Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Today, the League of Conservation Voters released its annual scorecard, which rates legislators based on their votes on issues of environmental significance. The LCV scorecard has its critics, but it's nonetheless become something of a gold standard when measuring how "green" a lawmaker is.
A couple of big stories emerge from this year's scorecard.
The first speaks for itself:
- Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.): 67%
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): 73%
- Sen. John McCain (D-Ariz.): 0%
No, that's not a typo. McCain scored a big fat zilch, mainly because missed every single vote LCV scored, including the big votes around the energy bill. (For more on that, see my post on McCain's phantom climate credibility.) McCain was the only Senator to miss every LCV vote -- he was outvoted by legislators who were out sick most of the year, even some who died this year.
If you're dead silent, is it still straight talk?
The other story is that, in LCV's words, "elections have consequences." In 2006 LCV targeted a "dirty dozen" lawmakers. Nine of those lawmakers were defeated. How do their replacements rate? This is from LCV's press release:
• Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA), who scored 90 percent in 2007, replaced Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), whose lifetime score was 7 percent.
• Sen. John Tester (D-MT), who scored 80 percent, replaced Sen. Conrad Burns, (R-MT), whose lifetime score was 5 percent.
• Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ), who scored 100 percent, replaced Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), whose lifetime score was 7 percent.
• Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who scored 100 percent, defeated Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL), whose lifetime score was 15 percent.
• Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who scored 73 percent, replaced Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), whose lifetime score was 15 percent.
• Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), who scored 75 percent, replaced Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC), whose lifetime score was 5 percent.
• Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), who scored 100 percent, replaced Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), whose lifetime score was 10 percent.
• Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), who scored 87 percent, replaced Sen. George Allen (R-VA), whose lifetime score was 1 percent.
Congrats to LCV for their tireless work on this stuff.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
he scored lower than macaca?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/21/2008 @ 10:59pm
let the battle begin.
careful with those taps.
coming soon to a faucet near you:
Georgia Legislature Passes Resolution Seeking Territory Near Chattanooga
posted February 20, 2008
The Georgia Legislature on Wednesday passed a resolution to move forward with a claim that portions of Tennessee near Chattanooga should be part of Georgia.
The measure, designed to give parched Georgia access to Tennessee River water, passed unanimously in the state Senate. The vote was 136-26 in the House.
Georgia officials have claimed an 1818 survey is faulty and should have been run about a mile north.
That would give Georgia a sliver of land reaching the Tennessee River near Nickajack Cave in Marion County.
It would also throw the northern end of Lookout Mountain into Georgia and transfer territory from South Chattanooga and East Ridge.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Senate members broke into a rendition of "This Land is My Land" during debate on the resolution.
Sen. David Shafer (R-Duluth), the Senate sponsor, said, "The boundary of the state is the boundary of the state and can only be changed by acts of the Tennessee and Georgia legislatures and of the U.S. Congress. It cannot be changed by a mathematician with a faulty compass. Do the math, there's more Georgia water in the Tennessee River than there is in our own Chattahoochee," the newspaper reported.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 01:47am
oh yeah,
mccain's a lunatic.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 01:47am
Oh, man!!
Buwahahaha, LOL and all that stuff!
As I have been saying, Hillary, by right, should be the con choice this november.
Santorum only gets 10%!!
McBain missed votes, making him kind of like.... no worse than..... Obama in Illinois!
Not too sure about this group, if McBain ain't a con, and santorum ain't a con...
and the trolls here tell us Chimpy ain't a con...
They must be neo-cons, a cause that has been thoroughly discredited.
which also means they are all stinkin liars, because they all claim to be real conservatives.
Speaking of lies, how about the latest out of Britian, where it turns out the US LIED about rendition flights.
and, if any fiscal cons show up today to spew about the waste in social spending, maybe they could wax eloquent about the roughly $60,000,000,000 the Pentagon just wasted on a dysfunctional spy satellite. Then more LIES about why it had to be shot down. Fuel tank my ass!
Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2008 @ 07:43am
conserveative
what are they conserving?
morals?
hahahaha.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2008 @ 07:47am
25 repubs will be "retiring" or resigning this year. Cutting and running.
Only 33 percent of Americans gave Congress a positive job rating in an ABC-Washington Post poll conducted last week. However, an earlier poll by the same organizations found that 54 percent of respondents still want Democrats to control Congress next year, compared with 40 percent who want Republicans back in charge. The findings were nearly identical to those of a USA Today-Gallup poll in December.
Hey Boyz, how about giving another party a chance for a change? Well, we do have 100% more choice than the Commies in China do.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2008 @ 07:57am
Latest moral message from the RNC
Larry Craig- gay bathroom sex
Brent Parker-soliciting gay sex in public
Mark Deli Siljande- funding terrorists
for a more interesting list of "family values conservatives" go here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070829140802AANaIr5
Maybe we need a League of Conserving Pedophile Values
Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2008 @ 08:07am
Check out the link below. This is what happens when you take political strategists and put them in positions of power in the U.S. government. A major conflict of interest. Karl Rove is the epitomy of the smear campaign strategist, not the New York times or the librals.
W's right hand man, terd blossom, used his position of power in the government to tarnish, smear, destroy etc. anyone who crossed him, W, Cheney or the rest of the Hitler Youth Group. You would think that once these jack asses got into positions of power they would cease the politics game and run the country, but no, they wished to squash anyone in the government who would question them on anything including attorneys that they themselves appointed. Is that really the kind of government you rethugs and conservatives want?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/60minutes/main3859830.shtml
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/22/2008 @ 08:54am
Well, sorry, Mr Roberts, but thing of it is....
it doesn't matter.
Environmental groups have been giving "0%" or "F grades" to Republicans since Reagan...and they still win Presidencies. And they give "As" or "Bs" or "70%-80%" to the Democrats and they still lose Presidencies (and lesser races).
And here's why-
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 8-10, 2008. N=1,016 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Now I am going to read a list of some of the issues that will probably be discussed in this year's presidential election campaign. As I read each one, please tell me how important the candidates' positions on that issue will be in influencing your vote for president: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important. How about [see below]?"
Extremely/Very Important
1. The economy 89%
2. The situation in Iraq 87
3. Education 81
4. Corruption in government 79
5. Health care 79
6. Energy, including gas prices 79
7. Terrorism 77
8. Social Security 73
9. The federal budget deficit 73
10. Moral values 69
11. Medicare 69
12. Taxes 69
13. The environment, including global warming 62
14. Illegal immigration 60
Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 09:07am
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 09:07am
baaa baaaaaaaa
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 09:29am
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/01/getting_chinas_goat.jpg
for example.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 09:30am
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/01/the-last-empire.html
super recommend.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 09:35am
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 09:07am
the blind electing the blind.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 09:45am
the blind electing the blind.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 09:45am
Sorry, dude. 13 out of 14 on "Priorities" is pretty telling.
But, Obama will do "better" than McCain...if by a slight degree. So, there's that.
Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 09:50am
super recommend.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 09:35am
Frosty, That is one grim article.
I've been to China twice and can attest to the pollution being pretty bad there. Sounds like it has become exponentially worse over time since then.
I would be very worried if I was Japan, Australia and Africa right now. When the resources of China dry up and they need food and resources for survival, there's not much in the way of stopping them from taking what they need. I brought up Japan because if the Chinese decided to make a move against the African Continent or Australia, they'd pretty much piss everone off anyway, and they figure they owe Japan for WWII atrocities.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/22/2008 @ 10:47am
You know, one of the changes I hope occurs if Barack Obama win the election (which I hope) is an end to this obsession with "scorecards" both from those self important enough to create them and those fearful enough to give them any credence. Its another blight The Lousiest Generation will be famous for, along with "holding accountable" those to be "punished" (instead of getting together to fix a problem,) oversensitivity (to a 1st amendment theatening point), and more apologizing then you'd get from a repentant Nazi.
Screw the scorecards. If a man stands for something or believes in NOT doing something, he should stand by those beliefs, regardless of who he (or she) is, or what the issue is.
Perhaps we should grade the conservationists on how much they've contributed to the high price of fuel or thier failure to push for viable alternatives instead of heavier & heavier restrictions. No wait.. maybe we shouldn't: Wouldn't want them to have to repeat the semester.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/22/2008 @ 11:21am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 02/22/2008 @ 10:47am
I'm sorry, you think China would invade Australia....and AFRICA?!?!?!?
You think something MIGHT happen to the troops on the crossing from Shanghai across the Java Straits or...THE INDIAN OCEAN?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 11:24am
Sorry, dude. 13 out of 14 on "Priorities" is pretty telling.
But, Obama will do "better" than McCain...if by a slight degree. So, there's that.
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 09:50am
i have no delusions of being able to overcome people's greed-driven blind naïveté.........
well, not until they start seeing the 12th year of drought.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 11:29am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 02/22/2008 @ 10:47am
i'd be more worried about them calling u.s. debt in a few years (once they've gotten big enough.)
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 11:30am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 11:29am
BTW, FZ.....think David Roberts, the wife, and kids are going on that "Nation" cruise????
Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 11:53am
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 09:07am
Slight problem I see . . .
"it doesn't matter."
is not supported by . . .
The environment, including global warming 62%
Thus, environmental issues "matter" to 62% of voters polled.
How much it matters compared to the other topics is a point you could make, but to say it does not matter is too strong.
Posted by Hman23 at 02/22/2008 @ 12:09pm
Posted by HMAN23 02/22/2008 @ 12:09pm
Well, I don't think it matters when it comes to whether or not some environmental group gives John McCain a "bad grade", HMAN.
If there are TWELVE OTHER ISSUES that McCain can try to win on, before it gets to "The environment, including global warming"...then it's not that big a deal.
Plus, as I said, enviro- groups have been giving politicians a "lousy rating" score since Reagan....didn't stop him (twice), Bush-41, or Dubya. And I don't think "his view on the environment" can be shown to have helped Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 that much.
As much as "greens" would LIKE to think so...it's an issue, but not a Top Three (or Top TEN) priority and certainly not a "make-or-break" for a political candidate.
Sorry...just the facts.
Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 12:24pm
Got to laugh at this one...when the traditional liberal, Mask points out the political facts about how low the green movement rates with Americans, then the far left wackos and our resident pacifist version of Unibomber Ted (Frosty) go all bananas that the rest of the country doesn't line up with them.
These fringe leftists can never believe that the country doesn't share their values because after all, "everyone they know believes like they do".
Well kiddies, back to your dreams of world that matches the lifestyles of Frosty or Darladoon...Neverland.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/22/2008 @ 12:30pm
Lvliberty-The fact that companies like GE and General Motors are now advertising that they are the leaders in the green movement tells me that the issue is important to Americans.These companies do massive studies to see what is important to consumers and the environment is,obviously,quite important which is why these companies are spending a fortune to be leaders in the environmental movement.
Posted by i'm nobody at 02/22/2008 @ 1:05pm
BTW, FZ.....think David Roberts, the wife, and kids are going on that "Nation" cruise????
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 11:53am
what, the NEXT one?!?!?!?!?!?
please, no more cruises!
Posted by COMMON SENSE 02/22/2008 @ 11:59am
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 1:22pm
As much as "greens" would LIKE to think so...it's an issue, but not a Top Three (or Top TEN) priority and certainly not a "make-or-break" for a political candidate.
Sorry...just the facts.
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 12:24pm
but then again, both mr. obama and ms. clinton talk of creating new jobs in the energy sector.......
so a closer look will show:
1. The economy 89% -- part of their plan is the whole "green" thingie,
2. The situation in Iraq 87 -- oil corruption; directly linked to the environment.
3. Education 81 --
4. Corruption in government 79 --
5. Health care 79 -- well, people get sick because the sky is so friggin' dirty.
6. Energy, including gas prices 79 -- see #1
7. Terrorism 77 -- see #1
8. Social Security 73
9. The federal budget deficit 73 -- see #1, #2
10. Moral values 69 -- this is just nonsense. what has happened under a supposedly moral administration the last 7 years.
11. Medicare 69 -- see #5
12. Taxes 69 -- people are so naïve.....
13. The environment, including global warming 62 -- see you in atlanta.....
14. Illegal immigration 60 -- it's only get worse as the north of mexico shrivels up.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 1:28pm
Well kiddies, back to your dreams of world that matches the lifestyles of Frosty or Darladoon...Neverland.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 12:30pm
dude,
my lifestyle is the same as yours.
'cept i don't murder babies.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 1:30pm
Sorry...just the facts.
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 12:24pm
of course this matters not.
would anybody who cares about the environment even consider voting for mr. mccain?
obviously not.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 1:33pm
by the way,
this talk of the "environment" is foolish.
what are you made of?
you ARE the environment.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 1:34pm
Sorry, dude. 13 out of 14 on "Priorities" is pretty telling.
But, Obama will do "better" than McCain...if by a slight degree. So, there's that.
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 09:50am
i expect nothing from pandering politicians.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 1:35pm
by the way,
this talk of the "environment" is foolish.
what are you made of?
you ARE the environment.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 1:36pm
here's something to make any february day beautiful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdjHUtohEEc
the happiest global warming video ever!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 1:50pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 1:50pm
Nice.....
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/22/2008 @ 2:43pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 02/22/2008 @ 1:05pm
Of course, folks like LL don't care about the environment because with Armageddon on the short-term calender and all "why worry"?
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/22/2008 @ 2:47pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 12:30pm |
yeah...only 62% think its extremely/very important - since thats down the list, that means people just dont think its important...62% means only a marginalized minority think its important, right?
and of course if people don't think its important, they don't need to worry! they won't be affected by a 5 degree rise in average world temperature if "the environment" isn't number one on their immediate priority in an election year!
what wonderful solipsist world....
cause 62% is a tiny minority!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/22/2008 @ 2:50pm
You think something MIGHT happen to the troops on the crossing from Shanghai across the Java Straits or...THE INDIAN OCEAN?!?!?
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 11:24am
Pirates are un the upswing
Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2008 @ 2:54pm
Well kiddies, back to your dreams of world that matches the lifestyles of Frosty or Darladoon...Neverland.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 12:30pm
What do you breath in the "real world"? Drink? Grow your crops in?
I do it in my "enviroment".
One reason it falls on the scale of voter preferences is because the "left" has caused major improvements in the area of clean air and water. If cons had their way, trust me, it would rocket to the top five as river start burning and more three eyed kids start popping out.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2008 @ 2:58pm
Or, maybe a fouled enviroment would lead to more red calves.
Rapture Index 166
Net Change +1
Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2008 @ 3:02pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 12:30pm
Well, LVLIB....if I post polling on the popularity of the war in Iraq, Bush's approval numbers, abortion rights, gay rights, etc.
I'm sure I'll get the same reaction from you, huh?
(BTW, notice "Moral values" was down at #10)
Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 3:14pm
Pirates are un the upswing----Posted by CRABWALK 02/22/2008 @ 2:54pm
Cheung Po Tsai going to lead the Chinese Armada across the Indian Ocean to establish a beach-head in Somalia in 2019?
Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 3:19pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 12:30pm
fringe = 62%
who woulda thunk it?
Posted by Hman23 at 02/22/2008 @ 3:29pm
I think Obama can beat McCain. If Hillary get the nomination, McCain with spank her sorry ass.
With only two candidates to choose from most voters end up voting against one or the other more than they vote for one of the two. People will turn out to vote against Hillary; people will turn out to vote for Obama.
Posted by mtspence05 at 02/22/2008 @ 3:48pm
As much as "greens" would LIKE to think so...it's an issue, but not a Top Three (or Top TEN) priority and certainly not a "make-or-break" for a political candidate.
Sorry...just the facts.
Posted by MARY
Things are changing--alot can change in 4, 8 years.
Posted by mtspence05 at 02/22/2008 @ 3:51pm
Things are changing--alot can change in 4, 8 years.----Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/22/2008 @ 3:51pm
Uh, Empty....the poll was taken two weeks ago?
"USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 8-10, 2008. N=1,016 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3."
Want to debate that "the environment" will be a "Top Three Priority" in 2012, 2016?...fine. But I don't think David Roberts cares very much if it might be upto #11 for Mitt Romney's run against incumbent President Obama in four years.
Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 4:07pm
I don't think David Roberts cares very much if it might be upto #11 for Mitt Romney's run against incumbent President Obama in four years.
Posted by MARY
No, you don't "think" at all.
Posted by mtspence05 at 02/22/2008 @ 4:11pm
You think something MIGHT happen to the troops on the crossing from Shanghai across the Java Straits or...THE INDIAN OCEAN?!?!?
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 11:24am
I'm saying none of the above would be able to stop them if they wanted to, and outside of Japan, I don't know how involved the U.S. would get in a situation like that. I'm thinking roughly 20 years from now, not right now. I don't think the older poorer generation in China would dream of doing such a thing, but the yonger generation might once they get a taste for the finer things in life.
I would imagine it would be South China Sea, Through the Strait of Malacca and to the Indian Ocean. Remember they are building their navy up and can position fleets over time. We do it all of the time. Your question is like saying, the U.S. would attack Iraq from Virgina across the North Atlantic Ocean, through the Strait of Gibraltar to the Mediterranean Sea?!?!?!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/22/2008 @ 4:13pm
i'd be more worried about them calling u.s. debt in a few years (once they've gotten big enough.)
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 11:30am
What will the U.S. be able to give them besides worthless inflated dollars? Attacking the U.S. would be stupid but trying to cash out the debt the U.S. owes would even be worse for them. Now, they have something they can hold over us.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/22/2008 @ 4:15pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1
They have leverage. Why? Because the "economic" geniuses have put us in that position of a disadvantage.
Posted by mtspence05 at 02/22/2008 @ 4:19pm
The same geniuses that are always telling us the economy they've created is so great.
Posted by mtspence05 at 02/22/2008 @ 4:21pm
Pirates are on the upswing
Posted by CRABWALK 02/22/2008 @ 2:54pm
Crabs - you realize what this means? As per the gospels of His Noodliness, the Great FSM, since global warming is inversely proportional to the numbers of pirates, their increasing numbers should solve this pesky global warming nonsense! Arrrrrrgh!
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/22/2008 @ 4:43pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 02/22/2008 @ 4:13pm
WOLF, don't you think SOMEBODY, like, oh...NATO or just the European Union...or maybe the Russians....MIGHT not care for China attempting to conquer....what?...1/4? 1/2? of the African continent?
Also don't you think the Chinese might consider that...in addition to things like "logistics" and "supply lines" and even OUR OWN miserable failure in Iraq, and use more "subtle" means to exert influence than to try to recreate the "Mongol hordes" in the 21st Century?!?!?!??!
BTW, hopefully you don't work for the RAND Corporation or the Army War College, right?
Posted by Mask at 02/22/2008 @ 4:49pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/22/2008 @ 4:43pm
A SIGN!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 4:52pm
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 4:49pm
they'll just buy everything.
or cover it with dust.
if they don't collapse under their own weight first...........
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/01/the-last-empire.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 4:54pm
'cept i don't murder babies.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 1:30pm
Actually you do as do your fellow infanticide supporters. A million babies a year just in the US.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/22/2008 @ 5:11pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 5:11pm
Gee and in Operation Desert Debacle we're only killing babies at the rate of 150,000/year. Guess its time for another surge!
... remember folks, kill a baby Muslim for Jesus!
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/22/2008 @ 5:24pm
Of course, folks like LL don't care about the environment because with Armageddon on the short-term calender and all "why worry"?
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/22/2008 @ 2:47pm
LOC,
Thanks for posting another typical leftist canard. The left continuously makes the false claims that conservatives don't care about our environment.
That somehow we want our children and grandchildren (not to mention ourselves) breathing bad air and drinking contaminated water. This simply demonstrates that the left because they won't engage in serious debate, continually result to childish and absurd comments.
The true debate is about how change is accomplished and what changes need to be addressed. But the left has a infantile and simplistic worldview summed up thusly:
Government good and knows best, people are too stupid and incapable of effecting change without some monsterous central government; and corporations are all evil and must not be allowed to have a role in societal change without the government controlling their decisions.
Finally to your incorrect and infantile statement regarding "Armageddon".
1. Armageddon has nothing to do with the timing of when Christians will join Christ in heaven at the Rapture of the Church. The events are completely unrelated.
The Rapture can occur at any time (today or 5000 years from now).
Armageddon is a specific event that takes place 7 years after the Rapture.
Therefore, it makes your statement look completely foolish and either ignorant or just a blatant anti-Christian bigot.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/22/2008 @ 5:30pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 5:11pm
sure thing, captain cluster.........
karma, karma, karma
see you in hell.
(well on webcam.)
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:36pm
1. Armageddon has nothing to do with the timing of when Christians will join Christ in heaven at the Rapture of the Church. The events are completely unrelated.
The Rapture can occur at any time (today or 5000 years from now).
Armageddon is a specific event that takes place 7 years after the Rapture.
Therefore, it makes your statement look completely foolish and either ignorant or just a blatant anti-Christian bigot.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 5:30pm
ah, the irony.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:38pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/22/2008 @ 5:24pm
Complete nonsense. But just go on killing the well documented 1 million children per year here in the US.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/22/2008 @ 5:43pm
I'm sure McCain is sweating over their catagorizing him!!!!!!!!!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/22/2008 @ 5:40pm
I'm sure you're sweating on your keyboard.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:46pm
Complete nonsense. But just go on killing the well documented 1 million children per year here in the US.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 5:43pm
a ticket to hell, for you pastor.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:46pm
oops,
overcommafication.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:47pm
die!
kill!
liberty!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 5:47pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 5:30pm
Hmmm, then why are most conservatives against protecting the environment?
I didn't say that you guys wanted your kids to breathe in soot and drink arsenic. What I inferred is that your fervent belief in fairy tales that always have a happy ending tend to lead to a flippant approach to MANY things.
The second paragraph you italicize as a quote is not mine - so please only attribute to me what is mine. After all, you wouldn't wanna be caught bearing false witness now, would we? Might mess up that fist-class ticket to the hereafter.
As to the Rapture versus Armageddon - geez, OK, I'm busted. I haven't read the whole fairy tale and thus am ignorant of some of the plot twists. I haven't read "Gone with the Wind" either, but I am aware of the general tone of the piece..
by the way - my post was an allegory and not a canard
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/22/2008 @ 5:48pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 5:43pm
You mean the hundreds of thousands of documented under-5 deaths in Iraq since the invasion is the fault of the children and infants jumping in front of humvees and M-16s?
Those diabolical little bastards..
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/22/2008 @ 5:50pm
BTW, hopefully you don't work for the RAND Corporation or the Army War College, right?
Posted by MASK 02/22/2008 @ 4:49pm
Nope, just an engineer who likes to ponder what if scenarios. Many a crazy thing has been done in the history of this world. A crashed economy and starving people can produce all kinds of results and not too many of them are good. You are right when you say the Russians wouldn't like that a whole lot. The Euorpeans, unless they've changed in the last 40 years or so, wouldn't do a damned thing besides pass resolutions saying that what China did was bad.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/22/2008 @ 5:56pm
Rio Loco
Shoulda figured our own "Rush Limbaugh wannabee" couldn't help but chime in. Speaking of canards.....
I think you are confusing "Conservative" versus "Conservation" - and trying play a combined misnomer against Liberalism. So let's examine the origins of these ideas shall we?
Conservative as a political mentality is often defined as: [a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm"]
ref: "Wikipedia" So it refers to a political group that eschews change, by and large.
Conservation refers to a utilitarian approach to resource management, wherein the rationale and methods applied to resource management center on the potential uses by humanity and less on the intrinsic values and biocentric arguments posited by preservationists. This division in environmental perspective started back around the time of Grover Cleveland and Teddy Roosevelt, and continues to this day. (No reference needed - I teach this subject)
Liberalism on the other hand, [refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal...Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights.]
"ref also Wikipedia" "benefit of humanity", "inviolable rights", "individual liberty" - boy yeah, terrible ideas you are tilting against there Don Quixote
So give me the Liberalism tag - I will wear it proudly. Environmentalist too for I believe that the intrinsic value argument is indeed valid. We are a part of nature and should not consider ourselves above it.
Tell you what Rio (and LL too for that matter) Pick up a copy of E.O. W9ilson's The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth and then tell me how far apart we really are on environmental subjects.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/22/2008 @ 6:09pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/22/2008 @ 4:43pm
that's funny!
Never saw that causal link.
----
I'm sure you're sweating on your keyboard.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/22/2008 @ 5:46pm
that fluid is not sweat.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2008 @ 6:56pm
I would love it if Liberty could describe how the "free mkt" regulates pollutants, especially things like PCB's, Toxic waste and arsenic in the water supply.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2008 @ 6:58pm
One "free mkt" approach is the credit system for acid rain components. But, it was put in place by guvt regulation, spurred on by the evil leftist America haters.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2008 @ 7:00pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/22/2008 @ 6:09pm
change is another term for
SATAN!!!
Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2008 @ 7:01pm
hmmm, fascinating email from FACTCHECK.ORG
Were there really weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in 2003?
A: No. The Iraq Survey Group determined that Iraq had abandoned its quest to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and that it had already destroyed all of its existing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
but, (t)reason #31 for the invasion?
saddams damage to the environment of Kuwait and the former swamp lands of Iraq.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/22/2008 @ 7:06pm
Tell you what Rio (and LL too for that matter) Pick up a copy of E.O. W9ilson's The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth and then tell me how far apart we really are on environmental subjects.
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/22/2008 @ 6:09pm
Sorry to disappoint LOC, but after perusing the Amazon site and the book reviews, I think I will pass.
Let me add that I am a life long outdoors person. I hate cities and prefer to be out in the wilds of nature. I have backpacked the John Muir trail through the High Sierras. I have been a diver for more than 50 years and have loved exploring our oceans around the world. My own home is out in the country and has a White Owl resident in one of our 70 foot high pine trees. We have families of rabbits and skunk that live in our brush.
But I resent the left continuously painting conservatives (and especially conservative Christians) as hating the environment because our approach to caring for the environment is different than it is for the left.
That is both arrogant and ignorant at the very least. From the reviews I read, Wilson shares in both of those attitudes.
This was a wonderful book. I enjoyed it. And yet it fell short of the mark. In one minor point, Wilson uses Literal Creationist language of something being "only a theory", as if it were not proven. It is unconscionable that a scientist of Wilson's stature should misuse the term theory like that, compounding the common error of the laity in thinking that a theory is less than a law.
The bigger problem is Wilson's stated purpose, and the modus operandi of the book, that being to convince the archetypal Southern Baptist Pastor who believes in Literal Creationism. Wilson wants this pastor (and all those like him) to come to care for the environment. Wilson wants to argue that the pastor should do so because the Bible makes it clear that the Earth is important, and creation is beautiful. He hopes to capitalize on his past experience attending Baptist churches as a child.
Yet it would seem those past experiences are long forgotten. For he comes across as dismissive and even attacking on Literal Creationism and even basic Christian beliefs. Rather than fully embracing the call of God and the Bible to care for the environment, he pays lip-service to this, and in the process insults the beliefs of those he's trying to convince. This is not a way to get people to your side. I say this as one who was once in the darkness of Literal Creationism, and is still a committed Christian. I was able to look beyond the statements Wilson made to enjoy the biology of what he presented, because I am committed already to biology, the environment, and evolution. But from knowing many who are still in the Literal Creationist camp, and from my own experiences, I know that what he said was deeply offensive to them. Wilson doesn't try to bridge or speak to the needs and issues of the other. He is simply dismissive and patronizing in his tone towards Christians and Literal Creationists. Wilson even goes so far as to argue that science convincingly shows that evolution is the path that was used, and that there seems to be little need of a Deity. The former is true, the latter simply his opinion, but both are not helpful if one's stated aim is to convince the Literal Creationist or someone who dearly loves their Deity.
Wonderful, and Not-Quite, May 11, 2007 By Jedidiah Palosaari "Not My Real Name" (Washington Province of the American Empire) - See all my reviews
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/22/2008 @ 7:18pm
Posted by CRABWALK 02/22/2008 @ 7:06pm
That is an outright lie. The Deulfer report said just the opposite as did Saddam himself in his confession to the FBI.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/22/2008 @ 7:25pm
LL
Hmmmm .. as EO Wilson (Probably THE eminent biology author of the last 100 years, with easily understood and approachable themes) presents as a "scientists" who no longer espouses the church (but with admitted history) to one that does - one would expect and even appreciate the idea the book envelops that differences aside, both ends of the spectrum hold the Earth in a a certain reverent spot albeit for different reasons. Sorry you choose to hang onto the biased and narrow view. C'est la vie.
As to perspectives on Conservatives (esp. Evangelical ones) and their environmental views - please enlighten me. We've talked on various things before and while not agreeing on much, we have had civil conversations. SO:
(and these are prefaced with my OWN perceptions mind you - so please tell me if I'm off key) Some of this as well, I get from my own students - community college, rural conservative area...
What is it on "your side" that is so different with respect to environmental perspectives? I surmise it has something to do with the religious bent that places man above nature that creates some difference of perspective. Am I off here?
Why do so many on that end decry climate change? (Hell, even Dubya's on board now - who'd a thunk it?)
I have student's who say things like "I don't believe in global warming because its not in the Bible" or "Cause my preacher told us it isn't so" Is this God won't let bad things happen give you guys all a pass to do whatever you want?
I even have ones who defend the "Iraq War was for the Oil" idea because they ain't Christians no how.
Make me understand LL ...not saying I will accept it all, but understanding is understanding
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/22/2008 @ 7:38pm
Saddam himself in his confession to the FBI.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 7:25pm
don't you feel gullible?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2008 @ 8:19pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 5:43pm
mine are real living, breathing (or were) children, yours are a bundles of cells, or generally a tadpole-like bit - yet mine are nonsense?
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/22/2008 @ 8:25pm
Posted by CRABWALK 02/22/2008 @ 6:56pm
gotta love a religion that espouses an afterlife of lusty bar wenches and beer volcanoes. So repent all ye sinners and don ye pirate regalia in honor of him of the noodly appendages ... Aaaaargh.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/22/2008 @ 8:28pm
What is it on "your side" that is so different with respect to environmental perspectives? I surmise it has something to do with the religious bent that places man above nature that creates some difference of perspective. Am I off here?
Why do so many on that end decry climate change? (Hell, even Dubya's on board now - who'd a thunk it?)
I have student's who say things like "I don't believe in global warming because its not in the Bible" or "Cause my preacher told us it isn't so" Is this God won't let bad things happen give you guys all a pass to do whatever you want?
I even have ones who defend the "Iraq War was for the Oil" idea because they ain't Christians no how.
Make me understand LL ...not saying I will accept it all, but understanding is understanding
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/22/2008 @ 7:38pm
Well, as I said, reading what appeared to be a fairly objective review by a person who shared similarities with Wilson have so much negative conclusions, pretty much sealed it. If someone who isn't Christian found it to be arrogant and dismissive towards Christians, what do you think would be my response upon reading it?
1. On environmental perspectives, my primary objection to the left view is 3 fold.
a. As a strict constructionist believer in the constitution, much of what the left has sought is outside of the enumerated powers granted to the Federal government.
b. many if not the vast majority of those on the enviromental left espouse varying levels of nature worship. They place our natural environment and other living things on a par if not above mankind. That is idolotry in my faith and thus any such adherence would place us outside of God's grace.
c. While as I stated, I am a person much more comfortable away from urban areas and in more natural settings, I don't like government intrusion especially at the Federal level. It's bad enough at the state and local level.
2. It is not so much decrying climate change as the disagreement over the level of manmade causation. Climate change is an essential part of our environment as you well know.
My personal studies keep me unconvinced that mankind can have any serious impact on the global environment with one possible exception. Obviously a large scale nuclear war would be that exception.
I find our macro and micro climate to be far more complex and adaptive than the eviro left is willing to accept.
I am old enough to have witnessed enough reversals in climate effect over the past 6 decades. I have witnessed periods of cooling followed by periods of warming. In Southern California as a recent example. We just finished a year of the worst drought in a century. Now we have rain every week. And this isn't the first time I have seen this in Southern Cal.
Secondly, as I have asked before, what should normal be for our climate? Is it another ice age, or a global tropical climate? None of us is capable of answering that question.
This is to me perhaps the real heart of the matter. Our planet has undergone so many cycles of warming and cooling that it is simply arrogance to suggest that a fixed period in time represents the optimum climate for the planet and that any deviation from that requires human intervention. Not to mention that I don't believe that human intervention can make any significant change in the global climate.
As to some of those answers you have received, frankly I cannot relate because I don't personally know anyone, conservative or otherwise that gives answers like that. But I do recognize that ignorance is out there.
I care about the evironment and want my grandchildren to enjoy what I enjoyed, and what my sons enjoyed. Camping has been a central part of our lives and we have always been good stewards of our surroundings when we are there.
Much of what is discussed today by leftist environmentalists is 1)far more draconian than is needed, 2)surrenders more control of our lives to an even bigger, more intrusive government, and 3) will not make a significant difference.
Our country has led the way for technology that improves the lives of mankind, and it will continue to do so.
Let me conlude with some examples that speaks to my concerns.
Back in the late 80's I was involved with some technology development for some specialized scrubbers that would burn toxic chemical waste and produce usable energy as a by-product. Earth First and some other groups staged countless demonstrations falsely claiming we were releasing toxic chemicals into the air and that both employees and local area residents were developing cancers as a result.
False on all counts. However the backlash caused the State of California to abandon support of the project and we sold the technology to several other nations. It is now used in Thailand, Sweden, and elsewhere.
A type of this scrubber technololgy is now widely used in Scandanavia and Europe using trash as the fuel and energy as the output. Yet recently in New York and elsewhere, environmentalists have successfully kept this application from being implemented. Instead we continue to have landfills and sea dumps which I detest and run counter to good stewardship.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/22/2008 @ 9:01pm
gotta love a religion that espouses an afterlife of lusty bar wenches and beer volcanoes. So repent all ye sinners and don ye pirate regalia in honor of him of the noodly appendages ... Aaaaargh.
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/22/2008 @ 8:28pm
I've studied a lot of religions but I have to admit that I'm not familiar with that one...where is it found?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/22/2008 @ 9:02pm
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster at: FSM
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/22/2008 @ 10:22pm
As to the EOW text - I will say my own opinion is markedly different from that you selectively pay attention too. So again - too bad you set narrow limits on your perception.
As to the rest:
1) [a] DO you really think the framers had the foresight to envision where technology would go, or how the numbers would increase to where they are a force that rivals natural systems? I think not - so let's set aside the farcical arguments that we should sit on our hands because the Fathers of Our Nation didn't provide tacit instructions...
1) [b] One of the very reasons that I do not espouse your faith. Any faith that insists that it is "right" and dooms all others to "hay-yell" because of their differing beliefs is not "right" in a very epistemological sense. If we take "who's on first" into account - animism is the original religion and predates all others by thousands of years. What makes yours better again? So the fact that some people revere nature in a near (or actual) religious sense is offensive. If only more folks were that offensive.
1) [c] Freedom versus freedom to do things that in large numbers affects the freedoms of all necessitates (at least in theory) the need for controls in society. Lets stay outside the environment and discuss cigarettes. A noxious drug, toxic at various doses, 2nd hand and direct smoke as well as chewing, etc - all add to the detriment of all, and the increases in health care costs. Yet would you argue for peoples right to smoke? Mind you it is suicide - albeit in slow motion - only this slow dance towards the grave may drag other (friends, neighbors, strangers, children) in that direction too, and empty all our wallets in the process. And if you are going to argue in defense of that drug - howabout a little opium maybe, a snort of coke perhaps?
Back to the environment - I would argue that as the one thing that actually DOES connect us all, it is the one that should be - no, MUST BE - protected. Now how and how much - open for debate...
2) Much as EOW's directs - does the knowledge of the precise levels of things, the absolute attribution, really matter if we know what the regardless risks are? Take a look at this Not so much I think. While not to decry your personal studies, I have a bit of academic background in this area. While not a climate scientist per se, I have a couple hundred semester hours in Environmental Science coursework, and a working interest in biogeochemical cycling - which is part of understanding the whole climate/CO2 puzzle.
But if we look at it kinda simply - the carbon (and energy) in fossil fuels represents the product of millions of years of biological fixation. We are releasing these elements and energy back into the environment thousands of times faster than the natural systems that put them there, and by allegory, thousands of times faster than any natural system can reabsorb them. Now we know what greenhouse gasses are, and how they function and we add more of a specific one than natural systems can balance for. It stands to reason then that the obvious linkage to CO2 increases is overall warming - on average - as the atmosphere is compositionally homogenous in the troposphere.
You see LL science, unlike religion, rules by reasoned consensus. And at this time the reasoned consensus says that a significant portion of current climate change is human-influenced. Could this perspective change? Maybe. Science by its very design can be falsified in the case of errant results. Should I wait around though for an answer I agree with? I think not. We go with what we know at present and as the video suggests, the worst we could do is the right things of for the wrong reasons.
to: "1)far more draconian than is needed, 2)surrenders more control of our lives to an even bigger, more intrusive government, and 3) will not make a significant difference."
[1] Do we even know what is needed? Obviously more than is currently being done which is next to nothing - but resource conservation/environmental protection in our nation - and most of the world - is pretty laughable.
[2] How does acting sustainably impinge on your freedom (or the perception thereof?)
[3] I disagree in general - although I think you would need to be more specific on a target idea.
As to the examples - I agree personally. There are very often over-reactions from various factions responding to environmental issues - both real and perceived. I actually took a graduate course in this area - Environmental Risk Communication that explored the perceptual gulf between politicals, other interest groups, the lay public, etc. But then too, with so much of nature despoiled, I can also empathize with the idea of wanting to take a stand SOMEPLACE.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/22/2008 @ 11:05pm
Loco Boy
Good to see reality hasn't had any effect on your native charm. So having had 12 of the past 20 years having been the hottest (globally) on record, we get a snow and you want to declare "global warming's all over" Yee-haw - bartender, bring me some of what Rio's smokin'!
I could also point out that this year we have had 125 winter tornadoes - the average is less than 25. Or that glacial retreat is a GLOBAL and PHOTOGRAPHED phenomena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.html (NOAA article on Polar Bears and ice patterns)
The knee-jerk web news is probably based on this NOAA report
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html
which actually does NOT say what the flippant story purports. In fact it states things much different - especially that the perennial ice has been declining for decades and is at its lowest level ever (while intermittent ice is doing okay right now, but it will melt come summer)
Always go to the data Rio - but of course, that would require a knowledge of science.
...and next time a simple paraphrase and a link will do. Common courtesy dontcha know.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/22/2008 @ 11:34pm
RIO
Lemme get this straight - Wiki is a "liberal source" and somehow this is a Machiavellian thing? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha, damned - I realy did need a augh this week. thanks. You do realize that Science did a comparison of Wikipedia versus Encylopedia Brittanica and found differentials and errors were within the margin of error.
As to your "homeworksite" ref I found this defintion of Conservatives:
* Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
* Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
which is an awful lot like what I posted above...so you see, its a very good thing that I am molding the minds of America to be more balanced, more knowledgable, and if I can more liberal-minded.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/22/2008 @ 11:39pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/22/2008 @ 11:05pm
1a) you miss the point. It is not that the framers did or did not address every future contingency. What they did is to establish that the role of the government in these matters is intended to be limited. The role of state, local, and industry is to be expansive. Therefore, it is not a role for the Federal government
As I have said to you and others, if you disagree with this then amend the constitution.
1b) you again miss the point. I am not imposing my belief. You asked why I personally don't agree. Someone else is perfectly free to worship the earth or whatever. But I won't betray my personal beliefs and the Constitution guarantees me that right unless it directly threatens the liberty of another.
1c) again. I understand and accept that there are some levels of government intrusion that are necessary. However, the level of intrusion proposed by the likes of Al Gore and most of the environmental movement far surpasses that level of acceptability.
While selt belts and restraints are indeed good things, I don't believe that the government has any right to be involved in legislating their inclusion in vehicles.
And while we both agree on the dangers of smoking, I prefer to let people make those choices. If a business finds that they cannot make money because of lack of clients due to a lax smoking policy, they will change it or go out of business.
2) The video link presents a false dichotomy. It presupposes that the only choices are to do nothing or use massive government intervention.
It again avoids the fact of history. Our market system has created most of the technological change without the need for government intervention.
As one example, we don't even know what technology will power our transportion means 30-40 years from now.
Also you lay out the usual derogatory statement concluding that science uses reason and faith does not. In point of fact as I have noted on numerous occasions here, the Christian faith in fact is one that relies extensively on logical reasoning as noted by some of the greatest legal scholars in Western Civilization.
on the second set of 1-3, you still are left with supposition and reliance upon models that have been shown to be manipulated to achieve the desire results (not uncommon on any side of an argument such as this).
And the government imposition of sustainability requirements most certainly impinges on my right to make those determinations for myself and my family. It also leads to economic impingement.
But I notice that as in the past, you cannot answer my question on what is the optimum or "normal" climate. I realize that is because there is no such thing. Yet you and the others on the environmental left want to impose these changes based upon a departure from some standard that we lived within during the 20th century.
What gave you or anyone else the right to make that determination? That for me is the crux of this issue and one that I see environmentalists never face.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/22/2008 @ 11:48pm
1A) fair enough
1B) is "directly" there just to cover the fact others actions might indirectly affect others?
1C) So on smoking then you agree that people are allowed to take their own lives? (Again, as these acts affect many and in various ways, I do not agree, but find your view interesting considering)
2) No - not false, just the "far ends" - you can parse it up finer and get the same results. I don't know if the fellow realizes it, but the logic is based on a very famous paper.
sub-point - our economy was made at much cost to the environment, something other nations can no longer afford to do.
and while we don't know what will power tranpo 30-40 yrs hence, I think we can agree what it won't be!
No: my statement was not derogatory. Simple comparison in that science relies on verfiable and objective data, faith does not. Is this a surprise? Sorry if it offends you but it should not.
What is "normal" climate - about 2C lower/annum than at present. Over long periods of time Earth has 2 equilibration points based on gas balance (or at least a that is the current model) - a point that is about 2C lower than at present, and one that is much warmer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
What "we" (as you've seen fit to lump me in with many I do not know) want to do is maintain a sustainable planet, a livable Earth for our children. You claim to want the same. Yet you decry the efforts of others to do this as "too much" to be reasonable when at the same time admit that perhaps we don't know what reasonable is?
As to "who gave us that right?" Well, its a decision someone needs to make as it is our view that not making a decision is an even worse thing.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/23/2008 @ 12:41am
Rio
You post a site where gradeschool kids copy homework. What didja expect?
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/23/2008 @ 12:42am
...and for the record Rio - I try and teach my students to learn to make informed choices, regardless of whether they agree with my perspective. One thing I do is have them (for extra credit - as this seems to be the only way to get them to do anything - is to sign on-line "environmental" petitions. Ones of their choosing, and the only proviso is they must understand it well enough to leave a meaningful comment along with their name.
Pretty damned "liberaL of me, huh?
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/23/2008 @ 12:45am
But just go on killing the well documented 1 million children per year here in the US.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 5:43pm | ignore this
mmmm...children...yummy, tender...
oh! you mean fetuses and embryos aborted! man - you had me droolin' there for a second. fetuses and embryos are gross!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 01:40am
placentas now...only liver has more iron and vitamins!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 01:41am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/23/2008 @ 12:45am
commernist!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 01:44am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/23/2008 @ 01:44am
Jus call me Fee-del!
Couldn't help but notice these guys get winded quick during reasoned discourse.
(and I'm still a bit fuzzy about LL's claim of: ...the Christian faith in fact is one that relies extensively on logical reasoning as noted by some of the greatest legal scholars in Western Civilization.")
Perry Mason maybe?
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/23/2008 @ 08:04am
(and I'm still a bit fuzzy about LL's claim of: ...the Christian faith in fact is one that relies extensively on logical reasoning as noted by some of the greatest legal scholars in Western Civilization.")
Perry Mason maybe?
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/23/2008 @ 08:04am
Google them
1. Simon Greenleaf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf
2. Hugo Grotius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Grotius
3. John Warwick Montgomery
http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/
4. Sir Lionel Luckhoo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Lionel_Luckhoo
On Evidentialist Apologetics
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3612
This article by Bob Bowman (whom I worked with briefly in the early 80's) is excellent on the discussion of the relationship between science and Christianity.
http://tinyurl.com/28p3r6
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/23/2008 @ 10:56am
"...you cannot answer my question on what is the optimum or "normal" climate."
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 11:48pm
Perhaps the climate that allows hundreds of years worth of infrastructure and millions of people, who have settled the fertile, temperate areas, to continue to live... without massive relocation and clear-cutting and cultivation (which would take time and result in the starving of thousands/millions).
Don't even allow your conservative/capitalistic mind to ponder the effect of almost every business investment (either where the labor, resources or transportation hub) being rendered useless, on our/the worlds economy.
Think about that last paragraph for a while and then tell me about how terrible any short term financial hardship would be on this economy.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 02/23/2008 @ 2:06pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/23/2008 @ 12:41am
"So on smoking then you agree that people are allowed to take their own lives?"
This is why I call my self a liberal libertarian. For whatever it's worth, I quit smoking about year ago and I feel much better.
But, your view, implies my previous (over 25yrs.)behavior, should be criminalized. I am glad I quit, but I did for myself, for my health...for me.
Criminalizing tobacco, would be as dumb as the current criminalization of cannabis. That will only create a new (non-voting, non-productive) criminal class. It will not create any ex-smokers...just angry smokers, with even less respect for the law/their government.
I consider socializing the cost of these behaviors, to be similar to the argument that lefties always postulate to righties, when they say they don't want to assist lazy people. Sure, almost every program does, but they help more that need it, than those who scam.
"And if you are going to argue in defense of that drug - how about a little opium maybe, a snort of coke perhaps?"
No thank you. A bit of cannabis from time to time, but that's it.
Feel free, though. It is a free country. And, I , for one, support your birthright to self-medicate.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 02/23/2008 @ 2:17pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/23/2008 @ 12:41am
Excellent post, otherwise.
As usual.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 02/23/2008 @ 2:18pm
(and I'm still a bit fuzzy about LL's claim of: ...the Christian faith in fact is one that relies extensively on logical reasoning as noted by some of the greatest legal scholars in Western Civilization.")
Perry Mason maybe?
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/23/2008 @ 08:04am | ignore this person
well, there is logical reasoning and then there is sophistic rationalization. neither trumps hard physical evidence in my book - ie science.
LL consistantly mirrors the mentality of his demiurge worshipping wing of christianity. he believes in a something for nothing spirituality where a simplistic statement of belief/loyalty has the power to magically wipe out all the evil evil people have commited - POOF! - while those who struggle their entire lives to do good and eschew evil go burn in hell forever cause they didnt "take jesus as their personal savior"...
he follows a religion which ennables evil. go commit evil, feel "guilty", boohoo and "take jesus as your personal savior" and everything gonna be alright!
now when you hear him excusing and ennabling rightwing evil, hypocrisy, and rottenness, and denigrating the left for wanting to do good, does it not make perfect sense?
and if one is THAT irrational, its not hard to understand how he then follows the satanic philosophy of ayn rand, which lacks a shred of compassion and decency and ennables sociopathic elites to dominate others by stoking their already pride filled egos and quieting any voice of consience that might bother them.
i guess if you believe in a something for nothing religion, you gotta be real parsimonious and hard hearted in your political/economic philosophy. balance it out...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 2:51pm
While selt belts and restraints are indeed good things, I don't believe that the government has any right to be involved in legislating their inclusion in vehicles.
• so you trust car makers to provide you with safe vehicles because they're nice?
And while we both agree on the dangers of smoking, I prefer to let people make those choices. If a business finds that they cannot make money because of lack of clients due to a lax smoking policy, they will change it or go out of business.
• so heroin should be legal?
environmentalists never face.
• but from you're own statements, you consider yourself an "environmentalist".........
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 11:48pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 5:07pm
the Christian faith in fact is one that relies extensively on logical reasoning as noted by some of the greatest legal scholars in Western Civilization.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/22/2008 @ 11:48pm
So it's logical and rational to assume that 7-8 guys in the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean were absolutely telling the literal truth and not "fudging" out of religious zealotry...
and a guy came back from the dead after three days?
And not the opposite?
That's "logic" and "reason"?
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 5:37pm
LL
I still do not see the "relies on" aspect as this is a list of Christian Apologists and by definition are defending after the fact. Be that as it may, I will look closer at the list and see if I (in my own estimation) see if their arguments appear to have merit. Certainly on my cursory examination I find it a mixed bag. But "among the best legal minds" is certainly a stretch...
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/23/2008 @ 7:07pm
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 5:37pm
i always think that if some dude came down from the mountain today
claiming to be the son of god
(even if it were true)
would buy himself a quick ticket to the psych ward.
jesus (or whoever) had some good ideas, though....
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/23/2008 @ 7:11pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 02/23/2008 @ 2:18pm
thanks Eric, just trying to see which hairs LL's willing to split. I cold-turkey'd cigs about 15 years ago (after smoking that long) and gave up the old weed about the same time (well, there have been a coupla times since -- 2,3?) Stuff makes doing nothing waaaay too interesting.
But yes - with cigs and weed about the same with respect to danger, I say double or nothing. Both legal, or both illegal. In fact, I think a stronger argument could be made for illegal cigs and legal pot as the latter has at least *some* redeeming medical potential, while cigs exacerbate the costs of healthcare way too damned much.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/23/2008 @ 7:14pm
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 5:37pm
I heard someplace (can't locate the reference) that a previously unreleased Dead Sea scroll had some documentation of the "arising" as it was plotted by some of the faithful. Apparently there was a reference of feeding JC "essence of gall" which refers to a toxic botanical extract that is both a strong analgesic and short 1/2 life paralytic. Thought they were doing JC a favor, but was alive when they cut him down so they patched him up and got the "gall" out. The whole resurrection thing was staged for effect - I guess it worked huh?
Again, it was a scroll that has been seen by almost no one outside of Israel and a I saw a brief news blip a few years back on it and the "supposed" pending release of the info. Perhaps they gaged the impact of such information released to be too volatile? Dunno, but haven't had much luck "retracing" the info.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/23/2008 @ 7:22pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/23/2008 @ 7:22pm
maybe LL is one of his descendents?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/23/2008 @ 8:57pm
jesus (or whoever) had some good ideas, though....
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/23/2008 @ 7:11pm
Technically it wasn't jesus...it was his "stenographers"!
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 10:34pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/23/2008 @ 7:22pm
Sounds "urban legend'ish"
Posted by Mask at 02/23/2008 @ 10:34pm
Posted by MASK 02/23/2008 @ 10:34pm
It was on History or Discovery or some such ed channel. As I troll about another item came to mind - it was one of the Essene scrolls. (or a scroll by or about the essenes...)
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/23/2008 @ 11:26pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/23/2008 @ 11:26pm
Just saying....seems pretty "monumental" and wouldn't be a passing show on extended cable, never to be heard again.
Posted by Mask at 02/24/2008 @ 07:37am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/23/2008 @ 7:14pm
I've stated here before that I am more libertarian than most conservatives on these issues (and certainly more so than most conservative Christians).
I feel the marijuana laws especially regarding medical marijuana to be wrong. And I believe we should take a different course with the hard drugs like heroin. It certainly isn't the same thing as alcohol given the addiction problems, but there should be a less harsh approach.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 02/24/2008 @ 11:26am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/24/2008 @ 11:26am
Most dangerous drugs
Research recently published in the medical journal The Lancet rates the most dangerous drugs (starting with the worst) as follows:
1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Barbiturates
4. Street methadone
5. Alcohol
6. Ketamine
7. Benzodiazepines
8. Amphetamine
9. Tobacco
10. Buprenorphine
11. Cannabis
12. Solvents
13. 4-MTA
14. LSD
15. Methylphenidate
16. Anabolic steroids
17. GHB
18. Ecstasy
19. Alkyl nitrates
20. Khat
Source: The Lancet
(from personal observations i would switch some of these around, but it seems reasonable)
don't forget the biggest drug dealer in the u.s. is the government.............
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/24/2008 @ 12:28pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/24/2008 @ 11:26am |
i agree 100% but also understand exactly what originally freaked you rightwingers out, especially you who lived through it...
the age of aquarious! the late 60's/early 70's culture shock... and you have some excellent points - some nasty stuff happened and continues to happen. i've been doing some research into those dim for me years and it was crazy.
porn movies showing on main street and drug crazed serial killers galore...jeez!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/24/2008 @ 5:37pm
scientology!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/24/2008 @ 5:38pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/24/2008 @ 12:28pm
Yea...seems mostly ok...except, solvent at "12". I would put it at 2 or 3. Maybe it's long term risk is less, as long term use would be virtually unheard of.
Posted by Malcontent at 02/24/2008 @ 7:50pm
"porn movies showing on main street..."
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/24/2008 @ 5:37pm
Is that why we're called gen X-ers?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 02/24/2008 @ 7:51pm