The Senate needs to investigate this with administration people under oath.

I’ll bet that the great junior senator from N.Y. has opened the doors of her home to all of the heatless poor of her neighborhood and is busy baking cookies for them while her husband applies body heat to the nearly frozen teen-aged girls.

Posted by: freddy flintstone at February 21, 2006 8:57 AM
Comment #128149

freddy flintstone,

If the best evidence you have for “hysteria” is a made-up story, I rest my case.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 21, 2006 9:30 AM
Comment #128150

Woody:

It was a joke!! Someone call a doctor—Woody’s “humerus” bone is broken.

P.S. The use of the word “humerus” is intended as a pun, combining the concept of ‘humor’ with the leg bone by the similar name. Those with working “humerus” bones can ignore this explanation.

Posted by: freddy flintstone at February 21, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #128152

>> the economy is bad, jobs are unavailable, Cheney is a bad shot, Bush went AWOL, Bush lied, Gonzalez is bad, Alito is bad, Bolton is bad, Roberts is bad, Miers is bad, Rove is bad, Libby is bad…..and on and on.

>>Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2006 07:54 AM

joe,

Thanks…couldn’t have said it better myself…but wasn’t it ya’ll who denigrated Miers?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #128156
I guess we could debate the definition of hysteria, but for me, I’ve written about how Democrats (or the “left” if you prefer) seem to want to fight every fight. That’s not necessarily hysteria, but it is an unhealthy desire for combat—and its almost always negative.

Republicans have some nerve after all the crap they threw at Clinton. The scandals that weren’t scandals, the impeachment, the hundred million dollar investigations. All of that was easy to ignore, because it was stupid and didn’t matter. What Democrats are criticizing Bush for are problems this country is going to have to pay to fix for generations.

Posted by: Seth at February 21, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #128185

d.a.n.,

I love your pragmatic, although mildly cynical outlook. You are a bit cynical (but not unduly so), and yet optimistic. That’s great! I agree with your assessment, completely.

I think what’s most needed is to convince the 18-25 year olds in this country, whose level of cynicism has become so great that they no longer beleive their vote counts or has any purpose, to get active in this democracy!

That takes education. Which also means we need to put value on education. What we laughingly call civics and social studies in American schools these days more closely represents indoctrination. No wonder the youth in this country have lost faith! Remember, with kids (…and perhaps all of us as well) actions speak louder than words. So when they see one thing and hear another from the same source, they lose faith in that source. As a result, kids get into silly religious cults out of rebellion against starchy upbringings, for instance.

What is needed is a CULTURAL change. We need to VALUE education again like the founding father’s did.

Finishing 28th in the 1st world for quality of education is simply unnacceptable in a country that SHOULD be leading by EXAMPLE…not fear or might.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #128188
There are many good Dems on this blog. Then there are the hysterical ones. As I wrote above, when someone calls names, I know they are saying that they lost and maybe are hysterical.

Jack, you were caught cherry-picking data from a report entitled “pollution on the rise” to argue that everything was really rosy with the environment. There are obvious parallels between what you did, and what the administration does in general with its information, which is remove anything that hurts its case. It hurts your credibility, so please link to your sources from now on. In the same way, I demand there be oversight for this administration which has cherry picked information and lied in the past. Since you don’t see that you did anything wrong, I can finally see why you are so forgiving of Bush and team.

Posted by: Max at February 21, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #128190


In keeping with requirements of the ill-conceived Freedom of Information Act, President Bush’s personal schedule and public appearances for the coming week are provided below:

SUNDAY:

MORNING:
8:00 - 3 Miles on Treadmill
9:00 - Church
11:00 - Policy Review w/ Karl

AFTERNOON:
12:00 - Fund-Raising Lunch
1:30 - Event: Christen launch of Navy cargo barge USS George H.W. Bush
3:00 - Nap
5:00 - Flashcard Geography Lesson w/ Condi

EVENING:
8:00 - Watch O’Reilly Factor
9:00 - “Laura Time”
9:20 - Bed
MONDAY:

MORNING:
8:00 - Jazzercise
9:00 - Prayer Squad
10:00 - Public Speaking Tutor

AFTERNOON:
12:00 - Strategy Lunch
1:00 - Event: Preside over ribbon-cutting ceremony for Yellowstone National Park Circumferential Snowmobile Expressway.
3:30 - Nap
5:00 - Leak Rumors to Limbaugh

EVENING:
8:00 - Read Pages 10-15: Life & Times of Teddy Roosevelt (Cliff’s Notes)
9:00 - “Barney Time”
9:20 - Bed

TUESDAY:

MORNING:
8:00 - Trampoline Aerobics
9:00 - Prayer Squad
10:00 - “Bi-Partisan Breakfast” (Ha!)
11:00 - Breakfast Post-Mortem w/ Dr. Bill & Dennis

AFTERNOON:
12:00 - Heritage Foundation Lunch
1:30 - Rose Garden Ceremony: A Very Special Tribute to Ron Reagan Jr.
3:00 - Nap
5:30 - Trim Cuticles

EVENING:
8:00 - Shred Enron Documents
9:00 - “Jenna Time” Call
9:10 - Bed

WEDNESDAY:

MORNING:
8:00 - Sauna
9:00 - Prayer Squad
10:00 - Sexual Tension-Filled Telephone Mano a Mano w/ Karen Hughes
11:00 - Speech Rehearsal

AFTERNOON:
12:00 - Petrochemical Millionaire’s Club Luncheon
1:30 - Officiate at National Rifle Association AK-47 Appreciation Parade
3:00 - Nap
5:30 - Head Measuring for New Stetson

EVENING:
8:00 - Narcotics Anonymous Meeting
9:00 - “Barbara Time” Call
9:10 - Bed

THURSDAY:

MORNING:
8:00 - Tae-Bo
9:00 - Prayer Squad
10:00 - Sexual Tension-Filled Mano a Mano w/ Karen Hughes
11:00 - Weekly Status Report Due on Cheney’s Desk

AFTERNOON:
12:00 - All-white meat luncheon at Bob Jones University
1:30 - Personal Portfolio Review w/ Paul O’Neil
3:00 - Nap
5:30 - Circle Jerk w/ Tony Blair & Vincente Fox

EVENING:
6:00 - Dinner at the Gingrich’s
8:00 - Line Dancing in the East Room
9:00 - Mom & Dad Call
11:45 - Bed

FRIDAY:

PERSONAL DAY - CRAWFORD, TX

SATURDAY:

PERSONAL DAY - CRAWFORD, TX

Posted by: layne45 at February 21, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #128200

Facts are facts. The Republicans now control the POTUS, Senate, House, SCOTUS, most powerful state governorships (Cal, Tex, NY, Fla, etc.). Did the dems just fail to get their messege out? Or is the messege flawed? The first step of self-improvement is admitting that there is a problem…

Posted by: nikkolai at February 21, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #128205

Marysdude:

I think pretty much everyone jumped on Miers. I thought they jumped prematurely on her, without giving her any benefit of the doubt as to her capabilities. That said, though, its fair to say that while her qualifications as a lawyer shouldn’t have been in question, her qualifications to the SCOTUS certainly were limited, especially when compared to other nominees throughout history.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #128209

Yes, life is pretty good right now. The intelligent and caring are disappearing. The oblivious babbling buffoons will take over. We have been luulled into a false sense of security.

We are “good dogs”, happy and safe in our cage as long as we all behave, the Gov’t will keep us fed.

Liberty has been sacrificed for profit. Who cares about a corrupt Government when everyone is profiting from it.

It will come back to bite us, but how soon?

Nick (Republican unhappy with the current corrupt Government)

Posted by: Nick at February 21, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #128212

Jack,
I just say that “We the People” PUC the World. Now that the Left and Right has learned how to debate politically correct working out what is seen as Politically Unalienable Correct about the type of Legacy the Children of the 70’s; 80’s; & 90’s will leave considering the fact that a 10 yearold on the street can tell you Right from Wrong. I’ll take the Republican Party up against The Devil of Civilization in a heart beat. Because unless the Republican party is willing to politically debate the Real Issues based on Reason and Logic, I do believe that their “Little World” will have to be destoryed also in the up coming War on Right vs. Wrong.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 21, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #128213
d.a.n., I love your pragmatic, although mildly cynical outlook. You are a bit cynical (but not unduly so), and yet optimistic. That’s great! I agree with your assessment, completely.
RGF, Thanks! Yes, it does come off as cynical. It’s tough to point out problems without appearing cynical, doomsdayish, pessimistic, etc. That is why it is very important to stick to the facts, and lots of them to support conclusions.
I think what’s most needed is to convince the 18-25 year olds in this country, whose level of cynicism has become so great that they no longer beleive their vote counts or has any purpose, to get active in this democracy!

Yes! Because most elections are only won by a few percent of all votes (e.g. 121 million voted 49% for Kerry, 51% for Bush). Thus, voters must be educated to learn how to use their vote wisely. But, responsibly too. The most responsible way to do it is to simply do the one simple, peaceful, non-partisan, inexpensive, common-sense, no-brainer, responsible thing the voters were supposed to be doing all along: Vote out (or recall) all irresponsible incumbents, always, every election, until no more irresponsible incumbents exist, and incumbents pass badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms that incumbents have been refusing to pass for many decades. Voter education is important.

That takes education. Which also means we need to put value on education. What we laughingly call civics and social studies in American schools these days more closely represents indoctrination. No wonder the youth in this country have lost faith! Remember, with kids (…and perhaps all of us as well) actions speak louder than words. So when they see one thing and hear another from the same source, they lose faith in that source. As a result, kids get into silly religious cults out of rebellion against starchy upbringings, for instance.
Yes, education in this country worries me too. At the last college graduation I went to, most of the engineering and science students graduating from Texas A&M were foreign students. Instead, we graduate more lawyers.
What is needed is a CULTURAL change. We need to VALUE education again like the founding father’s did.
I also agree that something went wrong in the last 25 years. I think it may be a cycle. But, even if it is, we don’t have to be locked into it. Can we prepare to recover or keep doing what we’re doing, and make recovery more difficult and painful?
Finishing 28th in the 1st world for quality of education is simply unnacceptable in a country that SHOULD be leading by EXAMPLE…not fear or might. RGF
Yes, we can and should do much better. I am annoyed by those that always say we are better than most countries. They want us to accept mediocrity. Those that do it vehemently, are usually partisan motivated. The rest are complacent or resigned to futility. We must reject all of it, and make common-sense, no-brainer reforms to improve it. One big problem with schools systems is that they are top heavy with administrators with fat pay checks. There are much fewer teachers per administrators now than there used to be. As usual, this situation too needs transparency. It needs some light shed on it to generate the outrage, then accountability (law enforcement), then finally responsibility.

jbod,
She’s not a bad person (I’ve met here), but there were many more qualified persons. She has little (if any) constitutional law background. Mostly all just corporate law, and some time on the Texas Lottery Commission. Her office in Dallas had pictures of Bush family members. It strongly hinted at aspirations to get into politics. They have been friends a long time. Miers was been in D.C. for a long time working for Bush. I’m afraid it was a clear case of cronyism.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #128214

Goodkingned, Jack, Eric,
Actually, we now have extremely accurate records for temperatures and atmospheric make-up. It has only been over the last 10 years these have been obtained, mostly through analysis of various core drillings, most famously with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project in 1998. There are many additional ones since then, including samples from sea floors, mountaintop glaciers, and so on.

Perhaps most disturbing is the rapidity with which climate changes occur. Most of us assume changes are like a dial- slow, gradual, incremental changes spread over long periods of time. In fact, abrupt climate change often occurs. Major changes can occur in decades, and even as little as three or four years.

I’d urge anyone to spend time reading on the topic. The rate at which Oxygen 18 isotopes accumulate isn’t a matter of opinion. This is science, not politics.

The Bush administration’s “dissent” from facts about climate change makes no sense. Much is difficult to predict, no doubt. Will melting glaciers interrupt the Gulf Stream’s thermohaline cycle, freezing Europe? At what point does C02 in the ocean change the alkalinity so much that foraminifera no longer can form shells? People are working hard to figure out difficult questions. To refuse or obstruct facing the issue, as the Bush administration persists in doing, is the height of folly.

Posted by: phx8 at February 21, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #128215

>>I think pretty much everyone jumped on Miers.

joe,

We’ll never know if she would have been any good, ‘cause she didn’t get her hearing. For my part, she was close to Cheney/Bush and would have been worse than Alito, but that’s just cranky me thinkin’.

Reed jumped first, and he scared the hell out of those on the right in Congress who toady to the extremists, so they jumped and scared the hell out of Cheney/Bush who blinked.

The Dems might have wanted to get involved, but it was too late, they didn’t get a chance to jump in.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #128216

Max

I “cherry picked” the truth out of a report with a misleading title. You don’t seem to understand that the DATA not the title determines the veracity. None of you has addressed that fact. You have pointed to the title, summmary etc. That does not matter.

The data in the report says 29% less SO2 an 10% less NO. That the title and the executive summary claim this is more pollution shows only that they are manipulating and if you believe them you have been taken in.

Let me explain again. Average is the total amount divided by the number of occurances. If the average goes down, it means just that. If you find some individuals went up, it means others went down or went down by more. The report takes this simple tautology (that some are higher) and tries to make a big deal of this. It fools those who don’t read the data or who don’t understand it and it fools those who want to be fooled.

If you choose only some parts of the data set (as the report did) you are cheery picking. If you take the overall results, as I did you are not. Understand?

Do you have any trouble with the way I interpreted the data, other than you don’t like the result?

Authors of such papers count on the fact that people will be distracted by pictures and summaries. They also know that the average kid gets out of college without taking a good stats course.

Posted by: Jack at February 21, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #128217

>>Reed jumped first, and he scared the hell out of those on the right in Congress who toady to the extremists, so they jumped and scared the hell out of Cheney/Bush who blinked.

joe, Jack, et al,

Wasn’t the title of this post ‘Hysterical Dems’, or some such? These guys sure ain’t Dems…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #128219

And Max

I don’t have to link to it becasue it was the report you guys foolishly provided to try to debunk me. I just took it apart for you since neither you nor Adreinne got past the picture or the summary. Look for yourself. Don’t believe what they tell you.

I did link (up top) to the SO2 and NO figures. Look at the numbers and tell me if you see an increase or a decrease.

Posted by: Jack at February 21, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #128223

Regarding Global warming. I have a science background and would like to know if there are any studies using statistical analysis based on a very large span of time in world climate history?

100 years of data is not much to base an entire theory of planetary climate changes. I would be interested in knowing if current changes are a normal or abberant cycle in the “big picture” over thousands of years of the earth’s climate cycle. Has someone in the scientific community used a much larger sample to investigate this?

This sort of data will give me a better picture on “hysteria” vs. “fact”. Thanks.

Posted by: SilentObserver? at February 21, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #128227

Jack

Why do you hate liberal Americans?

And regarding technological change being driven by market forces, that’s balderdash. Do realize that the explosion in innovation of very good medicines produced by this country is a direct result of NIH expenditures? Before the government began spending enormous amounts on academic biomedical research, the industry was pretty slow moving. Look at what’s happened over the last few decades. And if you naively believe that the drug companies invented these therapies, I suggest you go read the literature rather than depend upon your precious right-wing think tanks. The other areas in which research has produced explosive innovation are all heavily govenment subsidized: aerospace, computing, agriculture. So back off the BS about the market being the solution for everything. Remember, just because you read it from your political operatives doesn’t make it so.

Posted by: mental wimp at February 21, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #128228

Jack,

Environmentalists are mainly worried about emissions of greenhouse gases, which have NOT gone down under Bush.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 21, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #128229

Silent,
“Winds of Change” by Eugene Linden. It just came out in hardback, might be available in the library. The books is a bit dry, but gives a readable, scientific overview. If anyone has other suggestions, I’m open too.

New findings come out almost constantly. Sciene, Scientific American, Nature, and scientific journals are all good resources.

Posted by: phx8 at February 21, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #128233

d.a.n. and marysdude:

Is it just me or did you reiterate precisely what I said?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 21, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #128235

Direct temperature records are nice for models, but there are many indirect methods of determining climate and temperature at a given point in time.

The mistake which many Republicans make is that they don’t apply their relevant objections to the indeterminate nature of climate change to their own claims. If you claim that the chaotic, not entirely understood nature of climate change means that it’s still debateable that climate change is forced by humans, then you can’t turn around and say that your position is the rock solid truth.

The Right’s problem with admitting that, is that such a position would force them to engage the problem with a willingness to admit that climate change could be forced by the sky high levels of CO2, if the evidence presents itself.

This is an issue often glossed over by Republicans who want to use the appearance of Scientific Authority to push policy positions.

Here’s what I know about weather systems: Carbon Dioxide IS a greenhouse gas. Anybody who asserts otherwise speaks counterfactually. This fact has been verified time and time again. What complicates this debate is what happens because of the CO2’s heat trapping behavior. You get into all these nasty feedback loops, and have to deal with things like the ocean’s ability to absorb heat, the increased precipitation (including heat reflecting snow), the effects of clouds (some keep in heat, others reflect sunlight out of the atmosphere, cooling it.) and on and on. Even the best model has trouble working everything out.

Make no mistake though: the Earth is heating up. Some have brought up the heat island effect, saying that increased urbanization (with its heat absorbing concrete and steel) has skewed the measurements. True as that might be, the trend reflected in heat sensors on the open ocean mark the same trend, which logically eliminates urbanization as the source of the overall change in temperature.

The Right-Wingers try everything, really, often without researching to find out whether their claims even have merit. They insist that their assertions are the truth, because how could such liberal hysteria really be true? That’s what it amounts to: They see this as just another way in which those damned leftists are trying to take over their lives. The partisanship, unfortunately, motivates them to cling unscientifically to certain claims, even when research has discredited it.

The problem with any political system comes when the politics begins to matter more than the consequences of policy and decision-making in the real world. This is not a Right or a Left thing here. The changes in the weather will effect us equally, or in terms the far right will understand, the rain is made to fall equally on the wicked and the good.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 21, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #128239

Jack,

You are correct that the gases decreased on average, but the companies that pollute the most increased their emisssions. This was obvious from the report summary. It’s the caps that Bush opposed, which means that was the point.

Posted by: Max at February 21, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #128240

And you’re smart enough to know that Jack, but you choose to willfully ignore it.

Posted by: Max at February 21, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #128242

Jack,
Congrats on writing an article that everyone that already agrees with you would agree with and people that don’t agree with you wouldn’t agree with. You make Saints of those that agree with you, and devils of those that don’t. All while citing sources that again agree with you and ignoring sources that don’t.

I’m curious is your back sore from patting yourself on it so much? You wouldn’t stand for this if it came from the liberal or independent column, why is it ok when you do it?

Posted by: chantico at February 21, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #128247

Chantico,
The question that the Left is missing asking the Right is are they willing to invest in an Unlimited Energy Program that will meet the Needs of the 22nd Generation of Americans? Thus forcing them to end their strangled hold on Energy and the cost of everything. By Individuals and Government Buildings moving to Self-Sufficent Energy Systems, than only Commerce and Industry would have to deal with the cost of feed the Monster. However, a real $200 Billion dollar cut in expenses of our Tax dollars would probably cause a huge influx of money by the Energy Companise Spicail Interest Groups to certain Elected Officials pockets.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 21, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #128257

ron brown, a very good day to you thanks, translator, about your eye surgery for your cataracts, for you i would recommend that you look up your nearest doctor of optometry o.d. tell them rodney brown optician abo ctl sent you.stephen daugherty your results of your last eye refraction is in, wait a minute i have to replace the duct tape holding my neurological tissues together. ok thats better, your new rx is od +19.00-12.00axis 180. os+22.00-15.00 axis 90 to correct the cross eyes 10 prism diopters base in ou. lens type cr 39 tinted rose no 6, frame style a triple thick zyl color green. rodney brown optician abo ctl

Posted by: rodney brown at February 21, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #128258

More dishonesty:
“You don’t seem to understand that the DATA not the title determines the veracity.”

The data was a verification of the purpose of the report — that power plant pollution has gone up in many locations across this country due to the unwise policies of this administration. The report shows the results of how they’ve been weakening, ignoring or scrapping provisions of the Clean Air Act a bit at a time, on behalf of their big polluter buddies (because they weren’t able to pass their scientifically flawed “Clear Skies” legislation in one fell swoop). If the Clean Air Act had been upheld as written, that average statistic you’ve been harping upon would have been much BETTER.

“You have pointed to the title, summmary etc. That does not matter.”

The summary shows how if we want to continue to lower dangerous pollution and reduce green house gas emissions, we should be following the goals set out for us by Clean Air Act.
Bush is doing the opposite.

“The data in the report says 29% less SO2 an 10% less NO. That the title and the executive summary claim this is more pollution shows only that they are manipulating and if you believe them you have been taken in.”

You seem to be the one unable to read past the reports title.
The purpose of the report was to show how there is now more pollution than there WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD ALL OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT LAWS BEEN UPHELD.

“Let me explain again. Average is the total amount divided by the number of occurances. If the average goes down, it means just that. If you find some individuals went up, it means others went down or went down by more. The report takes this simple tautology (that some are higher) and tries to make a big deal of this. It fools those who don’t read the data or who don’t understand it and it fools those who want to be fooled.”

You’re not fooling me, Jack. I see you’re still trying to act dense here, so let’s try something different.
I’ll tell a little story instead…
Imagine if you will: Your child has asthma, and you suspect that the old power plant a few miles away (built in the 1950’s) may have brought on that condition, or has been contributing to the severity of the attacks your child suffers.
You live downwind from the power plant and you’ve been asking the State EPA and Health Dept. what can be done about the old plant since your child’s attacks only seem to be getting more frequent and more severe. They tell you that it is only a matter of time because the New Source Review provisions in the Clean Air Act laws will eventually force the facility to modernize their pollution controls.
Then Bush is elected and decides to weaken the New Source Review provisions to the Clean Air Act because the plant owner gave a large donation to his election campaign. Now the owner of that dirty old power plant knows he can almost entirely rebuild the plant without having to put in modern pollution safeguards and controls. On top of that, the EPA under Bush lowers pollution standards, and other emission controls so he won’t have to worry about anything but making his money.
Your child’s sporratic asthma attacks now become much more frequent and severe. Then you find that they need to use their inhaler several times a day. Finally they often need to augment using the inhaler with an expensive nebulizer machine.
One day you are telling your neighbor about your increasing alarm and concern over the declining health of your child, and of your anger and outrage over the fact that the Bush administration and the Republican majority in Congress only seem to care about protecting their big polluter buddies. But your neighbor happens to be a hardcore Neocon who arrogantly tells you you’re making far too much of this — because he happens to know that pollution averages have gone down in America. Shaking his head at your “hysteria” and lack of support for his president and political party, he gets into his giant Ford Explorer with the yellow ribbon bumper sticker so he can go buy more gas for his sitdown lawnmower that he uses to cut his half-acre of grass.
As he drives away, you wonder what has become of reason, wisdom, and empathy, and why people only seem to care about defending their party to the exclusion of everything else.

“If you choose only some parts of the data set (as the report did) you are cheery picking. If you take the overall results, as I did you are not. Understand?”

You cherry picked the data so that you could pretend you that pollution and greenhouse gas emissions have gone down because of Bush. You convieniently ignore or dismiss the fact that had the Clear Air Act provisions been upheld AS IS, instead of being undermined by this administration, we’d have seen that statistical average fall farther than it did. And now that the EPA has lowered the standards, we can no longer take their statistics seriously since they will no longer reflect real scientific data and actual concern for public health. Furthermore, now that the administration with the cooperation of the Republican Congressional majority, has taken all power plant emissions off the list of toxic pollutants — future statistics will not reflect the dangerous levels being produced by power plants at all.
Do you understand?

“I don’t have to link to it becasue it was the report you guys foolishly provided to try to debunk me.”

You are being foolish if you think your shameless dishonesty is fooling anyone. And it seems clear to me that you didn’t put that link up (although I did in this thread) because then it would make your total twisting of the argument that much more obvious to everyone.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 21, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #128259

Woody

Maybe environmentalists are worried about greenhouse gases. And they have not gone down under Bush. But they have not risen any faster than under Clinton and have risen less than in Europe, despite our faster growing economy.

So they can be mad at Bush, but the cannot imply that he is different than his democratic predecessor or from other leaders worldwide.

The problem I had with the complaints on the other side was that they pretended something terrible had happened under Bush, when in fact most trends just kept on going, i.e. levels of most pollution continued to drop and levels of CO2 rose at similar rates as before (in fact if you look closely at the nubmers they went up slower under Bush, but that was for an unrelated reason).

Max

Okay. So you are angry that although the average is down, Bush didn’t make every plant reduce its emissions? You think the policies should be more successful than they are. This is not a problem to hold this idea. It is valid and even good. All I have repeated at least a dozen times is that you can’t start with the false assumptions that the environment is worse and you can’t talk about widespread effects of something that never happened.

Chantico

The only point that I keep on coming back to is the point about the reductions in SO2 and NO. I keep on coming back to it because some other people keep on misinterpreting the data and being more obtuse than usual. I am being a little less polite than usual because they seem to revel in their error and they are calling me a liar and saying that it is horseshit. Usually I would overlook their ignorance, but in this case I think it is permissible to point it out. And I have been a lot nicer to them than they have to me.

Posted by: Jack at February 21, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #128263
d.a.n. and marysdude: Is it just me or did you reiterate precisely what I said?
Yes, I was just agreeing with you. Shocking, eh ?
The problem with any political system comes when the politics begins to matter more than the consequences of policy and decision-making in the real world.
Well said. You do have a way with words.

What we are obseving is really predictable.
The in-party is currently the R’s,
and the out-party is the D’s.
When things are going well,
R’s want to take credit.
D’s hate that. They use foot dragging to
hamper progress and make R’s look bad.
When things start to go south,
the D’s blame the R’s.
The R’s try to dispell it, by calling the D’s whiners and Doomsdayers (regardless of stats and data to the contrary).
The D’s pile on.
The R’s become even more stubbornly determined to spread the propaganda that everything is “very good”.
But, this time, reality is on the D’s side.
But, the R’s know how powerful the propaganda is. Many, especially party loyalists, believe it. The R’s continue to the very end saying everything insisting “very good”.
But the stats are starting to work against the R’s.
So the R’s start cherry-picking the stats.
It fools some.
But, a few ain’t buyin’ it. Not even some R’s.
The D’s take the time to research the stats.
Low and behold, the data was obviously cherry-picked.
The D’s say look! look! Cherry pickin’ !
The R’s say, hysterical D’s .
The R’s finally say, OK, so nothing it perfect. But we are not on death’s doorstep. Things are OK.
The D’s say, whoa, not so fast.
Now “very good” is just OK ?
The R’s see the error, and revert back to saying everything is “very good”
The R’s hunt and hunt for more cherry-picked data.
Then, when no more can be found, the R’s pick a topic that no one can easil prove either way: global warming.

What you just witnessed was a classic example of the The Cheaters’ Dialectic in practice.
The Cheaters’-Dialectic requires a focal point: a detractor
The favorite detractor these days is partisan warfare.
But, there are other commonly used detractors (e.g. race, religion, gender, class, profession, wealth, etc.).
Some of these are becoming less popular, but the religion detractor is one of the most dangerous.

No matter what the detractor is, the invisible Cheaters’-Dialectic aims to create a circular pattern to control both the conflict, resolution of differences, and then lead everyone involved into a new cycle of conflicts (often the same detractor, or perhaps a different one).

It’s nothing new really.
But, it is still powerfully distracting and useless to the voters.
The problem is, both parties are full of too many irresponsible cheaters.
This is what voters must be educated to recognize, and start votin’ them out, as they should have all along.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #128266

d.a.n.

Right on, but…

You took a little shot at lawyers. I can’t fathom why. I’m guessing by the fact that you attended a graduation in Texas that you are from there. Am I right?

Let’s use the Tort reform law which passed there in 2003 as a an example:

The law limts tort liability to $250,000 dollars.
Why would you want to give $250,000 to a frivolous claim? You see, such a limit only REALLY negatively effects REAL claims, and here is why -

A contingency fee case generally arises when there is a victim who has no or insufficient insurance to cover expenses arising from their own injuries, when those injuries are the fault of another. That is because otherwise, the legal representation is payed for by the insurance coverage. Insurance companies WANT to get reimbursed for anything they might have to pay out, but they are NOT necessarily ENTITLED to it, if the injured party hires their own attorney. Most people do not know this.
The greater the injuries, the more likely it is that the innocent and legitimately injured party will be financially hurt as well. This is because such cases are percentage based. A contingency fee lawyer hangs MUCH on line for his/her client. They put out Letters of Protection to cover medical expenses and if the case is NOT legitimate, they lose their REARS. It’s risky business and they MUST beleive in their clients or else not take the case. The closer the damages are to the $250,000 amount, the more likely it is that the victim is actually losing money after having already sustained significant injury! Whereas the frivolous claimer has only a trumped up, exagerated or even completely fabricated claim and thus the percentages work out for them! For Them it’s a $250,000 windfall!!!

The Med-Mal argument is similarly rediculous. It is NOT legal fees that have caused med-mal prices to sky rocket. The number of doctors out there is INCREASING. The Med-mal carriers have made, and reported, RECORD profits!!! Why aren’t ALL the doctors paying attention to this? Further, The BOND market has more to do with the rising rates. The med-mal carriers park policy proceeds money in bonds, short term, because they cannot, legally invest in stock. They are not brokers and they not selling a brokerage service. It is not REALLY their money. they are holding in trust pending projected pay-outs. So, when the economy tanked, and deficit spending skyrocketed during the FIRST Bush term, so did the government bond market. Med-mal rates went through the roof to compensate. …and yet I still hear misguided and woefully fooled doctors out there who are defending the very crooks that are stealing their money to cover their own bad business decisions. It amazes me.

Have you ever looked up the FACTS to the now infamous McDonald’s hot coffee case? It will blow your mind, guaranteed.

Stella Liebeck had third degree burns to her inner thighs and GENITALIA (which reportedly had become fused) as a result of coffee served, in violation of health code, at boiling point. The SPECIFIC McDonald’s location in question had injured over 750 people previous to her injuries and still did nothing. The jury award, which she never got, was largely the result of testimony by a McDonald’s manager who said, under oath on the stand, that 750 injured people was insuffient for them to take notice in light of the amount of business they regularly did even at that one location. The jury, understandably, got mad.

Now here’s the kicker: McDonald’s, with full knowledge of the Usery law in place in the jurisdiction (New Mexico), held up the case for over six years in FRIVOLOUS appeals. During this time, the damages for multiple reconstructive surgeries, EMS, hospital etc., were held out there under letters of protection by the attorneys while McDonald’s began a large scale propaganda campaign about the silliness of a suit for hot coffee. The debts were copounding, under New Mexico law at 18.5 percent interest over that time. The settlement was closed, but is rumored, for what that’s worth, to have been about $400,000. In other words, both the victim and her lawyers lost their respects REARS on the case!!!

Time and time again I see the legal profession being derided and undermined by those who pretend it is flawed while they reap unholy rewards for this profane and dishonest treachery against an otherwise just and democratic society. It simply must stop. Again, it is only education which can do the job. Nothing else. More peole must know and understand.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #128267

>>Usually I would overlook their ignorance, but in this case I think it is permissible to point it out. And I have been a lot nicer to them than they have to me.


Posted by: Jack at February 21, 2006 04:15 PM

Jack,

You are just about as honest about being nice as you are about being honest. You have learned well from your hero, Cheney/Bush…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #128275

RGF,
I didn’t say anything bad about lawyers.
All I said was:

At the last college graduation I went to, most of the engineering and science students graduating from Texas A&M were foreign students. Instead, we graduate more lawyers.

I just think we need more people being attracted and encouraged into other fields, such as engineering and science. That’s all. : )

I’m not going to say anything bad about lawyers, because professions, just like religion, gender, color, age, race, etc., is not ever the problem. BTW, I used to work as a software programmer at a large law firm.

Also, I promised others here at watchblog to not tell any more lawyer jokes (which I didn’t).

But, please accept my apology if you were offended by my drawing attention to the number of students graduating in science, engineering, and law. That did come out kinda bad didn’t it? My bad.

At any rate, I agree. Education is important. Not just acedemic, but voter education. 121 million of 200 million eligible voters voted 49% and 51% for Kerry and Bush, and 78 million eligible voters didn’t even feel it was worth their time. I understand. They don’t feel like they can make any difference. But, they can, if the realize that only a measely 1% or 2% of all eligible voters didn’t voter for irresponsible incumbents. The outcome of countless elections can be drastically changed with only a percent of the 200 million eligible voters, since elections are usually only won by a few percent of all votes.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #128279

Time and time again. Corporate interests are dismantling and destroying the very foundations of American democracy. It sounds like reactionary BS to claim that corporate America is doing this in light of the fact that our very economic health as a nation, employment (for many), investment portfolios, etc. depend on corporate America. But it’s true. The real sadness here is that even corporate entities such as McDonald’s and the medical malpractice insurance carriers are made up of people. Just like you and me.

WE ARE ALL HURT BY WHAT IS BEING DONE. WE ARE ALL BEING MANIPULATED AND LIED TO. This doesn’t stop until WE ALL recognize the value of AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
Again, it comes down to education. That’s the REAL reason that many of us on the left, some secretly and some not so secretly, see you folks on THIS right-wing, as stupid. You don’t even seem to understand America and yet you wave the flag like you ACTUALLY appreciate this country. HA.

WE ARE ALL PEOPLE. WE ARE ALL AMERICANS. FROM THE STRUGGLING TEACHERS TO THE CORPORATE C.E.O.’S

If you support those who hurt ANY segment of our society, YOU HURT AMERICA.
I’m talking about entitlements. I’m not talking about handouts or even bringing the bottom up. I’m talking about treating all walks of our society with simple respect.I’m talking about respect for laws, votes and people. That’s all. Is that what you consider hysterical? Is that too much to ask of representative democracy, or rule of law?

Let’s get real shall we? NEOCON = ANARCHIST.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #128280

Hey, Did ya’ll here the news?
Bush said he found his veto pen!

Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #128281

Marysdude

I am getting kind of sick of this. IF you can show where my data is wrong, I would appreciate it. I believe what I am saying is accurate. THAT SO2 and NO emissions have DECREASED during Bush’s Administration. It is simple to disprove if I am wrong. You have seen all the things people have said and you are implying I am being dishonest. I have given you all the information.

So let me make this simple so you will understand. I contend that SO2 and NO emissions are lower under Bush than they were under Clinton. This is a Yes/No proposition. If you or any of your colleagues have information that proves the “No” answer, please provide it. Otherwise move on (.org) and stop your attempts at manipulation.

I know I have seriously irritated the statistically challenged people who passionately consume these reports and pass them around in their own uncritical circles, but maybe the truth will set them free.

And the funniest part is that your side provided the rope that hung them.

Posted by: Jack at February 21, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #128289

Polution rose slightly for CO2, fell slightly less for SO2, and Nitrogen Oxides fell about 27% since 2000. So, that’s a positive. You do get 1 point for that Jack, despite the slight increase in CO2. Still, talk to someone who works at the EPA. The history of neglect and looking-the-other-way would shock you, and there is much room for improvement. Also, the reason the U.S. didn’t join Kyoto is because we knew we could not meet the requirements. But, neither could many that signed it, as they later found out, and may be hit with various penalties.
____________________

RGF,
Education
+ Transparency leads to visibility, outrage
+ accountability, law enforcment, consequences,
= responsibiltiy, finally.

You are right.
It is all of us.
Irresponsible incumbents, and voters that allow it.

Voters have been fooled to think they have to vote for incumbents. It is a vicious circle. Voters don’t really see what is at work here.
It really is a very, basic, fundamental human failing that can only be limited by transparency.

That is why governments and other organizations are now being graded and judged based on transparency.

What makes people more honest ?
Especially those with unethical or illegal tendencies?
Transparency and Visibility.
Hence, security cameras in stores, banks, ATMs, etc. Perhaps this is why some crimes have been falling since 1993.
DNA and forensics is making it tougher too.
Still, that is transparency and visibility.
It is essentially being seen and caught red-handed.
What follows? Outrage. Someone is damaged. If they know who did it, they want justice.
Hence, consequences and accountability.
Finally, visibility it increased, when opportunities are decreased, consequences are inevitable, you will have more responsibility.

But, the longer a system has been allowed to grow corrupt, the harder and more painful it will be to pass reforms. Voters have allowed it to go on for too long. Thus, recovery will be more difficult the longer voters wait to finally do what they were supposed to be doing all along: vote out the irresponsible incumbents, always, until none are left. That’s the purpose of voting.

What is funny is the people that say: What about the good politicians?
I say keep the good ones.
By all means.
That’s what it is all about.
So, give some names of good ones?
Uh oh … there’s the rub.
If we can not name at least 268 (half of 535) in Congress, what can you conclude?
So, perhaps, if in doubt, vote ‘em out.
That is the price they should pay for looking the other way.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #128290

d.a.n.

Well, then excuse the unnecessary long winded defense of American law. But, I am glad to have posted it out there for others.

I agree with you about encouraging sciences and engineering fields in the U.S. Maybe then we wouldn’t have so many foreigners working in places like the Los Alamos National Labratories or have to watch while our computer companies fire Americans and shift all the tech jobs to India.

Do you think we can get these neo-cons to think about this rather than just sitting around calling us hysterical while Rome burns?

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #128292

RGF,
P.S. Neocons are not anarchists.
On the contrary.
Libertarians lean toward anarchy.
I’m not Libertarian, but have some leanings that way. : )
Take the test and see where you land.
I’ve got a suspicion Jack and Eric Simonson would land somewhere over near the Authoritarian Right.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #128293

Dear RGF,

Searched the numbers, here we go:

Carter: $79 billion deficit
Reagan: raised that to $153 billion
Bush I: raised that to $255 billion deficit
Clinton: Moved from record deficits to record $236 billion surplus.
Bush: Moved from record surplus to record $331 billion deficit.

What I think is, if you play poker, do it against Republicans, since you want poker buddies who are expert in losing their shirts.

:)
Squeaky

Posted by: squeaky at February 21, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #128296

I saw a comment above about having money “hacked” out of a paycheck by taxes during the Clinton years?

Huh?

Give me a BREAK!!!

You, I assume. prefer to hack exponentially more money out of you children’s and children’s-children’s paychecks?

If you RESPECT the future of this country at all.
VOTE DEMOCRAT. DEMOCRATS NOW HAVE THE ONLY PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF BEING GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!!


RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #128297
Do you think we can get these neo-cons to think about this rather than just sitting around calling us hysterical while Rome burns?
No. I doubt it. The voters need to see and hear the simple truth. But, believe me, I know how difficult it will be. But, I’m optimistic, because giving up won’t accomplish anything will it? So, in my opinion, the best thing to do is share and discuss with everyone you know about what the voters need to do, which is the one simple, common-sense, peaceful, non-partisan, responsible thing there were supposed to do all along. That is simply vote out irresponsible incumbents, always. But, the partisan warfare and propaganda is powerful. Very distracting. Voters also need to understand how it is used to whip voters into a frenzy and distract them, and brainwash them to think they have to keep voting for incumbents. The voters will figure it out some day, but the question is, (a) Will it be the peaceful, responsible way (and soon)? (b) Or, the hard, painful way (again)? Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #128298

RGF,
Wait a minute.
I thought we were getting somewhere.
What do Democrats and Republicans (and all parties have in common)?
Irresponsible Incumbents.
Parties are not the problem.
That’s half the problem.
Voters that allow it are the other half.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #128299

That is, voters and irresponsible incumbents are both culpable.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #128303

And another thing: just because you can find one person with scientific credentials to say something doesn’t mean it’s true. You have to actually read critically what they write and challenge them skeptically. This applies to whether they agree with your political bias or not. It’s work, but if you are really interested in a topic, don’t run to political sources to understand a scientific issue. That’s just dumb.

Posted by: mental wimp at February 21, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #128304

d.a.n

In your diagram, George Bush is closest to the end of the axis labeled “neo-liberal”, heh, heh.

Posted by: mental wimp at February 21, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #128306

Jack,

I’m confused here. I’ve been reading your articles and comments on these blog pages for some time now. The only thing it appears that you value at all is BUSH! …and that, you seem to value quite blindly.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #128307

If you RESPECT the future of this country at all.
VOTE DEMOCRAT. DEMOCRATS NOW HAVE THE ONLY PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF BEING GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN ECONOMY!

RGF,

The six nations of Iroquois, known as the Haudenosaune, is the oldest living representitive demoncracy on earth. It is believed that much of our U.S. Constitution is based on the Iroquois Confederacy. One of the philosophies of the Iroquois Confederation is the “seventh generation” principle:

The Chiefs are instructed that when they deliberate on the serious matters of the Council, they are to consider the impact of their decisions on seventh generation into the future. This way, they are to proceed cautiously, thinking of what effect their decisions will have on the welfare of their descendants. It requires a special attention to the future. But it also produces a sense of stability.

Too bad that didn’t make it into our U.S. Constitution.

“If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote for the Democrats.” - Harry Truman

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 21, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #128310

dan about your numbers, you stated bush 51% and john kerry 49% were wrong. bush 51% kerry 48% total vote .bush 69,040,606 kerry 59,028,109 .in the favor of bush by 3,012,497 . bush 286 evs and kerry 252 evs, i understand 1% is a puny amount but 1% is roughly 418,000 votes, very close to the amount you all were yelling about in 2000.

Posted by: rodney brown at February 21, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #128311

dan excuse me bush 62,040,606 to much coffee

Posted by: rodney brown at February 21, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #128312

RGF

I am a Bush supporter. I generally support Bush. Is that a surprise? You have perhaps noticed that on this side we support Republicans and on the other side they don’t.

Sometimes we are talking about opinions and people differ.

I have been more active on this page than usual because of the misunderstanding of statistics I have been trying to correct. The anti Bush people seem to want to believe that we somehow went off a cliff when Bush was elected. The figures don’t show this.

People have the right not to like Bush. There are valid arguments against him. But the idea that he someone already destroyed the environment, wrecked the economy, caused massive unemployement or caused an increase in crime are empirically false.

I just keep on repeating numbers and they keep on pushing passion. Passion is more fun. Numbers are more often correct.

Posted by: Jack at February 21, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #128316

Phx8,

Thanks for the suggestion. I googled and found what I thought was a pretty balanced discussion on Global Warming here:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm

Although it’s a bit dated, it seems take a very objective approach to the subject.

Thanks again.

Posted by: SilentObserver? at February 21, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #128318
d.a.n In your diagram, George Bush is closest to the end of the axis labeled “neo-liberal”, heh, heh.
I never mentioned what Bush is, and don’t care much. Also, look at the chart again. Not that it matters much to me, but Bush is about 80% Right and 45% Liberal/Authoritarian. : )


dan about your numbers, you stated bush 51% and john kerry 49% were wrong. bush 51% kerry 48% total vote .bush 69,040,606 kerry 59,028,109 .in the favor of bush by 3,012,497 . bush 286 evs and kerry 252 evs, i understand 1% is a puny amount but 1% is roughly 418,000 votes, very close to the amount you all were yelling about in 2000. dan excuse me bush 62,040,606 to much coffee

I never yelled about it. In 2000 and since, I didn’t care much which (Gore or Bush) won in 2000. I voted for Bush in 2004, and regret it now. If I had it to vote again, it would have been for anyone but Bush or Kerry.

Jack,
I used to be Republican, used to be a Bush supporter, but, I neither now. And, I don’t care to become a Democrat either. Why? Because parties are not the problem. Irresponsible incumbents and voters that tolerate them are the problem. I’m not going to criticize you for supporting Bush or Republicans, since I used to do the same thing.

You may or may not come to the same realization some day. I hope you, and many others start to see the real root of the problem some day. Take off the partisan blinders, and reject the manipulation.

Voters must become educated about the clever tactics used to manipulate others.
Learn to recognize the partisan motivated arguments.
Learn to identify the way irresponsible incumbents:
[] distract you;
[] divide you;
[] control you;
[] trick you with truths mixed with half-truths;
[] obscure and cloud the issues to distract you and keep you within the circular pattern of thought and behavior;
[] cherry-pick facts to suit their argument, while cleverly ignoring the overwhelming evidence to the contrary;
[] lure you back to the detractors (e.g. petty partisan warfare, religion, the blame game, etc.);
[] seduce you into the frenzied circular pattern of thought and behavior (i.e. petty partisan warfare);
[] avoid being held accountable;
[] pit people against each other (e.g. based on party affiliation, wealth, religion, etc.) using one of various detractors;
[] stack-the-deck to secure their power and cu$hy seats of power;
[] reward themselves generously at the expense of others;
[] pervert the laws to do the very thing the laws were originally supposed to prevent: legal plunder;

Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #128319

>>You know more people have died in Teddy Kennedy’s car than in all the nuke plant accidents in U.S. history.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 11:19 PM>IF you can show where my data is wrong, I would appreciate it. I believe what I am saying is accurate. THAT SO2 and NO emissions have DECREASED during Bush’s Administration.

Jack,

Did you know that more deaths have occured in Cheney/Bush’s foolish war than did in Kennedy’s car?

I’ll let you reread Adrienne’s last post while I research your data…mostly I think your data is not material, but I’ll get back to you later on it…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #128322

Jack,

What’s interesting is WHOSE numbers you are pushing.

But enough of that for a minute. Let’s talk philosophy for a minute. I come from a PROFOUNDLY conservative background. This is no doubt surprising to you considering my posts. But here it is: My Grandparents were top GOP delegates from Ft Worth, TX. Their philosophy was simple enough: Make government smaller, fiscally responsible and get it out of my life as much as possible. America is about freedom. Freedom in our free market. Freedom of individuals to live as they wish, beleive as they wish and prosper as well as they can without being burdened by an overweight, overpaid government. They beleived in a government about representative democracy, about rule of American law.

IT IS BECAUSE I, TOO, BELEIVE IN THESE THINGS THAT I CANNOT VOTE FOR THIS PARTY ANYMORE.

You know, it’s kind of like those teenage girls in the eighties who bought Gucci bags. Gucci had shifted to making their purses out of cheep and short-lived materials but they still a blind lable-conscious following.

Why do you still vote republican when the values have shifted? Are you true to what you beleive in or to the label? Otherwise, you are just a neo-con.

The republicans USED to be about,
Shrinking the deficit
Balancing the budget
Cutting governmental waste
Reducing the number of unnecessary depts and programs. Etc.

THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS GROWN THE GOVERNMENT LARGER AND MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ANY INAMERICAN HISTORY!!!

So, again, I don’t get it. It seems the only thing you value is BUSH. …and rather blindly at that.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #128326

Oh…uh, Ja-ack,

Check out this article:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_3_31/ai_73040730


RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #128327

Marysdude

I guess your joke is Dem humor. I will repeat my own Groucho Marx joke that describes many of the arguments made:

Who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes? In this case you could say or my own data.

Re Adrienne’s data, let me make is easy to find

Go to page 39 for NO and page 49 for SO2 on the publication Adrienne gave me find it at http://www.cleartheair.org/reports/pollution_on_the_rise.pdf.

You can also look at the EPA data on the “worst air” link in my original post.

As long as we are at it, do you remember when Bush was supposed to have poisoned the water with arsenic. In the last days of his Administration, Clinton proposed a lowered the arsenic concentrations allowed in water from 050 ppm to 0.010 ppm. Bush froze all last minute Clinton changes (as Clinton did to Bush I) for review. You probably read about this. here was a big outcry. In Fall of 2001, Bush finished the review and ENACTED THE LAW AS CLINTON HAD PROPOSED. You didn’t know that, did you?

And Adrienne will tell you the water is dirtier because of Bush.

Read about this one here. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/index.html

The whole idea that Bush has declared war on the environment is a fund raising ploy. His policies have been very similar to those of Clinton, whose policies were very similar to those of Bush I. Trends have continued as before.

That is why when you search for actual evidence of problems, you find arguments and “cherry picked” cases, but overall stats don’t back it up.


Posted by: Jack at February 21, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #128328

RGF,
“Oh…uh, Ja-ack, Check out this article:”


Where do this article talk about US accidents? The article talks about Kosovo, England and Russia. And, by the way, more people died in Kosovo (Clinton’s war) then in Ted Kennedy’s car as well.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 21, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #128331

rahdigly,

It is worthy of note that:

1: America has backed off from Nuclear Power following Three Mile Island in the late seventies.

2: About the time we wre considering going back to it again, Russia endured Chernobyl.

3: In Kosovo, Clinton’s War as you put it, we had UN support so we endured LESS cost is lives and money and yet there was ACTUAL resolution.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #128332

squeaky,ok lets go with those numbers,i wont debate you on those numbers, but lets talk about the whole picture. carter left office with intrest rates around 20%i remember my house payment wow!the inflation rate was at a all time,high. the misery index, also was at a all time high. reagan, if you would have factored in the 1 trillion dollars he gave the democrats under the table over eight years to pass his defense programs, that saved the day in desert storm, he did a damm good job! clinton , i know you will never admit it but the republicans deserve half of the surplus credit,instead clinton stole all of that credit. boy was he good at stealing credit. the bush numbers. well if you recall the clinton bubble economy was burning out well before bush got in. corporate scandals, 9/11, floods. hurricanes, war on terror. ect ect ect.had a lot to do with this deficit. i will grant you it is very high, and they better get on the ball or it will be the economy stupid !in 2008!rodney brown

Posted by: rodney brown at February 21, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #128334

RGF, three mile island didn’t have deaths; you made the point that there were deaths, at least that’s what that article said.


As for Kosovo, it was not an UN backed war; the UN didn’t sign off on it. It was NATO that Clinton joined.


RGF, did you agree with the unilateralism that Bush did with the Iraq War?

Posted by: rahdigly at February 21, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #128335

rodney brown,

We are back to the importance of education again, it seems. Do we need a lesson in governmental powers?

THE PRSESIDENT IS THE HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

Cuts in programs, executive agencies, etc. is the PRESIDENT’S baili-wick.

Again, we need to engender a greater respect for education in this country.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #128336

rahdigly,

It was that the unilateralism, especialy after we had already engaged the UN, that made the Iraq war ILLEGAL both in American law and in International law. We look more fully like an EMPIRE flexing its muscles, now. That garners us a greater number of dangerous enemies.

The one and ONLY way such an action would have been justified, in my view, is if there actually were WMD’s for us to worry about. Even then, the illegality of the action is still evident and clear.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #128337

hey dan i did not mean you when i said you all. my dad was from virginia. and about bush i understand your frustration,they have better get on the ball, 2008 is not that far away

Posted by: rodney brown at February 21, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #128338
RGF wrote: THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS GROWN THE GOVERNMENT LARGER AND MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ANY INAMERICAN HISTORY

Yep. The federal government has grown by 140,000 employees since 2000, and keeps growing to nightmare proporations. Bloated is an understatement?
I thought Republicans were for smaller government. It getting easier and easier to see why people (Republicans too) are sayin’: This is the Republican party? Well, it’s not really all that surprising. Both parties are really that way. It just depends on which currently is the in-party, and which isn’t. They both play and fuel the partisan warfare, and the voters pay for it (literally; life and limb).

cases, but overall stats don’t back it up.
Sure the can, and do. What stats would you like to talk about? Want to talk out 67% Debt to GDP (up from 33% in 1980)at all time high since WWII? Or, weatlth distribution gap at worst since the Great Depression? Or, 581,000 jobs lost (net) since 2000. Or, inverted yield curves? Or, rising interest? Or, rising inflation? Or, falling median incomes for 4 years straight? Or, increasing foreclosures for 13 months straight? Or, increasing foreign competition? Or, decreasing quality and increasing cost of education (i.e. teachin’ to the test)? Or, 77 million baby boomers? Or, $1.6 trillion in PBGC and pension shortfalls, and plundered pensions, stock/investor fraud? Or, huge shortfalls in Medicare? Or, energy vulnerabilities? Or, corporate profits (while median incomes fall)? Or, refusal to pass campaign finance reform? Or, the healthcare crisis? Or, alienating our allies? Or, selling port operations to foreign corporations? Or, our crumbling infrastructure? Or, wiretapping without a warrant? Or, secret prisons? Or, elimination of habeas corpus? Or, our lost opportunities due to crushing debt? Or, many tens of thousands of cases of eminent domain abuse since 2002?

OK, some here just need more practice and a faster broadband internet connection.
Some just are not a master-cherry-picker like you, yet.
: )

Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #128339

rodney brown,
Cool! Thanks!

Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #128342
Maybe environmentalists are worried about greenhouse gases. And they have not gone down under Bush. But they have not risen any faster than under Clinton and have risen less than in Europe, despite our faster growing economy.

Jack,

Let’s say you have a kid named say, Bill, and you are on a creative parenting kick and let him play with matches. Fortunately, things turn out OK. But then you have another kid, let’s call him George, and you decide that the whole playing-with-matches thing was a bad idea. Unfortunately, George knows you let Bill do it, so he wants to do it to. You don’t want to be a hypocrite, do you?

You see the problem here. Whether you are a hypocrite or not, the matches are dangerous. George doesn’t have a leg to stand on, because your earlier attitude about matches is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether he is going to burn down the house if he plays with them.

In this case, I think Bill took a fair amount of “heat” (pun intended). But whether he did or not, it is really irrelevant. The atmosphere has no concept of hypocrisy.

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 21, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #128344

rgf if you want to rewrite history fine, but i was there, dont take that away. please attack the message not the messenger.

Posted by: rodney brown at February 21, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #128350

JayJay Snowman
Classic example of revisionist history.

Posted by: tomh at February 21, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #128356

RGF,
“It was that the unilateralism, especialy after we had already engaged the UN, that made the Iraq war ILLEGAL both in American law and in International law. We look more fully like an EMPIRE flexing its muscles, now. That garners us a greater number of dangerous enemies. The one and ONLY way such an action would have been justified, in my view, is if there actually were WMD’s for us to worry about. Even then, the illegality of the action is still evident and clear.”

First and foremost, the (Iraq) war was definitely not illegal; not by American law or by International law. Saddam violated the Gulf War cease fire agreement, not to mention 17 UN violations; nuff said about that.


Now, you are caught bigtime! You said that “the unilateralism made the war illegal”. Well, Clinton in Kosovo went around the UN; he went with NATO instead. Did that make that war illegal?! Hmmmm?

Posted by: rahdigly at February 21, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #128357

Woody

We have a problem with CO2. Kyoto won’t solve that problem. Conservation won’t solve that problem. Our only chance is technological change. (I personally favor biotechnology to allow forest waste products to more easily made into methanol). So I agree with your description of the problem, but not the solution.

I started another thread re this sort of subject.

Posted by: Jack at February 21, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #128368

rahdigly,

We are a member stae of the UN by a duly signed and ratified treaty. That makes the UN charter law and such treaties are supreme law where foreign action is concerned.

Now consider this:
We obtained article 1441 from the UN security council. The UN specifically did NOT authorize action until after we verified there were WMD’s.

WE STILL HAVE NOT DONE THAT! …because we can’t.

Clinton was never under such obligation. ‘nuff said. GO TO LAW SCHOOL. I DID!

Whose caught?

Again about the education thing. I wish you republicans would treasure education for a change. This is starting to get a little old.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #128369

rodney brown,

I am most assuredly NOT rewriting history. I was ‘there’ and I am ‘here’. What’s that got to do with anything?

I DO get a little snied sometimes, but it is the message, not the messenger I mean to adress. But, I get a little outraged at some of the absolute silliness I read here sometimes. It’s hard to adress it ina way that is completely devoid of tone. If I have offended in an emotional or personal way, please accept my apology - I’m sorry to have caused such emotional offence.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #128371

Oh and rahdigly,

Is it even relevent whether nuclear accidents invovled or did no involve American casualties?

The importance of the observation is simply that nuclear power is extremely dangerous!

Or do you perhaps mean to imply that AMERICA would do better job of it by say…perhaps…MORE REGULATION?

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #128373

TEN
The number of times the terrorist threat level was raised by the Bush League during the 2004 election campaign.

ZERO
The number of times they’ve raised it since the election.

Who’s hysterical?

Posted by: ElliottBay at February 21, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #128374

Jack,
Yes, I agree about the biofuels.
I think biofuels and ethonol are a good way to go. Much less pollution, and it is renewable.

Nuclear Fission is a relatively bad idea if those running the reactor are not qualified (e.g. Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island). The effects of Chernobyl will be with us for centuries, and the damage could be world wide).

Fusion has promise, if they can ever find a way to regulate the exponential chain reaction. Currently, it takes more power to control it than produced.

Underground heat exchangers should be used to pre-heat and pre-cool air and/or liquid. One of those in every home could save hundreds or thousands per household per year.

Geothermal is another possibility. Especially if you live near yellowstone. : )

Solar is getting much better. I have a cabin in the mountains in New Mexico at 8005 feet and it has solar panels, a bank of 12 VDC batteries in an underground cellar 30 feet from the cabin, and a DC-to-AC converter. It is enough to run the water well pump, refrigerator, a TV/radio/DVD player, and some lights. There is a large propane tank for heat, and a wood burning stove for emergencies. It will take more solar panels to also provide heat, because it gets pretty cold in the winter.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 21, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #128384

I can’t belive some of these Liberals. If you were watching Hannity and Colmes on the 14th, then you saw the Mayor of San Fransisco make a fool out of himself when he said that we don’t need a military! I mean, come on! When asked what he would do if we were then attacked, he said that he would send the cops out. I am honestly scared that this man is in goverment!

Posted by: Taylor at February 21, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #128385

DAN

You are my new friend.

That is a nice cabin. If you don’t mind my asking, how much did you pay for the solar?

Posted by: Jack at February 21, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #128386

Honey,
Thank you for re-posting your site. I read it with interest.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 21, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #128394

rgf i admire your passion for your convictions,we may not agree all the time. the best thing about a democracy is we can disagree. and get up from bed tomorrow and have a face to shave!

Posted by: rodney brown at February 21, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #128398

RGF, once Saddam broke the Gulf War cease fire, it was perfectly legal to bomb him (ala Clinton in 1998) and go to war with him (what up Bush 2003!). So, you can tout the law school stuff all you want; the facts are right there, you have to face them.


And, Clinton went around the UN b/c he new the Russians would back the Serbs; that’s why he went around them and joined NATO. Yet, you didn’t object to his illegal (according to your standards) war! You won’t even object to it now; instead, you dodge the question and try to “backdoor” it with some other angle. Not going to happen here, pal.


And hell, Clinton not only went (unilaterally) around the UN, he went around congress, too. Is that legal?!!! Tell me what year of law school it would take to see that that is illegal. Come on! Stand up and take it…

Posted by: rahdigly at February 22, 2006 12:01 AM
Comment #128399

Linda H., did you read my comment from yesterday? Check it out:

Posted by: rahdigly at February 20, 2006 09:07 PM

Posted by: rahdigly at February 22, 2006 12:07 AM
Comment #128400

Jack,
Each panel was $400.
There are three 150 watt panels.
You can get them much cheaper for less warranty and quality.
There was no choice since there is no power lines for many miles.
So, solar was the only way.
Panels vary greatly in size, output, cost, and warranties (from 90 days to 25 years).
But, you can estimate about $2 to $5 per watt.

The key is to get more batteries for peak hour usage, that recharge at low consumption periods. And battery quality makes a big difference too, and also vary greatly in quality, capacity, and warranties. There’s also a small gasoline generator if necessary.
Also, have a good quality DC-to-AC converter to cut losses.

What would help a lot is an underground heat exchanger (to pre-heat/pre-cool air/water) of buried PVC pipe (about 10 feet down, where temperature is fairly constant, and a solar heater (water) with an underground tank.

Maybe in my next house, someday.

I’d like to be more energy efficient.

These $220 (average) per month electric bills (here in Texas) are getting old. Electricity cost per kwh has jump 60% this last year.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 22, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #128401

Overall cost, about $2500 for 450 watts
That’s enough to run a small fridge, TV/DVD player, water well pump, and some lights.
450 watts isn’t much. For a typical household would need about 5 times more. So, the cost for a typical household would be $13K or more (depending on who does the labor).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 22, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #128416

JayJay & Tran-lamer,

I don’t know what politically correct dictionaries
you two are reading from, but Merriam-Webster’s
Online and my home dictionary define a demagogue
as “A leader who makes use of popular prejudices
and false claims and promises in order to gain
power” and “an unprincipled politician who
misleads the populace by appealing to prejudices
and passions”. Something I’ll admit that Dems &
Repubs are both guilty of doing. The Dems just
seem to use it more and with less shame.

Translator,

I never said I “hate” Democrats. I’ve got plenty
of relatives and friends who are Dems. But most
of them are Southern conservative Dems. Not east
or left coast radicals. I may “hate” some of the
DNC’s beliefs, but none personally. But how
typical of a lib to automatically assign the
inflamatory word “hate” to try to demean an
opponents message. Real mature! BTW, do you have
a sense of humor? My last post, while sincere,
was meant to entertain as well.

ElliotBay,

while you may have a good point concerning the
number of terrorist alerts before & after the
last election, do you have intelligence info that
the rest of us aren’t privy to that PROVES that
there were NO threats of ANY kind to warrant
those threat level alerts?

RGF & d.a.n.,

we may not agree on all things, but you’ve made
alot of good points in recent posts. Maybe if a
large enough block of voters ( Dems & Repubs )
voted for various third party candidates in the
next election, maybe ALL of the bozos on both
sides of the aisle would start becoming more
FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. While I won’t be switching
to the Democrat Party anytime…EVER, my Grand
Old Party better straighten up, or I’ll be
campaigning against the irresponsible ones.

JACK,

255 comments and counting. Point proven, again.

Posted by: Dale G. at February 22, 2006 1:28 AM
Comment #128423

75 th congress senate democrats 75. 75th congress senate republicans 17. 75 th congress senate other party 4. 75 th congress house democrats 333. 75 th congress house republicans 89. 75 th congress house other party 13. president franklin d roosevelt democrat. during president roosevelts tenure he appointed 7 associate justices and one chief,justice. talk about absolute power! rodney brown

Posted by: rodney brown at February 22, 2006 1:44 AM
Comment #128425

dan good idea on the heat pump, i would sugest a salt brine solution for the transfer medium the brine will never mildew and is a very stable and safe. it is non toxic. i did the btu calcs on my house in southern cal.my house at 4000 sg ft i would require 250,000 btus and close to 3600 ft of flexible black pvc 3inch dia .we dont get that cold in winter but very hot in summer as high as 116 degrees.

Posted by: rodney brown at February 22, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #128442

Mr Rahdighly,

The president does not have the power to declare war. Read the US Constitution, Section 1, Article 8, which specifically grants the power to declare war to Congress only. And yes, Clinton broke this law also, but that does not excuse Bush, does it?

I am also rather astonished to hear everyone say about the deficit that it is not real numbers, oh that’s just statistics, and it is not Bush’s responsibility anyway.

The president must take responsiblity for the deficit. While Clinton was in office, he also dealt with large natural disasters. Remember when the midwest was flooded? Clinton also took military action against Iraq, and yet at the same time, balanced the budget.

I don’t hate Republicans, but I cannot understand why they seem to think the deficit has no effect on our lives. Any mom can tell you that when you have large debts, you have to pay interest, and then you cannot spend that lost money on your children’s education.

:) Squeaky

Posted by: Squeaky at February 22, 2006 6:25 AM
Comment #128475

Rahdigly-
NATO is a well established organization with large military forces involved besides our own. That alliance has so far allowed us, I believe to relieve this country of most of the burden of peacekeeping in the area.

Bush’s coalition, on the other hand, contained mostly forces of token size, few of which were of any help to us in the field. Only Britain and Australia fielded forces of comparable size. The presence of the rest was only a few thousand or a few hundred apiece. Most only contributed a hundred soldiers or so.

The comparison- an organization of comparable military powers, as opposed to a coalition of mostly token presences. If Bush seriously had the support you would accord him, then he could do better than that. The only victories he can win with such an alliance are Public Relations battles. Otherwise, over 90% of the soldiers are ours. Compare that ad hoc coalition to the one his father built, and you will find why many see this one as a disappointment.

Of course, you might not be disappointed if you don’t like multilateralism to begin with, but then supporting the coalition is just supporting a convenient lie.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 22, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #128484

Squeaky,
“The president does not have the power to declare war. Read the US Constitution, Section 1, Article 8, which specifically grants the power to declare war to Congress only. And yes, Clinton broke this law also, but that does not excuse Bush, does it?”


So, according to the Constitution, Clinton’s war was illegal and Bush’s war was (perfectly) legal. That was the point I brought up to RGF; if you didn’t complain about Kosovo, then you damn sure better not complain about Iraq. And, Iraq is a ridiculous argument to make anymore, we’ve heard this crap before and all it does is produce hot air from both sides. We’re there our troops have been fighting for years and they are not (NOT!) coming home with anything less then a victory there. Period.


Stephen,

Clinton thwarted the UN to join NATO b/c he knew the Russians (UNSC) would never side against the Serbs. Bush did the same thing b/c he knew the Russians, French, and Germans all had a stake in keeping Saddam in power. What happened after we invaded? We found that Russia, France, Germany and China all had $15 billion worth of oil contracts gauranteed to them if they were to keep Saddam in power. So, spare us the NATO lesson; we know the truth and the UN was exposed by the truth. Thank goodness…

Posted by: rahdigly at February 22, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #128489

rodney brown,
116F ! That must be expensive to cool !
Thanks! I was reading somewhere that someone did something similar with underground tanks.

Dale G,
Thanks. I used to be Republican, and I don’t have anything against any party. Parties are not the problem. The problem is simply irresponsible incumbents (both parties) and voters that allow it and are too entrenched and distracted with partisan warfare. Partisan warfare it the favorite detractor these days.
All I can say, is all people, everywhere need to learn to take of their partisan blinders, and learn to recognize the partisan warfare (or other detractors) used to distract and manipulate The People. It is as old as time, it is rooted in a basic human tendency, sounds a bit cynical, but if learn to admit it, recognize it, and adjust for it, we will create a more healthy and successful socitey. In many ways we are eons ahead of some nations. The next step is now really a simple, common-sense, no-brainer realization and the subsequent adjustments to make it happen.

Education + Transparency + Accountability =
Responsibility

This is why nations are now graded based on transparency. As transparency diminishes, corruption increases. A good example of a common-sense, no-brainer reform (adjustment), to increase transparency and reduce corruption would be the One-Purpose-Per-BILL.
That would shed light on a very corrupt process, that currently breeds pork-barrel, graft, bribes, corporate welfare, and corruption.

We can eventually learn to do the smart thing, or keep learning the hard, painful way.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 22, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #128494

rahdigly,

Kosovo was a radically different situation. CLINTON WAS NOT UNDER A BINDING RESOLUTION FROM
THE UN!!!

As for the UN/Nato thing, yeah well you caught me. I was Nato and not the UN that supported us during the Kosovo conflict…
WHEN WE WERE PUTTING A STOP TO A GENOCIDE IN PROGRESS!

SUPPORT IS SUPPORT. Please explain how the difference matters.

Iraq WAS most assuredly an illegal war.

That is why, when Kofi Anan was pressed about the issue by european sources he Hmmed and hawed about it it for diplomacy’s sake but ultimately went on record as saying the war was illegal. Look it up along with the nature of law and international law with respect to war. It will do you good.

From an American perspective, squeaky is part right. The president has the power to act with the militry IF there is a CLEAR and PRESENT DANGER. That danger MUST BE ACTUAL IN NATURE. Bush manipulated inteligence to sell the world and America on the idea that there was a clear and present danger from currently existing WMD’s.
The inspectors screamed they were not there. The inteligence agencies of our allies screamed that they were not there. MOST importantly, THEY WERE NOT THERE. Now the Bushies are rediculously claiming that the war is justified because we removed a dictator who was a torturer (and replaced him with our own torturers!) and who HAD used nerve gas against his own Kurds. While we will all agree that Sadaam was as close to evil as a human can get, THE WAR WAS STILL ILLEGAL UNDER AMERICAN LAW AS WELL!!!

I don’t understand your beligerence on this rahdigly, we have ‘discussed’ this before on other blogs. Have EVER bothered to ACTUALLY investigate the illegality of this war? …or do just defend it unquestioningly?

You got me to go back and correct MYSELF. You are absolutely right…support for Kosovo came from NATO and not from the UN. Thank you.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 22, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #128498

ELliotbay,

I love the point you make. Bush and company are actually using and profiting from paranoia and hysteria which they themselves are fostering and manipulating…

AND NOW wE HAVE TO ENDURE THIS OFFENSIVE ACCUSATION OF HYSTERIA FROM THEIR BLIND SUPPORTERS?!!!

Not I.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 22, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #128502

Hey Joebagodonuts and Jack,

This entire silly article is nothing more than a VERY COMMON INSULT. Take the blinders off and stop the self congratulating.


RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 22, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #128506

RGF:

Huh?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 22, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #128512

Regarding record high corporate profits (while median wages have fallen for 4 consecutive years, and forclosures have risen 13 consecutive months, 581,000 jobs lost since 2000, etc.) …

We are experiencing a rise in something that has been around for a long time, but it is now becoming global.

It is not a global village.
It is global pillage.

Corpocrisy and Corporatism in-league with corrupt, bought-and-paid-for politicians, allows global corporations to decend upon cheap labor in one nation. After the standard of living and wages increase, they flee and decend upon another poor nation, leaving the economy of the previous nation to begin to fall again.

This ensures a never ending supply of cheap labor.

It fuels economic instability.

That is happening in the U.S. and other more developed nations.

It is good for the less developed nations. For a while anyway.

In a perfect world, wages would be comparable world wide. But they are not, and as long as they are not, and there are no other mechanisms to limit the global exploit-and-abandon-system that we are seeing now, it will continue.

New technologies, immigration, raising or cutting taxes, and corporate welfare are not the solution. I’m not sure what the solution is, but one step in the right direction is education about the exploit-and-abandon-system, corpocrisy, global-pillage, and honest government that is not FOR SALE.

But, ofcourse, voters must make that happen.
No reforms are possible until voters figure it out, and do what they were supposed to be doing all along.

Education + Transparency + Accountability = Responsibility


RGF,
Yes, you are correct. The partisan blinders are a powerful detractor that keeps the masses wallowing in a circular pattern of petty partisan warfare, or repulsed by it, and keeps us all from seeing how we, the voters, are all being used and manipulated by the master-manipulators, and their supporters (some true disciples and some unwittingly seduced).

I used to be fooled by it too.
No longer, though.
It’s all starting to make perfect sense.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 22, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #128537

RGF,
“I don’t understand your beligerence on this rahdigly, we have ‘discussed’ this before on other blogs. Have EVER bothered to ACTUALLY investigate the illegality of this war?…or do just defend it unquestioningly? You got me to go back and correct MYSELF. You are absolutely right…support for Kosovo came from NATO and not from the UN.”


You baffle me; leaving me in a perplexed state. You’re (original) argument, and you can go back and look it up, was that not going to the UN made it illegal. Well, Clinton didn’t go with the UN, so by your standards it was illegal. That’s my point. And, you tried to say that “stopping a genocide” is a good thing, which I agree with by the way. Yet, there weren’t the thousands of mass graves that Clinton said there were (it was actually in the low to mid hundreds); however, there were hundred of thousands of mass graves in Iraq. So, saving lives in Kosovo is ok, but not in Iraq? Come on. You have to look at the situation and see that both Presidents were correct in going to war. They both shirked the UN and I believe that was the correct move; the UN is ineffective and way too corrupt.

And, WMD’s were not the only reason we went to War with Iraq. As I’ve said before, Saddam broke the Gulf War cease fire agreement; shot at our planes in the no fly zone; 17 UN violations; and, of course, the biggest violation of them all, playing Texas hold em with a President from Texas. Big no, no Saddam and for that he made it perfectly legal.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 22, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #128566

The original intent of the U.N. was to provide a way to try to resolve conflicts diplomatically, while avoiding military conflicts. It is not illegal to sidestep the U.N. and use military force when necessary, in fact the U.S. Constitution binds the legislative branch with the power to declare war without the consent of the U.N. and the executive branch has the power to command that war to meet military goals. It would be unconstitutional to require the consent of the U.N. before engaging in military action.

Any agenda of the U.N. that is outside the parameters of being a mediator should not be condoned and our opposition should be clear. Using the U.N. to avoid military conflicts is one thing, but having to get it’s approval to protect our country is quite another.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 22, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #128600

DAN

Thanks.

Guys

Time to move on to then next thread.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #128602

rahdigly,

No. Sadaam’s taking pot shots at planes in the no fly zone, and thus our responding, is not the same as an illegal war.

There is nothing here for me to “Stand up and take.” I am still completely perplexed that you seem to not even be trying to look into this.

Yes! Clinton went, as you say, ‘around’ the UN. Or rather, he did not even try to go to them in the first place. If Bush had done that there would be no issue here as far as the international law is concerned. He still failed to establish a clear and present danger to justify his ‘police action.’ He could have done that, maybe, but that is not what happened. Bush tried to use the UN, got refuted and blocked, then he made the case for the necesity to go in based on WMD’s.

THE IRAQ WAR IS and WAS ILLEGALY DECLARED.

There really isn’t any room for debate on this. It is all based on established law and fact. I just don’t get why you aren’t trying to understand or look into this. Does the possibility not even present itself to you? Why would ANYBODY blindly defend war without even a care whether it may be unjustified? Your sentiments scare the hell out of for the sake of our nation.

I hope it isn’t just because Bushies only think in sound-bite terms. You have appeared, on occasion, more with it then that.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 22, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #128610

rahdigly,

I have been trying to see more of the thread of our ‘discussion.’ This, I hope, adresses what I think youy are confused about.

NOT going to the UN is NOT what made the Iraq war illegal. The two things that made it illegal are this -

1. The UN had already established that we NOT to go in unilaterally until after furhter investigation under article 1441 had established the presence of WMD’s. THAT NEVER HAPPENED and we were, at that point, OBLIGATED.

2. Froma domestic standpoint, the clear and present danger of WMD’s turned out to be false. It was manipulated in an effort to justify the war when the inteligence was KNOWN to show quite the contrary. BUT regardless of ANY manipulations, THEY WEREN’T THERE. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE - NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.

The Afghan War is an entirely different matter. That DID have congressional backing after 9/11. However, we may argue forever about whether Congress can or should write a BLANK CHECK for war as they did in reaction to the attacks on 9/11. Thus Afghanistan is a complete side issue to this ‘discussion.’

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 22, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #128614

JayJay Snowman,

Yes. I agree with you. The purpose of the UN is to settle disputes and the US still has the right to defend itself. However, once the UN has been engaged, we are bound by the duly signed and ratified treaty that makes us a member nation.

From an American law perspective, we DO have the right to defend ourselves without a Congressional declaration of war, but there must be a ‘clear and present danger’. Bush tried to make the case for that based on the presence of WMD’s. THEY WEREN’T THERE.

The Iraq war is and was illegally declared.


RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 22, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #128628

RGF,
“Yes! Clinton went, as you say, ‘around’ the UN. Or rather, he did not even try to go to them in the first place. If Bush had done that there would be no issue here as far as the international law is concerned. He still failed to establish a clear and present danger to justify his ‘police action.’”


Busted, yet again. Clinton didn’t bother to go to the UN b/c he knew the Russians would back the Christian Serbs. And, Clinton not only went around the UN, he didn’t even have Congressional approval. Yeah, that’s right, the House of Representatives didn’t agree with Kosovo; Clinton snuck around them and went to the Senate only. Now, Bush had both houses of Congress when he went into Afghanistan and Iraq; what he did was legal. Your the law buff, you might want to re-read the Constitution and tell me where “Congress declares War” means the Senate only.

By the way, listening to Kofi Annan is a waste of time; he’s completely inept and (totally) corrupt, but he can back your point up so I’m sure you’ll continue to recite his lines.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 22, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #128638

RGF,
“NOT going to the UN is NOT what made the Iraq war illegal. Posted by: RGF at February 22, 2006 03:44 PM”

That is what you said an hour ago and here’s what you said last night:

“It was that the unilateralism, especialy after we had already engaged the UN, that made the Iraq war ILLEGAL both in American law and in International law. We look more fully like an EMPIRE flexing its muscles, now. That garners us a greater number of dangerous enemies. The one and ONLY way such an action would have been justified, in my view, is if there actually were WMD’s for us to worry about. Even then, the illegality of the action is still evident and clear.Posted by: RGF at February 21, 2006 08:01 PM”

Now, you clearly said that going around the UN made it illegal; you even said that, even if we did find the WMDs, it still would be illegal. You’re all over the place and (way) off. Take your time, do some research and then maybe you can get back on the playing field. Later!

Posted by: rahdigly at February 22, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #128642

dan,sorry jack, but this a valid point about efficiency and conservation, that is the key word. in my area in the high desert were blessed with very dry weather and even on a 114f day we cool down to about 66f at nite,i run a whole house fan at nite on a timer. during the day i run a 5 ton trane heat pump with a efficiency rating of 18. ive split the ductwork in to three zones by adding three VAV boxes and three setback thermostats, i wrapped an extra 4in of insulation and a vapor barrier on the ductwork . ive also weatherized the house.added solar screens on all windows as for my pool i found four large solar panels i disguised them on my hill. i taped it in my pool pump.no getting around the pump it has to run 8-9 hrs a day in the summer or algae forms, now i can heat my pool for free! also it is nice to have a cousin who owns an air cond. company.all parts at cost! labor was free i installed everything, total out of pocket for parts $12,500, the city gave back to me $4000 in rebates! now at peak summer months, avg.cost per month for all utilities $265 a month.similar houses in the area pay $545 per month.a savings of $280 per month!not bad! next project if god willing a wind mill disguised as a tree, to provide all electric plus earn extra money from edison elect.it is in city planning now. rodney brown .

Posted by: rodney brown at February 22, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #128670

No radigly,

What I did was make the erroneous assumption you knew it was the going around the UN the SECOND TIME that was the issue. My bad.

Why did you not get that? I explained it clearly.
But look, as for the “Get back on the playing field” comment…

Fine. Be snied right back at me. But be curious enough to look into it for yourself. I don’t give a flip whether you beleive me or not. I just hope you take me seriously enough to look into until you find out for yourself. I know this blogging thing has more to do with VENTING than discussion or else you would have educated yourself regarding international law by now and I would have corrected myself with regard to the source of support for the Kosovo war.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 22, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #128672

rahdigly,

What part of: “…especially after we had already engaged the UN…” Did you not understand?

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 22, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #128673

rahdigly,

That loose and flying-around-unsupported comment about Kofi Anan is completely rediculous. Back that up, if you can, or be seen as the type who makes groundless and futile accusations which have no basis in fact or law.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 22, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #128689

rodney brown,

Check this out wind generator.
It generates 4.0 KWatts !

Posted by: d.a.n at February 22, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #128691

ok, i am a teacher, i have chosen to teach in an inner city school riddled with gang graffiti and druggie parents, i know that because i have met them. Have you?

NCLB asks me to prejudge certain students at random with out their knowledge, and rate them as we go through the year. i have to then report my findings and based on the numbers from my records and the records of all the teachers we get the money, or we get vouchers to send them away, or we get nothing at all. NCLB is simply a ploy to kill the public school systems and send all of these kids to private schools where they will ostracized and thrown to wayside for being poor.

Pre Judging students? with out their knowledge? thats NCLB, school vouchers?

no the solution is teachers, and students and parents working together, teachers not only helping students but the parents so that the parents can help the students, that way we can ween ourselves off the government as mommy system that has derailed american education. we have to spend the money to gain the dividends at the end. programs for parents to find jobs and kick drugs, so that they can sit with their child and give them the attention and help that they desperately need, then we can start to rebuild the crumbling neighborhoods that these children ride bikes in everyday.

but no, lets give em vouchers and run em off to schools miles away, leave the parents out and watch the neighborhoods die because nobody gives two shits.

is it going to cost money? yes it is, i wont lie, can this country afford, yes we can, this president screams for jobs and education in his state of the union and then ships them off to overpopulated elite schools where they arent wanted and are segregated.

so stop, open your eyes and realize that education is a domino effect, it just depends on which way you want the dominos to fall.

Posted by: Lucas at February 22, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #128710

Right on Lucas!

We cannot ask for a better return on investment than to realy invest in the next generation.

Nothing is more important.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 22, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #128711

Jack, please turn in your hyperbole license. You use it way too much. In fact, you use it so much, you come off as, well, hysterical.

Just because someone says that the education system or the air quality is not as good as it could or should be, that doesn’t mean they hate America. Just because someone says that some of Bush’s policies are flawed at best doesn’t mean they are illogical, emotional lunatics. Ask yourself, should the President have the power to conduct warrantless wiretaps, even if the President is a Democrat? If you say that you’d have been OK with Clinton doing the wiretaps, or signing over the protection of our ports to foreign concerns, or starting a pre-emptive war, then fine. But from what I’ve read, I don’t think you would’ve been OK with that. Which, again, would put you in the category of “hysterical”.

Posted by: sideshow bob at February 22, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #128727

Sideshow

I will refer you to my posts praising Clinton. Look them up in my archive. Or check the post right above.

I don’t mind people not agreeing with the President. But this crazy idea that the economy with a 3.5% growth rate and 4.7% unemployement is bad is just stupid. The idea that the environment is worst ever, when pollution has been reduced is just stupid. Crime rate is down, but complaining is up.

Clinton started a preemptive war in Kosovo. I supported it. I don’t have a problem with the NSA program as I understand it. I would hope Dems would listen when an American is talking to terrorists.

So yes things could be better, but they are very good now as measured by all the statistics we commonly use. If you think that is hysterical, it is your problem.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #128734

Oh Lucas,

I too have encountered the urban poor. It seems as though you are giving them the ‘noble savage’ treatment. They are neither noble savages or the white man’s burden. They are free, adult persons of consequence whose future is largely determined by their own actions.

Parents that I met are happy to send their children to the best school they can afford. It seems that the parents’ concern is not the health of public education, but the betterment of their children’s future.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 22, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #128739

First, the U.N.S.C declared in resolution 1199 that the conflict in Kosovo “constitutes a threat to peace and security in the region”. Then, in a resolution after the war it authorized peacekeeping forces. You must learn the difference, folks, between defiance and plausible deniability.

Next, I will get to the question of whether the Republican-led Senate and House supported the war before they were against it. The Senate passed one measure Authorizing the air campaign, the House voted a resolution supporting the troops. Then both the House and Senate voted money into the appropriations bill to cover further action.

While it’s true there were no explicit authorizations, we should be reminded that the president does have power as CINC under the constitution, and the War Powers act does not take that away. Furthermore, the UN had expressed the opinion that the Kosovo Crisis was destabilizing the region, and later authorized peacekeeping efforts.

The House and Senate both passed measures giving support to the military in this conflict, then gave Clinton the money to do more.

Even with questions of UN involvement pressing, I think there are few here who could argue with the mission, the fact that peacekeeping efforts have been successful, and that Clinton’s Air War, with its overwhelming power brought Slobodan Milosevic to the bargaining table and led to his eventual downfall.

Kosovo, to me, represents what should happen in a military conflict: We have a purpose, we act accordingly in prosecuting the war, and then we win, plain and simply. Afterwards, we get the people in there to keep the peace that we need to. Throughout, we help ourselves by bringing in international help, even if it’s after the fact. Clinton did just that, and as such, our commitment to Kosovo is now at a minimum.

Many people here are so wrapped up in the rationalization of Bush’s policies that they’ve failed to reflect on what they lack: results. If our efforts were really that successful, if perception and reality were really that unified, Iraq would be more peaceful, the Iraqi soldiers and policemen ready to take up the burden of safeguarding their society, and we would would have been on our way out long ago.

That’s not what we have here. engrossed in their efforts to defend Bush against the evil liberals, they’ve failed to demand the results the American people deserve out of this war.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 22, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #128740

RGF, you’re amazing, just utterly amazing. I juxtaposed your comments and you still won’t concede that you based it on unilateralism.


Look, you don’t want snide comments, fine you’re right, I’ll take it back. However, I’ve backed up everything I’ve said about the Iraq and Kosovo War. Neither one of them were illegal, even though Clinton bi-passed the House of Representatives (and the UN) to get into that war. That’s certainly against US law, wouldn’t you say? You’re the law expert, yet you won’t comment on that. You try and dismiss it, but the evidence is right there. So chew on that.

“WHEN WE WERE PUTTING A STOP TO A GENOCIDE IN PROGRESS! SUPPORT IS SUPPORT. Please explain how the difference matters.”

Both wars have put a stop to brutal dictators, so I concur, stopping the genocide in Kosovo and stopping Saddam from filling the mass graves and running that brutal dictatorship are one in the same for me. “Support is support”. And, Iraq was just as important (if not more) b/c we now know he was running an Oil For Food Scandal right under everyone’s noses; that starved his people and helped him leverage power that the Gulf War Agreement (initially) took away. So, you should consider calling what Saddam did as illegal; what the US did was perfectly legal and will always remain that way.

As for this comment:
“That loose and flying-around-unsupported comment about Kofi Anan is completely rediculous.”


Kofi Anan was part of the biggest (and horrific) scandal in UN history (Oil For Food); not to mention he is an African who’s been running this organization that is turning a blind eye to his own people genocided under his watch. He’s not doing a fricking thing. It took Secretary of State Colin Powell to say that the Darfur region is a genocide, Anan didn’t say a word or (even) lift a finger. His son was knee deep in the scandal and Kofi has run that organization to the point of futility. No one can trust the UN or the IAEA anymore. The only hope is John Bolton in there shaking things up for the US. Anan does nothing but point fingers and throw around pointless attacks at the Bush administration. Kofi is weak and so is your argument if you quote that useless fool. Later…

Posted by: rahdigly at February 22, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #128742

Jack,

When the stock market spends 4 years bouncing back and forth over the same ground whle the dollar decreases…that translates into a loss of value. Also, have you noticed that we are starting back down again as far as jobs go? It’s happening.

Now I don’t think you can attribute this to Bush any more than you can attribute any of the hard times over the past years to him. We are NOT talking about the economy as the reason for his being the worst pres. in history. It’s the ethics, the war, the dishonesty and the cow-towing to those who are profiting from us but not doing right by us.

A micro-example:
Many at ENRON were among Bush’s major supporters. Ken Lay for instance. Now, I am not going to fault Bush for the ENRON debacle. That was all Lay and Fastow’s responsibility, among others. However, one of Bush’s first acts as President was to push for and get an energy bill of which 18 points were specifically pro-ENRON. They allowed freedoms in secondary energy trading that resulted in MASSIVE manipulations of markets with disastrous effects.

Do we not need a President who represents the people first? …and not just the business interests that send him campaign money?
I beleive we do. I beleive California would agree with that. Why do you not?

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 22, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #128745

rahdigly,

We are, or at least were, talking about the illegality of the Iraq war. I will not be side tracked. Kofi Anan is irelevent. I only quoted him because he stated the status of the process through the UN.

If Hitler spoke the truth, as I imagine he must have done at some point, is it any less true just because it was Hitler who said it and he is evil?

Stay on point. We have been discussing the Iraq war, not Kofi Anan.

Perhaps on another blog I will go into depth about how rediculous I think it is to appoint Bolton, who openly does not even BELEIVE in the U.N., to be our ambassador there.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 22, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #128746

Rahdigly,

One more thing:

Sadaam’s evil does NOT make the Iraq war legal.
You have no doubt seen the bumper stickers that say: “We are making enemies faster than we can kill them” …well, when we behave like an empire that runs rough shod over law in order to obtain our ends, we earn dangerous enemies.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 22, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #128765

That’s bullcrap!!! Anyone reciting Hitler and Kofi Anan are not quoting reliable sources. So, I agree, enough about those two.

Back to Iraq, WMD’s do not justify whether it was legal or illegal; if that were the case, which it certainly is not, then Clinton bombing Iraq in 1998 would be illegal. Where were his weapons then?! Besides, there’s no doubt that he had WMD’s, we just don’t know what he did with them. And, we’ll be damn if, after 9/11, we’re going to trust madmen like Saddam to threaten us with WMD’s and violate sanction after sanction. It’s just not going to happen. And, as I’ve said earlier, you really ought to consider using your “illegal” label on Saddam and not anyone else. The fact that you can sling that moniker to Bush and not to Saddam should tell you that you’ve gotten off track just a little. Focus. Regroup and then look at what Saddam did, over the past 30 years, with all those human rights violations, annexing Kuwait, and dropping nerve gas on his own people and you’ll find the real illegal dictator.


I noticed you won’t respond of the Kosovo thing; where Clinton went around the House Reps and went into war. That’s right up your alley with the law and Constitution, isn’t it?!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at February 22, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #128769

RGF

Enron grew to power under Clinton and was brought down in the first year of Bush. The Bush Administration did nothing to help them. You can bring it up if you want, but there is no particular correlation. Anecdotes aside, I guess the energy bill didn’t do it any good.

I don’t think short term trends show much, but I noticed unemployment went from 4.9% to 4.7%. I have been out of school for awhile, but that doesn’t look like a problem. I recall that it was about 5.5 last year.

Please reread my original post. This is not the best ever economy, nor the best ever anything. It is just very good by historical and world standards. The statistics are a lot like they were in 1997, which is generally acknowleged to be a good year, except our economy is a bigger and we have more people. Not the best of times, not the worst of times. But let’s not pretend we have all the trouble in the world.

Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #128779

rgf hitler, was incaplble of truth due to his narcissism,low self esteem, hypochondriasis,schizophrenia, anorexia nervosa, bipolar disorder,pathological liar,paranoid personality disorder,drug addiction ,genocide ,and a very frustrated painter. and he was evil!

Posted by: rodney brown at February 23, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #128800

“I believe these Liberals are ruining the country as I just heard Bill Press say that it is OK for Al Gore to be over in Saudi Arabia apologizing for the round up of Arabs in America after 9/11. He actually said that all Americans should apologize for that. WOW, I wonder what the families of the victums of 9/11 think of that statement??” Everett

I believe that September 11th families would probably NOT support indiscriminate targeting of a racial group simply because of racial similarity to the terrorists who committed the act… Why do I think this? Well, because their family member that perished was themself lumped into one big indiscriminate group. Americans.

Perhaps Al Gore shouldn’t have done that, but then again, perhaps I won’t wear my “Please don’t mistake me for a Dubya supporter” t-shirt when I travel overseas… You see, not all of us in this country agree with UnPresident Bush, regardless of the fact that Liberal or Democrat has nothing to do with it.

I’m a humanist, not an idiot that clings to one black or white ideology.

But I do have one question that is begging to be answered… Do Conservatives and Republicans really believe the U.S. is in better shape today than it was just six years ago? I mean, can someone above the age of eight truly believe that, or is it just some self-delusion that doesn’t seem to have any grip on reality?

Please, please give me an honest answer, because for the life of me the current Right (whether religious or political) zealousness appears to be boardering on fanatical… Not altogether unlike the terrorist mind frame that was behind Septermber 11th, 2001. (Please, try to show respect for the date and stop calling it “Nine-Eleven”. It makes it sound as cheap as an overpriced convenience store.)

Posted by: MJ Shaw at February 23, 2006 2:04 AM
Comment #128806

MJ,

“Not altogether unlike the terrorist mind frame that was behind Septermber 11th, 2001. (Please, try to show respect for the date and stop calling it “Nine-Eleven”. It makes it sound as cheap as an overpriced convenience store.)”

Thank you. I have been waiting quite a while for anyone besides me to actually express those feelings, and belive me it was worth it.

Hopefully it will become a trend.

Posted by: Rocky at February 23, 2006 2:28 AM
Comment #128817

who was the last president to balance the budget? simple bill clinton in his second term. ok what president before bill clinton balanced the budget? dwight d eisenhower both terms. mr eisenhower said, we cannot afford to reduce taxes. also personal income rose 20% during mr eisenhowers tenure, today president eisenhower is considerd one of the top ten presidents of all time by historians.

Posted by: rodney brown at February 23, 2006 3:36 AM
Comment #128840

MJ Shaw

The U.S. economy is bigger than it was six years ago. The general “better off” depends on what you mean. In the long term, we get better off.

My guess is that we were generally “better off” in 1998, 1999 and the first part of 2000. We are almost the same as 1997. But we are “better off” now than in all the other years in the last 40 years. If you go before that, you are really not dealing with a valid comparison. I think we are better off now, but society was different.

But consider that the dot.com bubble burst in 2000. We had 911. We had to pay back the “peace dividend” and 1999-2000 were generally a bubble (not only dot.com), we are doing very well.

Which is all I contend. We are doing very well. If current trends continue, 2006 could end up being our best year ever.

Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 8:14 AM
Comment #128859

Jack,

“Which is all I contend. We are doing very well. If current trends continue, 2006 could end up being our best year ever.”

I don’t want to burst the bubble that you set up here.

If things continue the way they have, we, you and I and our countrymen at the present, we all may be doing just fine, and may continue to do so for the next few years.
What is going to happen when “our” bubble bursts?

Do you honestly think that we are going to grow the economy enough to pay off the debt that we have aquired under Mr. Bush’s watch?

What’t going to happen 5 , or 10 years down the road, when the note comes due?
Is America just going to apply for another credit card to pay off the debt from the last one?

BTW, I find the screeching from both sides hysterical.

I just can’t stop laughing.

Posted by: Rocky at February 23, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #129066

You know, America is a great big place. Inside this big country the multitude of personal realities is astonishing. I love living somewhere your options are so broad as to include both Jack’s world and Rocky’s world.

From the two postings above:

Jack at 8:14am today heads out into a world he sees as getting better and is confident in good things being probable.

Rocky at 10:51am is in a world that is demonstrably worsening with a high probability of crisis in the future.

Weird, huh?

Posted by: goodkingned at February 24, 2006 1:37 AM
Comment #129136

ned,

If you ask an engineer if the glass is half full, or half empty, he’ll probably tell you that the glass is too large.

1929 was the “best year ever” as well.

In Jack’s world, my tin foil hat sales are going through the roof, and I can’t keep them on the shelves.

In my world his rose colored glasses are made of plastic, and are easy to scratch.

In Jack’s world, the economy is booming, wages are up, unemployment is low, and the air he breathes, while not perfect, is the “best ever”.

In my world, the economy is only ok, wages, adjusted for inflation, are only keeping up , or are falling slightly, the high paying jobs are moving off-shore where they can be done cheaper, latino immigrants are not just doing the “jobs that Americans don’t want to do”, but are taking away skilled jobs as well, because they will do them cheaper, and when I go to the mountains I can still smell the smog, and see the haze from the city.

Little has been made of the fact that, last year, for the first time since the ’20s, Americans pulled more money from their savings than they deposited. In my search for a reason, all I could find was that Americans are using their savings to maintain their current lifestyles.
That’s a scary thought.

Jack’s right.
Right now things are ok.
But best ever?
The economy isn’t going to expand forever, and we in this country, cheered on by this administration and Congress, have been spending money like drunken sailors.

You might want to join me upwind, when the shit hits the fan.

Posted by: Rocky at February 24, 2006 10:39 AM
Comment #129517

Jack
All I see are posts from folks that don’t seem to be from your political persuasion (aside from the fella who figured the tax system deeply favoring the wealthy). And Jack, they seem to have a lot of points. And Jack is there anything favorable other than rich folks keeping their money and abortion clinics being closed? I guess giving tax rebates and tax cuts are more favorable than preserving our national parks. Jack, I guess calling people “liberals” and “tax and spend democrats” and turning from the more complicated issues works for now huh Jack… because the right wing political propaganda machine has done it’s damage, huh Jack. Guess you have a few more years to exploit the system huh Jack. Keep swimming in the shallow end Jack. There are sharks out there.

Posted by: National Park at February 25, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #129738

Weigh the FACTORS
We may be on the wrong path?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 26, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #129746

serious, if there was ever a need to clone. teddy roosevelt, harry truman, (i will try to forget the bombs,) john f kennedy, dwight d eisenhower,

Posted by: rodney brown at February 26, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #129760

Rocky,
Well said. Plain common sense. Good for you.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 26, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #129787

Thank you D.A.N.

Posted by: Rocky at February 27, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #371951

Hey would you mind sharing which blog platform you’re working with?
I’m going to start my own blog soon but I’m having a difficult time deciding between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal.
The reason I ask is because your design seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something unique.
P.S Apologies for being off-topic but I had to ask!

Posted by: online poker for people like us people at October 3, 2013 8:04 AM
Post a comment