...my transition to addiction ...

Congratulations, Sweetie Pie!

'Bout damn time, mav!

And Jackie:

Yeah. That's what I understand, too. Upper-case 'President' means only one thang.

So long as you haven't been addicted to wolbachia -- what a story! an insect Herland

W is the thief

Ok, time for the defense to step in.

I know we've already discussed this, but I'm sick of you all calling it a stolen election. The disgustingly arbitrary vote counting supported by the Gore camp is simply not legitimate. There were no standards. The Supreme Court just stopped the unorganized tabulation of votes. Plus, after the election was all said and done the media finished counting the votes and guess who came up the winner: Bush. So drop it already.

Helen, it's also absurd to say that because Bush was elected the US economy is going to suffer. Had Gore been elected taxes would have surely been raised, and can you please explain how in the world taking money from hard-working people is going to help the economy? The government spends too much money on frivolous programs and gives too much to people who don't know anything about saving it or spending it wisely. Tanzania receives more welfare from the US than any other nation, they've been receiving it for 30 years, and they're still the 3rd poorest nation in the world. Welfare doesn't work, let people spend it how they want and the economy improves. Why do you think America had the highest standard of living in the world in the first half of the 20th century when taxes were very low, and now we don't when taxes are much higher?

And while I'm on my soapbox, and this post is already pretty long, I'm going to finally make my riposte about the whole global warming issue. Simply, there's no way you can prove that industry is causing any weather changes when we've only been recording weather conditions for 140 years. The truth is that CO2 and other gas emissions have gone down greatly in the last 50 years because cars and factories are cleaner. The UN should concentrate on people who are actively destroying nature rather than stifling business by going after companies that are emitting harmless gases. There is simply no proof that global warming is linked to human actions. Records even show that the global temperature has actually gone down in the last 30 or so years.

And BY, don't say I'm brainwashed. I'm not. In America the government doesn't control what's printed or put on TV. My dad, a research scientist, subscribes to a magazine called "The Scientist" which is the opinions of the most reputed scientists in America, and they agree with the positions I've just stated, and you can't say that they're brainwashed. The US has bar-none the best research universities in the world and they do their research freely.

There was a program on ABC about a month ago called "Tampering With Nature" that exposed the fallacious claims of people who attribute global warming to humans. He even showed school children being brainwashed by their teachers to that effect. Many environmentalist groups tryed to stop the show from running because they knew that the scientists were right: Global warming is not caused by humans.

Excuse my ranting, but I can't stand claims that have no proof.

Dear Jazz: I agree with you that climate change is not due entirely to human activity. But given the very disagreable effects global warming may well cause, carefully planned efforts to reduce CO2 and methane emissions seem like good sense. The operative phrase is carefully planned. There has been a lot of nonsense such as government grants for efforts to reduce cow flatus. Keeping cows' intestinal flora optimal for low flaturulence would require an unreasonable amount of labwork and treatment. And if it comes to that, I find it hard to believe that total human flatus does not greatly exceed cow flatus. Who wants the job of controlling the human output?

Actually, I think all discussion of politics, especially "major party" politics in the US, is a moot point. All interests are controlled by the same cartel of the big-monied power elite who manipulate everything for their own greed...that's the current "government." So what I'm afraid we're settling in for here, in the long run, is really the
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush "Administration"...same folks behind them. Oh, in case you're wondering, that's George/Bill/George/Hillary/Jeb. (Neil Bush blew his eligibility for the job with the Silverado S and L Banking Scandal...that's why Dubya's there now).

Jazz,
I am very glad that you are taking a serious interest in the subject of global warming, and I am equally glad that we both live in countries that allow us to hold and debate opposing views. However, this is not the forum to hold a major discussion on the subject, so I will restrain myself. I will send a PM however if I may.
Rod

In America the government doesn't control what's printed or put on TV.

No, but the conservative mega-corporations which control the media do!

Records even show that the global temperature has actually gone down in the last 30 or so years.

There's a plot outside my office which shows the opposite. There was a slight drop through the 1970's, but between 1980 and 2000 the trend is definitely upward. It also appeared to be higher than average between about 1935 and 1970, and lower than average before that (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/1998/anomalies/anomalies.html and click on the graph).

there's no way you can prove that industry is causing any weather changes when we've only been recording weather conditions for 140 years.

No, you can't prove it, but you can come up with good models, test their predictions, discuss your findings with other scientists...waiting to see if it's really us who are causing the global warming will leave it until it's too late to fix!

"The Scientist"

You'll have to read a lot more than just one magazine if you want to convince yourself if something is true or not. Just because some more outspoken scientists have decided to state that we are not causing global warming, doesn't mean that their views are the only ones that matter. You have to consider the work and findings of many people, on both sides of the argument, before you can come to a conclusion.

I can't stand claims that have no proof.

Just be careful, by your arguments, you have no proof the other way, either!

By the way, I too had done some reading which indicated that global warming was a bit of an exaggeration, and was originally inclined to agree. Then I took a graduate course in ocean circulation modeling, in which we also talked about global warming, and I have since come around to the "we'd better be careful" side. The evidence for seems to be better than that against.

In America the government doesn't control what's printed or put on TV.

No, but the conservative mega-corporations which control the media do!


The only conservative mega-media-corporation I'm aware of is Fox. And it's fiercely outnumbered, without even mentioning CBC or PBS.

~~~~
and yes, rodward, I agree. This is not the forum for politics.

>This is not the forum for politics.

sure, get your shot in and then affect a salutary position.<harrumph>

WO'N - As PM'd, I was gonna speak, but yet again, Bean has made my point (singular) for me...

...affect a salutary position... Now we're talkin'...

Cheers

In America the government doesn't control what's printed or put on the TV

No, but the conservative mega-corporations which control the media do!

The only conservative mega-media-corporation I'm aware of is FOX

The owner of FOX News, and countless newspapers nationwide, and a movie studio, etc., etc., etc....is a self-proclaimed far-right wacko, Rupert Murdoch...an Aussie! Consolidating his influence and control of the media....for what? Beware.....

is a self-proclaimed far-right wacko

Yes, but news anchors are notoriously very liberal.

Well an american liberal is a middle of the roader in almost any other country. and an american conservative isn't as right wing as some countries..

I would tend to agree, that large media companies in US tend to be liberal.. but they also self censor.. for fear of being sued, or what ever. And there have been erosions of the first amendment. - and there are constant assaults on it (first amendment guarantees freedom of speak, communications among other things) but we still tend to have a very open press/media/communications industry.

and as I recall, as Murdoch assembled his US empire, he had to give up Aussie citizenship and become one of us– since one law we do have is we do try to keep mass media out of foreign hands.. And TV/radio frequencies franchise are limited to US citizens/companies. There are cable channels that are international– and different news organization buy time. So late Saturday night, you can catch up on the news in Japan.

We have no problems with letting in foreign press– and in NY, you can readily buy almost every major european paper, and many other countries as well, if you go to the right neighborhood– so the Irish Times is available in some areas of the Bronx, and in Queens more readily than Manhattan, and you can get Columbian news, Filipino news, hundreds of Indian newspapers.. And almost every national group has locally produced news papers and magazines.. And most major cities in US have a decent supply of foreign news paper/magazines available.. (At least Chicago, Atlanta, and Seattle, do, and it's a given that DC does.. )not to mention, internet access.

the real problems is US is so isolationist, we tend not to read international news.. and international news gets very poor coverage on TV.

I thought about it for a few days, and decided that you Democrats can't impeach him for not holding office, because that would basically be admitting that he does.

jimthedog writes that you Democrats can't impeach him for not holding office, because that would basically be admitting that he does.

This basically creates the circular reasoning similar to the Protagoras v. Euathlus case mentioned elsewhere. Incidently, it is certainly one of my favorite legal and logical paradoxes.

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/sec20.htm#A

Edit: I found, at that same site, an actual case where this Liar's Paradox played out in the courtroom (albeit 1946): http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/sec20.htm#B