tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post999865251784387807..comments2023-12-21T03:31:54.013-07:00Comments on Alternate Reality: Valerie Plame Speakscapthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04541180524537586259noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-3631122433806528302007-03-19T16:59:00.000-06:002007-03-19T16:59:00.000-06:00New Thread!<A HERF="http://alternatereality456.blogspot.com/2007/03/did-gop-lawyer-mislead-congress-on.html">New Thread!</A>capthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04541180524537586259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-91766714930451168272007-03-19T16:39:00.000-06:002007-03-19T16:39:00.000-06:00Just as cell phones have brought communication to ...Just as cell phones have brought communication to poor peoples living in countries without plain-old-telephone service, so solar cells will bring electricity to peoples living in places without power grids.<BR/><BR/>We need to innovate our way out of the climate change problem, instead of waiting for the massive misery, heaped upon the poor, that rising temperatures and sea stands will cause...David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-83807971408874746522007-03-19T16:31:00.000-06:002007-03-19T16:31:00.000-06:00Fla. judge in Anna Nicole case accused of smoking ...<A REF="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-orl-judge20mar20,1,946539.story?coll=la-default-underdog"><BR/>Fla. judge in Anna Nicole case accused of smoking pot<BR/>By Marlene Naanes, Orlando Sentinel Staff Writer<BR/>1:10 PM PDT, March 19, 2007 </A><BR/><BR/>*******************************<BR/><BR/>Funny, they discuss the Anna Nicole case, but no mention if his judgeship is in jeopardy.....just can't make this <B>good stuff</B> up!Robert Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770441579698726632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-68610679672528998202007-03-19T16:11:00.000-06:002007-03-19T16:11:00.000-06:00The Iraqi War -- the worst foreign policy blunder ...<I>The Iraqi War -- the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country by some estimates -- is a HUGE issue, but it is not the only one. - micki </I><BR/><BR/>Should I expect health care and environmental protection from those complicit in murder? Should I be silent about torture in hopes of less bad trade agreements?<BR/><BR/>I do not accept the equivalence of Dems and GOPhers. I supported wresting the reins of power from the GOPhers by electing Dems, but, now, if the Dems keep funding obscenities, the deserve the scorn heaped upon them.Robert Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770441579698726632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-4764121196042064212007-03-19T15:58:00.000-06:002007-03-19T15:58:00.000-06:00The Iraqi War -- the worst foreign policy blunder ...The Iraqi War -- the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country by some estimates -- is a HUGE issue, but it is not the only one.<BR/><BR/>But, I appreciate your comment, robert.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-63724084718945876512007-03-19T15:57:00.000-06:002007-03-19T15:57:00.000-06:00On Israel, America and AIPAC -- George Soros<A HREF="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20030" REL="nofollow">On Israel, America and AIPAC -- George Soros</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-81232104402886617132007-03-19T15:56:00.000-06:002007-03-19T15:56:00.000-06:00Excerpts from ABC News poll:THE AMERICANS — The Un...<A HREF="http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2954716&page=2" REL="nofollow"><BR/>Excerpts from ABC News poll:</A><BR/><BR/>THE AMERICANS — The United States gets much of the blame. As noted, in the most troubling result from an American perspective, the number of Iraqis who call it "acceptable" to attack U.S. or coalition forces has soared from 17 percent in early 2004 to 51 percent now.<BR/><BR/>The main source of this antipathy is disaffected Sunni Arabs, the group that lost power with the overthrow of Saddam. Ninety-four percent of Sunni Arabs call attacks on U.S. forces acceptable. That compares with 35 percent of newly empowered Shiites (still a large number to endorse violence), vs. 7 percent of Kurds, who are far more favorably inclined toward the United States.<BR/><BR/>Even among Shiites, eight in 10 disapprove of the way the United States and other coalition forces have carried out their responsibilities in Iraq. More than eight in 10 Shiites (as well as 97 percent of Sunni Arabs) oppose the presence of U.S. and other forces in their country. (Kurds, again, differ powerfully; 75 percent support the U.S. presence.) More than seven in 10 Shiites — and nearly all Sunni Arabs — think the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is making security worse.<BR/><BR/>Asked whom they blame most for the current violence in Iraq, far and away the most common answer — voiced by four in 10 Iraqis — is either U.S. and coalition forces (31 percent), or George W. Bush personally (nine percent). Al Qaeda and foreign jihadi fighters are cited by 18 percent (far more by Shiites and Kurds than by Sunnis).<BR/><BR/>Indeed, among the occurrences of local violence measured in this poll, the top mention is "unnecessary violence against citizens by U.S. or coalition forces." Forty-four percent of Iraqis — including 60 percent of Sunni Arabs — report this as having occurred nearby.Robert Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770441579698726632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-54779058194322980352007-03-19T15:28:00.000-06:002007-03-19T15:28:00.000-06:00Court hears 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' caseRAW STORYPubli...<A HREF="http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Court_hears_Bong_Hits_4_Jesus_0319.html" REL="nofollow"><BR/>Court hears 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case<BR/>RAW STORY<BR/>Published: Monday March 19, 2007 </A><BR/><BR/>The Supreme Court today heard the 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' case, which pits an Alaskan high school student against his principal and, by extension, the Bush Administration. Meanwhile, an unlikely alliance between the ACLU and a few conservative Christian organizations is pulling for the student's side.<BR/><BR/>According to the principal's lawyer, Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who spent years investigating President Clinton's Whitewater land acquisitions, the high school's principal Deborah Morse was acting in accord with the school's anti-drug stance when she suspended the student. Joseph Frederick had been warned to take down a 14-foot-long banner with the inscription 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' during the carrying of the Olympic torch through the city of Juneau in 2002.<BR/><BR/>Representing the student, attorney Douglas Mertz disagreed.<BR/><BR/>"This is a case about free speech," said Mertz. "It is not a case about drugs."<BR/><BR/>The Bush administration, in siding with the principal, is pushing for the court to adopt a rule that could allow schools to limit any free speech with which it disagrees. Some conservative religious organizations, considered to be the president's "base," have broken with the administration.<BR/><BR/>"Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration are backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion," writes the AP.<BR/><BR/>Those groups include the Christian Legal Society, American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson, the Alliance Defense Fund, the Rutherford Institute, and Liberty Legal Institute.<BR/><BR/>Supreme Court justices appeared conflicted in their own statements as well as with one another.<BR/><BR/>"I thought we wanted our schools to teach something, including something besides just basic elements, including the character formation and not to use drugs," said Chief Justice Roberts.<BR/><BR/>Justice Breyer asserted that a ruling in Frederick's favor may encourage students to go to extremes to test free speech limits but that a ruling in favor of Morse "may really limit free speech."<BR/><BR/>Justice Samuel Alito seemed to break with the administration's push for such broad authority for schools. "I find that a very, a very disturbing argument," said Alito, "because schools have...defined their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students, under the banner of getting rid of speech that's inconsistent with educational missions."<BR/><BR/>***********************<BR/><BR/>When ideas don't fit into little boxes, what is justice to do?Robert Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770441579698726632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-41466370646537387602007-03-19T14:32:00.000-06:002007-03-19T14:32:00.000-06:00micki,Hearings aside, and it is easy for the Dems ...micki,<BR/><BR/>Hearings aside, and it is easy for the Dems to make the GOPhers look bad, the Dems are about to buy a used war from a discredited salesman, and are to be roundly chastised for it.<BR/><BR/>More than 650,000 dead Iraqi civilians and they're still buying bullets.Robert Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770441579698726632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-60428665661468178032007-03-19T14:01:00.000-06:002007-03-19T14:01:00.000-06:00If I wanted to be be rigorous in my research for t...If I wanted to be be rigorous in my research for the *truth*, I would not look to John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute as one of my sources. <BR/><BR/>Paula Jones was entitled to her day in court and to legal representation, but I doubt if the lawyers from the Rutherford Institute who chose to represent her pro bono did it because they are without bias. <BR/><BR/>Reliable source? Not!!! What a joke.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-210070762794335462007-03-19T13:52:00.000-06:002007-03-19T13:52:00.000-06:00The Dems' slim majority in the Senate makes it ver...The Dems' slim majority in the Senate makes it very, very difficult to pass legislation when it's close to impossible to get any Repugs to cross the aisle. BUT, in spite of what the across-the-board denialists say, the Dems are making headway using their clout with Congressional oversight and investigative authorities, including subpoena powers.<BR/><BR/>* The House summoned the FCC for a grilling and intend to ask them more questions;<BR/><BR/>* Congress authorized subpoenas for the D0J officials regarding the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys;<BR/><BR/>* Valerie Plame had an opportunity to be a witness on her outing;<BR/><BR/>* the Dems are probing the FDA's numerous failures on protecting our food supply;<BR/><BR/>* the Dems are probing the disgusting techniques the bush agencies use to monitor energy markets;<BR/><BR/>* the Dems are looking into accusatons that the WH tried to muzzle federal climate scientists;<BR/><BR/>* Henry Waxman is making Condoleezza Rice realize that NOW she has to respond to letters from Congress, from the opposition party which is now the majority party. <BR/><BR/>* The Dems have forced the busheviks to turn over emails and documents to the House & Senate Judiciary committees -- they busheviks can not so easily ignore the Dems any longer.<BR/><BR/>* Judiciary committees have threatened to subpoena WH officials, including General Rove, the former "untouchable."<BR/><BR/>* The scandalous situation at Walter Reed is out in the open.<BR/><BR/>* Because hearings are underway on the Walter Reed situation, the Dems are able to REINFORCE the charges that bush has f**ked up the Iraq and Aganstan wars.<BR/><BR/>* busheviks are now routinely TOLD to explain themselves, their policies and actions -- a new thing for an administration that was rubber-stamped by the former bush-friendly GOP lockstep lemmings in Congress.<BR/><BR/>* Some Repugs are not so quick to line up behind the busheviks, in obedience.<BR/><BR/>* The Dems have reestablished investigative sub-committees -- the GOPers disbanded most such committees when they were in the majority. <BR/><BR/>* When the Dems threatened to subpoena a report on whether NASA suppressed safety investigations, the agency immediately decided to release it voluntarily. <BR/><BR/>* The list goes on...and, no...they are not the "precious Dems" which sounds like it could be a gay-bashing insult when you think about it. I've always thought that accusation was downright nasty sounding. Oh, well...I'm sure she didn't mean it that way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-8580214440272908452007-03-19T12:08:00.000-06:002007-03-19T12:08:00.000-06:00Kucinich Statement, Do you think it's time?My fell...<A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAIJyKhJhiM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fkucinich%2Eus%2Fnode%2F3696%2Fplay" REL="nofollow"><BR/>Kucinich Statement, Do you think it's time?</A><BR/><BR/>My fellow Americans. We are in an interesting condition in this country, where we are told to take impeachment off the table, and keep on the table a U.S. military attack against Iran.<BR/><BR/>This really calls for a new thinking. It calls for us to reconsider very deeply the moment that we're in – where our Constitution is being trashed, where international law is being violated, where our hopes and dreams for the education of our children, for the health of our people, for housing, for our veterans, are being set aside as we go deeper and deeper into war.<BR/><BR/>We need a whole discussion in America. And with your help, we're about to have one.<BR/><BR/>This past week, in the Congress of the United States, I noted that the administration has threatened aggressive war against Iran. This is a violation of the UN charter. Charters are treaties. Article 6 of the Constitution of the United States says that treaties are the law of our land, the supreme law of our land.<BR/><BR/>It's illegal to threaten aggressive war against another nation. Iran has no ability to attack us. And they do not have the intention to attack the United states.<BR/><BR/>We are at a moment in human history where we have to make a decision whether we are going to go deeper into war, or whether we are going to take a stand on behalf of peace.<BR/><BR/>I determined a long time ago to take that stand on behalf of peace. And I want to enlist you and enroll you in taking that same stand.<BR/><BR/>We cannot let this administration go any deeper into this journey, into destroying democratic governance, trashing our Constitution, forgetting the very purpose of this nation. America was never meant to be a nation forever on the warpath. It was meant to be a nation which also had the capacity to “Promote the General Welfare.”<BR/><BR/>We need to reevaluate the direction of this administration by looking at its conduct in office, by determining whether it has faithfully followed the laws of our nation.<BR/><BR/>I'm prepared to start that process. I began this week with a speech on the floor of the house, which warned the administration that its actions toward Iran already constitute a case to ask the question about impeachment.<BR/><BR/>So I'm asking you, what do you think? Do you think it's time?Robert Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770441579698726632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-30509583954994633472007-03-19T11:57:00.000-06:002007-03-19T11:57:00.000-06:00I think the track record of "Govt." help for all o...<I>I think the track record of "Govt." help for all our woes is one long history of failure and corruption. Give the people the truth and the tools, and they can make it right. - Saladin </I><BR/><BR/>What tools would you have us use? Properly construed, government is that tool. <BR/><BR/><I> Why is there such a strong family resemblance between the Reagan years and recent events? Mr. Reagan's administration, like Mr. Bush's, was run by movement conservatives - people who built their careers by serving the alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. And both cronyism and abuse of power are part of the movement conservative package.</I><BR/><BR/> <I> In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well. So they use political power to reward their friends, rather than find people who will actually do their jobs. </I> Excerpted from: <A HREF="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031907O.shtml" REL="nofollow"><BR/>Don't Cry for Reagan<BR/> By Paul Krugman<BR/> The New York Times<BR/>Monday 19 March 2007 </A>Robert Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770441579698726632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-4964200037256360582007-03-19T11:48:00.000-06:002007-03-19T11:48:00.000-06:00Climatic changes have taken place in the past, no ...Climatic changes have taken place in the past, no doubt. That does not equal <I>"all of those climatic changes have happened many times in the past."</I> There is a difference, and it isn't quibbling. To give a slight example, the primordial atmosphere was nothing like today's being:<BR/> <A HREF="http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/atmos.html" REL="nofollow"><BR/> * Mostly H2O and CO2<BR/> * Small amounts of N2 and sulfates<BR/> * No oxygen (O2). </A><BR/><BR/>as opposed to:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/atmos.html" REL="nofollow"><BR/>The Earth's Atmosphere<BR/>Composition:<BR/> * 77% N2 (molecular nitrogen)<BR/> * 21% O2 (molecular oxygen)<BR/> * 1% H2O (Water Vapor)<BR/> * 0.93% Argon<BR/> * CO2 (0.035%)<BR/> * Traces of CH4 (methane), Inert Gases (Ne, He, Kr, Xe)<BR/> * Particulates (silicate dust, sea salt, sulfates, etc.) </A><BR/><BR/>And the greatest influence of the change in atmosphere? Photosynthesis, a biological activity.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/atmos.html" REL="nofollow"><BR/>Where did the O2 come from?<BR/>The second major constituent of the present-day atmosphere is Oxygen (O2), but it was absent in the Primordial Atmosphere. Where did all the O2 come from?<BR/> * Molecular Oxygen (O2) comes primarily from photosynthesis in plants and algae.<BR/> * The O2 content of the atmosphere has increased from 1% to 21% during the past 600 Myr. </A><BR/><BR/>We are in an interglacial period. There have been Ice Ages, and will be again. However, within that interglacial period, we appear to be at higher and rising plateau of temperature, and so it is not inconsistent to say that global warming is happening and yet, there will be at some point another period of glaciation.<BR/><BR/>I'm not one to doubt the effect of greed and privilege on global poverty, which I've seen first hand. <BR/><BR/><I>We here in the US have no idea what millions of people suffer on a daily basis, we like to think we do but even the most poverty stricken people here are way better off than most in Africa, and many other parts of the world. These conditions exist primarily because of greed and apathy, not global warming. - Saladin </I><BR/><BR/>Let us for a moment consider the case of the Darfur region. How many of us understand that the disputes are predicated partially by the intersection of nomadic and agricultural peoples trying to come to grips with modernization at the same time that foreign powers are trying to extract resources, animal herds are dwindling and arable land is increasingly turning to desert?Robert Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770441579698726632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-78023138292126228152007-03-19T11:19:00.000-06:002007-03-19T11:19:00.000-06:00Carl WunschMany scientists therefore rely upon num...<A HREF="http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1" REL="nofollow"><B>Carl Wunsch</B></A><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Many scientists therefore rely upon numerical models of the climate system to calculate (1) the nature of natural variability with no human interference, and compare it to (2) the variability seen when human effects are included. This approach is a very sensible one, but the ability to test (calibrate) the models, which can be extraordinarily complex, for realism in both categories (1) and (2) is limited by the same observational data base already describe. At bottom, it is very difficult to determine the realism by which the models deal with either (1) or (2)<BR/><BR/>Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1" REL="nofollow">More HERE</A>capthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04541180524537586259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-69530097048689391022007-03-19T11:08:00.000-06:002007-03-19T11:08:00.000-06:00"As expected, intensification of droughts, heatwav...<I>"As expected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. </I><BR/><BR/><I>"These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible." </I><BR/><BR/><I>According to Professors Hardaker and Collier, <B>this may well turn out to be true,</B> but convincing evidence to back the claims has not yet emerged. </I><BR/><BR/><I>"It's certainly a very strong statement," Professor Collier told BBC News. </I><BR/><BR/><I>"I suspect it refers to <B>evidence that hurricanes have increased as a result of global warming</B>; but to make the blanket assumption that all extreme events are increasing is a bit too early yet." </I><BR/><BR/>*****************************<BR/><BR/>"Evidence that hurricanes have increased as a result of" and "May well be true" certainly do not argue strongly against those whose claims are more dire. When you are considering betting the farm on the range of probabilities, I'd wish for better (bettor's?) odds, myself.Robert Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770441579698726632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-89616676324296208992007-03-19T10:58:00.000-06:002007-03-19T10:58:00.000-06:00Robert, all of those climatic changes have happene...Robert, all of those climatic changes have happened many times in the past. Humans are not the cause. Poverty in the third world can not be compared to poverty in the first world, because there is no comparison. We here in the US have no idea what millions of people suffer on a daily basis, we like to think we do but even the most poverty stricken people here are way better off than most in Africa, and many other parts of the world. These conditions exist primarily because of greed and apathy, not global warming. I am mainly interested in empirical evidence, which there is plenty of. I find that more conclusive than all the climate model guessing in the world. And the fact that it is being used as yet another fear mongering control device makes me even more skeptical. Yes, humans are guilty of many sins against the earth, but fear and ignorance will not alleviate any of it, and I think the track record of "Govt." help for all our woes is one long history of failure and corruption. Give the people the truth and the tools, and they can make it right.Saladinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11756928226921879640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-73694511922281967992007-03-19T10:48:00.000-06:002007-03-19T10:48:00.000-06:00Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four ...<A HREF="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QQS/is_1_32/ai_n13670777/pg_1" REL="nofollow">Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle</A><BR/><BR/>If anyone is interested in a calm, rational look at climate this 15 page report, written by a geologist, will be quite refreshing.<BR/><BR/> ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<BR/><BR/>In my four decades of research into the evolution of the Earth, always with strong environmental connotations, I was almost exclusively financed by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). In the last decade, particularly relevant to this article, the research was supported by two major sources, the top research award of the DFG (Leibniz Prize endowed with 3 million DM) and the support of the Research Chair in "Earth System" financed jointly by NSERC and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIAR). The donors to CIAR include Noranda and Dr. G.G. Hatch, with the sponsorship based on an arms' length relationship via CIAR and NSERC.<BR/><BR/>Personally, this last decade has been a trying period because of the years of internal struggle between what I wanted to believe and where the empirical record and its logic were leading me. This article is clearly not a comprehensive review of the alternatives, partly because of space limitations, but also because the case for the alternatives was eloquently argued elsewhere (e.g., IPCC, 2001). It is rather a plea for some reflection in our clamour for over-simplified beliefs and solutions in the face of the climate conundrum. Due to space considerations, the article also does not explore the potential role that the lethal CRF may have played in the evolution of life, as a cause of extinctions and/or mutations. And above all, this article is not a discussion of Kyoto, a treaty with social, economic and political aims, but a scientific treatise of the past climate record. Time will rule on its validity, but in the meantime I ask that the discussion of its merits/demerits be confined to scientific ways and means.<BR/>============<BR/>If that's even possible anymore.Saladinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11756928226921879640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-35194389830121746002007-03-19T10:47:00.000-06:002007-03-19T10:47:00.000-06:00All this hype is based on nothing but predictions,...<I>All this hype is based on nothing but predictions, they do not know anything for sure. The only real thing is that millions and millions of people in third world countries are suffering and will die in the most horrid and wretched poverty because of lack of the most basic technology, electricity. - Saladin </I><BR/><BR/>It seems to me that prediction is, after all, the raison d'etre, of science. The ability to predict the outcome of an experiment, and repeat that outcome is what separates science from faith.<BR/><BR/>Scientific models are prepared with a mind of validating or rejecting them, and can be thought of as having ranges of probabilities, with some of those probabilities approaching zero, and others nearing 99.999%.<BR/><BR/>The funding of science, and the politics of science do play a role in which questions get asked and answered, and sometimes even how the questions are asked and answered, but, that is why the repetition of results is crucial to understandings of models.<BR/><BR/>All that does not alleviate third world poverty. Nor growing first world poverty, for that matter. Yet, climate change will not help alleviate poverty, either. The rising of the seas will inundate coastal areas, thew Inuit People are already losing their way of life on the tundra, desertification is robbing many areas of its fertile farmland, etc., etc. Water rights are becoming increasingly contested. Humanity had endured without electricity for countless millenia, but cannot endure without fresh water.<BR/><BR/>On another subject, Jackson Browne performed a couple of numbers, including the above posted, "Lives in the Balance." Ben Harper also did a couple of tunes, and then Ozomatli rocked the crowd for a good long set. <BR/><BR/>Not bad for a protest rally! And the police were pretty tolerant, even though it "<A HREF="http://sniff.numachi.com/pages/tiPOTLUCK.html" REL="nofollow">smelled like midnight on St. Mark's Place" </A>at times, much like the old days, there were no arrests here in La La Land, not like in <A HREF="http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coloradoconfidential.com%2FshowDiary.do%3FdiaryId%3D1646" REL="nofollow">Denver.</A>Robert Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770441579698726632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-48434991006351704002007-03-19T09:42:00.000-06:002007-03-19T09:42:00.000-06:00The Rutherford Institute The Late, Great America...The Rutherford Institute<BR/> <BR/>The Late, Great American Nation<BR/>By John W. Whitehead<BR/>3/1/2007<BR/><BR/> “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.” —James Madison<BR/><BR/>with the inclusion of a seemingly insignificant rider into the massive defense bill (the martial law section of the 591-page Defense Appropriations Act takes up just a few paragraphs), the Bush Administration has managed to weaken what the New York Times refers to as “two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty.” One is posse comitatus. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which limits a president’s domestic use of the military to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion where a state is violating federal law or depriving the people of their constitutional rights.<BR/><BR/>Under these new provisions, the president can now use the military as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.” According to the new law, Bush doesn’t even have to notify Congress of his intent to use military force against the American people—he just has to notify them once he has done so. The defense budget provision’s vague language leaves the doors wide open for rampant abuse. As writer Jane Smiley noted, “the introduction of these changes amounts, not to an attack on the Congress and the balance of power, but to a particular and concerted attack on the citizens of the nation. Bush is laying the legal groundwork to repeal even the appearance of democracy.”<BR/><BR/>The main reason we do not want the military patrolling our streets is that under martial law, the Bill of Rights becomes null and void. A standing army—something that propelled the early colonists into revolution—strips the American people of any vestige of freedom. Thus, if we were subject to martial law, there would be no rules, no protections, no judicial oversight and no elections. And unless these provisions are repealed, the president’s new power will be set in stone for future administrations to use—and abuse.<BR/><BR/>A fundamental principle of American government is to not trust public officials. But modern Americans, primed by television pablum and ignorant of their history, have a tendency to trust people in office simply because they appear to share a common faith, say the right things or come from a certain region of the country. But lest we forget, power has a tendency to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, the way this was handled proves that we cannot trust government officials. By sneaking this provision in as a rider to a larger bill, public debate and media attention were avoided. Had the provision been openly discussed and debated, there would have been opposition and outcry. And it most likely would have been soundly rejected. Instead, it was rushed through the Republican-controlled Congress prior to the elections and enacted into law.<BR/><BR/>The Founding Fathers would have literally been up in arms over Bush’s actions. They understood the dangers inherent in vesting power in a single person, which is exactly what this legislation purports to do. There’s no limit to what the president can now do: the “any condition” language opens the door for total power, a dictatorship. The people are left with no defense.<BR/>===========<BR/>They cannot be trusted. Any move they make to further restrict our freedom and liberty must be viewed under the harshest light, and whatever excuses they come up with to justify such moves, from global warming to terrorism, should be thoroughly dissected and rigorously scoured for truth.Saladinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11756928226921879640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-74700527930084548072007-03-19T09:07:00.000-06:002007-03-19T09:07:00.000-06:00Caution urged on climate 'risks'By Pallab GhoshSci...Caution urged on climate 'risks'<BR/>By Pallab Ghosh<BR/>Science correspondent, BBC News <BR/><BR/>Two leading UK climate researchers say some of their peers are "overplaying" the global warming message and risk confusing the public about the threat.<BR/><BR/>Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, both Royal Meteorological Society figures, are voicing their concern at a conference in Oxford.<BR/><BR/>They say some researchers make claims about possible future impacts that cannot be justified by the science.<BR/><BR/>The pair believe this damages the credibility of all climate scientists.<BR/><BR/>Both men hold the mainstream view on climate change - that human activity is the cause.<BR/><BR/>But they think catastrophism and the "Hollywoodisation" of weather and climate only work to create confusion in the public mind.<BR/><BR/>They argue for a more sober and reasoned explanation of the uncertainties about possible future changes in the Earth's climate.<BR/><BR/>Q&A: Climate change<BR/><BR/>As an example, they point to a recent statement from one of the foremost US science bodies - the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).<BR/><BR/>The association released a strongly worded statement at its last annual meeting in San Francisco in February which said: "As expected, intensification of droughts, heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies.<BR/><BR/>"These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible."<BR/><BR/>According to Professors Hardaker and Collier, this may well turn out to be true, but convincing evidence to back the claims has not yet emerged.<BR/><BR/>"It's certainly a very strong statement," Professor Collier told BBC News.<BR/><BR/>"I suspect it refers to evidence that hurricanes have increased as a result of global warming; but to make the blanket assumption that all extreme events are increasing is a bit too early yet."<BR/><BR/>'Scientific basis'<BR/><BR/>A former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, Professor Collier is concerned that the serious message about the real risks posed by global warming could be undermined by making premature claims.<BR/><BR/>"I think there is a good chance of that," he said. "We must guard against that - it would be very damaging.<BR/><BR/>"I've no doubt that global warming is occurring, but we don't want to undermine that case by crying wolf." <BR/>==============<BR/>All this hype is based on nothing but predictions, they do not know anything for sure. The only real thing is that millions and millions of people in third world countries are suffering and will die in the most horrid and wretched poverty because of lack of the most basic technology, electricity. They aren't allowed to have access to their own resources because of this global warming fear mongering, while at the same time the super rich elite, the ones braying the loudest about doom and gloom, do things like send the private jet back home to retrieve a favorite pair of high heels that were forgotten. And hillary, another doomsdayer, admits that we must remain in the ME to secure our oil interests. It's apparently a global holocaust for everyone but them.Saladinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11756928226921879640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-25300198828568303292007-03-19T08:52:00.000-06:002007-03-19T08:52:00.000-06:00Capt, that is the most idiotic excuse I've ever he...Capt, that is the most idiotic excuse I've ever heard! There is already nothing BUT chaos, how could it possibly get any worse? And you're right about the dems, they better get it together, and soon, playing the political card by waiting to withdraw troops until mid-2008 will not go unnoticed as the corrupt move that it is. People are dying, using that blood as a game piece to gain control is the most vile, despicable act they could come up with.Saladinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11756928226921879640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-80132153384902311842007-03-19T08:48:00.000-06:002007-03-19T08:48:00.000-06:00"Well-documented and terrifying review of the scie..."Well-documented and terrifying review of the scientific evidence supporting claims that Earth teeters on the edge of climatic precipice...<BR/>==========<BR/>Oh brother, all this extreme fear-mongering is going to backfire, even people who believe it are saying so.Saladinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11756928226921879640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-51645020505540849102007-03-18T23:16:00.000-06:002007-03-18T23:16:00.000-06:00Murtha: "Why would I believe" Cheney?On Late Editi...<A HREF="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/18/murtha-why-would-i-believe-cheney/" REL="nofollow"><B>Murtha: "Why would I believe" Cheney?</B></A><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>On Late Edition this morning, Wolf asked Jack Murtha for his response to Dick Cheney's charge that a withdrawal from Iraq would result in chaos.<BR/><BR/> <A HREF="http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/15415/1/LateEdition-Murtha-Cheney.wmv" REL="nofollow">Download (WMV)</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/15415/2/LateEdition-Murtha-Cheney.mov" REL="nofollow">Download (MOV)</A><BR/><BR/><BR/>MURTHA: Why would I believe that? I mean, all the things that they have predicted have — everything I predicted turned out to be true. Nothing they predicted turned out to be true. Why would I believe there's going to be chaos in the Middle East just because they say it? The Iraqis don't believe that. The countries on the periphery don't believe that and the public doesn't believe it. The public wants us out. They spoke in the last election.<BR/><BR/>Granted this seems like the obvious answer, but among America's political punditry elite, those who have consistently been wrong about everything (Cheney, Ledeen, etc.) are <A HREF="http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/proven-wisdom.html" REL="nofollow">still regarded as experts</A>, whereas those who were correct the entire time (Murtha, Dean, Gore, etc.) are considered <A HREF="http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-is-being-right-or-wrong-on-iraq-so.html" REL="nofollow">unserious no-nothing hacks</A> who should be ignored.<BR/><BR/>This reminds me of an <A HREF="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17378926/page/4/" REL="nofollow">exchange</A> Tim Russert had with Lindsay Graham two weeks ago. To his credit, Timmeh hit the nail on the head:<BR/><BR/><I>MR. RUSSERT: But many Americans will say that those who supported the war are saying, "Trust us, see this through," the same people who said, "There are weapons of mass destruction. General Shinseki’s wrong, we don’t need hundreds of thousands of troops. We will be greeted as liberators."<BR/><BR/>SEN. GRAHAM: Mm-hmm.<BR/><BR/>MR. RUSSERT: "The cost of the war," according to Lawrence Lindsey, "won’t be more than $200 billion." "There won’t be any sectarian violence." All those judgments were wrong. <B>Why should the American people continue to belive in those same people who had so many misjudgments leading up and executing the war?</B></I><BR/><BR/>The answer, of course, is we shouldn't.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/18/murtha-why-would-i-believe-cheney/" REL="nofollow">More HERE</A>capthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04541180524537586259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8529911467686742944.post-48866803228440510232007-03-18T21:56:00.000-06:002007-03-18T21:56:00.000-06:00At quizopolis.com, they have a "How Will I Die" qu...At quizopolis.com, they have a "How Will I Die" quiz. I took it, and found out I will die at 99, of sexual exhaustion. <BR/><BR/>This just in: KSM confessed to shaving Britney's head, among other regions. :)Ivory Bill Woodpeckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01318699512583970467noreply@blogger.com