Filed under: Military Retirement
Question:
Clinton was a student president. The most he could muster was a Whitewater, a kid’s stuff cigar fiasco, and a sophmoric what is, "is." Bush, George W., now there’s a pro. In the service of pros. A mass murderer, a large scale oil thief, and no doubt the most hated man on earth. Would that this latter be due to being such a good person showing up the rest rather than as a scoundrel of scoundrels. Bill is trying to raise his C.Q., Creep Quotient, must figure better late than never, hanging out with the elder George.
Response:
The Meat Room by John Leary Negotiations began fifty-five years ago. The latest round starts today. We’re sitting at the monitors, waiting to see who the other side is going to send into the room. Back during the initial negotiations, thousands and thousands of casualties ago, they were so stupid. In the Meat Room we have notes from dead old-timers, documenting the stupidity of these people. Some of the notes are pretty funny. For example, on the first day of the first round of negotiations, these people came into the negotiating room in their military uniforms. They just strode right in, decked up and down with ribbons and parachuting patches and regiment buttons and multicolored silk regalia bands. Our side took quick looks at our laminated pocket cards and immediately knew their ranks. They were even stupid enough to wear name tags. Within a year they were all dead. For the eighth round of negotiations, they used professional negotiators, men and women who were hired to argue then hide. We set out shiny cocktail stirs and plates of red gherkins. Intelligence reports told us they liked those things. We earned their trust. Even so, it took nearly two years to find them all. After each round of negotiations, Eradication Reports would pop up on the monitors and we would stand around the Meat Room and mock-shrug at each other: "Another one of their negotiators dead. Huh. Talk about rotten luck." Then we would laugh and smile grimly. At the beginning of the twenty-third round, we waited behind our monitors to see who would enter the negotiating room. Three men and two women entered proudly. They were from a neighboring area; they were third-party representatives. Their status as a third party gave them protection, even immunity. Or so they thought. We offered them apricot soda and candied carrots, as per the intelligence reports. They ate and drank with gusto, and negotiated with the lackadaisical fervor of the just. Three days after the round of negotiations concluded, we had tracked each one of them to their home, and each one was killed by a large stone dropped from a medium height. Our job in the Meat Room is tracking. We have advances they never had in the old days, more gadgets. But the other side is smarter now, too. They know that touching your lips to the shiny bulb of a cocktail stir leaves DNA residue. They know we can pack any food item with two or three rogue additives. Everyone remembers the first time we offered them the shaker of carob flakes and they declined, pulling out their own shaker. That was a day of crisis around here. From the moment they sit down, we are performing Heat-Vapor Resonance profiles on each one of them. Everyone in the world has a unique HVR profile. We feed their profiles into the databank and the satellites and drones go to work. Some guys complain that the technological advances make things more boring than the old days, but most of us realize how lucky we are to have steady jobs in today’s economy. As the guys in Tech make new advances, pressure flows up to schedule more rounds of negotiations. With HVR, we are more efficient. We have had a hiring freeze, and two guys took early retirement. Some older guys talk of a golden age when the tech was fun but not flawless. The bulletin board in the lunchroom outside the Meat Room has thumbtacked pictures of some triumphs: Remote control rats made from C4. Small rubber balls filled with nitroglycerin pellets. Tiny exploding flowers. A coin with gas-lock charge so small that the detonation is no louder than a rat sneezing, but the charge abrades the skin and poison gets underneath: they get a little blister, then in fifty-six hours they are dead. Today is the first day of the latest round of negotiations, and the fifty-fifth anniversary of the first round of negotiations. We have heard from the guys in Dispatch that this is an important round, and the other side is going to use some new negotiators. We’ve been using anima-bots for ten years. The anima-bots are activated, waiting just outside the door to the negotiating room. On the monitors we see the doors, we see the table in the negotiating room. The table is covered with plates of shiny objects. If negotiations drag on long enough, one of their side will always get fatigued and will grab one of the shiny objects and pop it into his mouth, or touch it and pocket it. Despite the attrition among their negotiators, for the last fifteen rounds they have been represented by low-level officers. These young men negotiate with the raw vitriol of the inexperienced. In the days before the HRV profiles they would each get a paper clip. We would send the young men a letter with some photos of livid women enclosed. Intelligence reports told us that they like livid women. They would be smart enough to destroy the photos, but they would always retain the paper clip. Shiny objects are rare where they live. They would carry the paper clip around with them, pop it into their mouth when they were nervous. Shiny metal is something they suck on. The paper clips are poison, underneath a thin chrome layer. None of their low-level officers have been located in any of the neighboring quadrants. As we sit at the monitors, one of the guys asks the room, "What would you do? What would you send into the room?" We have different answers: Audio-animatronics, holograms, crystalline projections. We would never be so stupid as to send living people into the room. But we laugh. We know we are the only ones who can make even rudimentary proto-plastic figurines. They do not have the technology to do any of those things. We wait. They are late. Someone half-heartedly tries to start a betting pool as to whether they will even show up. On the monitors, we see the conference room door swing open, then close. It is heavy. The door opens again and their contingent comes in, walking close to each other, bumping each other. Girls. They are between eight and ten years old, dressed in denim and white blouses. We will wait a few minutes to observe them before sending in the anima-bots. We want them to relax so we can observe them. They all sit close to one another; they seem nervous. Two share one seat. One says "Ooooh!" at a plate of shiny objects, and they pass it around. Hair clips. They braid and clip one another’s hair. We watch them carefully. Brown eyes and gentle lips. None of them look like our daughters. Some of them resemble, slightly, friends of our daughters. We are all a little disappointed. This is going to be so easging out with the elder George.
Response:
> Clinton was a student president. > The most he could muster was a Whitewater, a kid’s stuff cigar fiasco, > and a sophmoric what is, "is." > Bush, George W., now there’s a pro. > In the service of pros. > A mass murderer, a large scale oil thief, and no doubt the most hated > man on earth. > Would that this latter be due to being such a good person showing up > the rest rather than as a scoundrel of scoundrels. > Bill is trying to raise his C.Q., Creep Quotient, must figure better > late than never, hanging out with the elder George.
Asshat.
Response:
Question:
Before It’s Too Late in Iraq By Wesley K. Clark Friday, August 26, 2005; Page A21 In the old, familiar fashion, mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq have mobilized increasing public doubts about the war. More than half the American people now believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. They’re right. But it would also be a mistake to pull out now, or to start pulling out or to set a date certain for pulling out. Instead we need a strategy to create a stable, democratizing and peaceful state in Iraq — a strategy the administration has failed to develop and articulate. From the outset of the U.S. post-invasion efforts, we needed a three-pronged strategy: diplomatic, political and military. Iraq sits geographically on the fault line between Shiite and Sunni Islam; for the mission to succeed we will have to be the catalyst for regional cooperation, not regional conflict. Unfortunately, the administration didn’t see the need for a diplomatic track, and its scattershot diplomacy in the region — threats, grandiose pronouncements and truncated communications — has been ill-advised and counterproductive. The U.S. diplomatic failure has magnified the difficulties facing the political and military elements of strategy by contributing to the increasing infiltration of jihadists and the surprising resiliency of the insurgency. On the political track, aiming for a legitimate, democratic Iraqi government was essential, but the United States was far too slow in mobilizing Iraqi political action. A wasted first year encouraged a rise in sectarian militias and the emergence of strong fractionating forces. Months went by without a U.S. ambassador in Iraq, and today political development among the Iraqis is hampered by the lack not only of security but also of a stable infrastructure program that can reliably deliver gas, electricity and jobs. Meanwhile, on the military track, security on the ground remains poor at best. U.S. armed forces still haven’t received resources, restructuring and guidance adequate for the magnitude of the task. Only in June, over two years into the mission of training Iraqi forces, did the president announce such "new steps" as partnering with Iraqi units, establishing "transition teams" to work with Iraqi units and training Iraqi ministries to conduct antiterrorist operations. But there is nothing new about any of this; it is the same nation-building doctrine that we used in Vietnam. Where are the thousands of trained linguists? Where are the flexible, well-resourced, military-led infrastructure development programs to win "hearts and minds?" Where are the smart operations and adequate numbers of forces — U.S., coalition or Iraqi — to strengthen control over the borders? With each passing month the difficulties are compounded and the chances for a successful outcome are reduced. Urgent modification of the strategy is required before it is too late to do anything other than simply withdraw our forces. Adding a diplomatic track to the strategy is a must. The United States should form a standing conference of Iraq’s neighbors, complete with committees dealing with all the regional economic and political issues, including trade, travel, cross-border infrastructure projects and, of course, cutting off the infiltration of jihadists. The United States should tone down its raw rhetoric and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region. In addition, a public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would be a helpful step in engaging both regional and Iraqi support as we implement our plans. On the political side, the timeline for the agreements on the Constitution is less important than the substance of the document. It is up to American leadership to help engineer, implement and sustain a compromise that will avoid the "red lines" of the respective factions and leave in place a state that both we and Iraq’s neighbors can support. So no Kurdish vote on independence, a restricted role for Islam and limited autonomy in the south. And no private militias. In addition, the United States needs a legal mandate from the government to provide additional civil assistance and advice, along with additional U.S. civilian personnel, to help strengthen the institutions of government. Key ministries must be reinforced, provincial governments made functional, a system of justice established (and its personnel trained) and the rule of law promoted at the local level. There will be a continuing need for assistance in institutional development, leadership training and international monitoring for years to come, and all of this must be made palatable to Iraqis concerned with their nation’s sovereignty. Monies promised for reconstruction simply must be committed and projects moved forward, especially in those areas along the border and where the insurgency has the greatest potential. On the military side, the vast effort underway to train an army must be matched by efforts to train police and local justices. Canada, France and Germany should be engaged to assist. Neighboring states should also provide observers and technical assistance. In military terms, striking at insurgents and terrorists is necessary but insufficient. Military and security operations must return primarily to the tried-and-true methods of counterinsurgency: winning the hearts and minds of the populace through civic action, small-scale economic development and positive daily interactions. Ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency should be recruited to assist as interpreters. A better effort must be made to control jihadist infiltration into the country by a combination of outposts, patrols and reaction forces reinforced by high technology. Over time U.S. forces should be pulled back into reserve roles and phased out. The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn’t enough to mend a flawed approach — or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won’t adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home. _____ The writer, a retired Army general, was supreme allied commander in Europe during the war in Kosovo. He was a candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, and will answer questions today at 2 p.m. on http://www.washingtonpost.com.
Question:
I had an interesting question posed to me and I’d like to pass it on if anyone could be so kind as to answer it. How many black congressmen or senators has each of the Democratic and Republican parties had elected to these positions? Thanks in advance. Ken Wilson Proud Owner of Lord Valve, PMG, John Wheaton, Claude Lucas, Freep the Xenophobe, Chuck, the rest of the Union of Rightwing Idiots Needing Explanations (URINE) and, at his own request, Karl Rovershank (aka Lars from Mars) Supporting the Troops at http://www.resisters.ca http://www.criticalhistory.com/
Response:
I think the history of these Senators reflects the changes in the nature of the Republican and Democractic parties since the civil war, a change we have discussed several times here. There have been only 5 black Senators, one a former slave, and one also half Indian. Barack Obama, the newly elected senator from Illinois, is currently the only Black senator. He is the third Black senator since Reconstruction – the other two being Carole Moseley Braun (also Illinois, Land of Lincoln – a dem) and Edward Brooke ( Massachusetts – Rep). There were also two Black senators elected during the post civil war reconstruction. They were Hiram Rhoades Revels and Blanche K. Bruce, both from Mississippi. Carol Moseley Braun Carol Moseley Braun was born in Chicago on August 16, 1947. Her father, a law enforcement officer, was a consummate renaissance man, a musician who mastered seven instruments and spoke several languages. Her mother was a medical technician. Together they encouraged their children to pursue excellence, embrace opportunity and follow their dreams. Her life reflects this philosophy. Ms. Moseley Braun has served her country as a United States Senator (1992-98), U.S. Ambassador (1999-2001), as well as County Executive Officer, State Representative, and Assistant United States Attorney. Since her return in 2001 from her ambassadorial posting to New Zealand, she has taught law and political science at Morris Brown College and DePaul University, along with a business law practice and business consultancy in Chicago. The hallmark of her public service has been dedication to the harmony of the community. She is an advocate of diversity and has consistently worked to build an inclusive society. Her extensive and constructive legislative record reflects this commitment to social justice and good government. Ms. Moseley Braun is a graduate of the Chicago Public Schools. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Illinois-Chicago in 1968, and her law degree in 1972 from the University of Chicago. She joined the United States Attorney’s office in Chicago in 1973. As an Assistant United States Attorney, she worked primarily in the civil and appellate law areas and tried cases of national importance. Her work in housing, health policy, and environmental law won her the Attorney General’s Special Achievement award. She subsequently received over 300 awards for achievements in the public interest. She left the US Attorney’s office in 1977 to start a family. Her son, Matthew, is a computer engineer. As a homemaker, Ms. Moseley Braun volunteered her services on behalf of local environmental issues. Her energy and commitment inspired neighbors to encourage her to run for public office. In 1978, she was elected to the Illinois state legislature, the General Assembly. As a State Representative, she became recognized as a champion for education, governmental reform, and civil rights. As early as 1984, she proposed a moratorium on the application in Illinois of the death penalty. And in what became a landmark reapportionment case, Crosby vs. State Board of Elections, she successfully sued her own party and the state of Illinois on behalf of African American and Hispanic citizens. Soon thereafter, Ms. Moseley Braun was named Assistant Majority Leader; when she left the legislature in 1987, her colleagues recognized her in a resolution as "the conscience of the House." She served one term as Recorder of Deeds for Cook County, which includes Chicago, before running for the United States Senate. She won that race in November 1992, marking yet another historic first: first female senator from Illinois, first female African-American senator, first African-American Democratic senator. Edward William Brooke, born Oct. 26, 1919, Washington, D.C., was the first African American to be elected to the U.S. Senate in the 20th Century. He graduated from Howard University in 1941 and served in World War II as decorated captain in the combat infantry. After the War, he received two law degrees from Boston University and was editor of the law review. Shortly after beginning his law practice, Brooke entered politics as a Republican and ran twice for the Massachusetts legislature (1950 and 1952), loosing both times. Finally, after losing a bid for Secretary of State in 1960, Brook was elected Attorney General of Massachusetts and re-elected in 1964. In 1966 he was elected to the U.S. Senate and served two terms, loosing in 1978 to Democrat Paul Tsongas. Brooke opposed escalation of the Vietnam War and was the first Republican Senator to demand President Nixon’s resignation over Watergate. After leaving the Senate, Brooke resumed the practice of law, was Chairman of the National Low-Income Housing Coalition and, on June 23, 2004, was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He is now battling breast cancer and lives in Miami, Fla. Hiram Revels was born in Fayetteville, North Carolina in 1822, but an exact birthplace has not been identified. He was born of mixed African and Croatan Indian heritage to free parents. On March 8, 1838 Revels was apprenticed to his brother, Elias B. Revels, as a barber in Lincolnton, North Carolina. Although Hiram Revels’ apprenticeship was to last until his 21st birthday in 1843, his brother died in 1841 leaving Hiram to manage the barber shop. Revels apparently left the barber shop to further his education. In 1844 he was a student at the Quaker school in Liberty, Indiana. He also attended school in Ohio and was a student of Knox College. Revels was ordained as a minister by the African Methodist Church and traveled extensively ministering to African American congregations in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Kansas. He eventually settled in Baltimore where he became principal of a school for African Americans as well as pastor of a local church. His ministerial and educational work would expand during the Civil War. With the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, Hiram Revels turned his resources toward support for the Union cause in Maryland, a border state with divided loyalties. Revels aided in the organization of two regiments of African American troops from Maryland. Having moved to St. Louis to organize a school for African Americans, he recruited African American men for service in a Missouri regiment in 1863. His recruiting ability and ministerial training equipped Revels for active service as a Union chaplain serving with a Mississippi regiment of free blacks. At one point during his military service, Revels was the provost marshal of Vicksburg, the militarily important Mississippi River town and scene of a bloody and prolonged Union siege. At the conclusion of the war, Revels settled in Natchez, Mississippi and joined the African Methodist Episcopal Church. He continued his pastoral duties and founded new churches. In 1868, Revels was elected alderman. Struggling to keep his political and pastoral duties separate and to avoid racial conflict, Revels earned the respect of both whites and African Americans. His success in managing these forces led to his election as a state senator from Adams County, Mississippi. In 1870 Revels was elected as the first African American member of the United States Senate. Ironically, Revels was elected to fill the position vacated by Jefferson Davis almost 10 years earlier. Revels took his seat in the Senate on February 25, 1870 and served through March 4, 1871, the remainder of Davis’ vacated term. Returning to Mississippi in 1871, Revels was named president of Alcorn College, the state’s first college for African American students. He was dismissed from the Alcorn presidency in 1874 by Governor Ames but returned to the position two years later. Revels retired from Alcorn in 1882. Aside from his duties at Alcorn College, Revels served as Secretary of State Ad Interim for Mississippi in 1873. Revels actively participated in the 1875 political campaign to oust the "carpet-bag" government of Mississippi. He defended his actions in a letter to President Ulysses Grant which was published in the Daily Times of Jackson, Mississippi. The next year he became editor of the Southwestern Christian Advocate. While attending to these public activities, Revels actively continued his religious work. It was while attending a church conference in Aberdeen, Mississippi that Hiram Rhoades Revels died on January 16, 1901. Hiram Revels faced the dangers of racial conflict in the South of the Reconstruction era in a manner that won the respect of both whites and blacks. His life was dedicated to improving the spiritual and educational needs of the African American community in many states The first black person to serve a full term in the United States Senate, Blanche K. Bruce was born in slavery near Farmville, Virginia , on March 1, 1841. He was tutored by his master’s son and worked as a field hand and printer’s apprentice as his master moved him from Virginia to Mississippi and Missouri. Bruce escaped slavery at the opening of the Civil War and attempted to enlist in the Union Army. After the military refused his application, he taught school, briefly attended Oberlin College, and worked as a steamboat porter on the Mississippi River. In 1864 he settled in Hannibal Missouri, and organized the state’s first school for blacks. Five years later he moved to Mississippi where he entered local politics and established himself as a prosperous landowner. In quick succession he was appointed registrar of voters in Tallahatchie County, tax assessor of Bolivar County, and elected sheriff and tax collector of Bolivar where he also served as supervisor of education. On a trip to the state capital of Jackson in 1870, Bruce gained the attention of powerful white Republicans who dominated Mississippi’s Reconstruction government. These men secured more appointments for Bruce and made him the most recognized black political leader in the state. In … read more »
Response:
I couldn’t find a list but I did find a book on the subjet http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7418.html Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and Their Representatives in the U.S. Congress First chapter here: http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/s7418.html Joseph Hayne Rainey (June 21, 1832 – August 1, 1887) was the first African American person to serve in the United States House of Representatives and the second black U.S. Congressman. Rainey was born in Georgetown, South Carolina. His parents were both slaves, but his father, Edward, had a successful business as a barber, enabling him to purchase his family’s freedom shortly after Joseph Rainey’s birth. As an adult, Rainey followed his father by becoming a barber. In 1861, with the outbreak of the American Civil War, Rainey was drafted by the Confederate government to work on fortifications in Charleston, South Carolina, as well as to work as a laborer on blockade-runner ships. In 1862, he and his wife were able to escape to the West Indies. They settled in St. Georges, Bermuda, where Rainey continued to work as a barber for the duration of the war. In 1866, following the war’s end, Rainey returned to South Carolina. He quickly involved himself in politics, joining the executive committee of the state Republican Party. In 1868, he was a delegate to the convention which wrote the state’s new constitution. In 1870, Rainey was elected to the State Senate of South Carolina. Later that year, he was elected to fill a vacancy in the Forty-first Congress of the United States as a Republican. This vacancy had been created when the previous incumbent, B. Franklin Whittemore, was censured by the House for corruption and subsequently re-elected, after which the House refused to seat him. Rainey was seated December 12, 1870 and was re-elected to Congress four times; he served until March 3, 1879, which made him the longest-serving black Congressmen prior to William L. Dawson in the 1950s. During his term in Congress, Rainey focused on supporting legislation to protect the civil rights of Southern blacks. This pursuit eventually proved unsuccessful, with the end of Reconstruction effectively meaning that the black electorate lost all political power. In 1876, Rainey won re-election against Democratic candidate John Smythe Richardson; Richardson, however challenged the result as invalid on the grounds of intimidation by federal soldiers and black militias. Two years later, as the opponents of Reconstruction solidified their control over South Carolina politics, Rainey was defeated in a second contest with Richardson. After leaving Congress, Joseph Rainey was appointed internal-revenue agent of South Carolina. He held this position for two years, after which he began a career in private commerce. Rainey retired in 1886 and died the following year in Georgetown, the city in which he was born
Response:
Shirley Chisholm is one of my favorite politicians and the first black US Congresswoman. She was truly unbought and unbossed. Shirley Anita St. Hill Chisholm (November 30, 1924 – January 1, 2005) was an American politician, educator and author. She was a Congresswoman representing New York’s 12th District from 1969-1983. In 1968, she became the first African-American woman elected to Congress. In 1972, she became the first African-American and the first woman to make a serious bid to be President of the United States. Born in Brooklyn, New York as Shirley St. Hill, she spent part of her childhood in Barbados with her grandmother, benefiting from the British school system. She later attended Brooklyn College and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1949. While working as a teacher, Chisholm earned a Master’s degree in elementary education from Columbia University. From 1953-1959, she was director of the Hamilton-Madison Child Care Center, and from 1959-1964 was an educational consultant for the Division of Day Care. In 1964, Chisholm ran and was elected to the New York State Legislature. She then ran as the Democratic candidate for New York’s 12th District congressional seat and was elected to the House of Representatives in 1968. She defeated Republican candidate James Farmer, to become the first African-American woman elected to Congress. As a freshman, Chisholm was assigned to the House Forestry Committee. Given her district, she felt the placement was a waste of time and shocked many by demanding reassignment. She was placed on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. Soon after, she voted for Hale Boggs as Majority Leader over John Conyers, even though Boggs was white. As a reward for her support, Boggs assigned her to the much-prized Education and Labor Committee; she was the third-highest ranking member when she retired. Chisholm joined the Congressional Black Caucus in 1969 as one of its founding members. In 1972, Chisholm made a bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, and received 152 delegate votes, but ultimately lost the nomination to South Dakota Senator George McGovern. Chisholm’s base of support was ethnically diverse and included the National Organization for Women. Among the volunteers who were inspired by her campaign was Barbara Lee, who would go on to become a congresswoman some 25 years later. Chisholm said she ran for the office "in spite of hopeless odds," "to demonstrate the sheer will and refusal to accept the status quo." Chisholm created controversy when she visited rival and ideological opposite George Wallace in the hospital soon after his shooting during that campaign. Several years later, when Chisholm worked on a bill to give domestic workers the right to a minimum wage, Wallace got her the votes of enough southern congressmen to push the legislation through the House. Throughout her tenure in Congress, Chisholm would work to improve opportunities for inner-city residents. She was a vocal opponent of the draft and supported spending increases for education, healthcare and other social services, and reductions in military spending. She announced her retirement from Congress in 1982, and was replaced by a fellow Democrat in 1983.
Response:
Question:
WSJ REVIEW & OUTLOOK July 15, 2005; Page A10 Let’s see if we can get this straight: When tax revenues fall and budget deficits go up, it’s bad news. But when tax revenues rise and deficits decline, it’s still bad news. At least that seems to be the way a sizable chunk of Washington is reacting to this week’s report from the White House budget office that the federal deficit is down by nearly $100 billion this fiscal year, that the deficit as a share of GDP is down to 2.7% (very near its historical average), and that this is all happening because tax receipts are surging by more than 14%. Uncle Sam is having a better year so far than even Paris Hilton, but half of the Beltway is depressed. John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, seems especially upset that this revenue surge isn’t coming from wage income, but rather from investment income — that is, the so-called "non-withholding" income tax collections which have skyrocketed by some 30% this year. "These are typically taxes paid on one-time capital gains, bonuses, stock-options income that may not recur," he laments. Well, sure, Congressman, the 2003 reductions in the tax rates on dividends and capital gains seem to be resulting in much higher tax revenues on … dividends and capital gains. This is called the Laffer Curve effect, and we thank Mr. Spratt for validating it. If he wants those revenues to "recur," maybe he’ll even vote to make those tax cuts permanent. This revenue surge from investment income also rebuts the mantra that the 2003 tax cuts were a giveaway to the rich. Nearly half of all Americans have some kind of stock ownership, and thus have shared in these gains in investment income. And if most of the extra tax income is coming from capital gains and dividend payments, that would have to mean that the rich in America are paying more taxes, not less, as a result of the 2003 tax cut. By the way, we don’t recall Mr. Spratt and other Democrats lamenting when a similar spike in taxes from investment income was boosting tax revenues to historic heights as a share of GDP during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, as per the nearby chart. Then it was all said to be an economic miracle; now it’s a windfall for the wealthy. This selective budget criticism couldn’t be related to who’s sitting in the White House, could it? There is a looming budget problem, but it has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts or insufficient tax revenue. It is a government spending crisis, especially the liabilities that politicians have promised to retirees in Social Security and Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that spending as a share of our national output based solely on current promises will surge from about 20% today, to 25% in 2025 and to 34% by 2040. In order to balance the budget at those spending totals, we would have to double the highest income tax rate to 70%, raise payroll taxes to 30%, and the corporate income tax rate would rise to twice the average of U.S. trading partners. Or if we tried to borrow to finance all this spending, our debt ratings would slip to junk bond status, according to an analysis by Standard and Poor’s. Republicans share a hefty part of the blame for creating the most fiscally unaffordable new spending program in the past quarter century: the Medicare prescription drug bill, with an unfunded liability that is larger than the GDP of every other country in the world. But the "deficit hawk" Democrats have been equally disingenuous. Most Democrats who voted against President Bush’s prescription drug bill did so because the multi-trillion-dollar plan wasn’t generous enough to seniors. They have also rejected every overture by Mr. Bush to shore up Social Security’s long-term finances, even a proposal to trim future benefits for wealthier retirees. Every White House proposal to cut spending in this year’s budget — agriculture subsidies to upper income farmers, slight cutbacks in Medicaid payments, reductions in Amtrak subsidies, a decline in pork barrel highway projects — has been rejected by the "deficit hawks" in Congress. So thank heaven for the tax cuts that have helped to spur the economy that is now throwing off higher tax revenues. As the chart shows, those revenues are now rising back to their modern average as a share of GDP, just as supporters of the tax cuts predicted. And if the tax cuts are made permanent, and as the economy grows and incomes continue to rise, Americans will be paying even more in taxes as they move into higher tax brackets. The real windfall here isn’t for the rich but for Washington. Instead of griping, Mr. Spratt ought to be doing cartwheels.
Response:
> July 15, 2005; Page A10 > Let’s see if we can get this straight: When tax revenues fall and > budget deficits go up, it’s bad news. But when tax revenues rise and > deficits decline, it’s still bad news.
The deficit is still over $350 BILLION this year alone. While citizens rights, health care, retirement accounts, education and security continue to plunge down the toilet. How long can you delude yourself?
Response:
> While citizens rights, health care, retirement accounts, education and > security continue to plunge down the toilet. > How long can you delude yourself?
This is an example of what has been wrong for many years in our country. Some people, like Jim, expect the government to be responsible for health care, retirement, education. The federal government should be responsible for our security, but why for our health care, retirement, or the children we chose to bear? The role of the government is to make us safe. Therefore, I support any government agency that helps in that role, such as the the military, the intelligence agencies and the FDA. But, the federal government needs to butt out of our lives otherwise. Our local government takes care of our important needs such as police and fire protection, education, road repair. We deserve to vote and choose if we want these services and to what level.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> While citizens rights, health care, retirement accounts, education and > security continue to plunge down the toilet. > How long can you delude yourself? >This is an example of what has been wrong for many years in our >country. Some people, like Jim, expect the government to be >responsible for health care, retirement, education. The federal >government should be responsible for our security, but why for our >health care, retirement, or the children we chose to bear? >The role of the government is to make us safe. Therefore, I support >any government agency that helps in that role, such as the the >military, the intelligence agencies and the FDA. But, the federal >government needs to butt out of our lives otherwise. Our local >government takes care of our important needs such as police and fire >protection, education, road repair. We deserve to vote and choose if >we want these services and to what level.
You must see the extreme frustration emanating from the Bolsheviks, Chamblee, Wouk and their parrots as their cause becomes farther and farther from any chance of reality. Enjoy their pathetic sniveling, whining and tears while you can as they are getting closer to extinction.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>While citizens rights, health care, retirement accounts, education and >>security continue to plunge down the toilet. >>How long can you delude yourself? >This is an example of what has been wrong for many years in our >country. Some people, like Jim, expect the government to be >responsible for health care, retirement, education. The federal >government should be responsible for our security, but why for our >health care, retirement, or the children we chose to bear? >The role of the government is to make us safe. Therefore, I support >any government agency that helps in that role, such as the the >military, the intelligence agencies and the FDA. But, the federal >government needs to butt out of our lives otherwise. Our local >government takes care of our important needs such as police and fire >protection, education, road repair. We deserve to vote and choose if >we want these services and to what level. > You must see the extreme frustration emanating from the Bolsheviks, > Chamblee, Wouk and their parrots as their cause becomes farther > and farther from any chance of reality. Enjoy their pathetic > sniveling, whining and tears while you can as they are getting closer > to extinction.
<G>
Response:
Question:
- The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 – a year earlier than previously estimated – the trustees reported Wednesday. Trustees also said that Medicare, the giant health care program for the elderly and disabled, faces insolvency in 2020. The new projections made in the trustees annual report were certain to be cited by both sides in the massive battle to overhaul Social Security, which President Bush has made the top domestic priority of his second term. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050323/D890QBLO0.html See ya, John
Response:
The ability of SS to support the large number of retirees in 20 years is not going to depend on how much money is in the "trust fund". It is going to depend on the economy at that time. It depends on whether the working people at that time can support the retirees. Why don’t people understand that? Putting "dollars" (printed by the Federal government) away in a Federal government shoebox does not help make the food, clothing, housing and medical care necessary to support elderly people. Not on a massive scale it doesn’t. WHY DON’T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT? Personally, I support the Bush plan to put some SS money into the stock market. It will help the economy by making more capital available to business. Business can invest that capital and create jobs, goods and services. It will stimulate the economy. But it won’t help if we don’t start pretty soon. The first baby boomers reach 62 in 2008.
Response:
>The ability of SS to support the large number of retirees in 20 years >is not going to depend on how much money is in the "trust fund".
Of course it does — the trust fund exists to cover the difference between incoming and outgoing SS funds during the big baby boom bubble of the next few decades. >It is >going to depend on the economy at that time. It depends on whether the >working people at that time can support the retirees.
As explained above, the trust fund that’s been accumutlated (via bigger SS deduction over that past couple of decades) is designed to take care of the difference between anticipated incoming and outgoing SS funds. >Why don’t people >understand that?
Both the contents of the trust fund AND the ongoing income to SS are part of what can be drawn upon to make payments to recipients — the trust fund is comprised of government securities purchased with incoming SS funds beyond what has been required to make payments to current recipients and was intended to be drawn down during an anticipated period when there will be less coming in than going out. It was all designed-in by the late Sen. Moynihan and his colleagues during the last round of SS reform. Further such revisions to system may be necessary, but a wholesale overhaul of SS and the abandonment of its founding principles are not even close to necessary or even desirable — the system is in better overall condition than ever. >Putting "dollars" (printed by the Federal government) >away in a Federal government shoebox does not help make the food,
There is no paper money in the social security trust fund — there are securities guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States. If those are not dependable, then we have a whole lot more to worry about than Social Security, because we will be in a full-blown, 1930s-style depression long before SS tanks! >clothing, housing and medical care necessary to support elderly people. >Not on a massive scale it doesn’t. >WHY DON’T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT?
It’s obvious the deficiency in understanding is yours, Doug — do you really think the government prints up worthless paper currency and stuffs it into a shoe box marked "Social Security Trust Fund?" >Personally, I support the Bush plan to put some SS money into the stock >market.
That worked out real well for my 401K — no thanks, I’ll take the same kind of U.S. government securities that overseas investors are so fond of! The program is called "Social *Security*," not "Retirement Roulette." Those who want to invest their retirement savings already have tax-deferred options, why mix risk up with an insurance program that everyone benefits from? >It will help the economy by making more capital available to >business. Business can invest that capital and create jobs, goods and >services.
There is nothing to prevent "business" from investing all that stock sale income in Slovakia, Indonesia, China, or Equatorial Guinea — there is absolutely zero assurance that a single American job, good, or service will result from more cash flow into Wall Street. The only ones who are guaranteed to benefit are the securities trading industry with their double- digit commission rates — ] in contrast, Social Security has an administrative overhead of about two percent. >It will stimulate the economy.
Yeah, just like the recent round of tax cuts — completely eaten up by increases in state and local tax, not the mention the cost of energy. The economy is still stuck in neutral — improving, but at a glacial pace after years of distress. >But it won’t help if we don’t >start pretty soon.
Even the adminstration admits that their hokey scheme does nothing to remedy the relatively minor SS shortfall predicted for about 35 years from now — it’s major impact would be another mammoth increase in our already-huge national debt. How the heck is that going to "help" anything or anyone who’s not in the securities industry? >The first baby boomers reach 62 in 2008.
Including me, sonny — and you better demonstrate one heckuva lot more in the way of understanding before I’ll be convinced that we have to effectively destroy the SS system to "help" it! Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
>> The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 >The Grand Pyramid Scheme. I have to say, it’s the longest running one I can >think of right now. Just like all pyramid schemes, the tail-enders are >gonna get screwed. I doubt I’ll be around to see it though.
With a few minor revisions, it will go on forever — because it’s not a "pyramid scheme," it’s an insurance program that’s in better overall financial shape than most insurance companies! Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
> - The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041
Bullshit. It will not "go broke" in 2041. That’s another Republican lie. If you accept this worst-case scenario, one that historically doesn’t happen, then in 2041 the Social Security trust fund will be empty, but the Social Security system will still be able to pay out at least 75 percent of then-current obligations with the then-incoming FICA taxes collected.
Response:
> Personally, I support the Bush plan to put some SS money into the stock > market. It will help the economy by making more capital available to > business.
It will create another stock market bubble and do nothing but enrich the folks on Wall Street.
Response:
> > The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 > The Grand Pyramid Scheme.
It isn’t.
Response:
> >> The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 > With a few minor revisions, > it will go on forever
Amen.
Response:
Social Security will go broke in 2041 > With a few minor revisions, > it will go on forever > Amen.
What could be more minor than setting aside 5% of the employees, or, overall, setting aside about 1% to 2%. What revision would be less than that? See ya, John
Response:
> >> The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 > With a few minor revisions, > it will go on forever > Amen.
Timepixdc, I have a problem with you leaving my name as an attribution to something that I didn`t write. Some would call that misleading or dishonest. Please don`t do it any more. See ya, John
Response:
> > The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 > The Grand Pyramid Scheme. > It isn’t.
Timepixdc, I have a problem with you leaving my name as an attribution to something that I didn`t write. Some would call that misleading or dishonest. Please don`t do it any more. See ya, John
Response:
> It will not "go broke" in 2041. That’s another Republican lie. If you > accept this worst-case scenario, one that historically doesn’t happen, > then in 2041 the Social Security trust fund will be empty, but the > Social Security system will still be able to pay out at least 75 percent > of then-current obligations with the then-incoming FICA taxes collected.
The Social Security Trustees are a bipartisan, read DEMOCRATS as well as Republicans. They agreed unanomously in the report. If you don`t like it, take it up with the Trustees that are responsible for the SS Program. See ya, John
Response:
> >> With a few minor revisions, >> it will go on forever > Amen. > What could be more minor than setting aside 5% of the employees, or, > overall, setting aside about 1% to 2%. What revision would be less than > that?
Letting everyone put aside an ADDITIONAL 1, 2 or 5 percent of their incomes into a plan to supplement their Social Security benefits.
Response:
> > It will not "go broke" in 2041. That’s another Republican lie. > The Social Security Trustees are a bipartisan, read DEMOCRATS as well as > Republicans.
Make that Democrat, singular. There are three trustees form the cabinet, the Treasury Secretary, the Health and Human Services Secretary and the Labor Secretary. Then there are two "independent" trustees, Republican Thomas R. Saving and Democrat John L. Palmer. So if you think that a 4 to 1 Republican to Democratic tilt is "bipartisan" in the traditional sense then you’re an idiot. Not to mention the fact that the two "independent" trustees didn’t say that Social Security was going to "go broke."
Response:
>> >> With a few minor revisions, > >> it will go on forever > > Amen. > What could be more minor than setting aside 5% of the employees, or, > overall, setting aside about 1% to 2%. What revision would be less than > that? > Letting everyone put aside an ADDITIONAL 1, 2 or 5 percent of their > incomes into a plan to supplement their Social Security benefits.
Don`t look now but, that isn`t a revision and does nothing to save a system that the trustees say will go broke as currently designed. See ya, John
Response:
> >> What could be more minor than setting aside 5% of the employees, or, >> overall, setting aside about 1% to 2%. What revision would be less than >> that? > Letting everyone put aside an ADDITIONAL 1, 2 or 5 percent of their > incomes into a plan to supplement their Social Security benefits. > Don`t look now but, that isn`t a revision
Uh. Yes it is. > and does nothing to save a system > that the trustees say will go broke as currently designed.
All that would take would be a few tweaks. Let’s remove the FICA cap for a start, then how about getting rid of those idiotic tax-cuts for the rich?
Response:
> – The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 – a year > earlier than previously estimated – the trustees reported Wednesday. > Trustees also said that Medicare, the giant health care program for the > elderly and disabled, faces insolvency in 2020. > The new projections made in the trustees annual report were certain to be > cited by both sides in the massive battle to overhaul Social Security, > which President Bush has made the top domestic priority of his second > term. > http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050323/D890QBLO0.html > See ya, > John
Here’s a question: IF SS was privatized, what would happen to my money I already paid into SS?
Response:
Bruce, When you retire, you will need food, clothing, shelter and medical care. The fact that there is an entry on a government ledger showing X number of dollars in the SS fund DOES NOT MAKE one morsel of food, one stitch of clothing, one repair on your house or support your medical caretakers. Since you won’t be working and can’t do any of that, it will HAVE to be done by those who ARE working. It’s that simple. SS can NEVER be a savings plan, not if the government runs it. It ALL depends on the ability of the economy to support the retirees AND those who are working.. The only "solution" is to let MORE young people immigrate into this country, so we have MORE young workers, or increase the number of working young by making more babies (but that is a 25 year program, not really an option anyway). No govt program will matter much. Money in the private sector might help a little because the private sector CAN allocate it in the most efficient manner. I’m in the stock market and the money in the stock market will push my stocks up. So I have a motive. But even if I didn’t and wasn’t, I think some of the SS money going into the stock market is a good idea. It will stimulate the economy.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Bruce, > When you retire, you will need food, clothing, shelter and medical > care. The fact that there is an entry on a government ledger showing X > number of dollars in the SS fund DOES NOT MAKE one morsel of food, one > stitch of clothing, one repair on your house or support your medical > caretakers. Since you won’t be working and can’t do any of that, it > will HAVE to be done by those who ARE working. > It’s that simple. SS can NEVER be a savings plan, not if the government > runs it. > It ALL depends on the ability of the economy to support the retirees > AND those who are working.. The only "solution" is to let MORE young > people immigrate into this country, so we have MORE young workers, or > increase the number of working young by making more babies (but that is > a 25 year program, not really an option anyway). No govt program will > matter much. Money in the private sector might help a little because > the private sector CAN allocate it in the most efficient manner. > I’m in the stock market and the money in the stock market will push my > stocks up. So I have a motive. But even if I didn’t and wasn’t, I think > some of the SS money going into the stock market is a good idea. It > will stimulate the economy.
Here’s a question: IF SS was privatized, what would happen to my money I already paid into SS?
Response:
> SS can NEVER be a savings plan, not if the government > runs it.
It wasn’t designed as a savings plan and has never been one. You’re supposed to have your own savings plan so check up on IRAs and 401Ks.
Response:
>Bruce, > When you retire, you will need food, clothing, shelter and medical >care. The fact that there is an entry on a government ledger showing X >number of dollars in the SS fund DOES NOT MAKE one morsel of food, one >stitch of clothing, one repair on your house or support your medical >caretakers.
There is more than a ledger entry, Doug — that’s point you’re missing. Real money was collected, it was used to purchase government securities and the government uses the funds to buy goods and services needed to by the military, the FBI, etc. The government must make good on those securities, with interest, and it always has — if it didn’t, the U.S. economy would collapse because foreign investors would stop buying similar securities. Iow, the SS trust fund is invested much like a very conservative insurance carrier invests premiums, and goes into the economy. >Since you won’t be working and can’t do any of that, it >will HAVE to be done by those who ARE working.
True, but irrelevant. >It’s that simple. SS can NEVER be a savings plan, not if the government >runs it.
It’s not a savings plan, it’s a mandatory government- run insurance program. Your IRA and/or 401K is a savings plan, tax-deferred by law until overall income is down after retirement. >It ALL depends on the ability of the economy to support the retirees >AND those who are working..
The money from SS payments goes to pay for goods and services. [lots of naivete snipped] Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
> The ability of SS to support the large number of retirees in 20 years > is not going to depend on how much money is in the "trust fund". It is > going to depend on the economy at that time. It depends on whether the > working people at that time can support the retirees. Why don’t people > understand that? Putting "dollars" (printed by the Federal government) > away in a Federal government shoebox does not help make the food, > clothing, housing and medical care necessary to support elderly people. > Not on a massive scale it doesn’t. > WHY DON’T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT?
Is that a rhetorical question… ? ? ? Lots of people don’t WANT to understand it… or don’t CARE to understand it, or WANT to disagree with it… so therefore refuse to accept it. But, in response… putting "dollars away" is *saving*… if they go into a "shoe box" it is not "investing", but it IS saving. The SS system is NOT a savings system/arrangement. It’s a very unusual entitlement that taxes current personal earnings to pay past promised payments based on current poverty income levels. So more people who were paying SS tax 20 years ago were paying less people a smaller payout are now COLLECTING a larger payout from less workers. No WONDER the system is going broke…! ! ! > Personally, I support the Bush plan to put some SS money into the stock > market. It will help the economy by making more capital available to > business.
Incidently, that’s called "investing"… when a person SAVES money (real wealth, as in CASH) and puts it into some type of instrument (pun intended) that has a chance of increasing in value, through either interest income, dividend income, or increase in market value. Later, when this *investment* (either grown or not) is drawn upon by the SS recipient… NOBODY ELSE HAD TO PAY THIS MONEY…! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! It was saved by the person who NEEDS it later..! ! ! ! THIS is the concept that nobody seems to want to understand nor accept. Why hasn’t anybody done a past-performance analysis on this some portion of OUR SS in private accts (broadly diversified no-load mutual funds) starting even just 15 yrs ago… regardless of the ups and downs of the market, there would be a pile of cash available for us at *retirement* that would NOT have to be paid by working people. Some will scream… "But how would the ’shortfall’ be made up for the could have NOT pushed through legislation that allowed for EXCESS (Extra SS payed by workers) to be MOVED to NON SOCIAL SECURITY ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS…! ! ! ! ! ! Imagine if the Govt. mandated a "Retirement Savings Program" in a mandated way, but into an IRA or 401K type plan, only way more strict… as in, no borrowing at ALL..! ! ! No early withdrawal.. for ANY reason other than what SS already allows (disability, death, etc) All these "saved" funds would be "invested" in our countrys’ economy, and help stimulate growth, jobs, etc… Certainly, there are caviats in the short run.. but once "in place" it would get the govt out of the "pension business" that it has been so bad at all these years. I personally have feelings about people receiving money, that they did not save, or *earn* themselves, for doing *nothing*. IMMHO, there is always SOMETHING a person can DO… (ie – work) to *earn* whatever *DOLE* is handed out. There is plenty of "community service" that could be allocated to those that never *saved* enough to justify their SS payments, etc…. However *small* the work or service… but that is another topic. gtski – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Business can invest that capital and create jobs, goods and > services. It will stimulate the economy. But it won’t help if we don’t > start pretty soon. The first baby boomers reach 62 in 2008.
Response:
>> The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 > The Grand Pyramid Scheme. I have to say, it’s the longest running one I can > think of right now. Just like all pyramid schemes, the tail-enders are > gonna get screwed. I doubt I’ll be around to see it though. > Buffalo Bob
Unfortunately, you AND I (I don’t know how old you are) may be around to see it screw us…. It will be *sooner* rather than later…. gtski
Response:
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Who gets credit for causing the collapse of the Soviet Union? >a. Ronald Reagan, for promoting Star Wars >b. the pope, for being Polish >c. Mikhail Gorbachev, for allowing dissention >d. the KGB, for abusing the people >e. Saudi Aramco, for lowering oil prices >Stephen Kotkin points out >(http://www.artukraine.com/buildukraine/kotkin.htm ) that the Soviet >Union, up to 1985, was exporting two million barrels of oil per day. >After six years without hard currency, the Soviet Union collapsed. >Control of the world’s dominant energy source carries enormous power. >Nonsense. The USSR was an economic basket case and its collapse >was underway by 1975. >The critical flaw wasn’t central planning, it was the rampant >corruption that comes with a lack of transparency and democratic >controls. The USSR, from the beginning, was essentially an enormous >mafia cloaked behind a false facade of "communism." It fell apart >for the same reasons Enron and MAXXAM and Worldcom got in trouble. >The productive layer of any economy can only support so much >looting by the idle rich. >It seems to me the CIA’s obvious failures in the ’90s have roots >in the ’70s. The field was reporting that the USSR was a hollow >shell, with its economy in shambles, but that information conflicted >with the "evil empire" ideology and the Star Wars sales pitch. >A culture of suppressing inconvenient facts and reporting what the boss >wanted to hear was established and still reigns. >Cameron
What crap. They may not have had much of anything else, Cameron, but they shure had the biggest nukes around as well as the biggest military. Did you ever visit behind the Curtain. One thing would have been pretty clear. In addition to corruption, lots of people were in uniform. But tell me more about "democratic controls", Cameron. Your a smart fellow. Tell me what democratic control you, you personally, have over your local school district, for example. Can you imagine control the people of Harlem have when: March 2, 2005 Audit Shows Widespread Fraud in Long Island School District By BRUCE LAMBERT For eight years, top officials of an affluent Long Island school district systematically plundered taxpayer funds, illegally diverting at least $11.2 million to themselves, relatives and friends in an array of goods and services from a 65-cent bagel to a $1,800-a-night hotel suite to a mortgage on a luxury home in Florida, a new state audit says. The case in Roslyn, N.Y., presents evidence of the most extensive such fraud ever encountered, national school experts say. It has already had repercussions in districts throughout New York, where school officials and bookkeepers say they are paying closer attention to budgets and accounts, and state auditors have stepped up their scrutiny. The state audit report, entitled "Anatomy of a Scandal" and issued today by the New York State comptroller, Alan G. Hevesi, describes far deeper and wider corruption than previously disclosed. It said the audit found $3 million more fraud than had been estimated last spring, when the first allegations became public. It also documents and analyzes cases of fraud beyond what school officials and the local district attorney had previously detailed. Criminal investigations have already led to grand larceny indictments of the former superintendent, the former business manager and a former clerk, all of whom have pleaded not guilty to the charges. Prosecutors said they were reviewing the latest findings and considering further charges. But the audit also found 26 additional beneficiaries of schemes to divert money. The auditors cautioned that at least some of those beneficiaries may have been innocent recipients of largesse, but the report also hinted that the illicit benefits may have compromised district employees who might otherwise have blown the whistle. That largesse was at the expense of taxpayers in Roslyn, a district of high academic achievement with 3,300 students on Long Island’s North Shore. Officials have speculated that schemes to divert money went undetected for so long because of public satisfaction with school performance, with a 95 percent graduation rate and a healthy share of high school seniors sent off to Ivy League colleges every year. But Roslyn’s education came at a cost: School property taxes for homeowners there average $9,700 a year. In four years, the district’s tax levy rose by 50 percent, to $69 million in 2004 from $46 million in 2000. "Taxpayers are furious, and they have a right to be furious," said Mr. Hevesi at a news conference, hours before he was scheduled to make an unusual presentation of the audit to parents and other residents at the high school this evening. "We’re going to clean this up," he said. "We’re going to put the systems in to make sure this never happens again. The top two culprits in named in the audit were the former superintendent, Frank A. Tassone, who was accused of taking in ill-gotten gains totaling $2.4 million, and his former assistant superintendent for business, Pamela Gluckin, who was accused of taking $4.6 million. No item was too small or great or farfetched for the white-collar thievery, the auditors found. For example, they said, Ms. Gluckin used $935,000 to pay the mortgages on three homes. But she also charged for the flood insurance for her Hamptons house and her $989 water bill in Bellmore, as well $16,000 for pet supplies, and for jewelry, art, furniture and numerous other things. Mr. Hevesi voiced amazement at "the diversity of the schemes devised." They included personal items billed to taxpayers, illegal raises and bonuses, fraudulent salary reports to the pension system that inflated retirement payments and more than $1 million in business contracts for friends and relatives with "no record that the district received anything of value in return," the report said. It said taxpayers also paid for exotic trips to Thailand, Argentina, Morocco and Indonesia; $549,120 for food and catering, dry cleaning bills, $549,129 in illegal raises and bonuses and other benefits, a Rolex watch, cable television, $5,236 for Mr. Tassone’s Christmas cards and overtime for a clerk to prepare them, $42,000 for his parking in Manhattan, 965 personal Federal Express deliveries, computers, a supersonic Concorde flight to London, Coach brand leather goods, $19.95 for vitamins, boat insurance, artworks, rugs, a $4,000 lunch for 40 at Rockefeller Center, furniture, a pool cleaner with remote control, business contracts for friends, Sony Playstations, a $3 latte, a BMW and a Jaguar, telephones in Colorado and Pennsylvania, and an unspecified $4,500 bill at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas. Bills were paid to Tiffany, Tourneau, Bloomingdale’s, Nordstrom’s, Home Depot and other stores for personal purchases. One startling disclosure in the state audit was that Mr. Tassone and Ms. Gluckin got the school district to pay not only for their personal credit card purchases but also more than $1 million in cash withdrawals from automatic teller machines. — and that is local, Cameron. If local government can’t be controlled, what do you think the conrol chaces are in DC? What do you control in DC? And if you actually did control DC, wouldn’t you be taking control form someone else who wants control?
Response:
> Who gets credit for causing the collapse of the Soviet Union? > a. Ronald Reagan, for promoting Star Wars > b. the pope, for being Polish > c. Mikhail Gorbachev, for allowing dissention > d. the KGB, for abusing the people > e. Saudi Aramco, for lowering oil prices > Stephen Kotkin points out > (http://www.artukraine.com/buildukraine/kotkin.htm ) that the Soviet > Union, up to 1985, was exporting two million barrels of oil per day. > After six years without hard currency, the Soviet Union collapsed. > Control of the world’s dominant energy source carries enormous power.
Nonsense. The USSR was an economic basket case and its collapse was underway by 1975. The critical flaw wasn’t central planning, it was the rampant corruption that comes with a lack of transparency and democratic controls. The USSR, from the beginning, was essentially an enormous mafia cloaked behind a false facade of "communism." It fell apart for the same reasons Enron and MAXXAM and Worldcom got in trouble. The productive layer of any economy can only support so much looting by the idle rich. It seems to me the CIA’s obvious failures in the ’90s have roots in the ’70s. The field was reporting that the USSR was a hollow shell, with its economy in shambles, but that information conflicted with the "evil empire" ideology and the Star Wars sales pitch. A culture of suppressing inconvenient facts and reporting what the boss wanted to hear was established and still reigns. Cameron
Response:
the system itself collpased…did not work
Response:
March 06, 2005 Oil And The Soviet Collapse Energy Iraq Peak Oil Kenneth Deffeyes, in his new book Beyond Oil, offers an intriguing take on what caused the Soviet Union to collapse. He begins with a multiple choice question: Who gets credit for causing the collapse of the Soviet Union? a. Ronald Reagan, for promoting Star Wars b. the pope, for being Polish c. Mikhail Gorbachev, for allowing dissention d. the KGB, for abusing the people e. Saudi Aramco, for lowering oil prices Stephen Kotkin points out (http://www.artukraine.com/buildukraine/kotkin.htm ) that the Soviet Union, up to 1985, was exporting two million barrels of oil per day. The hard currency from oil allowed the Soviets to import items that were internally in short supply, from electronics to soap. At that time, Soviet oil production was larger than Saudi production by a factor of three, but Saudi Aramco had much lower production costs. Saudi Aramco resorted to a familiar tactic: a price war. They flooded the world with oil and drove the world price of crude oil below the Soviet cost of production and transportation…[S]evere shortages of everything…developed within the Soviet bloc. [...] After six years without hard currency, the Soviet Union collapsed. Control of the world’s dominant energy source carries enormous power. This account is important for two reasons. First, it reminds us that the history we learn in school is at best incomplete, at worst self-serving propaganda. Of more immediate relevance, though, is the way it illustrates the enormous geopolitical leverage that comes with control of the world’s industrial lifeblood. Some people argue that oil could not have been an important motivation for the US invasion of Iraq. After all, the argument goes, the US could always acquire Iraqi oil simply by buying it on the world market. As the Soviet story illustrates, however, this is an absurdly naive reading of the situation. There is much, much more at stake than just filling our gas tanks. Whoever controls the world’s oil – especially in years to come as world oil production falls increasingly short of the world’s needs – controls the fate of nations. http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert’s Peak Kenneth S. Deffeyes With world oil production about to peak and inexorably head toward steep decline, what fuels are available to meet rising global energy demands? That question, once thought to address a fairly remote contingency, has become ever more urgent, as a spate of books has drawn increased public attention to the imminent exhaustion of the economically vital world oil reserves. Deffeyes, a geologist who was among the first to warn of the coming oil crisis, now takes the next logical step and turns his attention to the earth’s supply of potential replacement fuels. In Beyond Oil, he traces out their likely production futures, with special reference to that of oil, utilizing the same analytic tools developed by his former colleague, the pioneering petroleum-supply authority M. King Hubbert. The book includes chapters on natural gas, coal, tar sands and heavy oils, oil shale, uranium, and (although not strictly an energy resource itself) hydrogen. A concluding chapter on the overall energy picture covers the likely mix of energy sources the world can rely on for the near-term future, and the special roles that will need to be played by conservation, high-mileage diesel automobiles, nuclear power plants, and wind-generated electricity. An acknowledged expert in the field, Deffeyes brings a deeply informed, yet optimistic approach to bear on the growing debate. His main concern is not our long-term adaptation to a world beyond oil but our immediate future: "Through our inattention, we have wasted the years that we might have used to prepare for lessened oil supplies. The next ten years are critical." The world is running on empty, warns petroleum geologist Deffeyes (Hubbert’s Peak, 2001), and yet Humvees continue to roll down the assembly lines, roads to be built, and economic models to be churned out. Hubbert’s Peak refers not to an oil-implicated place along the lines of Kuwait or Teapot Dome, but to a statistical concept hatched in the 1950s by another geologist, M. King Hubbert: it posits that world oil production over time will follow the classic bell curve, the apex of which took place in the past. Tinkering with Hubbert’s math just a little, Deffeyes projects that the end of 2005 will see total oil production at 2.013 trillion barrels, adding, "Wherever the peak, the view is not good." He adds, provocatively, that Thanksgiving of that year ought to be designated World Oil Peak Day and that we use the occasion to give thanks to the years 1901 to 2004, when oil was abundant and cheap. Stopgap measures will not help, he offers: drilling the five billion barrels locked up in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as the Bush administration has been thirsting to do for years, will only "postpone the world decline for two or three months." What, then, is to be done? Well, Deffeyes suggests, we can always try to capitalize by buying into an oil royalty trust. More to the point, governments can develop coal and nuclear energy generators in the short term, polluting and potentially hazardous though they may be, while looking for longer-term solutions with a sense of urgency behind them. And ordinary consumers can learn to turn off lights, eat foods that don’t require tons of pesticides and shipping far distances out of season, and stop buying gas-guzzlers-or, as Deffeyes growls, departingfrom his friendly college-lecture style, "find some other way of publicizing your testosterone."A timely, compelling argument that should make owners of hybrid cars just a little bit happier, and everyone else very glum indeed. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=DJ…
Response:
Question:
December 4, 1997 DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE by Colin Nickerson, the Boston Globe SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, tends to hide a grimmer reality." When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to follow its path. Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World Wildlife Fund – Canada. Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions before 2010. Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a quarter-century ago. Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, and more nitrogen and sulfur. "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to Canada’s." From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted waterways. "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> December 4, 1997 > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > by Colin Nickerson, > the Boston Globe > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and > spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, > director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, > one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to > follow its path. > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions > before 2010. > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered > species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a > quarter-century ago. > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas > and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada > emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, > and more nitrogen and sulfur. > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to > Canada’s." > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has > established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted > waterways. > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.
LMAO!!!! Typical leftist maggots.
Response:
A Canadian myth? I never heard this myth, must have come from your imagination… you really are obsessed with Canada, aren’t you? -snip- > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 >Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas >and Tennessee.
So the United States is the higher polluter, the winner being Texas! I think you failed your ‘Turning a liability into an asset’ propaganda course!!
Response:
> LMAO!!!! Typical leftist maggots.
arf! arf! arf! arf! arf! arf!
Response:
We don’t want to listen to that bull shit here. Go somewhere else to babble.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> December 4, 1997 > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > by Colin Nickerson, > the Boston Globe > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and > spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, > director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, > one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to > follow its path. > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions > before 2010. > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered > species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a > quarter-century ago. > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas > and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada > emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, > and more nitrogen and sulfur. > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to > Canada’s." > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has > established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted > waterways. > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > December 4, 1997 > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > by Colin Nickerson, > the Boston Globe > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and > spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, > director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, > one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to > follow its path. > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions > before 2010. > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered > species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a > quarter-century ago. > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas > and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada > emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, > and more nitrogen and sulfur.
So, the Kat Converters are working then. > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to > Canada’s." > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has > established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted > waterways. > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.
OK, How about some common sense thinking, and an Eye Opener. So, the push was on for the Electric Rechargeable Car. California made it a law too. Well, if by magic, all those gas burning cars were to turn into Electric Rechargeable Cars, how the hell would their already F_cked Up Power Grid going to handle it. <Rich sings In The Good Old Brown Out Sumer Time> Then, has anyone ever though about the added polution these power plants are going pure out into the Well, the only thing that would be accomplished by this folly is a good method of transfering the pollution from one place, to another. From California to the power plant. Now, for the long one. I’m freaking tired of all the F_CKING TREE HUGGERS, blasting the CARS, for the pollution, they say, Let’s take a look some where else, BEFORE we start blaming the CARS, and this moving pollution from one place to ANOTHER. First, a little bit of a history lesson, that is NOT taught in our schools. Anyone here know, what was the major deciding *factor* that governed the way this country was developed? The Clue is looking where our Major Cities Located. They our all located long major trade routes. Water Ways, Wagon Trails, and Railroads. Each of the three has a polution yield. Even back then when the USA was developing. Now, Let’s get back to that Panama Canal again, with this added knowledge. Why, did we build it in the first place? LOL, sorry I was a little fast with that buzzer. Well, that’s what they told us. But the main reason was to move people and trade goods from one coast to the other. It’s all about import and export. OK,…. so WHAT changed since then. Why is the Panama Canal not that important anymore. If I leave this up on the screen, she’ll delete it without saving. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
> We don’t want to listen to that bull shit here. Go somewhere else to babble.
Well, son, that ain’t bullshit. Those are facts. And if you don’t want to listen to it – WHY THE FUCK DID YOU OPEN THE POST? You retarded or something? Killfile busted? Poor self control? Someone made you do it? No likee? NO CLICKEE! Jeez, *another* rocket scientist… Lord Valve Supreme Allied Commander, AGA – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> December 4, 1997 > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > by Colin Nickerson, > the Boston Globe > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and > spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, > director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, > one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to > follow its path. > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions > before 2010. > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered > species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a > quarter-century ago. > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas > and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada > emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, > and more nitrogen and sulfur. > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to > Canada’s." > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has > established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted > waterways. > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.
Response:
> We don’t want to listen to that bull shit here. Go somewhere else to > babble. > Well, son, that ain’t bullshit. Those are facts. > And if you don’t want to listen to it – WHY THE FUCK DID YOU OPEN > THE POST? You retarded or something? Killfile busted? Poor > self control? Someone made you do it? > No likee? NO CLICKEE! Jeez, *another* rocket scientist…
Huh… I wonder if should I take that personally? Freep – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Lord Valve > Supreme Allied Commander, AGA > > December 4, 1997 > > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > > by Colin Nickerson, > > the Boston Globe > > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and > > spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton > > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. > > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst > > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, > > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of > > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew > > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing > > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, > > director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green > > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, > > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk > > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, > > one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to > > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to > > follow its path. > > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government > > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our > > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World > > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country > > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions > > before 2010. > > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" > > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered > > species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a > > quarter-century ago. > > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 > > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas > > and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada > > emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, > > and more nitrogen and sulfur. > > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record > > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest > > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to > > Canada’s." > > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still > > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has > > established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted > > waterways. > > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty > > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.
Response:
He didn’t write anything- he cut and pasted something about Canada not being environmentally responsible. The only problem with the article is that the only people this can impress are those who know nothing about Canada to begin with. The particular myth doesn’t exist in the minds of most Canadians who are in the know. Nice try, Fart Valve, but the only people you’re gonna impress with that tripe is your loyal gaaggle of toadies. Bob
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> December 4, 1997 > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > by Colin Nickerson, > the Boston Globe > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and > spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, > director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, > one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to > follow its path. > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions > before 2010. > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered > species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a > quarter-century ago. > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas > and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada > emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, > and more nitrogen and sulfur. > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to > Canada’s." > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has > established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted > waterways. > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins. > LMAO!!!! Typical leftist maggots.
Lard Vulva jerks off and Sokpoo is there to lick up the leavings.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> We don’t want to listen to that bull shit here. Go somewhere else to >> babble. > Well, son, that ain’t bullshit. Those are facts. > And if you don’t want to listen to it – WHY THE FUCK DID YOU OPEN > THE POST? You retarded or something? Killfile busted? Poor > self control? Someone made you do it? > No likee? NO CLICKEE! Jeez, *another* rocket scientist… > Huh… I wonder if should I take that personally? > Freep
ROFLMAO- if one was to consider all of the dunder-headed posts you made, I might conclude that Lard Vulva was using an epithet. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Lord Valve > Supreme Allied Commander, AGA >> > December 4, 1997 >> > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE >> > by Colin Nickerson, >> > the Boston Globe >> > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and >> > spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton >> > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. >> > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. >> > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst >> > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, >> > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of >> > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew >> > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. >> > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing >> > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, >> > director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green >> > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, >> > tends to hide a grimmer reality." >> > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk >> > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, >> > one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to >> > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to >> > follow its path. >> > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government >> > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. >> > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our >> > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World >> > Wildlife Fund – Canada. >> > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed >> > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country >> > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions >> > before 2010. >> > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" >> > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered >> > species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a >> > quarter-century ago. >> > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 >> > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas >> > and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada >> > emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, >> > and more nitrogen and sulfur. >> > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record >> > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest >> > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to >> > Canada’s." >> > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still >> > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. >> > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has >> > established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted >> > waterways. >> > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty >> > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->December 4, 1997 > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE >by Colin Nickerson, >the Boston Globe > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and >spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton >Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. >Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst >toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, >sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of >heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew >is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing >one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, >director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green >Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, >tends to hide a grimmer reality." > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk >the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, >one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to >dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to >follow its path. > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government >seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our >dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World >Wildlife Fund – Canada. > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed >responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country >now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions >before 2010. > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" >agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered >species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a >quarter-century ago. > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 >Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas >and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada >emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, >and more nitrogen and sulfur. > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record >isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest >to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to >Canada’s." > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still >flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has >established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted >waterways. > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty >is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins. > LMAO!!!! Typical leftist maggots.
HEY…! ! ! Why malign maggots.. ? ?! ! 
Just kidding…. The leftists aren’t maggots… they’re just out of touch a little bit. It’s pretty much all over the media these days… "How is the left going to change it’s message to include more voters..??" And the Canadians, they’re just like everyone else but like to think they aren’t. While the Republican Party has become more and more *inclusive*, the Dems have not. And with total blow-hards like Ted Kennedy still controlling much of the party, they’re lost in ’60s rhetoric . . . Funny thing, how folks… voters included.. can *sometimes* know the truth regardless of what the media and politicians TELL them. The Iraq conflict… regardless of what ANYONE says, it was the right thing to do… and it happened to *cost* us less than any previous *war*… ever. (Interesting read, about D-Day June 6th, and how it was not only a military victory, at the cost of many lives, but a politically VERY necessary victory as well..) Despite what the Dems cry and whine about regarding jobs, the economy, etc..etc.. it doesn’t ring true to the voters. The economy has been growing at a nice clip for years and years… while the Dems have been telling us it hasn’t. While jobs have been lost, the housing market has been BOOMING… across the board. Zillions of folks have been buying houses. In a lot of the country you can’t get a contractor to save your life… they’re too busy. Home depot begs for *installers*… Hillary Clinton is trying, right now, to change her spots politically and position herself for the ‘08 run. She has a good advisor, Bill, to help her craft on a totally new agenda a’la "end-welfare-as-we-know-it-Bill-Clinton". Remember THAT one.. ? ? The Dems were flailing, wringing their hands, throwing themselves on the ground about how BAD it would be to change *welfare* in any way other than INCREASE the funding.. ! ! ! Familys on the street, etc,,etc,, When Clinton saw that nobody was buying the Democratic position, he simply changed over to the Republican position… and who even MENTIONS Welfare anymore.. ? ? Have the Dems admitted that Welfare, was infact, a collosal blunder that cost us billions in wasted money.. ? ? Of course not, it’s not the politically correct thing to do for ANY party/politician. Back to the war, where are all the forcasts of casualties. . .? ? ? Folks were saying there would be 10s of thousands of US military dead.. from house to house fighting and all kinds of horible stuff. They predicted months of *war* and said that Baghdad would have to be won my fighting block-to-block with huge casualties. The pundits even cited ‘gas attacks’… With all the *pundits* on BOTH sides, none (of any stature) predicted what has actually transpired. Even that worthless piece-of-shit Bill Maher claims to now be impressed with what has happened in Iraq. The freakin weasal says that the elections in Iraq have made him think "hey, maybe Bush will pull this off, and it could be the right thing to have done." Well, why didn’t he just say he was jumping on the band-wagon of "good news".. ?? I’m sure the minute things get difficult he’ll claim otherwise about his position(s)… Finally, ALL the corps in the USA are not run by Republicans… some are run by Democrats. So, where are the corps that "do the Democrat thing" and NOT ship low paying jobs overseas, go "green" with their companies, etc..etc… wait, they need to be competitive too… ? ? ? So, they do whatever is needed to stay in business, even if it means saying one thing and doing another. When everyone figures out that "national healthcare" is going to "cost" the same as private healthcare we’ll be on our way to getting it. Someone will have to pay for it… meaning "us". Either the doctors/hospitals will ‘give up’ profits, or we’ll pay in taxes, or we’ll pay in prices of goods/services. Nothing is free. Everyone can ask themselves, "Would I pay a 40% federal tax rate to have a National Health plan..? ? " Go sit in any hospital emergency room and see how many "emergencies" come in versus how many "sniffles and a headache" come in… people get a splinter and want to see a specialist. No shit. On the other hand, we HAVE a national health plan already… with a little *tweaking* it might be a ‘model’ for a comprehensive/all-inclusive one… it’s called MEDICARE/MEDICAID. Oh well… can’t leave out Social Security… Mr. Bush seems to want to shift some of the "retirement" burden where.. ? ? To the wants folks to actuall SAVE SOME OF THEIR OWN MONEY FOR their OWN RETIREMENT.. ? ? ? Criminy..! ! ! ! Where is our FREEDOM.. ?!?!?!? Our freedom to NOT save, and still have more SS payouts than we put in..! ! ! ! When one looks at the Social Security system and objectively looks at how it works… WHEW..! ! It was a *good* idea originally, and IIRC it was a ‘temporary’ fix… as it should have been. It *fixed* a couple things that needed fixing on a short-term basis. Later, someone (a Democrat, I think) decided that the "extra" SS tax being collected should be *spent* in the general fund… thus, for a long time we’ve paid MORE INTO SS THAN IS NEEDED… the overage is taken out (and spent, not refunded) and they are claiming that SS is going Imagine if you paid into your 401k/IRA, and someone took say, 20% of it every year, then told you there wouldn’t be enough for you to retire on… ? ? WTF.. !?!?! What if you were due a fed tax ‘refund’ and they sent you a letter saying, "We kept your refund and put it in the general fund."… ? ? ? ? Rant off… … second cup of java has kicked in and there’s work to get done..! ! Anyone "need" a "mangle iron"… ? ? ? I’m trying to figure out how to get rid of this thing without throwing it out. 
gtski
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > We don’t want to listen to that bull shit here. Go somewhere else to babble. >December 4, 1997 > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE >by Colin Nickerson, >the Boston Globe > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and >spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton >Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. >Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst >toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, >sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of >heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew >is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing >one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, >director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green >Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, >tends to hide a grimmer reality." > When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk >the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, >one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to >dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to >follow its path. > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government >seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our >dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World >Wildlife Fund – Canada. > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed >responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country >now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions >before 2010. > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" >agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered >species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a >quarter-century ago. > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 >Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas >and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada >emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, >and more nitrogen and sulfur. > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record >isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest >to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to >Canada’s." > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still >flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has >established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted >waterways. > "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty >is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.
Somebody hear something?
Response:
>LMAO!!!! Typical leftist maggots.
you must be right… like the nazi party…
Response:
>Lord Valve >Supreme Allied Commander, AGA
You really ARE a retard. Fucking demented… only in America…
Response:
> is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.
OK, How about some common sense thinking, and an Eye Opener. So, the push was on for the Electric Rechargeable Car. California made it a law too. Well, if by magic, all those gas burning cars were to turn into Electric Rechargeable Cars, how the hell would their already F_cked Up Power Grid going to handle it. <Rich sings In The Good Old Brown Out Summer Time> Then, has anyone ever though about the added pollution these power plants are going pure out into the Well, the only thing that would be accomplished by this folly is a good method of transferring the pollution from one place, to another. From California to the power plant. Now, for the long one. I’m freaking tired of all the F_CKING TREE HUGGERS, blasting the CARS, for the pollution, they say, Let’s take a look some where else, BEFORE we start blaming the CARS, and this moving pollution from one place to ANOTHER. First, a little bit of a history lesson, that is NOT taught in our schools. Anyone here know, what was the major deciding *factor* that governed the way this country was developed? The Clue is looking where our Major Cities Located. They our all located long major trade routes. Water Ways, Wagon Trails, and Railroads. Each of the three has a pollution yield. Even back then when the USA was developing. Now, Let’s get back to that Panama Canal again, with this added knowledge. Why, did we build it in the first place? LOL, sorry I was a little fast with that buzzer. Well, that’s what they told us. But the main reason was to move people and trade goods from one coast to the other. It’s all about import and export. OK,…. so WHAT changed since then. Why is the Panama Canal not that important anymore. If I leave this up on the screen, she’ll delete it without saving. Well, the correct answer is, containers. Those *Container* Ships coming into our ports. Here’s how this works. England ships some containers with goods to the USA, and they come into Port Newark, let’s say. The containers for the west coast, are loaded on rail cars, and travel by rail to the west coast. That, is much faster, and cost effective than using the Panama Canal. So, again we seem to have relocated the pollution by-products produced by the transportation of goods, from one place to another. So, now comes the question, just exactly how much oil do the railroads actual consume every year!!!!!! I want a NUMBER, of how many barrels of oil per year, do the railroads in the USA, AND Canada actually consume. In comparison to what the cars actually produce each year, exactly where does the total annual pollution the railroads produce compare. Then, how do the railroads compare to the amounts of pollution produce by the electric generating power plants. You always hear about the tree huggers complaining about the pollution from cars, and the power plants. Let’s talk railroads for a bit. Where are the stats on that little talked about polluter. Now class, here comes the extra credit question. For one drop of gas, how far can you make a car move, measured in feet per drop. Record the distance, and the pollution yield. Now, let’s see if some ass hole politician can legislate a law, that changes the laws of science, and get that same car to move a farther distance THAT same car, with less pollution. Ok class, can THAT, be done, with one drop of gas. Hint – E=MC^ Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
> >Lord Valve >Supreme Allied Commander, AGA > You really ARE a retard. Fucking demented… > only in America…
That works exactly as intended – *every* time. LV
Response:
> That works exactly as intended – *every* time. > LV
Which does tend to make one wonder why you keep testing a circuit that you already know works, I mean, it’s about as challenging as opening the fridge door and confirming that yes, the light came on again…. BTW, that Super Reverb sounded incredibly sweet, and My God what a tight band, and what a joy to see musicians having that good a time with no egos and no bullshit onstage, just playing their hearts out. Trucks himself appears to be about twelve years old, I’m almost surprised they let him into the club. Emotional fella too, I saw him smile at one point. ;-) Crappy setup at the club though, tables left on the floor on a standing-room-only night, no aisles for people to get to the bar or can, hotter than the lawyers’ corner of Hell, the old lady and I cracked each other up by both checking for a sprinkler system at the same time. I’m amazed at what some club owners get away with, not a dive by any means, but geez, a little common sense would go a long ways.
Response:
> Let’s talk railroads for a bit. > Where are the stats on that little talked about polluter.
Anyone who’s even remotely familar with railroads and the statistics can tell you that only water transport is more efficient in terms of fuel burnt per ton-mile. Where you are at, most of the railroads are powered by electricity, not diesel, ALL the trains going in & out of Manhattan are electrically powered. Try to name one that isn’t, you can’t. — Ned Carlson Triode Electronics Chicago,IL USA www.triodeelectronics.com
Response:
> > Let’s talk railroads for a bit. > Where are the stats on that little talked about polluter. > Anyone who’s even remotely familar with railroads and the statistics > can tell you that only water transport is more efficient in > terms of fuel burnt per ton-mile. > Where you are at, most of the railroads are powered by electricity, > not diesel,
I watch the Tropicana Express http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=24496 pass by twice a week at a rail line, which was the old Lehigh Valley RR http://www.enter.net/~lvrr/ which ran engines like these http://www.lvrr.com/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimage&alb… right past my house as I grew up as a kid. Some of the largest steam locomotives ran on that line. Four to five diesel engines pulling cars of frozen orange juice on it’s way up the to the New England states. Besides the orange juice, you can not believe the amount of freight that runs on that line past my house. You name it, I’ve seen it on those rails. When the election was going on, and Kerry and the lefty’s are saying how bad the economy is. I watch the freight going by, and that tells me a different story. If the railroads are hauling freight, and the truckers are doing the same, you KNOW what shape the economy is in. The CSX Norfolk Southern bought out Conrail which held the Lehigh Valley line. Which was more a freight line to the New Jersey side of New York. than a passenger line. Those container ships that unload in Port Newark, are not dumped onto electrified lines. Those lines are mostly passenger service, not freight lines. To my knowledge, with the retirement of the GG1’s, there are no electrified locomotives in NJ that can pull the tonnage the diesel locomotives do all the time today. I’ve counted more than a 140 cars on the Tropicana with as many as six motors pulling up front. On the return trip, mostly two motors do the job. Very early Tuesday morning, I sit and watch the fully loaded Tropicana pass by, and usually Thursday morning I catch the empties on their return trip back to the orange groves. If you care to come out here, I’ll treat ya to some White Castle sliders, and we can watch the Tropicana pass by. > ALL the trains going in & out of Manhattan are > electrically powered. Try to name one that isn’t, you can’t.
BTW, the electrified line came to be because of the tunnels into NYC would fill with smoke and steam from the old coal burning locomotives. Electrified lines were mostly a passenger/tunnel thing, not fright. Freight got into NY from NJ by barge, or it was routed up north, than crossed into NY by bridge, and went back south on rail along the river into NYC. Diesel was always more practical and cost effective than electrified lines. The GG1 may have been the only exception, as locomotives go. And that was a PRR thing only. Regards, Rich Koerner, Time Electronics. http://www.timeelect.com Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering, Music & Studio Production, Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers
Response:
<Rich is paying attention> – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>December 4, 1997 >> DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE >>by Colin Nickerson, >>the Boston Globe >> SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy mountains, dense forests, and >>spectacular headlands rearing from the Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton >>Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. >> But amid this splendor twists the maggot of environmental corruption. >>Festering in the heart of Sydney, the island’s only city, is the worst >>toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, >>sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary packed with 700,000 tons of >>heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic chemicals. The lethal brew >>is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. >> "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not at all the sort of thing >>one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, >>director of the Sierra Club of Canada. "Except that ‘good green >>Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, unfortunately, >>tends to hide a grimmer reality." >> When it comes to guarding the environment, Canada knows how to talk >>the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992, this country, >>one of the world’s seven leading industrial nations, proudly pledged to >>dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and hectored others to >>follow its path. >> Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the government >>seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. >> "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our >>dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation biologist with the World >>Wildlife Fund – Canada. >> Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed >>responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the country >>now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any reductions >>before 2010. >> Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a "biodiversity" >>agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal endangered >>species act like the one enacted in the United States more than a >>quarter-century ago. >> Meanwhile, a recent study found that of the 50 American states and 10 >>Canadian provinces, Ontario was the third-worst polluter, after Texas >>and Tennessee. Another study found that on a per-capita basis, Canada >>emits as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the United States, >>and more nitrogen and sulfur. >> "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our ‘dirty’ neighbor, our record >>isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a bigger nest >>to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to >>Canada’s." >> From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s important cities still >>flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. >> There is no Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Clean Water Act that has >>established courts to force American cities to scour badly polluted >>waterways. >> "There remains a 19th-century way of thinking that all natural bounty >>is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins. > LMAO!!!! Typical leftist maggots. > HEY…! ! ! Why malign maggots.. ? ?! ! > Just kidding…. > The leftists aren’t maggots… they’re just out of touch a little bit. > It’s pretty much all over the media these days… "How is the left > going to change it’s message to include more voters..??" > And the Canadians, they’re just like everyone else but like to think > they aren’t. > While the Republican Party has become more and more *inclusive*, the > Dems have not. And with total blow-hards like Ted Kennedy still > controlling much of the party, they’re lost in ’60s rhetoric . . . > Funny thing, how folks… voters included.. can *sometimes* know the > truth regardless of what the media and politicians TELL them. The > Iraq conflict… regardless of what ANYONE says, it was the right > thing to do… and it happened to *cost* us less than any previous > *war*… ever. (Interesting read, about D-Day June 6th, and how it > was not only a military victory, at the cost of many lives, but a > politically VERY necessary victory as well..) > Despite what the Dems cry and whine about regarding jobs, the economy, > etc..etc.. it doesn’t ring true to the voters. The economy has been > growing at a nice clip for years and years… while the Dems have been > telling us it hasn’t. While jobs have been lost, the housing market > has been BOOMING… across the board. Zillions of folks have been > buying houses. In a lot of the country you can’t get a contractor to > save your life… they’re too busy. Home depot begs for *installers*… > Hillary Clinton is trying, right now, to change her spots politically > and position herself for the ‘08 run. She has a good advisor, Bill, to > help her craft on a totally new agenda a’la > "end-welfare-as-we-know-it-Bill-Clinton". Remember THAT one.. ? ? The > Dems were flailing, wringing their hands, throwing themselves on the > ground about how BAD it would be to change *welfare* in any way other > than INCREASE the funding.. ! ! ! Familys on the street, etc,,etc,, > When Clinton saw that nobody was buying the Democratic position, he > simply changed over to the Republican position… and who even > MENTIONS Welfare anymore.. ? ? Have the Dems admitted that Welfare, > was infact, a collosal blunder that cost us billions in wasted money.. > ? ? Of course not, it’s not the politically correct thing to do for > ANY party/politician. > Back to the war, where are all the forcasts of casualties. . .? ? ? > Folks were saying there would be 10s of thousands of US military > dead.. from house to house fighting and all kinds of horible stuff. > They predicted months of *war* and said that Baghdad would have to be > won my fighting block-to-block with huge casualties. The pundits even > cited ‘gas attacks’… > With all the *pundits* on BOTH sides, none (of any stature) predicted > what has actually transpired. > Even that worthless piece-of-shit Bill Maher claims to now be > impressed with what has happened in Iraq. The freakin weasal says that > the elections in Iraq have made him think "hey, maybe Bush will pull > this off, and it could be the right thing to have done." Well, why > didn’t he just say he was jumping on the band-wagon of "good news".. > ?? I’m sure the minute things get difficult he’ll claim otherwise > about his position(s)… > Finally, ALL the corps in the USA are not run by Republicans… some > are run by Democrats. So, where are the corps that "do the Democrat > thing" and NOT ship low paying jobs overseas, go "green" with their > companies, etc..etc… wait, they need to be competitive too… ? ? ? > So, they do whatever is needed to stay in business, even if it means > saying one thing and doing another. > When everyone figures out that "national healthcare" is going to > "cost" the same as private healthcare we’ll be on our way to getting > it. Someone will have to pay for it… meaning "us". Either the > doctors/hospitals will ‘give up’ profits, or we’ll pay in taxes, or > we’ll pay in prices of goods/services. Nothing is free. > Everyone can ask themselves, "Would I pay a 40% federal tax rate to > have a National Health plan..? ? " Go sit in any hospital emergency > room and see how many "emergencies" come in versus how many "sniffles > and a headache" come in… people get a splinter and want to see a > specialist. No shit. > On the other hand, we HAVE a national health plan already… with a > little *tweaking* it might be a ‘model’ for a > comprehensive/all-inclusive one… it’s called MEDICARE/MEDICAID. > Oh well… can’t leave out Social Security… Mr. Bush seems to want > to shift some of the "retirement" burden where.. ? ? To the > wants folks to actuall SAVE SOME OF THEIR OWN MONEY FOR their OWN > RETIREMENT.. ? ? ? Criminy..! ! ! ! Where is our FREEDOM.. ?!?!?!? > Our freedom to NOT save, and still have more SS payouts than we put > in..! ! ! ! > When one looks at the Social Security system and objectively looks at > how it works… WHEW..! ! It was a *good* idea originally, and IIRC > it was a ‘temporary’ fix… as it should have been. It *fixed* a > couple things that needed fixing on a short-term basis. Later, > someone (a Democrat, I think) decided that the "extra" SS tax being > collected should be *spent* in the general fund… thus, for a long > time we’ve paid MORE INTO SS THAN IS NEEDED… the overage is taken > out (and spent, not refunded) and they are claiming that SS is going > Imagine if you paid into your 401k/IRA, and someone took say, 20% of > it every year, then told you there wouldn’t be enough for you to > retire on… ? ? WTF.. !?!?! What if you were due a fed tax > ‘refund’ and they sent you a letter saying, "We kept your refund and > put it in the general fund."… ? ? ? ? > Rant off… > … second cup of java has kicked in and there’s work to get done..! ! > Anyone "need" a "mangle iron"… ? ? ? I’m trying to figure out how > to get rid of this thing without throwing it out. > > gtski
<thinking> It needs a little … read more »
Response:
> > We don’t want to listen to that bull shit
here. Go somewhere else to babble. > Well, son, that ain’t bullshit. Those are
facts. Oh I get it. If some info is written by anyone for the Boston Globe, they are FACTS. And if Fart Valve sez they is the FACTS, then garly gee, no one, absolutely no one is allowed to question them FACTS! (Unfortunately, Fart Valve is so self-deluded, he wouldn’t know a FACT if one bit him on the ass). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> And if you don’t want to listen to it – WHY THE FUCK DID YOU OPEN > THE POST? You retarded or something? Killfile busted? Poor > self control? Someone made you do it? > No likee? NO CLICKEE! Jeez, *another* rocket scientist… > Lord Valve > Supreme Allied Commander, AGA message > > December 4, 1997 > > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > > by Colin Nickerson, > > the Boston Globe > > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy
mountains, dense forests, and > > spectacular headlands rearing from the
Atlantic’s churn, Cape Breton > > Island ranks among the grandest of Canada’s national treasures. > > But amid this splendor twists the maggot
of environmental corruption. > > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the
island’s only city, is the worst > > toxic waste dump in North America, a series of "tar" lagoons, > > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal estuary
packed with 700,000 tons of > > heavy metals, coal waste, and carcinogenic
chemicals. The lethal brew > > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > > "It’s a national disgrace, of course, not
at all the sort of thing > > one expects from Canada the good and green," said Elizabeth May, > > director of the Sierra Club of Canada.
"Except that ‘good green > > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering
reputation, unfortunately, > > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > > When it comes to guarding the environment,
Canada knows how to talk > > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De
Janeiro in 1992, this country, > > one of the world’s seven leading industrial
nations, proudly pledged to > > dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions
and hectored others to > > follow its path. > > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have
gone silent as the government > > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > > "The country’s actual accomplishments have fallen short of our > > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation
biologist with the World > > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > > responsible for global warming has risen 13
percent, and the country > > now is hedging on whether it will commit to
making any reductions > > before 2010. > > Similarly, the nation that pushed so
vigorously for a "biodiversity" > > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to
pass a federal endangered > > species act like the one enacted in the
United States more than a > > quarter-century ago. > > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of
the 50 American states and 10 > > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the
third-worst polluter, after Texas > > and Tennessee. Another study found that on
a per-capita basis, Canada > > emits as much carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere as the United States, > > and more nitrogen and sulfur. > > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our
‘dirty’ neighbor, our record > > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have
fewer people and a bigger nest > > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law is overall superior to > > Canada’s." > > From Halifax to Victoria, many of Canada’s
important cities still > > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > > There is no Canadian equivalent of the
U.S. Clean Water Act that has > > established courts to force American cities
to scour badly polluted > > waterways. > > "There remains a 19th-century way of
thinking that all natural bounty – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > is meant for us to plunder, not preserve," said Ewins.
Response:
message message > >> We don’t want to listen to that bull shit
here. Go somewhere else > to > >> babble. > > Well, son, that ain’t bullshit. Those are facts. > > And if you don’t want to listen to it – WHY
THE FUCK DID YOU OPEN > > THE POST? You retarded or something?
Killfile busted? Poor > > self control? Someone made you do it? > > No likee? NO CLICKEE! Jeez, *another* rocket scientist… > Huh… I wonder if should I take that personally? > Freep > ROFLMAO- if one was to consider all of the
dunder-headed posts you > made, I might conclude that Lard Vulva was using an epithet. > Bob
Ha ha ha ha Fraidy (who’s job is to visually inspect the nongravitational toilet at NASA) just had to reassert his "esteemed" position in life yet again. What a maroon. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Lord Valve > > Supreme Allied Commander, AGA in message > >> > December 4, 1997 > >> > DIRT LIES UNDER CANADA’S ‘GREEN’ IMAGE > >> > by Colin Nickerson, > >> > the Boston Globe > >> > SYDNEY, Nova Scotia–With its craggy
mountains, dense forests, > and > >> > spectacular headlands rearing from the
Atlantic’s churn, Cape > Breton > >> > Island ranks among the grandest of
Canada’s national treasures. > >> > But amid this splendor twists the
maggot of environmental > corruption. > >> > Festering in the heart of Sydney, the
island’s only city, is the > worst > >> > toxic waste dump in North America, a
series of "tar" lagoons, > >> > sewage-reeking streams and a tidal
estuary packed with 700,000 > tons of > >> > heavy metals, coal waste, and
carcinogenic chemicals. The > lethal brew > >> > is left over from what was once Canada’s largest steel mill. > >> > "It’s a national disgrace, of course,
not at all the sort of > thing > >> > one expects from Canada the good and
green," said Elizabeth May, > >> > director of the Sierra Club of Canada.
"Except that ‘good green > >> > Canada’ is mostly myth. Our shimmering reputation, > unfortunately, > >> > tends to hide a grimmer reality." > >> > When it comes to guarding the
environment, Canada knows how to > talk > >> > the talk. At the Earth Summit in Rio De
Janeiro in 1992, this > country, > >> > one of the world’s seven leading
industrial nations, proudly > pledged to > >> > dramatically slash greenhouse gas
emissions and hectored others > to > >> > follow its path. > >> > Five years later, Ottawa’s boasts have gone silent as the > government > >> > seeks ways to save face on its poor performance. > >> > "The country’s actual accomplishments
have fallen short of our > >> > dreams," said Peter Ewins, conservation
biologist with the World – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >> > Wildlife Fund – Canada. > >> > Since the earth Summit, Canada’s output of gasses believed > >> > responsible for global warming has risen 13 percent, and the > country > >> > now is hedging on whether it will commit to making any > reductions > >> > before 2010. > >> > Similarly, the nation that pushed so vigorously for a > "biodiversity" > >> > agreement at the Rio summit has failed to pass a federal > endangered > >> > species act like the one enacted in the
United States more than > a > >> > quarter-century ago. > >> > Meanwhile, a recent study found that of
the 50 American states > and 10 > >> > Canadian provinces, Ontario was the
third-worst polluter, after > Texas > >> > and Tennessee. Another study found that
on a per-capita basis, > Canada > >> > emits as much carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere as the United > States, > >> > and more nitrogen and sulfur. > >> > "Much as Canadians love to sneer at our
‘dirty’ neighbor, our > record > >> > isn’t cleaner," said May. "We just have fewer people and a > bigger nest > >> > to foul. U.S. domestic environmental law
is overall superior to > >> > Canada’s." > >> > From Halifax to Victoria, many of
Canada’s important cities > still > >> > flush raw sewage directly into their harbors or rivers. > >> > There is no Canadian equivalent of the
U.S. Clean Water Act > that has > >> > established courts to force American
cities to scour badly > polluted > >> > waterways. > >> > "There remains a 19th-century way of
thinking that all natural > bounty > >> > is meant for us to plunder, not
preserve," said Ewins. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
> > That works exactly as intended – *every* time. > LV > Which does tend to make one wonder why you keep testing a circuit that you > already know works, I mean, it’s about as challenging as opening the fridge > door and confirming that yes, the light came on again….
Yeah, but…how do you know it went *off*, eh? Huh? > BTW, that Super Reverb sounded incredibly sweet, and My God what a tight > band, and what a joy to see musicians having that good a time with no egos > and no bullshit onstage, just playing their hearts out.
You got DTB religion. Only the tonedeaf fail to be converted. > Trucks himself > appears to be about twelve years old, I’m almost surprised they let him into > the club.
He’s 24 or 25. > Emotional fella too, I saw him smile at one point. ;-)
Hey, Coltrane didn’t jump all over the stage wearing Spandex, either. All the best guitarists in the world were sit-down players. Chet Atkins, Joe Pass, Jim Hall, etc. Hell, Segovia, too. > Crappy setup at the club though, tables left on the floor on a > standing-room-only night, no aisles for people to get to the bar or can, > hotter than the lawyers’ corner of Hell, the old lady and I cracked each > other up by both checking for a sprinkler system at the same time. I’m > amazed at what some club owners get away with, not a dive by any means, but > geez, a little common sense would go a long ways.
I’ll be seeing him at the Gothic on March 4. The Gothic’s a pretty cool room, but the acoustics suck. I prefer to listen to the house mix through headphones; the Gothic has about 1-1/2 seconds of bass reverb. Mush city. On the other side of the coin, their stage monitors are great; when I sat in with Derek last year the mix was excellent. Lord Valve Musician
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Lord Valve > >Supreme Allied Commander, AGA > You really ARE a retard. Fucking demented… > only in America… >That works exactly as intended – *every* time. >LV
Your mental development obviously ended at age 12…. my problem is I keep reading your demented postings… I really should stop feeding the trolls… and that is exactly what you are, no more, and no less. You may have noticed a few talented people no longer post here, they don’t lurk, either… there’s no point to engaging in a news group with people inhabiting such small and demented minds such as yours. I guess I’ll leave as well, have fun, ‘commander’…
Response:
Question:
December 16, 2004 THE DEFENSE SECRETARY Grumbling Swells on Rumsfeld’s Right Flank By TODD S. PURDUM WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 – Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s terse response last week to a National Guardsman’s concerns about a lack of battle armor in Iraq has set off a sharp round of fresh criticism of him from some fellow Bush supporters, including prominent Republican senators, a retired general and a leading intellectual architect of the war. "I think there are increasing concerns about the secretary’s leadership of the war, the repeated failures to predict the strengths of the insurgency, the lack of essential safety equipment for our troops, the reluctance to expand the number of troops," Senator Susan Collins of Maine said Wednesday. Ms. Collins, a member of the Armed Services Committee and a leader in the recent successful fight to pass a bill overhauling intelligence-gathering, over the objections of some in the Pentagon, added that "all of those are factors that are causing people to raise more questions to the secretary." The sharp comments by Ms. Collins, together with other recent statements Senator John McCain of Arizona, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, who led American forces in the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and, after his retirement, twice campaigned for President Bush, suggested that the ground might well be shifting a bit under Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. Rumsfeld has been the subject of criticism and the butt of jokes on late-night television since he answered a complaint by Specialist Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee National Guard about a lack of armor on vehicles bound for Iraq by asserting, "You go to war with the Army you have." But several Republican aides on Capitol Hill, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said it was an op-ed article in The Washington Post on Wednesday by William Kristol that distilled the criticism. Mr. Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, had long been one of the war’s most ardent supporters among intellectuals, but he cast Mr. Rumsfeld’s comments as part of a broader pattern of misjudgments and buck-passing and concluded that Mr. Rumsfeld was not up to winning the peace. "Surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term," he wrote. American soldiers "deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have." The White House communications director, Dan Bartlett, told reporters that "the president has every bit of confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld." But some Republicans predicted that he would face even greater skepticism and scrutiny from Congress in the coming months. "My prediction is that the secretary will face tougher questioning when he comes before the Senate Armed Services Committee and other Congressional committees," Ms. Collins said. But, she noted, "it’s obviously the president’s call on whether Secretary Rumsfeld goes or stays, and it looks like the president wants him to stay, at least for now." Mr. Kristol, whose magazine has been critical of Mr. Rumsfeld for nearly two years, said Mr. Rumsfeld’s comments to Specialist Wilson were "really the final straw." "For me, it’s the combination of the arrogance and the buck-passing manifested in that statement, with the fundamental error he’s made for a year and a half now," Mr. Kristol said. "That error, from my point of view, is that his theory about the military is at odds with the president’s geopolitical strategy. He wants this light, transformed military, but we’ve got to win a real war, which involves using a lot of troops and building a nation, and that’s at the core of the president’s strategy for rebuilding the Middle East." He added, "His stubborn attachment to his particular military theory had really hurt the nation’s ability to carry out its foreign policy." Mr. McCain, a frequent critic of Mr. Rumsfeld, told The Associated Press on Monday that he had "no confidence" in the secretary. On CNN last Sunday, Mr. Hagel said, "That soldier, and those men and women there, deserved a far better answer from their secretary of defense than a flippant comment." General Schwarzkopf told MSNBC on Monday that he was angered "by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up." _____ Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting for this article. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
< Generic whining deleted > FIRE ANT – GENERAL OVERVIEW Solenopisis spp. http://www.safe2use.com/pests/fireants/fireants1.htm FIRE ANTS – a.k.a. Red Ants The National Park Service has noted that fire ants are so called because their fiery venom, they latch on with barbed mandibles and sting repeatedly with spiked tails, their venom is injected by a stinger like a wasps, and creates a burning sensation and a small bump or pustule within 8 – 24 hours that can last for 10 days! Fire ants in the U. S. are active and aggressive, swarming over anyone or anything that disturbs their nest, be it wild animals, domestic animals and birds, pets or people. An encounter with a fire ant nest can leave a lasting memory of burning pain, followed by tiny, itching pustules, especially Solenopsis invicta, and sometimes even more severe reactions including anaphylactic shock. Fire ants are also identified in the U. S. by their reddish- brown to black color, small size (1/8" – 1/4" long) and by distinctive swarming behavior when their nest or mound is disturbed. Because of this, and occasional news stories of livestock or people killed by multiple fire ant stings, people fear fire ants. In some areas infested with certain species of fire ants, lawns, school yards, river banks, athletic fields, mulched areas, compost piles, playgrounds, parks and picnic areas lie abandoned, unused because of the medical threat caused by the presence of fire ants. In campsites of state and national parks in fire ant infested areas, it is often difficult to put up or take down a tent without being stung by angry fire ants. In the U. S., they will storm anything that threatens their mound or that looks like food, whether it be old people, crawling babies, injured waterfowl, newborn rabbits and fawns, bedridden hospital patients, or you just walking along. The University of Florida and Eckerd College have begun a 2-year study of the Red Imported Fire Ant and its negative effects on endangered species in the Florida Keys including the Lower Keys marsh rabbit, the Stock Island tree snail and nesting green sea turtles – they are finding no island is safe. Daniel Wojcik, an adjunct UF/IFAS scientist and a research entomologist with the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, said fire ants are very adaptable and do well in both sandy and mild soils, and in the mucks of the Everglades. They are often found along beaches, which surprises many people, Wojcik said. People will have to learn to deal with fire ants over the long-term. The days of massive chemical treatments, I think, are pretty much over, Wojcik said. We are working on introducing a number of organisms from South America to provide biological control for fire ants, maybe some diseases of the ant, some parasites, and probably eventually some predators. But none of those things are going to be the golden bullet. Fire ants are pests in other ways besides their stinging. They can destroy or damage crops such as soybeans, blueberries, peanuts, sunflowers, watermelons, canteloupes, cucumbers, pecans, eggplant, corn, okra, strawberries, and potatoes by feeding directly on the plants and/or by protecting other insects that damage the crops. The fire ants may feed on plant seedlings and germinating seeds causing crop damages. They chew the bark and growing tips of citrus trees and feed on the fruit. (Stop their climbing with bands of Tanglefoot
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Truth is, we >> are the envy of the world. > Truth is, that is the propaganda that your government feeds you. The US > under Bush is the sewer and gutter of the world. > Sjoerd > Actually, it’s not so much the government that comes up with this stuff as a > specific segment of the media which has appointed itself the public > relations arm of the government. During the campaign, the incumbent might > give a sound bite along these lines, but it is the right-wing media that has > provided the "details."
Euro-whiners. Don’t hate the Playa’s!
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today we Americans have shown the world that we don’t give a damn what they > think of us.
Response:
> No guns, no coups, no riots, no violent revolution, no storming the > barricades, no blood in the streets.
Tell that to the Iraqi citizens your country murdered, and ask yourself how come american citizens would even tolerate that a war criminal be allowed to run for president, even less actually get so many votes that the criminal is allowed to stay in office.
Response:
> Today we Americans have re-elected our great leader, the man who protected > us from terrorism and THE ONLY MAN WHO CAN CONTINUE TO MAKE US SAFE FROM THE > CRAZY FANATICAL LUNATICS IN THE WORLD.
Except for the fact that you forget that Bush IGNORED the memo in August warning about an imminent attack. So he DID NOT protect you from the biggest attack on the USA. He FAILED. The fact that he has gone after Iraq means nothing really. > Today we Americans have shown Osama Bin Ladin and the rest of the dirty > arabs and muslims in the world that you CANNOT MESS WITH THE UNITED STATES > OF AMERICA.
Today you have shown Osama that he is still safe. Bush said he’s not concerned with Osama. Bush decided not to go after him. Bush decided to start a war with Iraq instead. Osama is celebrating Bush’s re-election because it means another 4 years of freedom for Osama. Osama MESSED WITH THE UNITED STATES ON SEPT 11, 2001 and got away with it. He will continue to get away with it. Osama is laughing at America and George Bush and Bush will not do a thing about it.
Response:
>Today we Americans have shown the world that we are still the greatest >country on earth.
On the contrary. You showed the rest of the world that the United States is filled with a lot of bitter and arrogant losers like you who feel they have a right to rule the world. The world got the message, and is preparring to unite to crush you.
Response:
> Truth is, we > are the envy of the world. > Truth is, that is the propaganda that your government feeds you. The US > under Bush is the sewer and gutter of the world. > Sjoerd
Actually, it’s not so much the government that comes up with this stuff as a specific segment of the media which has appointed itself the public relations arm of the government. During the campaign, the incumbent might give a sound bite along these lines, but it is the right-wing media that has provided the "details." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today we Americans have shown the world that we are still the greatest > country on earth. > Today, we showed the world how we can successfully make decisions and > resolve our problems in our own way–but smoothly and peacefully. > No guns, no coups, no riots, no violent revolution, no storming the > barricades, no blood in the streets. And in the end, the two main > candidates–Bush and Kerry–both gracious and both appealing for > national unity, rather than wallowing in bitterness and vengefulness. > Had Kerry won, it would have been just one more smooth transition of > power, of the sort we’ve had since our Republic was founded. > That’s America at its best.
Steve, I agree with you that this election was administered as it should. However, how do you reconcile "America at its best" with the conduct of the campaign itself? Neither side can boast clean hands with respect to exaggerations and misrepresentations. Some activities were simply despicable, e.g. Party-produced mailers in the deep south that accused Kerry of wanting to "Ban the Bible," etc. And I’ll only add my hope that the President will not only appeal for national unity, but actively work for it — he is the President of the entire country, which includes Democrats, independents, moderates and, yes, even liberals. Unity didn’t seem to be an important agenda item during his first term. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> — > Steven D. Litvintchouk > Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Response:
Martin burbled to the world: > Today, I have never felt PROUDER TO BE AN AMERICAN!!!
You make me ashamed. Chris — Oh life is a glorious cycle of song, A medley of extemporanea. And love is a thing that can never go wrong And I am Marie, of Rumania. —Dorothy Parker
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Today we Americans have shown the world that we don’t give a damn what they >think of us. > You will when you lose your job because "they" have stopped buying american > products. > You’ll care when your son/daughter is killed/maimed in a military operation > that has nothing to do with protecting your countryor your allies. > You’ll care when "they" pull their money out of the USA and the value of your > stocks goes down jeoperdizing your retirement fund. > In the 1700s, the USA may have been able to live as an isolated island. But we > are in the 21st century and no matter how you may dislike the though, the USA > is part of a global village and cannot live an isolated island.
Love Masochism? Vote BushCo! Could four more brutal years of the Dubya nightmare actually be *good* for America? – By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist Wednesday, September 15, 2004 I have a good friend who believes, gloomily, bitterly, resignedly, that not only are we in for four more years of painful and cheerless BushCo-branded tyranny and misprision and aww-shucks dumb-guy shtick, but also that we are actually at the beginning of a long, brutal, fear-based Republican juggernaut that will last a good 16 more years, at least. Because this is how long it will take for the current horrific conservative cycle to play itself out, and this would resemble a more typical and historically proven 20-year pendulum swing, in this case one toward neoconservative right-wing hate and homophobia and warmongering that will careen us toward heretofore unprecedented extremes of sadness and isolationism and far too many overweight white people with guns. But here’s the catch. Here’s the argument: This dark era, this wicked 20-year dystopia America could now be facing, it might be a very good and necessary thing indeed. Not, as you might dream, because four more years of BushCo and a dozen more of sneering Republican domination means there will likely be good times ahead. Not because we will enjoy an unprecedented era of peace and stability and generosity and environmental sustenance, humanitarian progress and U.N. cooperation and fiscal responsibility and a generally relaxed and open-minded attitude toward religion and multiculturalism and sex. I mean, don’t be ridiculous. Besides, the Clinton era already happened. But, rather, it will be necessary because the moral and spiritual and physical hemispheres of our existence will quickly become so dire and toxic and the nation’s socioeconomic situation will become so extreme and desperate that maybe, just maybe, we will finally learn something. This is the argument. It is bitter and defeatist and, maybe, if you let your inner devil’s advocate speak, a little bit true. Look at it this way: If Kerry wins now, the nation won’t have suffered enough, won’t have traveled far enough down the road of right-wing egotism and misogyny and homophobia and religious self-righteousness and deficit mauling and sanctimonious ideology and mangled grammar to really learn anything indelible, nothing that will affect a permanent sea change in our worldview, and we will just continue to limp along, never really healing and never really refocusing our intention and never fully understanding the depths of our dark side. And, furthermore, if Kerry wins, history might not be as fully and inevitably antagonistic toward BushCo as his short, dreadful despotism deserves. Our national memory is frightfully short. Everyone will think, oh well, it’s all over now and the damage has been done and it wasn’t all that bad, really, was it? I mean (they will say), sure Bush is widely regarded as the most politically inept and ethically dangerous and environmentally hostile president in American history, and sure women’s rights were hammered and civil rights were shriveled and every single major ally we have in the world now either disrespects us or mistrusts us or openly abhors us like an Olsen twin shuns direct sunlight. And sure Dubya’s sanctimonious and violent warmongering actions in the Middle East have done far, far more to inflame anti-U.S. hatred and have amplified the threat of terrorism against us a thousandfold, but hey, the Texas schlub only lasted four years and now we can move on, right? Wrong. Call it the fatalist maxim: The only way the national soul can really change is through serious crisis, through near-death apocalypse, through things getting so dire and tormented and swollen that something finally has to give, the psycho-spiritual levee at last has to break. And it won’t be the slightest bit pretty. But it will be mandatory. And in the long (long, long) run, ultimately healthy. Sort of like finally purging a massive cancerous lump from your colon. Only not as much fun. History and the culture, it would seem, bear this view out: We don’t shun pollutive monster SUVs until gas prices hit five bucks a gallon. We don’t quit smoking until we have a lung removed after coughing up enough blood and phlegm to gag a horse. We don’t take care of our bodies until after that second heart attack and we don’t ease up on the toxic garbage foods until we get so fat they have to haul us to the lipo appointment with a forklift. We don’t lift a finger to protect the environment until the hurricanes slam down and the heat waves crack the streets and vaporize your precious swimming pool and ruin the ski resorts. And even then we just sort of shrug and move somewhere else. We ignore the Social Security nightmare until 70 million boomers retire and the infrastructure collapses. We don’t touch the truly dire water-supply issue until the reservoirs dry up and the pipelines crack and Earth recoils. We glut on the planet’s natural resources until the land is choked and billions go hungry and even then we seem to think, well, why the hell don’t they get themselves a nice Costco? We are, ultimately, a species of stasis and lethargy. We are rarely sympathetically proactive, always violently reactive — and only when the threat is immediate and overwhelming. We have a fetish for shortsightedness and instant gratification and damn the costs and the impending toll on our stunned mal-educated children. We move, in short, only when we have to. So then. Maybe it has to happen. Maybe we need four more years of BushCo (though not, let us pray, 16 years of toxic Republicanism) just to see how bad it can get, to snap us out of this fearful lethargy, this ignorant numbness, this weird and tragic belief that it is only through sheer faux-macho posturing and pre-emptive bombings and through decimating foreign relationships and igniting holy wars and trying to prove that our angry acidic well-armed God is better than their angry acidic well-armed God, that we are actually safe and healthy and spiritually attuned. If the past four years are any indication, four more years of BushCo would be just unimaginably dreadful for America, for the health of the planet, for human rights, for the poor and for women and minorities and gays and non-Christian religions. After all, no one could have predicted, four years ago, just how much damage this boot-lickin’ puppet president could have wrought on the culture in such a short time. He seemed so harmless and bumbling and lost — at first. But, then again, no one anticipated that he would be handed the golden political grenade that was 9/11, and no one could have imagined the he and his snarling administration would so shamelessly, so heartlessly leverage our most horrific national tragedy for such brutal and oily gain, using it not only as a fear tactic and a justification for multiple wars and as a vicious excuse to quell dissenting voices, but also as an actual political slogan, a veritable trademarked brand for the Republican Party. BushCo ‘04: Vote for Us, or Die. By the way, there is another option. The path of direness and cataclysm is certainly available and will almost definitely eventually result in significant change born of pain and war and dread. But know this, too: The mystics and psychics and the energy workers, the healers and the deep astrologers and the ancient shamanistic texts, all tend to agree that a major shift is already under way on this planet, a massive spiritual/energetic transformation slowly sweeping all of humanity, right now and throughout the coming decade, affecting everyone and everything, ready or not, bringing the world’s issues and conflicts and spiritual questions to a critical head. Here’s the bottom line: It is our choice. It is up to us whether this astounding and deeply profound change will be, as my friend’s opinion suggests, bloody and violent and full of disease and death and flagrant corporate-sponsored abuse of the planet, or whether it will be, instead, full of light and generosity and awareness and a deep, abiding respect for those who share this pale blue dot with us. Both avenues, after all, will cure the cancer. The question then becomes, Do you want it sliced out with a hatchet, or with a feather? One look at the cruel and arrogant BushCo agenda, and the answer seems evident: We are already making our choice. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2004/09/15/notes091504.D…
Response:
It is a proud moment to see election day in America; there’s a nobility in how this civic function works itself out in the Nation, and something spectacular about it and emblematic of our freedoms as they’ve been successfully passed on from the inception of the country’s independence. An imperfect Union perhaps, but a fine, organic, flourishing one. Truth is, we are the envy of the world. OK haters: thrash away!
Response:
Well, you’ve certainly shown the world something, alright.
Response:
> Truth is, we > are the envy of the world.
Truth is, that is the propaganda that your government feeds you. The US under Bush is the sewer and gutter of the world. Sjoerd
Response:
>> Truth is, we > are the envy of the world. >Truth is, that is the propaganda that your government feeds you.
Actually, they don’t, particularly. People often manage to come up with this stuff on their own.
Response:
>> Truth is, we > are the envy of the world. > Truth is, that is the propaganda that your government feeds you. The US > under Bush is the sewer and gutter of the world. > Sjoerd
Go crazy, Playa-hater! I also forgot to mention, the pageant of it all is moving. and those who waited 9 hours, through all the incompetencies of the local Bureaus of Elections? Great Americans. Hats Off to you!
Response:
> Today we Americans have shown the world that we don’t give a damn what they > think of us.
You will when you lose your job because "they" have stopped buying american products. You’ll care when your son/daughter is killed/maimed in a military operation that has nothing to do with protecting your countryor your allies. You’ll care when "they" pull their money out of the USA and the value of your stocks goes down jeoperdizing your retirement fund. In the 1700s, the USA may have been able to live as an isolated island. But we are in the 21st century and no matter how you may dislike the though, the USA is part of a global village and cannot live an isolated island.
Response:
> Today we Americans have shown the world that we are still the greatest > country on earth.
Today, we showed the world how we can successfully make decisions and resolve our problems in our own way–but smoothly and peacefully. No guns, no coups, no riots, no violent revolution, no storming the barricades, no blood in the streets. And in the end, the two main candidates–Bush and Kerry–both gracious and both appealing for national unity, rather than wallowing in bitterness and vengefulness. Had Kerry won, it would have been just one more smooth transition of power, of the sort we’ve had since our Republic was founded. That’s America at its best. — Steven D. Litvintchouk Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Response:
> Today we Americans have shown the world that we don’t give a > damn what they think of us.
Why are you posting in rec.travel.europe? It is painfully obvious that you have never left the USA, as your attitude would be more worldly if you had. Pete
Response:
Very good. You sound like you are an experienced journalist. Please read below and send in your resume. You’re our kind of guy. Employment Opportunities With the Fox News Channel Monday, October 25, 2004 The FOX News Channel is looking for experienced media professionals, journalists and support staff who understand what people want from Reference Coordinator/Assistant to Department Head – Brainroom and Foxnews.com New York Successful candidate must be a self-starter who is detail oriented and well organized. Must be able to multi-task, and should be well spoken as position requires constant contact with an array people from both inside and outside the company. College degree a must. Strong interest in current events and history a plus. Responsibilities include daily organization and archival of newspapers and magazines, subscription maintenance, ensuring that on-air transcripts were received, handling research department requests for transcripts and copies of newspapers or magazines, assistance with research projects and assembly of research briefing books as needed. Will also be responsible for general office duties including answering the phone, logging phone calls, maintaining office supplies and equipment, and maintaining the reference library.
Response:
[snip] stupid megalomania we had more than enough of that kinda shit
Response:
> Today we Americans have shown the world that MORAL VALUES and FAMILY > VALUES are the most important thing to us because we are one nation UNDER > GOD!
Feeling a bit self-righteous, aren’t we?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Today we Americans have shown the world that we don’t give a damn what they > think of us. > Today we Americans have shown the world that we are still the greatest > country on earth. > Today we Americans have shown the communist french and the fascist germans > and the rest of the european socialist bastards that we don’t give a fuck > what they think of us. > Today we Americans have shown the world that MORAL VALUES and FAMILY VALUES > are the most important thing to us because we are one nation UNDER GOD! > Today we Americans have shown the world that we do not condone evil things > like gay marriage. > Today we Americans have shown the United Nations that they are a useless > group of third world dictators and we will not allow them to dictate to us! > Today we Americans have shown the world that we will get the terrorists and > all countries that harbor them. > Today we Americans have shown the world that Iran and North Korea are next. > Today we Americans have re-elected our great leader, the man who protected > us from terrorism and THE ONLY MAN WHO CAN CONTINUE TO MAKE US SAFE FROM THE > CRAZY FANATICAL LUNATICS IN THE WORLD. > Today we Americans have shown Osama Bin Ladin and the rest of the dirty > arabs and muslims in the world that you CANNOT MESS WITH THE UNITED STATES > OF AMERICA. > Today we have told the world if you mess with us, WE WILL COME AFTER YOU! > Today, I have never felt PROUDER TO BE AN AMERICAN!!!
You nicely summed up the problems of your country. Sjoerd
Response:
Today we Americans have shown the world that we don’t give a damn what they think of us. Today we Americans have shown the world that we are still the greatest country on earth. Today we Americans have shown the communist french and the fascist germans and the rest of the european socialist bastards that we don’t give a fuck what they think of us. Today we Americans have shown the world that MORAL VALUES and FAMILY VALUES are the most important thing to us because we are one nation UNDER GOD! Today we Americans have shown the world that we do not condone evil things like gay marriage. Today we Americans have shown the United Nations that they are a useless group of third world dictators and we will not allow them to dictate to us! Today we Americans have shown the world that we will get the terrorists and all countries that harbor them. Today we Americans have shown the world that Iran and North Korea are next. Today we Americans have re-elected our great leader, the man who protected us from terrorism and THE ONLY MAN WHO CAN CONTINUE TO MAKE US SAFE FROM THE CRAZY FANATICAL LUNATICS IN THE WORLD. Today we Americans have shown Osama Bin Ladin and the rest of the dirty arabs and muslims in the world that you CANNOT MESS WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Today we have told the world if you mess with us, WE WILL COME AFTER YOU! Today, I have never felt PROUDER TO BE AN AMERICAN!!!
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Today we Americans have shown the world that we don’t give a damn what they > think of us. > Today we Americans have shown the world that we are still the greatest > country on earth. > Today we Americans have shown the communist french and the fascist germans > and the rest of the european socialist bastards that we don’t give a fuck > what they think of us. > Today we Americans have shown the world that MORAL VALUES and FAMILY VALUES > are the most important thing to us because we are one nation UNDER GOD! > Today we Americans have shown the world that we do not condone evil things > like gay marriage. > Today we Americans have shown the United Nations that they are a useless > group of third world dictators and we will not allow them to dictate to us! > Today we Americans have shown the world that we will get the terrorists and > all countries that harbor them. > Today we Americans have shown the world that Iran and North Korea are next. > Today we Americans have re-elected our great leader, the man who protected > us from terrorism and THE ONLY MAN WHO CAN CONTINUE TO MAKE US SAFE FROM THE > CRAZY FANATICAL LUNATICS IN THE WORLD. > Today we Americans have shown Osama Bin Ladin and the rest of the dirty > arabs and muslims in the world that you CANNOT MESS WITH THE UNITED STATES > OF AMERICA. > Today we have told the world if you mess with us, WE WILL COME AFTER YOU! > Today, I have never felt PROUDER TO BE AN AMERICAN!!!
Yeah, or something. JS —-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups —= East/West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—
Response:
>Today we Americans have shown the world that we are still the greatest >country on earth.
Can u develop ur thought here? >Today we Americans have shown the communist french and the fascist germans >and the rest of the european socialist bastards that we don’t give a fuck >what they think of us.
Wow what a show of political culture! Do u know what fascism is? If u do, here’s a challenge: spot the differences with GWB. After reading some more lines I came to the conclusion that all your post was pure irony… u fooled me!
Response:
> Today we Americans have shown the world that we don’t give a damn what they > think of us. > Today we Americans have shown the world that we are still the greatest > country on earth.
And you personally have shown that you’re an off-topic, cross-posting twit. Congratulations. Bob M.
Response:
Question:
jk writes: >The problem I have with the film is that it prompts its viewers to draw, in
many cases, ridiculous conclusions from the ‘facts’ being depicted. What are some of those conclusions?
Response:
> jk writes: >The problem I have with the film is that it prompts its viewers to draw, in > many cases, ridiculous conclusions from the ‘facts’ being depicted. > What are some of those conclusions?
He really didn’t go see it. He just read some critique from some wrong wing website and paraphrased.
Response:
> jk writes: >The problem I have with the film is that it prompts its viewers to draw, in > many cases, ridiculous conclusions from the ‘facts’ being depicted. > What are some of those conclusions?
Lots of questions a’la Doctor Stereo.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > > I’ve seen it. Reminded me of the movie that "proved" we didn’t land on > > > > the moon. > > > I didn’t catch the moon movie. Exactly what about F 911 left you feeling > > > skeptical??? > > I’ve learned that it’s necessary to view everything I read or watch with > > a healthy dose of skepticism. Otherwise, I could find myself being led > > around by the nose by whatever pile of nonsense somebody happens to put > > together. Kevin Costner’s JFK is another example. A little prior > > knowlege of the facts really does seem to help one to distinguish > > between fiction and non-fiction. WRT F911 It became apparent after a > > few minutes that I was viewing a propaganda piece. I take it that you > > were unable to discern that from the movie? > Anybody that expects to see complete neutrality from any movie, let alone Moore, > is fooling themselves. It is no secret that the movie presents the issue from > Moore’s perspective. But that doesn’t mean the the underlying facts are flawed. > You asked what left me skeptical and I gave you a thoughtful answer. > The movie is factual only inasmuch as Costner’s JFK (or the moon landing > conspiracy movie) is factual. The problem I have with the film is that > it prompts its viewers to draw, in many cases, ridiculous conclusions > from the ‘facts’ being depicted. Michael Moore’s perspective is the > very thing which is flawed in my opinion. The film is cynical and mean > spirited at its core and I didn’t buy into it. I was born at night – but > not last night. > jk
for a good back ground on propaganda go here. Propaganda is not necessarily lies and bad. It depends on well, whether or not it IS lying wnd it’s purpose. http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q2/bernays.htm http://carapace.weblogs.us/archives/011990.html There are two kinds of propaganda – rational propaganda in favor of action that is consonant with the enlightened self-interest of those who make it and those to whom it is addressed, and non-rational propaganda that is not consonant with anybody’s enlightened self-interest, but is dictated by, and appeals to, passion. Were the actions of individuals are concerned there are motives more exhalted than enlightened self-interest, but where collective action has to be taken in the fields of politics and economics, enlightened self-interest is probably the highest of effective motives. If politicians and their constituents always acted to promote their own or their country’s long-range self-interest, this world would be an earthly paradise. As it is, they often act against their own interests, merely to gratify their least credible passions; the world, in consequence, is a place of misery. What I try to do is read a variety of sources including conflicting sources and then try to see where they overlap, somewhere in there is the truth. What is obviously true about Bush is that a. he’s not too bright and b. his associates are not too honest and pretty darn greedy.
Response:
stupid is as stupid does : What is obviously true about Bush is that a. he’s not too bright and : b. his associates are not too honest and pretty darn greedy.
Response:
It struck me much the same as Rush Limbaugh — I few incontravertable facts, strung together with a lot of once-sided interpretation. That said, my reaction is that same as it is to Limbaugh — if even 10% of the stuff is true, then it’s quite damning. I think way more than 10% of Moore’s movie is true . . . not that the Democratic candidate is any better. They’re both demonstrable liars. That’s why I vote Libertarian. Joe http://www.exotic-scales.com
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > > I’ve seen it. Reminded me of the movie that "proved" we didn’t > > land on > > > > the moon. > > > I didn’t catch the moon movie. Exactly what about F 911 left you > > feeling > > > skeptical??? > > I’ve learned that it’s necessary to view everything I read or watch > > with > > a healthy dose of skepticism. Otherwise, I could find myself being led > > around by the nose by whatever pile of nonsense somebody happens to put > > together. Kevin Costner’s JFK is another example. A little prior > > knowlege of the facts really does seem to help one to distinguish > > between fiction and non-fiction. WRT F911 It became apparent after a > > few minutes that I was viewing a propaganda piece. I take it that you > > were unable to discern that from the movie? > Anybody that expects to see complete neutrality from any movie, let alone > Moore, > is fooling themselves. It is no secret that the movie presents the issue > from > Moore’s perspective. But that doesn’t mean the the underlying facts are > flawed. > You asked what left me skeptical and I gave you a thoughtful answer. The > movie is factual only inasmuch as Costner’s JFK (or the moon landing > conspiracy movie) is factual. The problem I have with the film is that it > prompts its viewers to draw, in many cases, ridiculous conclusions from > the ‘facts’ being depicted. Michael Moore’s perspective is the very thing > which is flawed in my opinion. The film is cynical and mean spirited at > its core and I didn’t buy into it. I was born at night – but not last > night. > jk
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->jk writes: >>The problem I have with the film is that it prompts its viewers to draw, > in >many cases, ridiculous conclusions from the ‘facts’ being depicted. >What are some of those conclusions? > He really didn’t go see it. He just read some critique > from some wrong wing website and paraphrased.
I watched it. It’s propaganda. Well-executed propaganda, but propaganda nonetheless. I like watching and reading opinions from all over the board…far left through far right. But this piece does over-simplify the mid East, it does not go into meaningful history of the region, which he should have done, IMO. But getting bogged down in *that* would take momentum away from his greater goal. Moore picks and chooses the ‘kitchen sinks’ he hurls, and their targets, like a good propagandist does. I’m sorry to say that it appears Moore uses the Iraq war as a tool to further his greater goal. Of course, Moore’s greater goal is to have a Democrat President and Congress. Always has been, always will be…that is, in the absence of a viable, purely Socialist party in America. He’d do better work if he presented a more balanced, but more importantly, a more complete study of the history of the region than he does, IMO. He could do it, but he has an agenda, of course, so he won’t. Propaganda.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>jk writes: >>>The problem I have with the film is that it prompts its viewers to draw, > in >>many cases, ridiculous conclusions from the ‘facts’ being depicted. >>What are some of those conclusions? > He really didn’t go see it. He just read some critique > from some wrong wing website and paraphrased. > I watched it. > It’s propaganda. Well-executed propaganda, but propaganda > nonetheless.
Some people say that our major newspapers are "propaganda." I suppose it all depends on your definition. > I like watching and reading opinions from all over the > board…far left through far right. > But this piece does over-simplify the mid East, it does > not go into meaningful history of the region, which he should > have done, IMO. But getting bogged down in *that* would take > momentum away from his greater goal.
How long of a movie do you want to sit through? > Moore picks and chooses the ‘kitchen sinks’ he hurls, and their > targets, like a good propagandist does. I’m sorry to say that > it appears Moore uses the Iraq war as a tool to further his > greater goal. > Of course, Moore’s greater goal is to have a Democrat President > and Congress.
I think his goal was to produce a thought provoking movie, and you cannot deny the fact that he succeeded. > Always has been, always will be…that is, in the > absence of a viable, purely Socialist party in America.
Okay, I get it, democrats = socialists. Now who’s spouting off propraganda? > He’d do better work if he presented a more balanced, but more > importantly, a more complete study of the history of the region > than he does, IMO.
It was never intended as a symposium of the history and politics of the middle east. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> He could do it, but he has an agenda, of course, so he won’t. > Propaganda.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > > I’ve seen it. Reminded me of the movie that "proved" we didn’t land on > > > > the moon. > > > I didn’t catch the moon movie. Exactly what about F 911 left you feeling > > > skeptical??? > > I’ve learned that it’s necessary to view everything I read or watch with > > a healthy dose of skepticism. Otherwise, I could find myself being led > > around by the nose by whatever pile of nonsense somebody happens to put > > together. Kevin Costner’s JFK is another example. A little prior > > knowlege of the facts really does seem to help one to distinguish > > between fiction and non-fiction. WRT F911 It became apparent after a > > few minutes that I was viewing a propaganda piece. I take it that you > > were unable to discern that from the movie? > Anybody that expects to see complete neutrality from any movie, let alone Moore, > is fooling themselves. It is no secret that the movie presents the issue from > Moore’s perspective. But that doesn’t mean the the underlying facts are flawed. > You asked what left me skeptical and I gave you a thoughtful answer. > The movie is factual only inasmuch as Costner’s JFK (or the moon landing > conspiracy movie) is factual. The problem I have with the film is that > it prompts its viewers to draw, in many cases, ridiculous conclusions > from the ‘facts’ being depicted.
I’m not trying to beat a dead horse, but I’m honestly curious about a couple of things. What "ridiculous conclusions" were prompted, and what ‘facts’ did you have a problem with? > Michael Moore’s perspective is the > very thing which is flawed in my opinion.
Well, people have their own preconceptions. Four years ago, I told some people that if W got elected, he’d attack Iraq. They all said "nah, ain’t gonna happen." I freely admit that I never liked Bush (because of his politics), and that nothing that he does surprises me. You obviously come from a different perspective/preconception, therefore you look at Moore’s work in a different way. I don’t agree with Moore on everything, and he’s changed my mind about nothing. It’s just that Moore and I started out with the same notions about W. > The film is cynical and mean > spirited at its core and I didn’t buy into it. I was born at night – but > not last night. > jk
See above. I respect everybody’s right to have their own opinions. What bothers me, however, are the serious attempts to discredit Moore and F 911. But as I’ve said many times, I fully understand this smear campaign, given the damning effect of F 911.
Response:
> This "hype" site is just an attempt to cash in on the smear campaign > against Moore. You’ll find NO FACTS posted there! > But lots of great reviews!! Like the one from "Anonymous"!! > eric
Oh yeah. "Reviews" from jagoffs who problably never even saw the film.
Response:
>> This "hype" site is just an attempt to cash in on the smear campaign > against Moore. You’ll find NO FACTS posted there! > But lots of great reviews!! Like the one from "Anonymous"!! > eric
I couldn’t help but laugh at the irony of someone complaining about a smear campaign against Michael Moore and/or his movie. Even Mr. Moore understands that what’s good for the pot is good for the kettle. jk
Response:
> http://www.fahrenhype911.com
But what if both sides are wrong about how much can be achieved by shocking revelations on film or in print? What if Bush’s political base never needed to be lied to? That might explain why, despite "Fahrenheit 9/11" and all the other enraged documentaries (the best of which, incidentally, is "Hijacking Catastrophe" by the Media Education Foundation), the polls keep reflecting strong popular support for Bush’s "leadership" and why he continues to find cheering crowds, especially at military bases where troops give their commander-in-chief the big "hoo-ah." These people aren’t deceived. They know exactly what Bush is up to — and it’s OK with them. We have yet to see any sizable group of Republicans who will admit to a single moral blemish, let alone display a willingness to defect. Hardly surprising, then, that Bush supporters display no discomfort over a war that liberals see as an obvious hoax. Bush’s political base has become so ideologically entrenched that it is willing to offer his administration a blank ethical check. The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. The overt theme is unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United States to maintain its overwhelming military superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for domination over friends and enemies alike. It says not that the United States must be more powerful, or most powerful, but that it must be absolutely powerful." The intoxication of such a fantastic design is its most frightening aspect. Yet the plan is being turned into reality at breathtaking speed. Central to its realization is control of a major political party that wins and wins and wins because it tolerates and expects no internal dissent. In a very real sense, the health of our democracy may hinge on the conscience of Republican moderates. Only they can keep their party from being hijacked by crony capitalists and gay-and-feminist-bashing evangelicals. If they stand by and let Cheney reinterpret the free market as a playground for corporations who need not worry about competitive bidding or honest accounting, if they let the fiscal conservatism that was once the hallmark of their party be drowned in red ink, if they stand by and watch the Patriot Act be used to squelch dissent, if they let neoconservative advisers hand our foreign policy over to a militarized corporate elite, then there will be no stopping the continued descent of American politics into the slough of megalomania. When polarization becomes as severe as it is in our country today, politics becomes pathological. Unprincipled campaign managers (and they exist in both parties) and slick spin doctors become the arbiters of elections. Obfuscation is honed to a high art, moderation becomes "girlie-man" cowardice, war becomes the touchstone of patriotism. Worst of all, people not only lose sight of the common good but of their own obvious interests, which ought surely to include having a steady job, a decent retirement and health care, and, at a minimum, not sending their kids to get killed for reasons unknown in the streets of Baghdad. During the Cold War, right-wingers purported to be horrified by the way Communists bowed to the iron discipline of the Party. How could people abase themselves so abjectly? Well, their own conduct would seem to answer that question. And the loyal moderates among them would do well to remember who got purged first by Communist zealots once the dust had cleared: the moderates, of course. Which is exactly what we see happening now as Republican ultraconservatives declare open season on "rhinos" (as they call moderates) in their own party. In an election year, this unfolding campaign to oust the moderates is being soft-pedaled, but it will soon return full force. Recall how Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney savaged Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords back in 2001 after a minor show of disobedience. By far the most unprincipled bullying that Republicans have had to accept is regarding the Iraq war, fought by a president who, only four years ago, rejected nation building — a theme that echoes the isolationist tradition of his party back to the days of Robert Taft. I never agreed with that orientation, but at least it was open and honest. How things have changed. In a recent insightful analysis of Bush foreign policy, The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq (Akashic Books and Seven Stories Press; 197 pages; $9. 95 paperback), Robert and Christopher Scheer and Lakshmi Chaudhry conclude that the Iraq war stems from "the neoconservative vision for a ‘New American Century,’ a world defined by U.S. military domination over much of Europe and Asia, buttressed by a global ring of military bases, each ready to dispatch troops at the slightest hint of resistance from ‘hostile’ states. It was time, neoconservatives argued, to take advantage of an unparalleled ‘unipolar moment’ marked by the collapse of the Soviet Union." In their view, "the Iraqis, like the American people, [are] merely pawns in a global game of empire-building." I would agree, but what the authors overlook is how willingly many of those American pawns rally to the cross and the flag for the sake of party unity. The neoconservatives who engineered the Iraq war have not been all that secretive about their grandiose designs. Perhaps they sense they have less and less need to be so. The colonial pipe dreams they are spinning in the Defense Department these days read like Realpolitik from the era of Cecil Rhodes and Count von B
Previous page