Portrait of the average American voter...
Mark˛
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
David J. Littleboy
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Mark˛
Oh, now now...
The "Average" voter is just as much Republican as Democrat...
Mark˛
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
>>
>> Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???
>>
>> David J. Littleboy
>>
>> Tokyo, Japan
>
> Oh, now now...
> The "Average" voter is just as much Republican as Democrat...
Mostly, I just wanted an excuse to post today's shot of this very cute
little gorilla...
David J. Littleboy
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
>>
>> Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???
>
> The "Average" voter is just as much Republican as Democrat...
You should have used a picture of a sloth, since the "average voter" was too
lazy to vote. (Turnout was over 40%, which was high for a non-presidential
election, but even in presidential years it barely squeaks over 50%.)
Michael Johnson, PE
> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
>>> Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???
>> Oh, now now...
>> The "Average" voter is just as much Republican as Democrat...
>
> You should have used a picture of a sloth, since the "average voter" was too
> lazy to vote. (Turnout was over 40%, which was high for a non-presidential
> election, but even in presidential years it barely squeaks over 50%.)
When it comes to voting, even the Iraqis put us to shame and they vote
under the threat of death.
Andrew MacPherson
> Turnout was over 40%
That's pretty depressing under the circumstances. However gerrymandering
(by both sides) over the years probably means most voters in most places
don't need to vote. I suspect the turnout in the swing States may be
significantly higher.
There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
they represent.
Andrew McP
David J. Littleboy
> dav...@gol.com (David J. Littleboy) wrote:
>
>> Turnout was over 40%
>
> That's pretty depressing under the circumstances. However gerrymandering
> (by both sides) over the years probably means most voters in most places
> don't need to vote. I suspect the turnout in the swing States may be
> significantly higher.
But that's only true of the House. For statewide and national races (and
referenda), you still have to vote.
> There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
> are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
> be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
> they represent.
Massachusetts was interesting in that one candidate used her personal wealth
and the other capped contributions at US$500, so neither had interest group
problems.
David J. Littleboy
Not completely jaded, yet, in
Tokyo, Japan
Nobody
<dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>and the other capped contributions at US$500, so neither had interest group
>problems.
I wouldn't give any politician a cent.
Ron Hunter
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sorry, but the person pictured looks a bit too young to vote here.
Try again.
Ron Hunter
No, unhappy a whole new batch got IN. Better the devil you know than
the devil you don't.
Ron Hunter
I often don't vote for specific offices if I know that my wife and I
will vote for opposite candidates, we both just stay home. I suspect
this is pretty widespread among married couples. There were about 30
races on my ballot that were uncontested, so why mess with them? For
the contested issues/offices my wife and I voted for the same ones more
often than not, so both of us voted. ALL the candidates/issues I voted
for won. Can't do better than that.
ASAAR
>> There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
>> are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
>> be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
>> they represent.
>
> I often don't vote for specific offices if I know that my wife and I
> will vote for opposite candidates, we both just stay home. I suspect
> this is pretty widespread among married couples. There were about 30
> races on my ballot that were uncontested, so why mess with them? For
> the contested issues/offices my wife and I voted for the same ones more
> often than not, so both of us voted. ALL the candidates/issues I voted
> for won. Can't do better than that.
If you don't care for the unhealthy lock the two major parties
have on elections (they control who is allowed in presidential
debates, among other things), it would be beneficial to vote for the
same candidates that you would otherwise vote for, but cast your
vote using alternate parties when the candidates appear on multiple
lines. At least in some states, if minority parties collect more
than some specified number of votes they'll automatically be
included on the next election ballot. Staying home in cases where
two votes would cancel each other out only helps the repo-men and
the demons. :)
Peter A. Stavrakoglou
news:eiukl8$6lg$1...@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
>
> Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???
For a bigger bunch of sleazes.
Skip
news:memo.20061109084911.3620C@address_disguised.address_disguised...
One of the primary reasons I sometimes have a problem getting motivated to
vote is that, most times, I have a real objection to both of the major
parties' candidates, and I hate to feel that my vote is wasted by casting it
for one of the minor, unlikely-to-be-elected, parties, like the Peace and
Freedom or Green.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
Jer
No such thing as a wasted vote.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Ron Hunter
First, the debates are NOT run by the parties, but by TV networks, who
are solely responsible for choosing the parties represented.
Second, how can offsetting votes benefit, or harm either repo-men, or
demons (should you believe in such)?
SMS
> First, the debates are NOT run by the parties, but by TV networks, who
> are solely responsible for choosing the parties represented.
True, but often the major parties set conditions under which they will
participate, and one of the conditions is that the minor parties are not
allowed to participate.
SMS
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
I was very involved with a local ballot measure, and I have to say that
my 20D, and Canon G2, played a big part in our overwhelming victory over
the evil-doer developers, who outspent us about 50 to 1.
Our mailers were awesome, with photographs and comics rather than
excessive text, while the evil-doers must have decided to run their
campaign without any campaign consultant as their mailers were horrible.
Compelling photographs make the difference between someone who tosses
the mailer in the recycle bin without a glance, versus someone that
actually looks at it for two seconds before tossing it.
ASAAR
>> If you don't care for the unhealthy lock the two major parties
>> have on elections (they control who is allowed in presidential
>> debates, among other things), it would be beneficial to vote for the
>> same candidates that you would otherwise vote for, but cast your
>> vote using alternate parties when the candidates appear on multiple
>> lines. At least in some states, if minority parties collect more
>> than some specified number of votes they'll automatically be
>> included on the next election ballot. Staying home in cases where
>> two votes would cancel each other out only helps the repo-men and
>> the demons. :)
>
>
> First, the debates are NOT run by the parties, but by TV networks, who
> are solely responsible for choosing the parties represented.
I'm not an expert on this, but I recall reading or hearing that
whereas at one time an independent organization (League of Women
Voters?) managed the big televised presidential debates, at some
point, control of debate rules, such as who is allowed to
participate in the debate passed to a coalition of people drawn only
from the Republican and Democratic parties. The TV networks may be
responsible for selecting venues or moderators, but not who is
actually allowed to participate in the debates. I'm sure that
someone else hear knows the real debate details, but if nobody
settles the issue, wait for the next presidential election and
someone, somewhere will probably explain all . . .
> Second, how can offsetting votes benefit, or harm either repo-men, or
> demons (should you believe in such)?
If, for instance, I wanted to vote for Elliot Spitzer for NY's
Governor, who appeared on several lines, and I wanted to help one of
the smaller parties, I wouldn't set the lever (NY still used big,
clunky mechanical machines this year) for him under the Democratic
line, but would choose one of the others that he appeared on, such
as Green Party, Independence Party, Home Workers Party, etc. When
Mayor Bloomberg ran, I believe that he ran on both the Republican
and Conservative lines. It's not that votes cast via the minor
parties would actually harm the R and D parties so much as it would
help the minor parties, some of which might not be able to appear on
succeeding ballots if they don't amass enough votes.
Ron Hunter
If so, then the network should just tell them to not show up as they are
running the debates, NOT the party.
Of course, that would demand 'journalistic integrity', which is in short
supply these days.
Andrew MacPherson
> Of course, that would demand 'journalistic integrity', which is
> in short supply these days.
I think journalists are no different to politicians. You have to study
their past (and their sponsors) before you can judge their present
position. That's why I tend to trust some (mainly BBC here in the UK)
correspondents whose work I've followed for a long time. I imagine every
nation has similar names whose historical works gives you good grounds
to trust their present work.
Andrew McP
Ron Hunter
Well, we thought we did, then Dan Rather abandoned his objectivity, and
ethics, in order to pursue a personal vendetta. Pretty sad.
Raphael Bustin
wrote:
>Well, we thought we did, then Dan Rather abandoned his objectivity, and
>ethics, in order to pursue a personal vendetta. Pretty sad.
Rather's ethics, on a bad day, exceed those
of anyone that ever appeared on Fox News --
on a good day.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Annika1980
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
So where did you get that pic of GW Bush?
Annika1980
Ron Hunter wrote:
> > Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???
> >
>
> the devil you don't.
I suppose if that were true Saddam would still be in power.
Ron Hunter
If you evidence, of similar abuses by Fox news persons, by all means
trot it out. I am sure CBS, NBC, and ABC would love to see it.
Ron Hunter
George sure looks young in that picture. Must have been in his hairy
college days....
Raphael Bustin
wrote:
>Pure, unadulterated lies. Same as Rather put out.
>If you evidence, of similar abuses by Fox news persons, by all means
>trot it out. I am sure CBS, NBC, and ABC would love to see it.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Raphael Bustin
wrote:
Good one, Brett.
This became obivous during this summer's conflagration
in Lebanon, where the US punditry was wringing their
hands and wishing for a "Sunni strongman" to counter
the evil, Shiite (Iranian-backed) Hezbolla.
There was such a "Sunni strongman," but he's just
been convicted and slated for execution.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Ron Hunter
Interesting, a website dedicated to trashing ONLY the errors of
CONSERVATIVE news organizations. Seems to me the journalists would be
interested in EVERYONE'S integrity, rather than watching only ONE SIDE
for errors. Does this mean that liberals don't make errors, or that
theirs just don't count?
Mark˛
I was walking near the Gorilla exhibit at the San Diego Zoo...when...BING!
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark˛ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
Mark˛
You've been assimilated, Rafe.
Greg "_"
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> Interesting, a website dedicated to trashing ONLY the errors of
> CONSERVATIVE news organizations. Seems to me the journalists would be
> interested in EVERYONE'S integrity, rather than watching only ONE SIDE
> for errors. Does this mean that liberals don't make errors, or that
> theirs just don't count?
The rhetoric & waste of the far right is driving moderates and true
social conservatives like me - out of the Party (possibly for good) the
evidence was clear on Tuesday.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.
rafe b
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:sMCdndmCo540AcnY...@giganews.com...
> Interesting, a website dedicated to trashing ONLY the errors of
> CONSERVATIVE news organizations. Seems to me the journalists would be
> interested in EVERYONE'S integrity, rather than watching only ONE SIDE for
> errors. Does this mean that liberals don't make errors, or that theirs
> just don't count?
Gee, what "liberal news organizations" did you have in mind, Ron?
If you're thinking CNN, WaPo, NY Times, you'll find plenty of
dirt there (at mediamatters.org) -- though I'd argue about them
being "liberal."
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
rafe b
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:ha15h.11354$_k4....@newsfe15.phx...
> You've been assimilated, Rafe.
Yes it does appear that you and William are dealing
with a different reality than mine.
The good news (from where I sit) is that mine seems
to be back in fashion, at least for the moment.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
BJ in Texas
|| "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
||
||| http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
||
|| Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???
||
|| Tokyo, Japan
All they did was put the other crooks and sleazes in.... :-)
--
--
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of
government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow
operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com
http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html
http://home.swbell.net/bjtexas/SS/
BJ in Texas
|| On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:12:41 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
|| <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
||
||| and the other capped contributions at US$500, so neither had
||| interest group problems.
||
|| I wouldn't give any politician a cent.
They steal enough to more than make up for it.... :-)
Michael Johnson, PE
Never doubt the ability of any political party to f#*k up a good thing.
All I know is if the Democrats let the far left run a muck their stay
at the top will be short lived. They took control of the House and
Senate by running a large number of conservative Democrats. Overall, I
would say the makeup of Congress did vary little tilting to the left.
It will be interesting to see how well Nancy and Harry can keep a lid on
these new conservative Democrats that were just elected.
IMO, the Democrats are one good tax increase and/or terrorist attack
inside our borders from playing second fiddle again. Either way, the
freak show will continue for another two years.
Michael Johnson, PE
> In article <sMCdndmCo540AcnY...@giganews.com>,
> Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Interesting, a website dedicated to trashing ONLY the errors of
>> CONSERVATIVE news organizations. Seems to me the journalists would be
>> interested in EVERYONE'S integrity, rather than watching only ONE SIDE
>> for errors. Does this mean that liberals don't make errors, or that
>> theirs just don't count?
>
> The rhetoric & waste of the far right is driving moderates and true
> social conservatives like me - out of the Party (possibly for good) the
> evidence was clear on Tuesday.
The Republicans have forgot why their past voters sent them to
Washington in the first place. From a spending perspective they are no
better, and maybe even worse than, liberal Democrats. I think the
conservative base is tired of being promised one thing and then having
them deliver the opposite. Add to this Bush's inflexibility in changing
our war strategy in Iraq and it isn't hard to figure out why they are
now sitting in the back of the bus. Also, Rove and company went to the
9/11 well once too often. People are looking for fresh ideas and not
old fear mongering rhetoric. It is sad how devoid Democrats and
Republicans are of any new ideas or the willingness to tackle the real
problems facing us like the solvency of Social Security and the annual
budget deficit.
I hope that one day the country will wake up and realize they (both
parties) are the real problem we have and sway toward independents that
have no party alignment, only ideas to solve our problems. Trouble is
that once a politician gets a taste of power, they will sell their
ideological soul to keep it. The only cure I see for this is binding
term limits via a Constitutional amendment.
Mark˛
Nothing about the Dems is actually in fashion at all...save for bitching and
moaning.
The Dems aren't there because people voted FOR ideas. They voted against
their opponent.
This is highly problematic, because now...what are Dems to actually do?
They've got no platform of reform.
Greg "_"
"rafe b" <ra...@foobar.com> wrote:
I've been considering reregistering as Independent or maybe with the
green party. In any event I've been recently advocating doing away with
the primary elections. By doing so maybe less wasted money and more focus
on valid issues. The other thought is why does the populous need be
affiliated at all with a party,....with not just select the candidate
that represents your views - and be done with it once.....and for all.
David J. Littleboy
"Michael Johnson, PE" <c...@erols.com> wrote:
> It is sad how devoid Democrats and Republicans are of any new ideas or the
> willingness to tackle the real problems facing us like the solvency of
> Social Security and the annual budget deficit.
Clinton was doing just fine on the budget deficit bit (as was that crazed
radical Howard Dean in his home state), and Social Security is pretty easy
too. Simply remove the cap on the tax so that people who earn over $100,000
pay the same percentage the rest of us do. (Social Security isn't all that
insolvent; the cost of the Iraq war would fix Social Security for the next
100 years several times over.)
Interestingly, I'm not the only one suggesting removing the cap on the
Social Security Tax.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12203
Greg "_"
"Michael Johnson, PE" <c...@erols.com> wrote:
I think of the Black Sabbath War Pigs song.
> The only cure I see for this is binding
> term limits via a Constitutional amendment.
A very accurate assessment overall.
But adding beyond the last sentence....limits on income full disclosure
of yearly earnings....no paid trips by lobbying groups from overseas
interests, and no government pensions beyond an equal amount of years
served away from public sector jobs.
rafe b
"Michael Johnson, PE" <c...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:Mq6dnXbsWp2fUMnY...@giganews.com...
> They took control of the House and Senate by running a large number of
> conservative Democrats. Overall, I would say the makeup of Congress did
> vary little tilting to the left.
That's just not so. This is yet another right wing spin
on why they (the right wing) lost this time around.
Webb is no screeching fundie, born-again gay-basher,
and neither is Tester. They're both very much mainstream
and "center-left" -- the sort of values that quite a few Americans
proudly held before Nixon, Reagan and Gingrich managed to
turn "liberal" into an epithet.
Tester is pro-choice. Supports stem cell research. Wants
the Patriot Act repealed. Wants Social Security preserved.
Wants the minimum wage increased. Some conservative!
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Andrew MacPherson
> "As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more
> closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal.
> On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach
> their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by
> a downright moron."
> - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.
Alastair Cooke's broadcasting introduced me to Mencken, and I learned to
respect his wisdom on a lot of things. That's not a quote I was
familiar with, but it would appear to be terrifyingly clairvoyant.
Andrew McP
Michael Johnson, PE
The solution isn't only raising taxes. You can't raise them enough to
make a difference and besides it is a self defeating exercise.
Stagnating the economy will only slow the growth of revenue to
government. The amount of entitlements has to be reduced. Take
reduction of entitlements off the table and we might as well cut to the
chase and embrace socialism right now.
Do you really think removing the income cap on SS tax will result in
that money actually being spent on SS? Has it ever happened in the
past? There's no chance in hell it will happen in the future. The only
way to keep a politician from spending money like a drunken sailor is to
never give it to them. That applies to Republicans AND Democrats. All
the government has done since WWII is raise taxes and spend money as a
solution to nearly every problem. I don't see where we have come close
to getting what we have paid for or been promised.
Greg "_"
"rafe b" <ra...@foobar.com> wrote:
> Tester is pro-choice. Supports stem cell research. Wants
> the Patriot Act repealed. Wants Social Security preserved.
> Wants the minimum wage increased. Some conservative!
>
>
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com
Being conservative means being fiscally responsible regardless of what
sundry programs you advocate. By nature 85-90% of either party are not
conservative. & for that matter decreasing so are most Americans"which
is the problem".
I love the American people and the American dream but a lot of us are
spoiled children without a sense of being able to do without.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.
Greg "_"
<memo.20061110212708.1276C@address_disguised.address_disguised>,
andre...@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com (Andrew MacPherson) wrote:
>
> Alastair Cooke's broadcasting introduced me to Mencken, and I learned to
> respect his wisdom on a lot of things. That's not a quote I was
> familiar with, but it would appear to be terrifyingly clairvoyant.
>
> Andrew McP
The one part of his history I am not however impressed with, was he was
an Atheist. Everything in moderation I say.
Still wisdom is just that, regardless of how it gets forged.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.
Michael Johnson, PE
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <c...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:Mq6dnXbsWp2fUMnY...@giganews.com...
>
>> They took control of the House and Senate by running a large number of
>> conservative Democrats. Overall, I would say the makeup of Congress did
>> vary little tilting to the left.
>
>
> That's just not so. This is yet another right wing spin
> on why they (the right wing) lost this time around.
Spin? Not from me. Look at the positions many of these "new"
Congressmen hold. They are very near the center and in some cases to
the right of center. If they turn too liberal they will become
one-term-wonders in 2008.
> Webb is no screeching fundie, born-again gay-basher,
> and neither is Tester. They're both very much mainstream
> and "center-left" -- the sort of values that quite a few Americans
> proudly held before Nixon, Reagan and Gingrich managed to
> turn "liberal" into an epithet.
>
> Tester is pro-choice. Supports stem cell research. Wants
> the Patriot Act repealed. Wants Social Security preserved.
> Wants the minimum wage increased. Some conservative!
That is two out of the 27 seats gained. There are quite a few that are
far to the right of Nancy. Hell, most people in Congress, and the
country, are far to the right of her. In she wants to be an effect
Speaker then she will have to move to the right because she won't be
able to move every Democrat to her far left perch. I doubt it will be
long before the Democrats are fighting each other more than they are
fighting the Republicans. Don't forget all the political maneuvering to
be done for the presidential primaries that will further split both
parties.
Here's my prediction..... the moderates of both parties will be the ones
to really control Congress the next two years. Without them the far
left and far right will get nothing done. Either this or grid lock will
be the norm.
Michael Johnson, PE
If the Democrats do what they are itching to do (i.e. raise taxes,
increase spending and gut the military) then their reign at the top will
be very short. Say about two years.
Bill Funk
OK, you point to a site that describes itself as "Progressive" ("Media
Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3)
progressive research and information center dedicated to
comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative
misinformation in the U.S. media"), but provide nothing that would
answer Ron's question.
See, if you want to answer such a questuon, you need to provide an
*unbiased* source. A site that is self-described as biased won't cut
it.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Greg "_"
"Michael Johnson, PE" <c...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=1220
> > 3
>
> The solution isn't only raising taxes. You can't raise them enough to
> make a difference and besides it is a self defeating exercise.
> Stagnating the economy will only slow the growth of revenue to
> government. The amount of entitlements has to be reduced. Take
> reduction of entitlements off the table and we might as well cut to the
> chase and embrace socialism right now.
Socialism is not bad in a true form, but then so are all the Moral
Ideologies-Like Democracy or in our case Capitolism. Problem is
unbridled greed which since the beginning of society has lead to
greater societies than the USA falling, ours a society of a few hundred
versus a thousand years here and there.
>
> Do you really think removing the income cap on SS tax will result in
> that money actually being spent on SS?
Nope-nice thought though.
>Has it ever happened in the
> past? There's no chance in hell it will happen in the future. The only
> way to keep a politician from spending money like a drunken sailor is to
> never give it to them.
I vote for castration :)
> That applies to Republicans AND Democrats. All
> the government has done since WWII is raise taxes and spend money as a
> solution to nearly every problem.
And fight worthless wars which the motivations have been seriously
questionable.
> I don't see where we have come close
> to getting what we have paid for or been promised.
I like to think there are a lot of people with morals in the US,
but when I drive 10 miles an hour over the speed limit and I have people
wizing past me clearly going 30 over, I really question even that.
Then there is the issue of those compelled to teach us a lesson by
driving at or below the posted limit. Not so much problem of at the
limit, but still something which indicates a lack of consideration and
moderation.
rafe b
"Bill Funk" <Big...@there.com> wrote in message
news:h0v9l2lfnuns2llq5...@4ax.com...
> See, if you want to answer such a questuon, you need to provide an
> *unbiased* source. A site that is self-described as biased won't cut it.
If I provide a transcript of Bill O'Reilly saying
something false or stupid, there's no bias in that.
It's simply Bill O'Reilly saying something false or
stupid -- no more and no less.
You want to call me "biased" for picking on poor
Bill O'Reilly, by all means -- guilty as charged.
But that doesn't make O'Reilly's remark any
less false or stupid. Capiche?
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
rafe b
> Here's my prediction..... the moderates of both parties will be the ones
> to really control Congress the next two years. Without them the far left
> and far right will get nothing done. Either this or grid lock will be the
> norm.
Moderation would be a good thing, IMO.
Oh, how I'd love a bit of moderation.
Moderation is what the voters asked for.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Michael Johnson, PE
> In article <N8SdnXwpjIxIc8nY...@giganews.com>,
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <c...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>> http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=1220
>>> 3
>> The solution isn't only raising taxes. You can't raise them enough to
>> make a difference and besides it is a self defeating exercise.
>> Stagnating the economy will only slow the growth of revenue to
>> government. The amount of entitlements has to be reduced. Take
>> reduction of entitlements off the table and we might as well cut to the
>> chase and embrace socialism right now.
>
> Socialism is not bad in a true form, but then so are all the Moral
> Ideologies-Like Democracy or in our case Capitolism. Problem is
> unbridled greed which since the beginning of society has lead to
> greater societies than the USA falling, ours a society of a few hundred
> versus a thousand years here and there.
Socialism has been tried in many countries with very poor results. It
generally never works over time. If government sticks to its roll of
throttling back capitalism judiciously then everything works fine. The
trick is to promote competition while preventing monopolies.
Personally, I see socialism going to hard against the laws of nature to
be successful for the long term. It reduces economic freedom for the
individual and removes the incentive to innovate and work hard.
As for society falling, it will happen eventually. Hell, the human race
will disappear eventually, for that matter. It really makes me chuckle
to hear all the global warming fanatics scream about stopping it dead in
its tracks. All of a sudden controlling Mother Nature is a good thing.
We have as much a chance of stopping climate change as we do of
controlling the wobble of Earth's axis or stopping solar flares and
volcanic eruptions.
>> Do you really think removing the income cap on SS tax will result in
>> that money actually being spent on SS?
>
> Nope-nice thought though.
>
>> Has it ever happened in the
>> past? There's no chance in hell it will happen in the future. The only
>> way to keep a politician from spending money like a drunken sailor is to
>> never give it to them.
>
> I vote for castration :)
>
>> That applies to Republicans AND Democrats. All
>> the government has done since WWII is raise taxes and spend money as a
>> solution to nearly every problem.
>
> And fight worthless wars which the motivations have been seriously
> questionable.
It is difficult to tell if a war was worthless because you never will
know the future results of not fighting it. One could argue that the
Mexican, Spanish-American, Korean, Vietnam, Iraq I and Iraq II wars were
all worthless. I don't presume I am all-knowing and am able to decide
one way or the other. Unfortunately, we rarely have the moral clarity
of fighting a war like we had during WWII. That looks to be a rare
occurrence.
>> I don't see where we have come close
>> to getting what we have paid for or been promised.
>
> I like to think there are a lot of people with morals in the US,
> but when I drive 10 miles an hour over the speed limit and I have people
> wizing past me clearly going 30 over, I really question even that.
> Then there is the issue of those compelled to teach us a lesson by
> driving at or below the posted limit. Not so much problem of at the
> limit, but still something which indicates a lack of consideration and
> moderation.
I believe most people are good otherwise we would have no societal
structure at all. I think most people want to obey certain laws and
social rules but also want their maximum freedom within those
constraints. I take issue when the government tries to dictate certain
moral and philosophical behavior beyond the minimum necessary to promote
a healthy and secure society. The liberals are just as guilty of doing
this as are the conservatives. Social and economic freedom go hand in
hand and, IMO, your can't have one without the other.
Michael Johnson, PE
Better yet why not use his own words and thoughts instead of providing a
link? Trouble is many people can't articulate a political position on
their own. They can only reference the words of another. IMO, they
can't defend their views using their own original thoughts because they
don't have any. People from both sides use this tactic so it isn't just
an affliction of some liberal usenet debaters.
Michael Johnson, PE
I think that is what we are going to get, or at least the closest thing
to it. Gridlock isn't bad either as an alternative.
Volker Hetzer
> It really makes me chuckle
> to hear all the global warming fanatics scream about stopping it dead in
> its tracks. All of a sudden controlling Mother Nature is a good thing.
> We have as much a chance of stopping climate change as we do of
> controlling the wobble of Earth's axis or stopping solar flares and
> volcanic eruptions.
Any evidence for it?
Volker
Michael Johnson, PE
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>> It really makes me chuckle to hear all the global warming fanatics
>> scream about stopping it dead in its tracks. All of a sudden
>> controlling Mother Nature is a good thing.
> That's not their point. Controlling ourselves is.
Like it or not we are part of nature. If we screw up and disappear as a
result, the world will go on just fine. Mother Nature has taken, and
bounced back from, far worse hits that anything we can deliver. We are
just a itch on her backside. Look at the climate change that has
occurred in different parts of the world in the last 10,000 years. It
wasn't the result of burning oil. Even if the current changes happening
now is a result of burning fossil fuels, climate change is the norm and
not the exception. Look at all the underwater ruins that were once high
and dry if you want don't believe climate change has already greatly
affected mankind. It won't be any different in the future.
>> We have as much a chance of stopping climate change as we do of
>> controlling the wobble of Earth's axis or stopping solar flares and
>> volcanic eruptions.
> Any evidence for it?
Evidence of what? The Earth's axis has a wobble, the sun has solar
flares and volcanoes erupt. They all have drastic effects on the global
climate. Humans won't stop burning oil until it is gone or a cheaper
energy alternative is found. It will be 50-100 years, at a minimum,
before either of these scenarios happen.
Floyd L. Davidson
An astounding statement. How can it be that the Democrats are
the ones blamed for high taxes, when it was the Republicans who
set us up for an extremely high national debt, which
accomplished *nothing* for the country other than making the
rich richer and the poor poorer.
"Gut the military" is another odd concept... you apparently
think that having 3000 soldiers killed and 10,000 seriously
wounded is okay. I think *that* is gutting the military, and I
would hope that future leaders will provide leadership that
actually does respect our military by *not* wasting thier lives
on ways to give money to Haliburton.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Michael Johnson, PE
Like I said, and you are confirming, they are itching to raise taxes.
Do they need a valid reason? Of course not. They have been doing it
for the last 60 years. Expecting otherwise is like trying to teach a
lion living on the African savanna to become a vegetarian. You are
promoting the classic liberal agenda.... tax us all into having the same
standard of living. BTW, they call that socialism and it doesn't work.
> "Gut the military" is another odd concept... you apparently
> think that having 3000 soldiers killed and 10,000 seriously
> wounded is okay. I think *that* is gutting the military, and I
> would hope that future leaders will provide leadership that
> actually does respect our military by *not* wasting thier lives
> on ways to give money to Haliburton.
So I guess the comment I made about gutting the military is not in
dispute? A large part of the reason we are in our current mess is
because Clinton, Kerry and pals gutted the CIA and hog tied what was
left during the 1990s. We could have, and should have, killed OBL long
ago and before he gained any momentum to commit the attacks on 9-11. In
the hay day of the CIA he wouldn't have wiped his a$$ without them
counting his hemorrhoids.
Face it, the Dems can't wait to get their hands on the defense budget,
not to reduce costs but, to divert it to their efforts in income
redistribution and buying future votes. Both sides play this angle.
Don't think I'm just picking on liberals. They just spend our money on
different things. Now that the Dems are in power, or will be shortly,
they just deserve more of my attention and deserved criticism.
Raphael Bustin
Davidson) wrote:
>An astounding statement. How can it be that the Democrats are
>the ones blamed for high taxes, when it was the Republicans who
>set us up for an extremely high national debt, which
>accomplished *nothing* for the country other than making the
>rich richer and the poor poorer.
>
>"Gut the military" is another odd concept... you apparently
>think that having 3000 soldiers killed and 10,000 seriously
>wounded is okay. I think *that* is gutting the military, and I
>would hope that future leaders will provide leadership that
>actually does respect our military by *not* wasting thier lives
>on ways to give money to Haliburton.
Maybe military service should be a requirement for
public service, at least for high office (say, Congress
or President.)
That would have excluded Clinton, Reagan, and
Dubya.
On balance, I'll concede that Clinton didn't do
enough good to offset the damage done by
either of those other two clowns (let alone the
*sum* of the damage done.)
I have mixed feelings about mixing military and
civilian roles. OTOH, I'm utterly disgusted at the
way Dubya fancies himself a soldier when in fact
he evaded the service. For chrissake, he didn't
even finish the cushy stint that Daddy got for
him at the Texas Air National Guard.
Clinton and Reagan at least had the decency to
avoid strutting about like GI Joe and calling
themselves "Commander In Chief" or "War
President" at every opportunity. It's downright
distasteful, and an insult to those who really
did serve.
The purple bandaids stint was another one
that just leaves me in awe -- of the amazing
hubris and lack of shame among Dubya and
his admirers.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
John Turco
>
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
Hello, Mark²:
Why are you insulting our primate pals, anyway? <g>
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Mark˛
> "Mark²" wrote:
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
>>
>> --
>> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
>> www.pbase.com/markuson
>
>
> Hello, Mark²:
>
> Why are you insulting our primate pals, anyway? <g>
Ah.
I'll apologize to our gorilla friends next time I visit...
Andrew MacPherson
> The one part of his history I am not however impressed with, was he
> was an Atheist. Everything in moderation I say.
Ah well, to me that just adds to the great man's appeal. :-)
Andrew McP
Volker Hetzer
> Volker Hetzer wrote:
>> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>> It really makes me chuckle to hear all the global warming fanatics
>>> scream about stopping it dead in its tracks. All of a sudden
>>> controlling Mother Nature is a good thing.
>> That's not their point. Controlling ourselves is.
>
> Like it or not we are part of nature. If we screw up and disappear as a
> result, the world will go on just fine.
/not/ to screw up.
> Even if the current changes happening
> now is a result of burning fossil fuels, climate change is the norm and
> not the exception.
People die. That does not mean killing is the norm.
>>> We have as much a chance of stopping climate change as we do of
>>> controlling the wobble of Earth's axis or stopping solar flares and
>>> volcanic eruptions.
>> Any evidence for it?
>
> Evidence of what?
Of the statement you made.
Volker
Michael Johnson, PE
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>> Volker Hetzer wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>>> It really makes me chuckle to hear all the global warming fanatics
>>>> scream about stopping it dead in its tracks. All of a sudden
>>>> controlling Mother Nature is a good thing.
>>> That's not their point. Controlling ourselves is.
>>
>> Like it or not we are part of nature. If we screw up and disappear as
>> a result, the world will go on just fine.
> No one disputes that. Those "global warning fanatics" try to get you
> /not/ to screw up.
They don't know if we are indeed "screwing up". No one really knows. I
do know that science has become the tool of politicians and scientists
will whore themselves out to the highest bidder or to who provides the
largest grants or source of future funding revenue. It is sad that the
scientific community has come to their current state. It puts
everything they say in doubt whether it is correct or not.
The latest twist is that global warming will actually cause global
freezing! The Atlantic conveyor will stop because all the ice melts.
They have all the scenarios covered now. So what will it be? Global
warming or global cooling? Even a temperature DROP is a result of
global warming to these guys. They put their computer models together
like they are God themselves and know every aspect of what causes
climate change. In reality, the factors that total up and effect
climate change globally are more complex than any scientist, or
computer, can remotely hope to model or predict.
I can predict one thing with 100% accuracy..... the Earth is either
warming or cooling right this very second. Sounds no different than
what I hear from the global warming alarmists. BTW, hasn't several of
these people been the ones to predict back in the 1970s that we should
have burned up all the oil reserves at this point? Shouldn't the world
be a total hell hole by now? They have cried wolf so often that many
people just don't believe them anymore. I'll start worrying when they
say things are going well and the future looks rosy.
>> Even if the current changes happening now is a result of burning
>> fossil fuels, climate change is the norm and not the exception.
> People die. That does not mean killing is the norm.
>
>>>> We have as much a chance of stopping climate change as we do of
>>>> controlling the wobble of Earth's axis or stopping solar flares and
>>>> volcanic eruptions.
>>> Any evidence for it?
>>
>> Evidence of what?
> Of the statement you made.
See the previous post I made. I already gave you an answer. Just
because you don't like it and snip it out of you reply post doesn't mean
I need to repeat it. You question whether the global climate is
effected by the Earth's axis wobble, volcano eruptions and solar
fluctuation's but believe the current global warming hype without
question? You must be a politician or are looking for more funding revenue.
Raphael Bustin
<c...@erols.com> wrote:
>The latest twist is that global warming will actually cause global
>freezing! The Atlantic conveyor will stop because all the ice melts.
>They have all the scenarios covered now. So what will it be? Global
>warming or global cooling? Even a temperature DROP is a result of
>global warming to these guys. They put their computer models together
>like they are God themselves and know every aspect of what causes
>climate change. In reality, the factors that total up and effect
>climate change globally are more complex than any scientist, or
>computer, can remotely hope to model or predict.
>
>I can predict one thing with 100% accuracy..... the Earth is either
>warming or cooling right this very second. Sounds no different than
>what I hear from the global warming alarmists. BTW, hasn't several of
>these people been the ones to predict back in the 1970s that we should
>have burned up all the oil reserves at this point? Shouldn't the world
>be a total hell hole by now? They have cried wolf so often that many
>people just don't believe them anymore. I'll start worrying when they
>say things are going well and the future looks rosy.
That's why it's no longer called Global Warming, and hasn't been
for some time. It's called Climate Change. The best public info,
bar none, on that topic is here:
The possible shift in ocean currents -- the thermohaline
conveyors -- is real enough that the Pentagon has requested
a study of the potential effects. The PDF of that report is
online:
<http://www.astr.ua.edu/white/images/solarsys/earth/exec_pentagon.pdf>
There's a broad consensus among scientists that climate
change is real, and that it has a measurable, signifcant
anthropomorphic component. Find me one of those
scientific whores who claim otherwise, and there's a
99.9% probability that they're on the payroll of big oil,
a fossil fuel consortium, or similar lobby.
The good news is that James Inhofe will soon lose the
chairmanship of the Senate Committe on Environment
and Public Works. So said whores will soon lose that
particular forum for spewing their junk science.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Raphael Bustin
<ra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>The possible shift in ocean currents -- the thermohaline
>conveyors -- is real enough that the Pentagon has requested
>a study of the potential effects. The PDF of that report is
>online:
>
><http://www.astr.ua.edu/white/images/solarsys/earth/exec_pentagon.pdf>
I'm sorry, that wasn't quite the right URL. Here's one that mentions
the Pentagon report and provides an overview of the topic:
<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/abrupt-climate-change-faq.html>
In particular it describes how "global warming" might lead to
cooler climes (in certain locations) due to changes in thermohaline
circulation (aka ocean currents.) Here's another article on the same
topic, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution:
<http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=9986>
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Ray Fischer
>Skip wrote:
>> One of the primary reasons I sometimes have a problem getting motivated to
>> vote is that, most times, I have a real objection to both of the major
>> parties' candidates, and I hate to feel that my vote is wasted by casting it
>> for one of the minor, unlikely-to-be-elected, parties, like the Peace and
>> Freedom or Green.
>
>No such thing as a wasted vote.
Indeed. If the major parties start to see the Greens getting 10% of
the vote then you can bet they'll pay attention. Especially when so
many races are decided by less than that amount.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Mark˛ (lowest even number here) wrote:
>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
>
>So where did you get that pic of GW Bush?
That wasn't very nice. I'm sure that the young gorilla was actually
very nice.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Michael Johnson, PE
The studies may be right for all I know. The fact you are willing to
dismiss the opposite of your viewpoint makes me think this is more a
political position than a scientific one for you. My point is it
doesn't matter what the change is, mankind gets blamed for it and
disaster looms because of it. If the planet warms it is our fault and
if it cools it is our fault too.
I have read reports where the oceans have actually dumped much of the
heat they have built up, for whatever reason, and are cooling. For all
we know the Earth's carbon cycle will level everything out in the next
50 years. Many of these studies and predictions fail to include the
possible impacts from increased vegetation growth on land and in the
oceans and many other effects. All they can spout is the horrific
results of increased CO2 emissions. What about the positive results of
global warming? We never hear a word about this. Please don't tell me
there isn't an up side to it. It is the one sided doom and gloom that
is constantly rained down on us by the media that makes me see this as a
political maneuver and not good, accurate science.
As I stated earlier, we have heard nothing but doomsday predictions from
the environmentalists for the last fifty years. We should be dead, or
mankind at least on the ropes, several times over if any of it were
based in solid scientific fact. When I see a report on climate change
that gives all sides, i.e. the good and the bad, then I might take it
seriously. Until then, I see this whole debate as nothing more than a
political maneuver and a money grab.
Raphael Bustin
<c...@erols.com> wrote:
>The studies may be right for all I know. The fact you are willing to
>dismiss the opposite of your viewpoint makes me think this is more a
>political position than a scientific one for you. My point is it
>doesn't matter what the change is, mankind gets blamed for it and
>disaster looms because of it. If the planet warms it is our fault and
>if it cools it is our fault too.
Your blithe dismissal of the data is noted. Strange for someone
with "PE" ostentatiously appended to their name.
There is an *overwhelming* consensus, and a growing body
of evidence, that the global climate change we're currently
experiencing is of human origin (ie., anthropogenic.)
There is no credible counter-evidence.
Please read the technical summaries at the IPCC website.
I quote:
" Uncertainties in the estimated climate change signals have
made it difficult to attribute the observed climate change to
one specific combination of anthropogenic and natural
influences, but all studies have found a significant
anthropogenic contribution is required to account for
surface and tropospheric trends over at least the last
thirty years."
I don't see much uncertainty or ambiguity there. "All
studies" would seem to clinch it.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Michael Johnson, PE
Here is the mandate of the IPCC:
"Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the
UN and WMO."
Where does it say anything about the benefits of global warming. They
apparently have biased themselves to believe that global warming is only
a problem. This is just making my point for me. When an organization
has this one sided statement as their mandate I have to be skeptical of
what they want to push on the rest of us. Had they taken out the two
words "problem of" in the first sentence it would indicate, at least in
their mandate, they have no predetermined agenda. Global warming, or
cooling, is loaded with bad AND GOOD effects. When these supposedly
reputable people and groups include all the good in with the bad they
will get my attention. As I said, most scientists working on climate
modeling have decided to become tools for the politicians. This
destroys their credibility for the average person.
Here's a case in point. Remember 2005 Atlantic hurricane season when
the increased activity was touted to be a result of global warming and
we should get used to it? What happened this year? Nothing, nada. The
NOAA guys were bored to tears. Do we hear anything from the doomsday
scientists of last year about why we didn't get pounded this year? I
haven't read, or heard a thing. This year doesn't fit their science or
their agenda so they ignore it. It is this type of hypocrisy and
selective trumpeting by the media, environmental groups and
climatologists that gives me reason to be skeptical of them and
everything they push at us.
Mark˛
> Annika1980 <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Mark˛ (lowest even number here) wrote:
>>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
>>
>> So where did you get that pic of GW Bush?
>
> That wasn't very nice. I'm sure that the young gorilla was actually
> very nice.
I did sketch a quick picture of the Pres when he was in town:
http://upload.pbase.com/image/70077735/original
cjcampbell
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> >>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
> >>> Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???
> >> Oh, now now...
> >> The "Average" voter is just as much Republican as Democrat...
> >
> > You should have used a picture of a sloth, since the "average voter" was too
> > lazy to vote. (Turnout was over 40%, which was high for a non-presidential
> > election, but even in presidential years it barely squeaks over 50%.)
>
> When it comes to voting, even the Iraqis put us to shame and they vote
> under the threat of death.
Many people feel that voting validates the corrupt system. No matter
who you vote for, you are giving them permission to steal your
property, force you to fight their wars, and tell you how to live, what
to wear, what kind of house you live in, what kind of car you drive,
what kind of toothbrush you use, etc.
So some people refuse to vote, refusing to give anyone permission to do
those things.
If three guys get together and they rob a fourth guy, they call it
robbery. But if three million people agree to rob a fourth million,
they call it democracy. The difference between the robber and the
democracy is that the robber does not expect you to pledge your loyalty
to him, keep coming back to him to be robbed some more, defend his
property and family against other robbers, educate his children, and
pay his pension when he retires.
Raphael Bustin
Indiividual events don't prove much. Next year could be
different again. It was scientifically crude to "blame"
Katrina on climate change. The best one can say is that
storms like Katrina will become more frequent -- but one
can't predict individual storms (or even storm seasons)
with accuracy.
There are extreme flooding (precipitation) events going on
as we speak in the US northwest. 17" of rain in 36 hours
at Mt. Rainier. Rte. 35 (east of Mt. Hood) is under water.
Similar devastation at Glacier National Park.
This is consistent with climate change, but nobody's
calling it that, either.
You discount the WMO evidence, but you hedge your bets,
asking us to consider the potential *benefits* of climate
change. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Make up
your mind.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Toby
Toby
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:UlA4h.22529$3y3....@newsfe07.phx...
> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
Bill Funk
<christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Many people feel that voting validates the corrupt system. No matter
>who you vote for, you are giving them permission to steal your
>property, force you to fight their wars, and tell you how to live, what
>to wear, what kind of house you live in, what kind of car you drive,
>what kind of toothbrush you use, etc.
And the alternative is to let others make that decision for them.
>
>So some people refuse to vote, refusing to give anyone permission to do
>those things.
No, they let others give the permission.
Not voting doesn't mean others don't do those things, it means the
non-voters don't have a voice in who does those things.
>
>If three guys get together and they rob a fourth guy, they call it
>robbery. But if three million people agree to rob a fourth million,
>they call it democracy. The difference between the robber and the
>democracy is that the robber does not expect you to pledge your loyalty
>to him, keep coming back to him to be robbed some more, defend his
>property and family against other robbers, educate his children, and
>pay his pension when he retires.
Well, that's one way to look at things.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
Bill Funk
<firstname...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> We have as much a chance of stopping climate change as we do of
>> controlling the wobble of Earth's axis or stopping solar flares and
>> volcanic eruptions.
>Any evidence for it?
If you mean evidence that we can't stop climate change, yes...
We don't know what caused earler climate changes; ice ages, and their
following warming periods (from about 1300 to about 1850, we were in a
little ice age; we don't know why it started, or why it ended. That's
the latest example of our ignorance).
But, of course, we know what's causing *this* warming period.
Sure we do.
Michael Johnson, PE
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>>> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
>>>>> Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???
>>>> Oh, now now...
>>>> The "Average" voter is just as much Republican as Democrat...
>>> You should have used a picture of a sloth, since the "average voter" was too
>>> lazy to vote. (Turnout was over 40%, which was high for a non-presidential
>>> election, but even in presidential years it barely squeaks over 50%.)
>> When it comes to voting, even the Iraqis put us to shame and they vote
>> under the threat of death.
>
> Many people feel that voting validates the corrupt system. No matter
> who you vote for, you are giving them permission to steal your
> property, force you to fight their wars, and tell you how to live, what
> to wear, what kind of house you live in, what kind of car you drive,
> what kind of toothbrush you use, etc.
>
> So some people refuse to vote, refusing to give anyone permission to do
> those things.
I believe most non-voters just simply don't want to be bothered with it.
They use the excuse of "it won't make a difference in my life" to
justify their apathy. One thing that motivates me to vote is that many,
many people have died throughout our history to protect this right. I
also have many family members who have served, and are currently
serving, in the military. Two will be in Iraq this winter. I would
consider it a great disrespect to them if I didn't vote. Personally, I
feel respecting those who have sacrificed so much throughout our history
to protect our right to vote is all the reason any American needs to get
to the polls.
> If three guys get together and they rob a fourth guy, they call it
> robbery. But if three million people agree to rob a fourth million,
> they call it democracy. The difference between the robber and the
> democracy is that the robber does not expect you to pledge your loyalty
> to him, keep coming back to him to be robbed some more, defend his
> property and family against other robbers, educate his children, and
> pay his pension when he retires.
What's the alternative?
Bill Funk
>
>"Bill Funk" <Big...@there.com> wrote in message
>news:h0v9l2lfnuns2llq5...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> See, if you want to answer such a questuon, you need to provide an
>> *unbiased* source. A site that is self-described as biased won't cut it.
>
>
>If I provide a transcript of Bill O'Reilly saying
>something false or stupid, there's no bias in that.
>
>It's simply Bill O'Reilly saying something false or
>stupid -- no more and no less.
>
>You want to call me "biased" for picking on poor
>Bill O'Reilly, by all means -- guilty as charged.
>
>But that doesn't make O'Reilly's remark any
>less false or stupid. Capiche?
>
>
>rafe b
>www.terrapinphoto.com
>
I understand what you're saying, but you evidently didn't understand
what I said.
Quoting a self-admittedly biased source in an attempt to show bias is
stupid.
I'm not calling you biased for picking on O'Reilly, I'm calling you
stupid for using a biased source to try to prove it.
Ray Fischer
>
>Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> > "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>> >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> >>> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
>> >>> Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???
>> >> Oh, now now...
>> >> The "Average" voter is just as much Republican as Democrat...
>> >
>> > You should have used a picture of a sloth, since the "average voter" was too
>> > lazy to vote. (Turnout was over 40%, which was high for a non-presidential
>> > election, but even in presidential years it barely squeaks over 50%.)
>>
>> When it comes to voting, even the Iraqis put us to shame and they vote
>> under the threat of death.
>
>Many people feel that voting validates the corrupt system. No matter
>who you vote for, you are giving them permission to steal your
>property, force you to fight their wars, and tell you how to live, what
>to wear, what kind of house you live in, what kind of car you drive,
>what kind of toothbrush you use, etc.
Many people are stupid.
>So some people refuse to vote, refusing to give anyone permission to do
>those things.
Some people refuse to vote, giving other permission to decide for them.
>If three guys get together and they rob a fourth guy, they call it
>robbery. But if three million people agree to rob a fourth million,
>they call it democracy.
So they argue that everybody should have the right to rob anybody.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Raphael Bustin
wrote:
>I'm not calling you biased for picking on O'Reilly, I'm calling you
>stupid for using a biased source to try to prove it.
Think about this for a moment, Bill.
Do you think any right-wing organization is going to look
for inconsistencies in O'Reilly's (or Limbaugh's) utterances?
And isn't it likely that **any** organization (or individual)
which did so would immediately be tagged as left-wing,
as a consequence?
There is no "objective" way to debunk these clowns.
There are plenty of books, articles, etc. that dissect
the lies and distortions, one at a time. (My favorite
of course is Al Franken.)
I'm not about to waste my time trying to talk sense
into anyone who regards Limbaugh or Coulter or
O'Reilly as "my favorite thinkers." I had to wipe
off my monitor after reading that remark.
I really have to hand it to Rush for the way he
shamelessly mocked Michael J. Fox in this last
election cycle. His wonderful "act" may well have
given Claire McCaskill the edge she needed beat
Jim Talent. And that in turn may have given the
Dems the majority in the Senate.
So blather away, Rush. You made my day.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Michael Johnson, PE
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:33:31 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> <c...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Here's a case in point. Remember 2005 Atlantic hurricane season when
>> the increased activity was touted to be a result of global warming and
>> we should get used to it? What happened this year? Nothing, nada. The
>> NOAA guys were bored to tears. Do we hear anything from the doomsday
>> scientists of last year about why we didn't get pounded this year? I
>> haven't read, or heard a thing. This year doesn't fit their science or
>> their agenda so they ignore it. It is this type of hypocrisy and
>> selective trumpeting by the media, environmental groups and
>> climatologists that gives me reason to be skeptical of them and
>> everything they push at us.
>
>
> Indiividual events don't prove much. Next year could be
> different again. It was scientifically crude to "blame"
> Katrina on climate change. The best one can say is that
> storms like Katrina will become more frequent -- but one
> can't predict individual storms (or even storm seasons)
> with accuracy.
Individual events that don't support their claims are ignored. It is
done daily. You know October was relatively cool historically? That
this years average temperature isn't near the disaster it was claimed to
be during a few months it was hot in the summer? Why don't we hear
anything about this in the press or from the climatologist? I have a
few reasons I can think of.... it doesn't fit their predetermined agenda.
> There are extreme flooding (precipitation) events going on
> as we speak in the US northwest. 17" of rain in 36 hours
> at Mt. Rainier. Rte. 35 (east of Mt. Hood) is under water.
> Similar devastation at Glacier National Park.
I do flood studies that are used by FEMA to set insurance rates and to
determine flood plain areas along major creeks and waterways. EVERY
YEAR there are places that receive more rainfall, and even record
rainfall, than they saw the previous years. Guess what also happens.
There are areas that receive less and set minimum precipitation records.
It happens all the time and on every continent. Guess what will
happen next year in many of these places. They will be back to what is
considered normal. Just like with this year's hurricane season compared
to last year. All we hear about in the media and from global warming
alarmist is the extreme cases which happen every year, somewhere.
> This is consistent with climate change, but nobody's
> calling it that, either.
Climate change would be happening even if humans didn't exist on the
planet. I'm not saying humans aren't having an impact but the extent of
it is just pure speculation, IMO.
> You discount the WMO evidence, but you hedge your bets,
> asking us to consider the potential *benefits* of climate
> change. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Make up
> your mind.
Are you saying there are no benefits to climate change? It is the lack
of comprehensive study that makes me skeptical of the evidence laid on
the table by the so called unbiased experts. What if the climate does
change. Maybe the results of it are not nearly as bad as they are
claiming and maybe even the good will outweigh the bad. All they want
to focus on is the bad and there are too many self serving reasons for
them to do this for me to believe them blindly.
ASAAR
> I'm not about to waste my time trying to talk sense
> into anyone who regards Limbaugh or Coulter or
> O'Reilly as "my favorite thinkers." I had to wipe
> off my monitor after reading that remark.
>
> I really have to hand it to Rush for the way he
> shamelessly mocked Michael J. Fox in this last
> election cycle. His wonderful "act" may well have
> given Claire McCaskill the edge she needed beat
> Jim Talent. And that in turn may have given the
> Dems the majority in the Senate.
>
> So blather away, Rush. You made my day.
Any who listened to Limbaugh and couldn't detect his nearly
nonstop efforts to twist truth to benefit virtually anyone claiming
to be republican probably had his comment last week fall on deaf
ears:
> "I feel liberated," said conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh,
> one of the party's biggest cheerleaders. "I no longer am going to have to
> carry water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried."
And David Keene, longtime president of the American Conservative
Union - the nation's oldest grass-roots conservative lobby said:
> "We have witnessed the hypocrisy of Republican leaders who came to
> Washington swearing an allegiance to upholding traditional values work to
> protect those among their number who have flaunted those values, morals
> and standards.
>
> "We have stood by as Republicans have flaunted, twisted and ignored rules
> to achieve their own partisan, rather than principled, ends; leaders who have
> used earmarks to seduce reluctant members to vote for legislation they knew
> was wrong and kept votes open for hours while they and their White House
> allies bludgeoned their colleagues into line in support of such legislation,"
> Keene said.
but I have to wonder if Keene and other conservative Republicans
haven't also been guilty of hypocrisy, as denunciations of this sort
were virtually nonexistent for many years, said often in private,
perhaps, but not in public until shortly after the Foley/Hastert
incident. Holding their noses while remaining silent is what
infuriated so many about Hastert's non-actions, yet they, in their
own way were for so long guilty of the same "see no evil, hear no
evil, speak no evil."
Bill Funk
Messing with Mother Nature when you don't know what you're trying to
correct has been, and can be in the future, catastrophic.
Lazy is what you call people who refuse to understand their ignorance;
they drive on without bothering to learn from history. Such people are
also very dangerous.
The solutions being asked for are very, *VERY* expensive, and would
cripple the economies of the developed world. It doesn't seem to be
very smart to do this without knowing if it will work, even if we do
think (that's *think*, not know) we know the cause.
Sure, "do something" will make a lot of people happier, but such
courses generally don't work.
We would do much better to *know* the causes for climatic changes.
Bill Funk
My poinht is this: the pot calling the kettle black is stupid,
especially after being told that's what's being done.
Citing one biased source to prove bias of another source can not be
called objective.
If you want to call a source biased, you must be objective.
If you can't prove bias by objective means, don't make a claim of
bias.
Jan Böhme
> >The possible shift in ocean currents -- the thermohaline
> >conveyors -- is real enough that the Pentagon has requested
> >a study of the potential effects. The PDF of that report is
> >online:
> >
> ><http://www.astr.ua.edu/white/images/solarsys/earth/exec_pentagon.pdf>
> I'm sorry, that wasn't quite the right URL. Here's one that mentions
> the Pentagon report and provides an overview of the topic:
>
> <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/abrupt-climate-change-faq.html>
>
> In particular it describes how "global warming" might lead to
> cooler climes (in certain locations) due to changes in thermohaline
> circulation (aka ocean currents.) Here's another article on the same
> topic, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution:
Right. But there are two points with this that are bothersome for me.
The first is that when I studied the history of global climate, back in
the seventies and eighties when it was the domain of the geographers
and of no particular poiitical significance one way or the other, the
younger Dryas wasn't primarily being caused by a weakened North
Atlantic Current due to decrease of surface water salinity caused by
melting ice, but at least mostly by a North Atlantic Current that was
_deflected_ further south by the outlet of a ice lake up in the Great
Lakes area through the current Hudson River valley. There is no way
this will happen now, however much global temperatures rise, so at
least a major contributing factor to the younger Dryas cooling simply
isn't around this time.
The other point is that it has been considerably warmer in the
post-Glacial Age past up in the areas which benefit most from the
North Atlantic Current than today, without the North Atlantic current
having gone bust. Generally speaking, the computer modellers who are
the chief spokesmen of man-inpacted climate change have a relatively
weak notion of the historic data, and are generally not overly bothered
with them,
(An aspect in this that is generally ignored by the media-consuming
public is that the public discussion on climate chage is also a part of
a scientific turf war between emiprically and hístorically minded
geographers on one sida, and on the other phycisists with a more
theoretical bent, whose primary scientific instrument is computer
modeling. At stake is the power over the climate as an academic
subject. The media are the best allies of the computer modelers in this
turf war, beause the media always prefer the most sensational story,
everything else being equal.)
Furthermore, if you are on a crusade to stop mankind's contribution to
global warming, of course it is tempting, if two alternative
intrepretations exist, to prefer the on which makes the expected
climate change bad for as many people as possible.
There _is_ a strong medial attraction to the message "Global climate
change will be worse for _everybody_! Repent or perish! Hallelujah!"
right now. After all, the "repent or perish" message has an attraction
which is several millennia old. It worked already for the prophet Amos.
In short, while there is considerable evidence that the the increase in
CO2 levels achieved up to now and predicted further on, actually will
have an impact on the global climate, there are several factors, both
intrascientific and extrascientific, that work in the direction of
exaggerating the magnitude and consequences of the actual threat.
OTOH, there are more reasons than the climate to make oneselves as
independent of oil as possible as quick as possible. At least if one
dosn't think it's a good idea to have to follow every nod and wink of
Comrade Putin in the Kremlin, and the King of Saudi Arabia, in the near
future.
Jan Böhme
Mark˛
Agree.
A strong world economy is the ONLY setting in which major changes will ever
take place.
When economies struggle, one of the first things to die is concern over
environmental issues. Instead, basic survival takes over. If truly large
scale energy changes are to take place, it will have to come within the
context of an economic situation that can AFFORD to make sweeping change.
Raphael Bustin
<c...@erols.com> wrote:
>Individual events that don't support their claims are ignored. It is
>done daily. You know October was relatively cool historically? That
>this years average temperature isn't near the disaster it was claimed to
>be during a few months it was hot in the summer? Why don't we hear
>anything about this in the press or from the climatologist? I have a
>few reasons I can think of.... it doesn't fit their predetermined agenda.
Year after year, the temperature rises. As of 2005, 10 of
the preceding 11 years had set global temperature records.
Prior to September, 2006 was on a similar track.
So what was your point about October?
>> There are extreme flooding (precipitation) events going on
>> as we speak in the US northwest. 17" of rain in 36 hours
>> at Mt. Rainier. Rte. 35 (east of Mt. Hood) is under water.
>> Similar devastation at Glacier National Park.
>
>I do flood studies that are used by FEMA to set insurance rates and to
>determine flood plain areas along major creeks and waterways. EVERY
>YEAR there are places that receive more rainfall, and even record
>rainfall, than they saw the previous years.
Then you should know that the insurance industry is
*very* concerned about climate change, even if
Senator Inhofe is not.
>> This is consistent with climate change, but nobody's
>> calling it that, either.
>
>Climate change would be happening even if humans didn't exist on the
>planet. I'm not saying humans aren't having an impact but the extent of
>it is just pure speculation, IMO.
>
No it's not "speculation," not by a long shot. And
repeating that lie won't make it so.
>> You discount the WMO evidence, but you hedge your bets,
>> asking us to consider the potential *benefits* of climate
>> change. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Make up
>> your mind.
>
>Are you saying there are no benefits to climate change?
Is the loss of New Orleans a benefit? (Maybe Karl
Rove thinks so, but maybe he ought to reconsider.)
A sizeable portion of the world's population live along
ocean shores. The potential exists for many or most
of these people to become refugees.
I'd say there are enough uncertainties on this planet
that I'd rather not invite another -- particularly one of
global magnitude, like climate change.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Raphael Bustin
wrote:
>If you want to call a source biased, you must be objective.
>If you can't prove bias by objective means, don't make a claim of
>bias.
Asking for "objectivity" in the criticism of a
blatantly partisan character (like Limbaugh)
is pointless.
There is no "disinterested party," nor can there
be. Any party that refutes Limbaugh would,
in doing so, be seen as partisan.
I gave the link to mediamatters.org because
that's as far as I care to go to convince you
(or anyone else) of Limbaugh's lies.
It's basically an impossible task. Those who
revere Limbaugh can't be reasoned with.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Raphael Bustin
>Furthermore, if you are on a crusade to stop mankind's contribution to
>global warming, of course it is tempting, if two alternative
>intrepretations exist, to prefer the on which makes the expected
>climate change bad for as many people as possible.
>
>There _is_ a strong medial attraction to the message "Global climate
>change will be worse for _everybody_! Repent or perish! Hallelujah!"
>right now. After all, the "repent or perish" message has an attraction
>which is several millennia old. It worked already for the prophet Amos.
>
>In short, while there is considerable evidence that the the increase in
>CO2 levels achieved up to now and predicted further on, actually will
>have an impact on the global climate, there are several factors, both
>intrascientific and extrascientific, that work in the direction of
>exaggerating the magnitude and consequences of the actual threat.
>
>OTOH, there are more reasons than the climate to make oneselves as
>independent of oil as possible as quick as possible. At least if one
>dosn't think it's a good idea to have to follow every nod and wink of
>Comrade Putin in the Kremlin, and the King of Saudi Arabia, in the near
>future.
You seem to be well-versed on the subject.
That's great.
What surprised me were some reports of the very
rapid and severe climate changes possible due to
thermohaline effects -- and hence the new term,
"abrupt climate change." [A useful search term
for googling.]
No, it won't be like the movie, but if my understanding
is correct, severe climate change has occured in *tens*
of years (or less) rather than centuries or millenia.
I believe this notion comes from fairly recent evidence
gleaned from measurements of ice cores. Here are a
few links on the matter:
<http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/4/1331?ijkey=JifxIJJnHUR2Q>
<http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=10046>
<http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309074347/html/1.html>
I googled on "abrupt climate change ice cores" to find
these links. There are many more. The research cited
in these links dates to 2000 and 2002. The name of
Richard Alley appears repeatedly in the links I followed.
I'm not on a crusade to change the world. OTOH, one
of the most disturbing trends in recent years (in the USA)
has been the deliberate, systematic, and cynical denigration
of science. I can't sit idly by when I see that happening.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Michael Johnson, PE
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:18:29 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> <c...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Individual events that don't support their claims are ignored. It is
>> done daily. You know October was relatively cool historically? That
>> this years average temperature isn't near the disaster it was claimed to
>> be during a few months it was hot in the summer? Why don't we hear
>> anything about this in the press or from the climatologist? I have a
>> few reasons I can think of.... it doesn't fit their predetermined agenda.
>
>
> Year after year, the temperature rises. As of 2005, 10 of
> the preceding 11 years had set global temperature records.
> Prior to September, 2006 was on a similar track.
>
> So what was your point about October?
The point is we only hear about the worst and nothing about normal or
below normal. The average annual temperature trends are based on a vary
narrow slice of time and much of the early data is suspect due to poor
technology, and quantity, for/of data collection. We are really looking
at only a few decades of data and assuming we can extrapolate long term
trends from it. The 1930s through the early 1950s saw a huge
temperature rise too followed by a substantial temperature drop in
through the late 1950s to about 1980. Now we are seeing and increase
again in the 1990s to now but the trend line for the last few years is
trending down. I understand the overall trend line is pointing up but
we are only dealing with 100 years of data at best. In geological time
frames this period is insignificant.
We can't explain the rise in temperatures from 1930-1955 or the
temperature drop from 1955-1980. Why is it we can't explain what
happened in these periods but now all of a sudden we can explain the
data of the last 15 years? Doesn't this bother you? It does me. I am
expected to agree to radically change the economies of the developed
world based of this? Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
>>> There are extreme flooding (precipitation) events going on
>>> as we speak in the US northwest. 17" of rain in 36 hours
>>> at Mt. Rainier. Rte. 35 (east of Mt. Hood) is under water.
>>> Similar devastation at Glacier National Park.
>> I do flood studies that are used by FEMA to set insurance rates and to
>> determine flood plain areas along major creeks and waterways. EVERY
>> YEAR there are places that receive more rainfall, and even record
>> rainfall, than they saw the previous years.
>
> Then you should know that the insurance industry is
> *very* concerned about climate change, even if
> Senator Inhofe is not.
Wow, you don't think insurance industries aren't trying to use global
warming as a reason to increase rates and their profits? Don't be so
naive.
>>> This is consistent with climate change, but nobody's
>>> calling it that, either.
>> Climate change would be happening even if humans didn't exist on the
>> planet. I'm not saying humans aren't having an impact but the extent of
>> it is just pure speculation, IMO.
>>
>
> No it's not "speculation," not by a long shot. And
> repeating that lie won't make it so.
What lie? Climate change is natural. It has happened as long as there
has been a climate. Human activity impacting global climate is
speculation and, if true, the degree of human impact is most certainly
speculation.
>>> You discount the WMO evidence, but you hedge your bets,
>>> asking us to consider the potential *benefits* of climate
>>> change. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Make up
>>> your mind.
>> Are you saying there are no benefits to climate change?
>
>
> Is the loss of New Orleans a benefit? (Maybe Karl
> Rove thinks so, but maybe he ought to reconsider.)
Was the loss of Alexandria in Egypt a benefit thousands of years ago?
Of course it wasn't a benefit. Cities being claimed by the oceans has
happened throughout history and to think we can stop it is ludicrous.
New Orleans shouldn't have been build there in the first place. IT IS
BELOW SEA LEVEL!!!! I guess Carl Rove is responsible for that too?
> A sizeable portion of the world's population live along
> ocean shores. The potential exists for many or most
> of these people to become refugees.
Just has it has been since mankind came into being. NOTHING stays the
same in this world. What's next? We need to stop continental drift to
stop its effect on global change? Florida has cycled from being above
sea level to below how many times in history? Are we really so
arrogant to think we can keep this from happening in the future? After
all, it isn't like these coastal dwellers will wake up one morning and
find the sea level rose 50' over night. The shorelines are moving
constantly from sea level increases, erosion, sedimentation, earth
quakes, continental drift etc. and it rarely happens fast enough to put
lives in jeopardy or create large numbers of refugees. The type of
statement you just made reinforces what I have been saying about the
fear mongering by the scientific community. It is this type of
exaggeration that puts all they claim in doubt.
> I'd say there are enough uncertainties on this planet
> that I'd rather not invite another -- particularly one of
> global magnitude, like climate change.
Invite another one? Climate change will happen regardless of what we
do. We can't stop it. For people who are supposedly in tune with the
environment I would think they would understand this better than anyone.
I just see the above as more fear mongering by a group with an agenda
that is politically, and economically, motivated.
Raphael Bustin
Very well, Michael, I'll never convince you.
Read what you want to read, believe what you
want to believe.
Personally, I figure I've got another few decades,
at best, on this planet. From a purely selfish point
of view, climate change isn't likely to impact my
own life radically, aside from my enjoyment of
winter sports, or the impact of heating bills.
I hope, for the sake of future generations, that
my fears turn out to be sheer nonsense, and that
the science is as flawed as you believe it to be.
But somehow, I don't think so.
Me, I'll do my small bit to conserve, and sound
the alarms. That is what *my* conscience
demands of me.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Michael Johnson, PE
I don't think anyone is in a position to know the real truth of climate
change. All the alarmist rhetoric only serves to cloud the issue, IMO.
There has just been to much of it over the decades that has been
unfounded. I'm not saying you are wrong either.
The whole issue is just way too complicated to resolve anytime soon.
Climate change will likely not effect me either. I might see another 40
years and by then I still don't know if science will be in a position to
definitely predicate climate change. Just like we, and all living
things, have adjusted in the past to changes in our world, it will be
the same in the future. Life will go on.
You want to know what really scares me about the future of mankind? It
is our rapidly growing ability to genetically engineer ourselves and
other creatures. It won't be long before millions of people can create
viruses, bacteria, poisons etc. to wipe most of the human population
from the face of the earth or target a particular race. Now that scares
me way more than a climate change.
I thank you for keeping our debate civil. I did enjoy it.
Raphael Bustin
<c...@erols.com> wrote:
>The whole issue is just way too complicated to resolve anytime soon.
>Climate change will likely not effect me either. I might see another 40
>years and by then I still don't know if science will be in a position to
>definitely predicate climate change. Just like we, and all living
>things, have adjusted in the past to changes in our world, it will be
>the same in the future. Life will go on.
Life will go on. Yes, most likely.
But will Homo Sapiens be part of the mix?
There are nearly seven billion of us on the planet now.
That's nearly three times the number when I was born.
I fear that events will cause a major reduction in that
number. Whether it happens by way of war, disease,
terrorism, or famine -- I have no idea. I do have the
sense that events are accelerating toward an
unhappy conclusion to the riddle.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Greg "_"
Raphael Bustin <ra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> No, it won't be like the movie, but if my understanding
> is correct, severe climate change has occured in *tens*
> of years (or less) rather than centuries or millenia.
More worrisome, was the National Geographic show I saw
recently that predicted a sudden change in the earths magnetic fields.
At a point in time which is anyones guess.
However:
By looking at lava fields and the crystal structure thereof and the
orientation of millions of years of volcanic activity the geologist
predict that a change of field orientation is well overdue for this
historic period. The impact ranges from world wide aura borealis, to
huge segments of population dying from gamma exposure.
Not to mention failure of electronics and communications systems.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.