yet another example of how bass ackwards our tax system is in this country. the only way our system can truly work is if the richest 1% pay more than their fair share. period. they have more money than they possibly know what to do with, yet they still bitch and moan that their taxes are too high and daily search high and low to find any way they can to save every single little penny from being used by our government to help those that are less fortunate than they are.
From The Times
June 28, 2007
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary
Tom Bawden in New York
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed.
They echo those made this month by Nicholas Ferguson, one of the leading figures in Britain’s private equity industry, when he criticised tax rates that left its multimillionaire venture capitalists “paying less tax than a cleaning lady”.
Last week senior members of the US Senate proposed to increase the rate of tax that private equity and hedge fund staff pay on their share of the profits, known as carried interest, from the 15 per cent capital gains rate to about 35 per cent.
Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, acknowledged in an interview yesterday that there were justified concerns about the huge profits generated by private equity firms and that he worried that income inequality was “poisoning democracy”. He also said that he would be voting for the Democrat candidate at the next election. Mr Blankfein is the highest-paid executive on Wall Street, earning $54 million last year.
Mr Buffett, who runs the investment group Berkshire Hathaway and is widely regarded as the world’s most successful investor, said that he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: “I’m making $80 million a year – God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate.”
Mr Buffett said that a Republican proposal to eliminate elements of inheritance tax, which raises about $30 billion a year from the assets of about 12,000 rich families, would broaden the disparity between rich and poor. He added that the Republicans would seek to recover lost revenue by increasing taxes for the less prosperous.
He said: “You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families. Or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million families pay an extra $1,000?”
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Boosting Mileage Standards!!!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate passed an energy bill late Thursday that includes an increase in automobile fuel economy, new laws against energy price-gouging and a requirement for huge increases in the production of ethanol.
In an eleventh-hour compromise fashioned after two days of closed-door meetings, an agreement was reached to increase average fuel economy by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon for cars, SUVs and pickup trucks by 2020.
But the fuel economy issue threatened to topple the legislation up to the last minute. Majority Leader Harry Reid held off the vote until late into the evening so several senators could be called back to Capitol Hill to provide the 60-vote margin needed to overcome a threatened filibuster from pro-auto industry senators.
Shortly before midnight, senators voted 62-32 to cut off debate, and followed by passing the bill 65-27. The measure now awaits action by the House, which is expected to take it up next week. But attempts to combine the two bills and send legislation to President Bush probably won't be possible until later this year.
It would be the first increase in vehicle fuel efficiency since the current 22.7 mpg for cars was put in place in 1989 and the first time Congress has imposed a new auto efficiency mandate in 32 years.
Supporters said the new requirement would save 2.5 million barrels of oil a day by 2025, when large numbers of the more fuel-stingy cars will be on the road.
Republicans complained that the energy bill is tilted too much toward renewables and fuel efficiency and does nothing to boost domestic oil or natural gas production.
But its supporters said it reflects a shift to new energy priorities, away from promoting fossil fuels to supporting other energy sources such wind and biomass to make electricity and ethanol to power cars and trucks.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil," declared Reid.
But Democrats didn't get all that they wanted.
Republicans blocked Democratic efforts to pass a $32 billion package of tax incentives for renewable energy and clean fuels, objecting to increasing taxes on oil companies by $29 billion over 10 years to pay for it.
Democrats also were unable to include in the bill a requirement for electric utilities to produce at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable fuels such as wind and biomass. Senators from the South objected, saying the region couldn't meet such a standard, and Republicans refused to let the measure come up for a vote.
But the legislation provides a bonanza to farmers and the ethanol industry. It requires ethanol production to grow to at least 36 billion gallon a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase of the amount of ethanol processed last year.
The legislation also calls for:
• Price gouging provisions that make it unlawful to charge an "unconscionably excessive" price for oil products including gasoline and give the federal government new authority to investigate oil industry market manipulation.
• New appliance and lighting efficiency standards and a requirement that the federal government accelerate use of more efficient lighting in public buildings.
• Grants, loan guarantees and other assistance to promote research into fuel efficient vehicles, including hybrids, advanced diesel and battery technologies. percent ethanol or biodiesel fuels.
In an eleventh-hour compromise fashioned after two days of closed-door meetings, an agreement was reached to increase average fuel economy by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon for cars, SUVs and pickup trucks by 2020.
But the fuel economy issue threatened to topple the legislation up to the last minute. Majority Leader Harry Reid held off the vote until late into the evening so several senators could be called back to Capitol Hill to provide the 60-vote margin needed to overcome a threatened filibuster from pro-auto industry senators.
Shortly before midnight, senators voted 62-32 to cut off debate, and followed by passing the bill 65-27. The measure now awaits action by the House, which is expected to take it up next week. But attempts to combine the two bills and send legislation to President Bush probably won't be possible until later this year.
It would be the first increase in vehicle fuel efficiency since the current 22.7 mpg for cars was put in place in 1989 and the first time Congress has imposed a new auto efficiency mandate in 32 years.
Supporters said the new requirement would save 2.5 million barrels of oil a day by 2025, when large numbers of the more fuel-stingy cars will be on the road.
Republicans complained that the energy bill is tilted too much toward renewables and fuel efficiency and does nothing to boost domestic oil or natural gas production.
But its supporters said it reflects a shift to new energy priorities, away from promoting fossil fuels to supporting other energy sources such wind and biomass to make electricity and ethanol to power cars and trucks.
"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil," declared Reid.
But Democrats didn't get all that they wanted.
Republicans blocked Democratic efforts to pass a $32 billion package of tax incentives for renewable energy and clean fuels, objecting to increasing taxes on oil companies by $29 billion over 10 years to pay for it.
Democrats also were unable to include in the bill a requirement for electric utilities to produce at least 15 percent of their electricity from renewable fuels such as wind and biomass. Senators from the South objected, saying the region couldn't meet such a standard, and Republicans refused to let the measure come up for a vote.
But the legislation provides a bonanza to farmers and the ethanol industry. It requires ethanol production to grow to at least 36 billion gallon a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase of the amount of ethanol processed last year.
The legislation also calls for:
• Price gouging provisions that make it unlawful to charge an "unconscionably excessive" price for oil products including gasoline and give the federal government new authority to investigate oil industry market manipulation.
• New appliance and lighting efficiency standards and a requirement that the federal government accelerate use of more efficient lighting in public buildings.
• Grants, loan guarantees and other assistance to promote research into fuel efficient vehicles, including hybrids, advanced diesel and battery technologies. percent ethanol or biodiesel fuels.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
I Can't Believe It's Not Butter...
when i was a fat loser in high school, this was my favorite show. now if i could just ditch the loser part...
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
No but, yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but...
Part I
may i introduce you to the joy that is... vicki pollard. those damn brits! so cheeky!
may i introduce you to the joy that is... vicki pollard. those damn brits! so cheeky!
Monday, June 11, 2007
Crew...
this pic is from the 2000 head of the hooch regatta in gainesville, my second year rowing crew at cincinnati, in the mens varsity 8 boat. at this point i had lost about 50 lbs from the two-a-day, 6 day a week practices. im the one in the red hat. if youre ever in need of an amazing full body workout, make friends with your nearest erg machine. i sometimes miss it, then i throw up and come to my senses.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Split Scene...
Every time Rosie O’Donnell would walk on stage during The View’s opening, she made a gesture of feigned shock that there were all these people wildly applauding for her. She would turn her hands upwards and furrow her brow in exaggerated confusion and then as she’d continue out towards the table (trailed by the other consistently waving co-hosts), her open Irish face would break into a bright wide smile. She was, it seemed from the very start, saying to everyone who watched: I am going to take you with me now, into the land of bright lights, quick touch-ups and major league pretend.
But doing that while still following the rest of the rules of network television proved ultimately an impossible balancing act for a woman who has remarkably balanced a great deal. Or rather a task whose compromises, not just of time away from her beloved family (a family, it can safely be said, she made a natural part of morning conversation despite the fact that it is unconventional by traditional — and it would seem now, in large part thanks to her — almost archaic standards) but of her fiercely held moral standards of what is right and what is real.
Television has taken almost every ounce of reality away from the very genre so named. We are all supposed to be in on the joke now — that everything we see is edited and manipulated to serve some larger narrative. To wit: the debauched kids on MTV’s Real World: The Moon! (Not really, but they’re seriously running out of places to house these drunken whores), the wrecked and weeping women riding away mascara-streaked in limousines after being dumped by the latest Bachelor, or the ever available desperados of afternoon talk shows. Jerry Springer is still perhaps the most extreme, and even he now has his own meta-show, The Springer Hustle where we see that guests are so heavily prepped by producers they’re actually told at what point to physically attack their cheating spouse (when the lie detector or DNA test comes back positive) or racist neighbor (when he or she inevitably and often gleefully uses the “n” word)
For Rosie what is real is synonymous with the truth and the truth is as precious a commodity as it is rare, at least in the realm of show business. On her heavily trafficked website, she often writes about things like feeding geese, befriending squirrels, baby birds hatching in a corner of her roof, her wife’s conservative family, her children’s small triumphs and the ordinary people she encounters’ various struggles to survive. She puts her money where her mouth is and consistently gives it away, threatening to fire her financial advisors should she ever wind up on a Richest Celeb list. But she’s also fully recognized and taken advantage of the national audience she regained by joining The View this year, speaking out and devoting whole hours to issues like depression, autism, and the devastating illnesses now ravaging the 9/11 first responders.
Then there is The War. Rosie has relentlessly, with unmistakable rage and palpable grief refused, despite Barbara Walter’s awkward discomfort with it, to stop speaking out about this criminal administration and the Iraq War it made up, dressed up, and sold to our nation. “WAKE UP, AMERICA!” Rosie has, for years now, commanded from within the sometimes-confusing typographical trenches of her blog. Despite the fact that the media’s manipulations drove her from the very show she reinvented, Rosie’s fights with Elisabeth Hasselbeck did nothing if they did not wake us up. They were riveting in their rawness and to the extent one side of them ever seemed prepped, Rosie made no attempt to hide her disgust with such executively borne machinations. On what O’Donnell has since called Nuclear Wednesday, Hasselbeck made an analogy about a deadline for pulling out of the war and a timed football pass. Nothing could have articulated more clearly what Rosie seemed to find so anathema about this woman’s politics and ultimately her personal comportment. While Elisabeth appeared to almost relish the supposed gamesmanship of their political throw downs — going off to do sound bytes for the nightly “entertainment” show after Wednesday’s meltdown and assuring the public she wasn’t “mad” and that they would most definitely remain friends, they wore Rosie O’Donnell so far down you could literally see it in her eyes. They grew distant long before that eventual (and perhaps inevitable) dénouement.
Rosie said it was the split screen that was the final nail in her View coffin. It makes sense. The split screen implied that these feelings and ideas Rosie holds so dear and was trying, so very hard it seemed, to communicate to Elisabeth (but also to anyone who had ever twisted her words to serve their personal agenda) about truth and justice and loyalty and humanity could be turned into an empty gesture of celluloid commercialism: Selling Rosie as the worst and most dishonest caricature of herself, one side of a two dimensional screen. Kind of like what the government has done to our nation. Every day veracity is under siege in America as the current administration tries to warp what’s actually happening while the vast majority of our mainstream media remains complicit with their systematic airbrushing of the bloody facts.
We who compulsively tuned into the video blog she began a few weeks ago with her quirky long time producer-cum-mustache artist and giant-turkey-wing-eating hair stylist saw that Rosie was clearly far more at ease back stage, behind closed doors with a face naked of all concealers, singing along to Amy Winehouse or Tina Turner and answering some of the thousands of questions she gets daily than she ever would be out on that carefully orchestrated studio set.
I am confident, however, that Rosie will return. Not to The View, but to the unmatched power that is television. She’ll don the necessary war paint and head out under the hot white lights and blinking audience signs. She may act more or less surprised that people still love her, despite and because of her rage. The fact is this: A steadfast quest to reveal what is really real requires Rosie stay out here, on the front lines of truth.
By Amanda Guinzburg
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
In repair...
Too many shadows in my room
Too many hours in this midnight
Too many corners in my mind
So much to do to set my heart right
Oh it's taking so long I could be wrong, I could be ready
Oh but if I take my heart's advice
I should assume it's still unsteady
I am in repair, I am in repair
Stood on the corner for a while
To wait for the wind to blow down on me
Hoping it takes with it my old ways
And brings some brand new look upon me
Oh it's taking so long I could be wrong, I could be ready
Oh but if i take my heart's advice
I should assume it's still unsteady
I am in repair, I am in repair
And now I'm walking in the park
All of the birds they dance below me
Maybe when things turn green again
It will be good to say you know me
Oh it's taking so long I could be wrong, I could be ready
Oh but if I take my heart's advice
I should assume it's still unready
Oh I'm never really ready, I'm never really ready
I'm in repair, I'm not together but I'm getting there
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Farewell Falwell...
From the Charlotte Observer:
A prayer for Falwell: Let his era pass with him
He drove a wedge sharp as a serpent's tooth into politics and culture
MARY C. SCHULKEN
Merciful Father, hear our prayer: Please let the death of your wayward servant the Rev. Jerry Falwell be a sign that an era has ended, and a new one has begun.
Please.
We know it's up to you to grant forgiveness. We know we need to turn the other cheek. We know (especially here in the South) it's poor form to speak ill of the dead.
But so help me, on the occasion of Falwell's death, I have to confess: I'm having a hard time living up to those ideals.
I know I should try harder. But it would help if we knew that the passing of this fallen man also signals the end of an era when your word was used to divide, blame and demonize on behalf of an agenda found in no book your hand ever wrote.
Whip up fear with blame
"I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle ... all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say `You helped this happen.' "Those are the kinds of words I'm talking about, Lord.
After terrorists felled the World Trade Center, smote the Pentagon and crashed a plane in Pennsylvania, killing thousands on Sept. 11, 2001, your wayward servant blamed that attack on his hand-picked scapegoats.
The spite slithering out of those words is bad enough.
But even worse, Lord, this man, an ordained minister, has said such things in your name. How can you turn the other cheek to that?
Or this?
"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
You and I both know that's not true. You are not vengeful, you are merciful.
It's just one fallen man's devilish game, played to the emotions of those who are ignorant, afraid or both: Demonize people you disagree with and blame them to whip up people's fears.
He's not the only one, but Falwell made quite a splash doing that sort of thing. His movement, the Moral Majority, colored the landscape of conservative Christian politics with a deep hue of intolerance -- an abomination in your name.
Nothing moral about lies
There's nothing wrong with political activism. I figure that's why you gave us brains, Lord. I hope I'm right.
But there's nothing moral about throwing around scary stories at the expense of charity and understanding. There's nothing moral about telling flat-out lies. There's nothing moral about using religion as a weapon against people who don't think the way you do.
Those tactics have driven a wedge as sharp as a serpent's tooth into our political and spiritual life. They've left us arguing about abortion instead of trying to care for unwanted children. They've left us condemning sexuality instead of fighting a global AIDS explosion.
They've left us divided, and pointing fingers, when we ought to be sorting out differences together.
"I shudder to think where the country would be right now if the religious right had not evolved." Falwell said that in 1987 when he stepped down as leader of the Moral Majority.
Yes, and many Christians shudder at where the country is thanks to snakehandlers like Falwell.
We commend to you, Lord, the soul of your wayward servant. He had a profound influence on politics and culture in the past two decades. But he led us by dividing us, and invoked your name to do it.
Please, let that era be over. It needs to pass into dust.
Mary C.
Schulken
Mary C. Schulken is an Observer associate editor. Write her at P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, NC 28230-0308, or e-mail her at mschulken@charlotteobserver.com.
A prayer for Falwell: Let his era pass with him
He drove a wedge sharp as a serpent's tooth into politics and culture
MARY C. SCHULKEN
Merciful Father, hear our prayer: Please let the death of your wayward servant the Rev. Jerry Falwell be a sign that an era has ended, and a new one has begun.
Please.
We know it's up to you to grant forgiveness. We know we need to turn the other cheek. We know (especially here in the South) it's poor form to speak ill of the dead.
But so help me, on the occasion of Falwell's death, I have to confess: I'm having a hard time living up to those ideals.
I know I should try harder. But it would help if we knew that the passing of this fallen man also signals the end of an era when your word was used to divide, blame and demonize on behalf of an agenda found in no book your hand ever wrote.
Whip up fear with blame
"I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle ... all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say `You helped this happen.' "Those are the kinds of words I'm talking about, Lord.
After terrorists felled the World Trade Center, smote the Pentagon and crashed a plane in Pennsylvania, killing thousands on Sept. 11, 2001, your wayward servant blamed that attack on his hand-picked scapegoats.
The spite slithering out of those words is bad enough.
But even worse, Lord, this man, an ordained minister, has said such things in your name. How can you turn the other cheek to that?
Or this?
"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
You and I both know that's not true. You are not vengeful, you are merciful.
It's just one fallen man's devilish game, played to the emotions of those who are ignorant, afraid or both: Demonize people you disagree with and blame them to whip up people's fears.
He's not the only one, but Falwell made quite a splash doing that sort of thing. His movement, the Moral Majority, colored the landscape of conservative Christian politics with a deep hue of intolerance -- an abomination in your name.
Nothing moral about lies
There's nothing wrong with political activism. I figure that's why you gave us brains, Lord. I hope I'm right.
But there's nothing moral about throwing around scary stories at the expense of charity and understanding. There's nothing moral about telling flat-out lies. There's nothing moral about using religion as a weapon against people who don't think the way you do.
Those tactics have driven a wedge as sharp as a serpent's tooth into our political and spiritual life. They've left us arguing about abortion instead of trying to care for unwanted children. They've left us condemning sexuality instead of fighting a global AIDS explosion.
They've left us divided, and pointing fingers, when we ought to be sorting out differences together.
"I shudder to think where the country would be right now if the religious right had not evolved." Falwell said that in 1987 when he stepped down as leader of the Moral Majority.
Yes, and many Christians shudder at where the country is thanks to snakehandlers like Falwell.
We commend to you, Lord, the soul of your wayward servant. He had a profound influence on politics and culture in the past two decades. But he led us by dividing us, and invoked your name to do it.
Please, let that era be over. It needs to pass into dust.
Mary C.
Schulken
Mary C. Schulken is an Observer associate editor. Write her at P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, NC 28230-0308, or e-mail her at mschulken@charlotteobserver.com.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Belief...
by john mayer from his song "belief"...
is there anyone who ever remembers
changing their mind from the paint on a sign?
is there anyone who really recalls
ever breaking rank at all
for something someone yelled real loud one time?
oh, everyone believes
in how they think it oughta be
oh, everyone believes
and they're not going easily
belief is a beautiful armor
and makes for the heaviest sword
like punching underwater
you never can hit who you're trying for
some need the exhibition
and some have to know they tried
it's the chemical weapon
for the war that's raging on inside
oh, everyone believes
from emptiness to everything
oh, everyone believes
and no one's going quietly
we're never gonna win the world
we're never gonna stop the war
we're never gonna beat this
if belief is what we're fighting for
we're never gonna win the world
we're never gonna stop the war
we're never gonna beat this
if belief is what we're fighting for
is there anyone who can remember
ever surrender with their life on the line?
we're never gonna win the world
we're never gonna stop the war
we're never gonna beat this
if belief is what we're fighting for
we're never gonna win the world
we're never gonna stop the war
we're never gonna beat this
if belief is what we're
if belief is what we're fighting for
what puts a hundred thousand children in the sand?
belief can, belief can
what puts a folded flag inside his mother's hand?
Friday, May 11, 2007
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Sanctity of Life...
GOP is pro-life in the womb, not necessarily after
By Roland S. Martin
Editor's note: Roland S. Martin is a CNN contributor and a talk-show host for WVON-AM in Chicago.
Aside from Rudy Giuliani's torturous explanation of his views on abortion, it was easy to discern after Thursday's debate that the candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination are staunch advocates of life, namely when it comes to abortion.
In fact, they were passionate on the issue, and some made it clear that nothing is more important than life itself.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: "Well, I've always been personally pro-life."
When asked about the Terri Schiavo case, he replied: "I think the Congress's job is to make sure that laws are respecting the sanctity of life."
California Rep. Duncan Hunter evoked the memory of a late president to explain his position: "Ronald Reagan said, on the question of life, 'When there's a question, err on the side of life.' "
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback was the most eloquent on the subject: "I believe life is one of the central issues of our day, and I believe that every human life at every phase is unique, is beautiful, is a child of a loving God, period."
He later added: "Her life is sacred. Even if it's in that difficult moment that she's in at that point in time, that life is sacred, and we should stand for life in all its circumstances."
On stem cell research, Brownback said, "It is not necessary to kill a human life for us to heal people."
That last line caught my attention because that is often something we hear from victims rights groups, law enforcement and prosecutors when someone is put to death for committing a crime.
But if you take the candidates at face value, then why hold the same view when it comes to the death penalty?
Now, for the purposes of getting everything out in the open: I'm pro-choice. Does that mean I'm marching in the streets advocating abortion? No. For me, it comes down to a woman choosing. And just like Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, I hate abortion and prefer for women not to make that choice. Will some suggest that this is counter to my Christian faith? Absolutely. But it is a difficult position, and one that I have wrestled with and continue to do so.
Yet I also support the death penalty. There are individuals who should lose their life for committing heinous crimes. And yes, I have struggled mightily, and would certainly say that my position has softened on this issue, just like it has on being pro-choice.
But even with all that, it's still important to at least philosophically explore the issue of being a staunch pro-life advocate, yet stop the moment the child is born.
"I believe that every human life at every phase is unique, is beautiful, is a child of a loving God, period." Those are the words of Brownback, but does not that person -- even that hardened criminal -- fall under the same banner?
Folks, it's hard to say on one hand that every life -- at every phase -- is important, but then say, "Send them to the death chamber!" Those two are diametrically opposed to each other.
And I'll be the first to tell you that many Christians -- especially right-wing conservatives -- are staunch anti-abortion advocates on Monday. And on Tuesday, if there is an execution, they are right there supporting that one as well.
It would have been nice had debate moderator Chris Matthews forced the candidates to deal with this issue.
But let's also expand the pro-life dialogue. Where do the Republican candidates stand on funding Head Start for children? Is that not part of the development of human life? Are we going to see Republican candidates seek to change Medicaid laws to allow dentists to better care for those who get government assistance? Or are we willing to see another case like Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old Maryland boy who died because his family lost their Medicaid, and the boy's abscess, which might have been cured with an $80 tooth extraction, led to his brain becoming infected?
Are the Republican candidates going to vigorously fight for expanded pre-natal care for mothers in many inner cities around America, where the infant mortality rate rivals that of some Third World countries?
What is needed -- on both sides -- is a full-scale discussion on what it really means to be pro-life.
Life is indeed precious. And just as I have tussled with my personal views on being pro-choice and supportive of the death penalty, the pro-lifers should really examine whether they are as passionate about life beyond the womb.
By Roland S. Martin
Editor's note: Roland S. Martin is a CNN contributor and a talk-show host for WVON-AM in Chicago.
Aside from Rudy Giuliani's torturous explanation of his views on abortion, it was easy to discern after Thursday's debate that the candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination are staunch advocates of life, namely when it comes to abortion.
In fact, they were passionate on the issue, and some made it clear that nothing is more important than life itself.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: "Well, I've always been personally pro-life."
When asked about the Terri Schiavo case, he replied: "I think the Congress's job is to make sure that laws are respecting the sanctity of life."
California Rep. Duncan Hunter evoked the memory of a late president to explain his position: "Ronald Reagan said, on the question of life, 'When there's a question, err on the side of life.' "
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback was the most eloquent on the subject: "I believe life is one of the central issues of our day, and I believe that every human life at every phase is unique, is beautiful, is a child of a loving God, period."
He later added: "Her life is sacred. Even if it's in that difficult moment that she's in at that point in time, that life is sacred, and we should stand for life in all its circumstances."
On stem cell research, Brownback said, "It is not necessary to kill a human life for us to heal people."
That last line caught my attention because that is often something we hear from victims rights groups, law enforcement and prosecutors when someone is put to death for committing a crime.
But if you take the candidates at face value, then why hold the same view when it comes to the death penalty?
Now, for the purposes of getting everything out in the open: I'm pro-choice. Does that mean I'm marching in the streets advocating abortion? No. For me, it comes down to a woman choosing. And just like Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, I hate abortion and prefer for women not to make that choice. Will some suggest that this is counter to my Christian faith? Absolutely. But it is a difficult position, and one that I have wrestled with and continue to do so.
Yet I also support the death penalty. There are individuals who should lose their life for committing heinous crimes. And yes, I have struggled mightily, and would certainly say that my position has softened on this issue, just like it has on being pro-choice.
But even with all that, it's still important to at least philosophically explore the issue of being a staunch pro-life advocate, yet stop the moment the child is born.
"I believe that every human life at every phase is unique, is beautiful, is a child of a loving God, period." Those are the words of Brownback, but does not that person -- even that hardened criminal -- fall under the same banner?
Folks, it's hard to say on one hand that every life -- at every phase -- is important, but then say, "Send them to the death chamber!" Those two are diametrically opposed to each other.
And I'll be the first to tell you that many Christians -- especially right-wing conservatives -- are staunch anti-abortion advocates on Monday. And on Tuesday, if there is an execution, they are right there supporting that one as well.
It would have been nice had debate moderator Chris Matthews forced the candidates to deal with this issue.
But let's also expand the pro-life dialogue. Where do the Republican candidates stand on funding Head Start for children? Is that not part of the development of human life? Are we going to see Republican candidates seek to change Medicaid laws to allow dentists to better care for those who get government assistance? Or are we willing to see another case like Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old Maryland boy who died because his family lost their Medicaid, and the boy's abscess, which might have been cured with an $80 tooth extraction, led to his brain becoming infected?
Are the Republican candidates going to vigorously fight for expanded pre-natal care for mothers in many inner cities around America, where the infant mortality rate rivals that of some Third World countries?
What is needed -- on both sides -- is a full-scale discussion on what it really means to be pro-life.
Life is indeed precious. And just as I have tussled with my personal views on being pro-choice and supportive of the death penalty, the pro-lifers should really examine whether they are as passionate about life beyond the womb.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Unconditional Support...
we might not agree with why they are there, but they are just following orders. they are brave. they are patriots. they deserve our support... no matter what.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
doggie dentures...
did you know dogs loose there baby teeth just like we do? did you know dogs even HAD baby teeth?!?!
jason and i were cleaning up the kitchen and i stepped on something. then jason stepped on something. almost simultaneously we realized what those somethings were... TEETH! and then, as we began to look... "OH MY GOD!" we found teeth littered about the loft like confetti following a ticker tape parade. instantly, googling was done. whew. dogs do in fact have baby teeth to lose. so all that plastic, metal, rawhide, wood, fabric, etc. that the little rag-a-muffin has been chomping on? teething. fun times. scared parents. but all's well that ends well. with just a little blood and a few BABY teeth to show for it.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
WHAT THE FUCK!?!?
ya know, for a while i thought, if guiliani wins, it wont be the worst thing. anything will be better than w, i reckoned. but now he goes and says something so vacuous, so vapid, so doltish, so cretinous, so moronic, dimwitted and dense... even more daft than some of the daftest things dumbass dubya's said. IS HE SUDDENLY CLAIRVOYANT? to quote izzy, "SERIOUSLY!?!?" does he think democrats aren't united states citizens? does he think they REALLY want to do harm to their home? and is it me, or are most of the pentagons top positions NOT political appointments? so basically, the intel that the republicunts would have access to would be the exact same intel that the democrats would have access to. IMBECILE!
Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win
By: Roger Simon
April 24, 2007 09:07 PM EST
MANCHESTER, N.H. - - Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.
But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.
“If any Republican is elected president - - and I think obviously I would be the best at this - - we will remain on offense and will anticipate what (the terrorists) will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.
The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.
“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense (with a Democratic president,) we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”
“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”
He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”
Politico.com is co-host of the Republican presidential debate on May 3rd, and candidates will be answering our readers’ favorite questions.
Click here to submit yours.
After his speech to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner, I asked him about his statements and Giuliani said flatly: "America will safer with a Republican president."
Giuliani, whose past positions on abortion, gun control and gay rights have made him anathema to some in his party, believes his tough stance on national defense and his post-Sept. 11 reputation as a fighter of terrorism will be his trump card with doubting Republicans.
“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said. “Never ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”
Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”
Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion, and the freedom of our economy.”
Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up and you are not going to take it from us!”
The crowd thundered its approval.
Giuliani also said that America had been naïve about terrorism in the past and had missed obvious signals.
“They were at war with us before we realized it, going back to 90s with all the Americans killed by the PLO and Hezbollah and Hamas,” he said. “They came here and killed us in 1993 (with the first attack on New York’s World Trade Center killing six people) and we didn’t get it. We didn’t get it that this was a war. Then Sept. 11, 2001 happened and we got it.”
Monday, April 23, 2007
Ah, Beethoven...
ive been feeling pretty down lately. but tonight as i lay in bed, i started listening to my newly gotten recordings of beethoven's 9 symphonies, and all my worries and woes melted away and the glory that is beethoven, all that is right with the world, shown bright to me, and all was well. the power of music. the power of beethoven. all that is broken... ludwig can heal.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
OH EM GEE!
i was really hoping BO was going to have a heart attack, so we would never have to listen to his needless bloviating ever again.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Mmmhmmm...
The Independent
Leading Article: A global warning from the dust bowl of Australia
Published: 20 April 2007
Australia is in the midst of a crippling drought, the country's worst on record. Many towns and cities have been forced to enact drastic water restrictions as reservoirs have run dry. Rivers have been reduced to a trickle. The drought has severely damaged the agricultural sector. Farmers are raising emaciated cattle and sheep. Cotton-lint production has plummeted. Wine grape and rice output has collapsed. Agricultural production has fallen by almost one-quarter in a year. And it is estimated that the drought has knocked three-quarters to 1 per cent off the country's growth as a whole.
And now the government is reaching for desperate measures. Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, has announced there may be a ban on the use of the country's largest river system for irrigation unless there is significant rainfall over the next two months. The government is preparing to wrest regulatory control of the Murray and Darling rivers from the five states through which they run to ensure that water is reserved for urban drinking supplies and farmers' domestic use.
The Murray-Darling river basin has been called Australia's "food bowl". It generates about 40 per cent of the country's farm produce. If this tract of land - the size of France and Spain combined - is denied irrigation it would spell ruin for Australia's agricultural sector. Thousands of farmers could lose their citrus, almond and olive trees if they cannot be watered. Trees would die and production would be impossible for at least half a decade. Even if the rains do come in Australia in the coming weeks, as forecast, they will have to be especially long and prolonged to alleviate the crisis.
Moreover, this is a taste of things to come - not just for Australia, but the world. As the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes clear, the runaway warming of the earth will bring severe drought in its wake. And the economic consequences will be disastrous. Sir Nicholas Stern's report for the Treasury outlined last year how climate change could be as economically traumatic as the Great Depression or the world wars of the 20th century.
There is already a growing drought problem in the Horn of Africa, most likely brought about by global warming. The Darfur crisis has been exacerbated by competition between Arab and African tribes for water resources. But this seems to be the first extended drought brought about by climate change in a developed country. It is a grim irony that Australia is suffering first. The country is led by a man who has helped to wreck concerted international action to slow climate change. Australia is the only industrialised nation, apart from the US, to refuse to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol. Mr Howard, along with President George Bush in the US, has formed an axis of denial over the seriousness of global warming. Earlier this year he suggested "the jury is out" on the link between climate change and man-made carbon dioxide emissions, despite the consensus among the world's scientists that such a link is pretty much beyond doubt.
But Mr Howard is now singing a rather different tune. His government recently announced plans to ban inefficient light bulbs to reduce Australia's carbon emissions. And now he prays for rain. This is because the drought is likely to be an important issue in Australia's elections this year. Mr Howard recognises that baiting asylum-seekers and posturing as President Bush's "deputy sheriff" in the Pacific is not enough. Suddenly, the environment matters.
Today, Australia; tomorrow, vast areas of the world's surface: the imperative for the world's leaders to take serious action to curb climate change has never been starker.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
My Politics...
i don’t subscribe to any particular political party.
i basically have two groups of friends: one set, diehard conservatives. the other, diehard liberals. interesting though that the conservative groups beliefs don't seem to be based on much of anything other than religious ideology. ask them what it means to be a republican and i bet they wouldn't be able to tell you, save that that is what their parents are and that's what "everyone at church is." if i am wrong, i am sure they will tell me.
im not completely sure how i feel about "big government." i believe we should be able to think and judge for ourselves, but then again with most people i know, i would not want them making their own decisions. it's scary to think about how ignorant most people are, and how horrid they would be at self governing. i believe that, although many of our elected officials do not have our best interests at heart, many do.
i believe in personal responsibility, but i believe there are people who are born into much better circumstances than other people. like me, nothing special, just middle class, my dad’s parents were down right poor. but compared to what some of the people i ride marta alongside are born with, i might as well be royalty. to me, i see the democrats caring more about the little guy, wanting to find ways to help them find a way up and out of whatever situation they find themselves in. of course this is not a hard and fast rule.
obviously we need a strong military, period. i don’t see why this should be up for argument on any side. though i do believe we need far more intelligent, level headed, thorough people in charge, to make sure that our military might is used the best way it can be.
personally, i think W is an idiot, and that he governs on second hand info given him by people with their own personal agendas. not that i think they are evil, i just don’t think they are thinking of the citizens of our country when they make decisions. i have a best friend who worked in the WH for two years, who now works at the pentagon, who is in love with everything this administration does, and claims to have first hand verification that they are trying to do good. sometimes i believe her, sometimes i don’t.
free trade just makes sense now. it's the way of the world, and people just need to go used to it. stop complaining that your job is being shipped overseas. it’s tough, we all know that. but the world is changing, so change with it. try your best to find another job. they are out there. and it might take a little more schooling, but more schooling never hurt anyone. there is no perfect answer to this one. just have faith and work hard.
the bill of rights is there for a reason. i understand doing all we can to make sure we are not infiltrated again by terrorists, but be up front about it. explain yourself. don’t walk around like a cocky s.o.b. thinking that your shit doesn’t stink and that everyone should just fall into place and blindly follow your lead. especially now that we know your lead is not worth following.
i think gays should have the right to marry. i think anyone should. i don’t think the government should have a say in it one way or another. churches can be in control of their congregation’s marriages. but if gays want to get married, who says it has to be in a church? everyone is and should be equal. period.
in general i just see the right as being holier than thou, and hypocritical. rush limbaugh- pills. delay- bribes. half the party- abramoff. democrats are not perfect either. but to me any way, they don’t seem to say that they are. no one died when clinton lied (about something that was none of our business any way!)
we need better healthcare.
we need better education. education is the silver bullet. i have 7 friends who are teachers, and not ONE of them thinks that No Child Left Behind is a good thing. I tend to believe those who are actually in the classrooms, dealing with the problem face to face.
guns don’t serve a purpose (and i was raised by an outdoorsman, and i own a gun, know how to shoot it, and have killed animals).
taxes- whatever, the country needs money. most tax cuts don’t help anyone i know, and the ones that is does help... would they really miss it any way, since their accountants take care of the mess for them?
i think that questioning our leaders is the most patriotic thing we can do.
i think bill clinton should in no way have been impeached, and that george w. should already be gone. i think dick cheney needs medication, for he once was a faithful public servant, and now he is just a whack-a-do.
i think hillary and obama will both make better presidents than either of the bush's.
i think we need to get out of iraq, but now that we are there, illegally to my mind, we have to stay and finish the job, as shitty as that is going to be.
i think that syria and iran are not nuts, and that all they want is to sit at the big kids table. they obviously have nuts IN the country, but im not so sure they are RUN by them. if that is the case, why the hell is saudi arabia an ally?
i think we need to raise the minimum wage, period.
i think that we need to find a new way to vote, and there should absolutely be no electoral college, because again, it serves absolutely no purpose.
i think abortion should be left up to the individual. again, the government should have no right to tell any person what they can and cannot do to their body. if you don’t want to have one, don’t have one.
i believe that we should allow any person who wants to come to our country the right to do so. and for those that are hear illegally, they are just seeking a better life for themselves, and they do the jobs that we wont do any way, so let them stay. i do however believe that anyone here should be required to speak english. no more "for spanish, press 2." living free has very few requirements. one of them should be having the ability to communicate with your fellow citizens.
The Iceberg...
JAPAN
Iceberg, Tokyo
It takes a lot to stop a Tokyoite in his tracks: The city, which had to be almost wholly rebuilt after World War II, is home to such an outsized share of arresting structures—including design duo SANAA's 2003 Dior store and Herzog and de Meuron's honeycombed 2003 Prada flagship—that any newcomer ready to claim his piece of the architectural spotlight (much less the skyline) has to pull out all the stops. For Audi's new showroom/offices, British architect Benjamin Warner (a principal at Tokyo-based Creative Designers International) conceived this planar, 172-foot-tall prism whose 120 icy-blue panels fit over the structure's angular skeleton—itself virtually invisible from the outside. Two transparent elevators provide expansive city views (Audi Forum).
How freakin' cool is this thing!!!
Monday, April 16, 2007
Easter with the Fam...
Dad, Me, Mom and Jer
The Lil' Ones
Charlie, Me and Daisy
Uncle Terry, Dad, Grandad, Aunt Nikki and Granny
And then their booties
The Bro and I
Mommy and Me
Mom and Jer
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Ro Rocks!
Keep on keepin' on Ro. You make me laugh AND you make me think. There is no more patriotic act than questioning our elected officials. It is our duty! We elected them, and by golly we can un-elect them. That is the beauty of our great nation. And if there is someone out there who does not like this immutable fact... just as we are free to speak our minds, they are more than free to find a new nation to call home--unequivocally they WON'T be missed!
You GO Ro. You Rock!
Monday, April 9, 2007
The Quadberry Partay...
Ashalyza Quadberry Richardsensinson (aka. Ashley Richardson) turned 25 last week. This momentous occasion obviously warranted a fabalus party. Ash flew in from D.C. I decorated the loft. All our peeps showed up. We ate, we drank, we played some games and acted-a-fool, and had a merry ole time. Twas indeed a night to remember. Now if only we could. :-D
Ash, Becca and I
Ash, Jules and Becca
Becca, Ash, Mandalee, Jules, Ashalyza, Jenni, Mandi and MB
Breakin' it down kitchen style
Mandalee and I
Mandi and I
The morning after
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Friday, April 6, 2007
Hypocrite...
so, Bill O'Reilly, the wind bag bloviator, has been incessantly calling for the firing of Rosie O'Donnell from The View for spreading what he terms "conspiracy theories" about 9/11, saying that doing so is "Un American" and that it displays Ro's "hate for America." check out this little gem from back in the day, when BO was working for inside edition. i do believe what you are seeing is the reporting of a conspiracy theory. shock! awe! which leads me to wonder, when did BO become so "Pro American?" or does he still secretly "hate America?" seems to me someone is a bit two faced. i wonder if he, unlike our President, can spell HYPOCRITE?
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Oh SHIT...
yet another reason we need to be working tirelessly to find new energy alternatives. and i mean NOW! there should be no more important issue for this country, save defending our borders, than creating a new, reliable, renewable way to supply the energy are so hungry for while not harming our fragile ecosystem.
'Strong Possibility' Gas Will Rise to $4
Oil Prices Ease After Iran Hostages Are Freed, but Analysts Say High Demand to Keep Gas Prices High
By DAN ARNALL
ABC News Business Unit
April 4, 2007
For the past two weeks, Iran has not just been holding 15 British soldiers captive; it's been holding the world's oil markets hostage, too.
"There's been a $5 or $6 premium that's been built into the price of oil over this," said Phil Flynn, vice president and energy analyst at Alaron Trading. "Even though this crisis has ended, the oil market is still on guard that the tensions in the Middle East are going to continue."
Oil prices spiked this morning when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appeared on television, because of uncertainty over what he was going to announce. When he started awarding medals to the troops who had captured the Britons, traders assumed the worst.
But by the end of Ahmadinejad's television appearance it was apparent that the soldiers were heading home, and the price of a barrel of oil started to retreat from recent highs, giving up more than $1 to drop to about $64.
Analysts say that the price reduction should hold during the coming days but won't translate into lower prices at the pump.
"Things are looking pretty bad for the upcoming summer driving season," said Flynn, citing a new government report showing that the U.S. stockpiles of gasoline fell by 5 million barrels in the past week, much more than analysts were expecting.
Flynn said he believes gasoline prices will head into record territory -- currently a nationwide average of $3.07 -- by the height of the summer season.
"This is the time of year when we're supposed to be building supplies, but it seems like the refiners just can't get ahead of what has been very, very strong demand," he said.
Today's report shows that the national supply of gas is at the low end of its average range for this time of year, meaning the United States will have less gas in the tank before the peak summer driving season in the coming months.
Analysts said that puts the country on the edge, making any disruption in supply -- such as a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico refining regions or an expansion of the crisis in the Middle East -- that much more dangerous.
"Everyone asks me, will we see $4 a gallon? And the answer is, there is a strong possibility that we may see $4 a gallon," said Flynn.
Unconscionable...
this is perhaps the most ridiculous thing ever to be transcribed into written language. this ceo, this protector of "the little guy that no one cares about" seems to have forgotten that if our air is clouded with all the dangerous toxins that coal fire plants produce (acrolein, arsenic, carbon monoxide, chlorine, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, ozone, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), sulfur oxide) it will matter not if all of those poor fly-over state residents have employment or not, because they will be too ill to work, or worse, six feet under, longing for the good ole days when they were simply alive and jobless.
A CEO With A Spine
BY ALICIA COLON
acolon@nysun.com
April 3, 2007
Original Article
The New York Coal Trade Association, headquartered in New York City, recently held its 94th annual banquet and meeting at the New York Hilton. One of the guest speakers was Bob Murray, founder and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation and probably one of the few CEOs brave enough to challenge the militant climate control movement that threatens the future of America's economy. In his speech, he dared to say that he regards Al Gore as the shaman of global doom and gloom. He is not joking when he says, "He is more dangerous than his global warming."
Unlike many heads of corporations who are taking their companies on that long green mile and caving in to the demands of environmental militants, Mr. Murray is fighting tooth and nail for what he says is, "the little guy that nobody cares about."
"Some wealthy elitists in our country," he told the audience, "who cannot tell fact from fiction, can afford an Olympian detachment from the impacts of draconian climate change policy. For them, the jobs and dreams destroyed as a result will be nothing more than statistics and the cares of other people. These consequences are abstractions to them, but they are not to me, as I can name many of the thousands of the American citizens whose lives will be destroyed by these elitists' ill-conceived ‘global goofiness' campaigns."
Mr. Murray was a coal miner in Ohio who survived two mining accidents and built funds from a mortgaged house into a private coal mining company with more than 3,000 employees. He expresses concern about the proposals in Congress that will ration the use of coal, warning of much worse adverse consequences to Americans than those experienced after the 1990 amendment of the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Murray told me that he had seen the effect of the drastic reductions in coal production, and the wrenching impact on hundreds of communities, as a result of that legislation. In Ohio alone, from 1990 to 2005, about 118 mines were shut down, costing more than 36,000 primary and secondary jobs. These impacted areas have spent years recovering, and some never will. He spoke of the families that broke up, many lost homes, and some were impoverished, because of legislation that the environmentalists call a "success."
"I don't need a computer graphic like in Gore's movie, to learn about this havoc," he told me, "I lived it and saw it firsthand."
To Mr. Murray, so-called "global warming" is a human issue, not just an environmental one. In his speech, Murray said, "The unfolding debate over atmospheric warming in the Congress, the news media, and by the pundits has been skewed and totally one-sided, in that they have been preoccupied, speculative environmental disasters of climate change."
Mr. Murray told me that the Democrats had tried to stop his scheduled testimony on March 20 before the House Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, titled "Toward a Clean Energy Future: Energy Policy and Climate Change on Public Lands." But after Mr. Murray was interviewed by Bloomberg News and by the Wall Street Journal, they relented. The chairman refused to hear his testimony and left Rep. Patrick Kennedy, a Democrat of Rhode Island, in charge.
In his testimony, Mr. Murray explained: "America is dependent on our coal because it is abundant, with some of our best deposits located on public lands; it is affordable; and it is critical to our energy security to protect all Americans from the hostile and unstable governments from which much of our country's energy is currently imported."
Right now about 52% of the country's electricity is generated by coal. In the coastal cities we tend to forget about that because we get most of our electricity from oil, natural gas, and nuclear power plants. But the farms that grow our food and many other industries around the country can't afford these more expensive sources of energy. Manufacturers will outsource jobs to foreign countries that will not subscribe to emission caps and controls. China is building 50 new coal-fired power plants, and Beijing has stated it will not agree to mandatory emission constraints in the post-2012 Kyoto treaty. Why are we being so stupid about this issue?
The irony is that these caps and controls will do little to affect climate. Timothy Ball, a renowned environmental consultant, testified before the committee that global warming is more likely to be caused by sun spots rather than human activity. Mr. Murray's passion for saving the "little guy" is truly admirable. Too bad that fervor is completely absent in Congress.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Monday, April 2, 2007
Priceless...
whether or not "global warming" is a real thing -- something that is cause for concern on our planet -- even an idiot can see that all of the millions of tons of PURE CRAP that we as a people are spewing into the air we breath is not a good thing. whether it is more than that, whether it is the culprit in changing our earths weather patterns and raising its mean temperatures, i do not know for sure; though i believe it in fact IS. everyone should realize that whether that is the case or not, it just makes good common sense to stop polluting our world; to stop CO2 emissions, to stop the burning of coal, and to work harder and much faster to find solutions to the ever present question of "where will our energy come from?" anyone who says otherwise isnt using their brain. in fact, they are just down right DAFT! any one can see that keeping our air clean is in ALL of our best interests. this SHOULD NOT be a political issue. PERIOD. president bush and that vacuous oklahoman, james inhofe, need to put aside their concern for the price it will cost and resign themselves to the fact that this is a PRICELESS issue, one that none of us can afford to allow to continue to progress unchecked.
GOVERNMENT MUST DEAL WITH GREENHOUSE GASES: US SUPREME COURT
Apr 2 12:27 PM
The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency must consider greenhouse gases as pollutants, in a blow to the White House.
"Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles," the court ruled.
Led by Massachusetts, a dozen states along with several US cities and environmental groups went to the courts to determine whether the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide emissions.
"The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized," said judge John Paul Stevens as the ruling was carried by five votes in favor to four against.
The Republican administration of US President George W. Bush has fiercely opposed any imposition of binding greenhouse limits on the nation's industry.
Environmentalists have alleged that since Bush came to office in 2001 his administration has ignored and tried to hide looming evidence of global warming and the key role of human activity in climate change.
As the issue has come to the fore in the US, the White House earlier this year issued a rare open letter defending Bush's record on climate change, rejecting criticisms that he has only recently awakened to the problem.
Monday's ruling was immediately hailed by environmental campaigners which has been fighting for greater regulations in a nation which accounts for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.
"It is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming," said Josh Dorner, spokesman for the Sierra Club environmental group.
"This is a total repudiation of the refusal of the Bush administration to use the authority he has to meet the challenge posed by global warming.
It also "sends a clear signal to the market that the future lies not in dirty, outdated technology of yesterday, but in clean energy solutions of tomorrow like wind, solar," he added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
