Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiRovian Politics Chose Sarah Palin
What does it say about John McCain that he picked not only the least experienced Vice Presidential nominee in America's history, but someone he really doesn't know? Departing so far from any normal concept of appropriate background, he should at least have had a sense of why this individual is so special. Meeting Palin once at a Republican governors' conference and having a single phone conversation on the eve of her selection just doesn't pass muster-particularly for the oldest presidential candidate ever, who's had four malignant melanomas.
What makes Palin such a cynical choice is that McCain doesn't know her and doesn't know what drives her. Until she was selected by the Karl Rove types running his campaign (like campaign manager and Rove protégé Steve Schmidt), McCain might not even have recognized her on the street. Instead, she's a category selection, made for the crassest reasons by the same kinds of political operatives who brought us George W. Bush.
Their motives are obvious: Palin is an energetic and attractive woman who just might pick up some disgruntled Hillary supporters. She's a westerner and a hunter who might appeal to rural voters. She's likely to energize a previously tepid base of hard-shell religious conservatives through her opposition to abortion even in cases of rape or incest: Hard-right king-maker James Dobson just said that because of her he'd vote for McCain.
These attributes may indeed prove Palin's worth as a vote-getter. But except for an abortion position that seems a stunning denial of reality (and a major affront to women), they have no relation to Palin's fitness for the job. McCain can't have any sense of what lies beneath the facile marketing categories-like who Palin actually is, what she could contribute to the Vice Presidential office, and what it would be like to work together. He doesn't know her and has had no chance to. But because she fits the Rovian categories, none of that matters. Echoing so much that the Republicans have done for eight years and more, it's a choice likely to produce grave consequences, yet based overwhelmingly on political expediency.
Leave aside all the other troubling questions about Palin: her extreme abortion position; her backing the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" while campaigning for governor, then later claiming to disavow it; her support for teaching creationism as science; her Cheney-style vendetta of firing the Alaska public safety director who refused to fire her former brother-in-law from his job as a state trooper; her laughing during an interview at the jokes of a radio shock jock who mocked one of her political opponents (a cancer survivor) for her weight, and called the woman a "bitch" and a "cancer" on the state.
You can even leave aside that in a week where Hurricane Gustav threatens another Katrina and the Arctic ice cap separates from the adjacent land for the first time in human history, Palin insists that the jury is still out on whether humans are changing the weather of the planet.
In fact, leave aside Palin's actual record, because John McCain barely knows it. His vetters didn't even bother to go through the archives of her local newspaper or talk with the former public safety director she fired. What choosing her shows most is a politics that once again subordinates any greater common good to a raw pursuit of power. It echoes McCain praising Jerry Falwell after once calling him an "agent of intolerance." Or embracing Bush's campaign and administration after Bush's political hitmen defeated him in South Carolina with Swift Boat-type lies. Or when instead of challenging Obama's ideas, the McCain campaign tried to caricature him as one step up from Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Karl Rove's minions may be smiling at the brazen gamesmanship of this pick; but if Americans fall for it, we should know all too well what to expect.
122 Comments so far
Show Allthe shyt is gonna hit the fan real soon...peak oil / water , climate change..
simplify, get off the grid as much as possible , try and position you and your family far from the motors of this disaster, even then ,when the shyt-hits-the- fan, no one in the world will be able to completely dodge the global splattering,.. try to plan for worst case, a side swipe from all the shyt , rather than the full, face on deluge, that many and especially the deniers will suffer.
She just stands up there and says things. They need not have any basis in fact. I am hoping the researchers at the Daily Show etc. will deconstruct her assertions.
Joe
John McCain crashes airplanes. He crashed them at Pensacola and he crashed them in Vietnam, very likely due to snap decisions that turned out to be wrong - like Sarah Palin. I have to say I am delighted by his choice, by the utter, audacious brainlessness of allowing a cheap campaign ploy to determine the identity of a likely next Commander in Chief of the most awesome military arsenal in human history and Leader of the Free World. Truly human history is guided by mischievous imps buried in the oedipal bowels of our irrational collective, and not by the wisdom of our leaders, founding fathers, immortality-seeking genes or benevolent Gods. The goddamned thing is delightfully out of control. What a surprise that it took a grim character like John McCain to remind us that it is just a carnival ride and not to be taken seriously. SnowWolf and I are thinking of voting for him, just to watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer go toe to toe with Putin and Kim Jong-il and the vast Islamofascist antiChrist. Time to lighten up. Time to make popcorn.
The inflated degree of noise about Sarah Palin among Democrats amounts to sheer hysteria. So she's a fundie who's not qualified for high office -- big deal. She's no worse than Bush, Cheney, Rice or Rumsfeld. (It's unclear that she's better than they are, but how could she be any worse?) She's no worse than Romney, Joe Lieberman, or Scalia. And ALL of those people (except Bush himself) are VERY "qualified" for lofty positions, by conventional standards. This simply demonstrates something about the inadequacy of conventional standards. There is no good reason to believe, IOW, that being "qualified" elevates someone above the level of gangster.
Democrats should shut up about Sarah Palin, & examine the mote in their own eye, before daring to mouth off about her. After all, we now have been ruled by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy & the like for 8 years -- and the Democrats did nothing but collaborate with these gangsters, & protect them from scrutiny & accountability. Democrats haven't earned the right to shoot their mouths off about Republicans.
Democrats never tire of making excuses for Obama's right-leaning politics, rationalizing his constant sucking up to AIPAC, Wall St, & the MIC on the grounds that "otherwise he can't get elected." People who make these kinds of excuses don't have the moral authority to criticize a Sarah Palin -- or for that matter a GW Bush.
There's something particularly distasteful about the Democratic hysteria about Sarah Palin. It's as though all the gutless unprincipled worms who vote for Democrats are truly frightened of Bush & Cheney, but they're not intimidated by Palin, because she's a young & attractive woman with only very modest credentials & personal wealth. So they're pouring out their repressed venom & hostility on her -- emotional energy that really should have been directed towards serious opposition to Bush & Cheney, and towards choosing a candidate that really stood for antiwar & progressive values. The fangs Democrats are showing towards Palin are the fangs they show towards Nader, but don't have the guts to show towards powerful Republicans.
How typical, & how cowardly.
My venom toward Bush and Cheney has never been repressed. I have spent a lot of time on it, cherished it, nourished it with reading, exhibited it on the streets, on the phone, on the computer. Sarah Palin is still a scary dude, a stealth weapon.
BTW, you mean examine the LOG in their own eye, right? What is that log?
Joe
Democrats---hate! Democrats---all their fault! Democrats---hysteria! Democrats---right-wingers! Democrats---just the same! Democrats---collaborators! Democrats---cowards! Democrats---hate! Democrats---repressed! Democrats---venom! Democrats---hostility!
Republicans---powerful!
I wouldn't expect a lesser-evilist to agree.
I also wouldn't expect a lesser-evilist to be capable of writing a coherent refutation of it, either.
Fahrenheit 451 – that seems to be the temperature in Alaska with Sarah Palin in charge.
McCain looked at his list and said "Which one of these VP candidates is a Christian Mom that is anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-freedom in general?"
Ah there's only one - Sarah Palin.
She symbolizes a palingenisis. Plain and simple.
McCain & Unable '08
Okaaaaay.
According to this ALASKA resident, Sainted Sarah is firmly in the 'Who would Jesus Bomb' Camp... and her former pastor is one of the 'good christians' who belives that the people of the Middle East come from 'down there' (points at floor).
Paging Rev. Wright...
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/sarah-palins-preacher-problem-end-times-coming/
And then there's this...
http://www.alternet.org/election08/97350/8_more_shocking_revelations_about_sarah_palin/
So she wants to ban books too. Can burning them be far behind?
Walk in peace.
.
Based on my personal experience:
The fundy-style “Christian Community” is their own worst enemy.
They set up highly rigid unrealistic rules, spoken and unspoken, and force conformity upon each other - because of a deep underlying inability to manage their own lives.
To teens, this rigidity creates a natural rebellion, especially in kids who trend toward the creative, free-thinking end-of-the-spectrum.
It would not surprise me that Palin's daughter has been pregnant back to back, and has consciously, or subconsciously became pregnant out of rebellion and resentment at her mother’s driven political career - and subsequent lack of attention.
.
.
My guess, based on years of living in fundy-land way back in the day is this – James Dobson, seeing his power slipping away, and KKKarl Rove, seeing his election slipping away, cut a back room deal.
Dobson has given his blessing, the orders have went out, the talking points are dispersed to all the flocks, and the lock-step is engaged.
.
With feminists like Sarah Pallin, ya don't need male chauvinists.
It is obvious that a lot of trolls visit this website nowadays. I don't think that progressives are mean, snotty or elitist anymore than some conservative people. These are sweeping generalizations. When someone posts to this website, it is not clear that they are progressive so their attitudes can't be taken as representative of a progressive attitude.
She was govenor of the state that borders Russia. This renders her qualified for VP.
By that definition, as the former governor of Texas, George Bush would have had foreign policy experience because Texas, my home state, borders Mexico. Now witness the result of his foreign policy experience. His gunboat diplomacy has us bogged down in two bloody wars and our allies don't trust us.
I wonder if Russia would like to buy Alaska back from the US, plus interest?
Walk in peace.
You're joking I hope.
Why not? It's not like Putin couldn't screw Alaska any worse than Palin.
Walk in peace.
I was responding to the above post...
rucognizant
Fascinating.....the Republican can't dance for ----.
After watching the Dems flow with the music all last week, the Republicans Jerk and twitch to country music........terribly repressed. If Palin gets in she will insure a lot more reepression.
I still think McCain's choice of Pallin as a running mate is the most blessed of blunders. They MAY get some disgruntled women to vote for 'em, but I really doubt that most are going to take the bait. I mean, even McCain barely knows her let alone the vast majority of the American people.
Pallin also serves as an example of the fact that not all women who are educated and able to bust through the forcefield are pro-woman.
Btw, I couldn't care less about her past or what goes on in her household or with her family.
And again...what a fabulous fumbling of the ball.
As much as I take Obama to task and support candidates like Nader and McKinney, I'd rather have him in there than McCain, and an Obama victory is looking more likely with each passing day.
"Give me my 'redneck' friends any day. They are more accepting of people, open minded, caring, and usually smarter than many who post here.
I don't think so. What so many of them gave us is George Wanker Bush, Dick Cheney, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, death and debt on a massive scale that will probably tie down gernerations of future Americans, the brazen and ongoing attempt to destroy the constitution, a general and utter contempt for the very notion of human freedom and individual liberty, cynicism and lying that sound like giant fingernails scraping down a blackboard, etc. etc. etc. The term "redneck" describes a person who either gladly and knowingly acquieses in all that, or believes in it wholeheartedly. They can come from anywhere and they've been running this country almost non-stop since Nixon's first election victory in 1968. Make you happy?
bligh4
Good god almighty!
I used to be a progressive until I started reading the comments on this site.
"Palins deformed children" " Her husband is a drunk ( Dui in 1982!) "She's a redneck" "Her husband is a steelworker who races snowmobiles" "Mcain knows her in a biblical sense" " She is an unfit mother for wanting to work" ect.
Sadly, to be progressive seems to mean Progressive= sexist, elitist, snotty, close minded, know-it-all.
Give me my "redneck" friends any day. They are more accepting of people, open minded, caring, and usually smarter than many who post here.
I agree there has been some ugliness and lack of class------------------------------------------lizard
I agree.
Duh. McCain wants to drill ANWR. Palin = Governor of Alaska, also supports drilling.
How come this article doesn't mention that? Is it too obvious to state?
Well I want to drill in ANWR....
theres no good reason NOT to
'Well I want to drill in ANWR... There's no good reason NOT to.'
Well, Snowflake, heres FIVE good reasons not to:
1) Accelerating oil depletion.
2) Accelerating global warming which will cause the permafrost to melt even faster, releasing megatons of methane, which will accelerate global warming even more.
3) Destruction of wildlife habitat / extinction of wildlife.
4) Release of even more carcinogenic toxin into delicate Arctic wildlife ecologies.
5) Endangering human health and welfare due to effects of global warming, including but not limited to sea level rise, spread of infectious diseases, increased conflict over a dwindling resource base...
Do you want me to go on?
And before you flame me, these are positions and data from OIL COMPANIES, THE PENTAGON, and GOVERNMENTS worldwide.
Use the oil until the technology is there for something else (it isn't yet)
Global Warming is caused by Solar Activity (or lack thereof)...the evidence mounts daily
Dream on, fool.
Nice try but that dog don't walk. There has been no rise in solar irradiance since 1978. This is when the first satellites were positioned in orbit to measure the sun's radiation. It is the period since 1978 where the greatest rise in global average temperature has occurred. So solar forcing does not account for this global average temperature rise of 0.8 ºC above pre-industrial levels. But feel free to check it out for yourself.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
"Use the oil until the technology is there for something else (it isn't yet)"
Actually the technology is available. Hydrogen can be produced from sea water and can be used to run every vehicle on the road today while producing little to no polution. The main by-product of burning hydrogen is water. BMW has already produced a demonstration vehicle. All that is lacking is the production and distribution facilities. Until then, we will need to use oil for transportation, in conjunction with a crash program to implement the widespread use of hydrogen as quickly as possible.
Lobo Gris
Hydrogen Fuel cells are very promising...Yes...I think they should be developed...CNG too
but until they are viable...Drill
Hydrogen fuel cells are at least 5 decades away from development, if ever, and require 4 times the energy, in electricity, than storing that energy in plain old flooded cell lead-acid batteries. Plus the fuel is four times as expensive as gasoline and will always be this way no matter what we do. The storage issue is the biggest problem. Hydrogen leaks through any high pressure storage tank it is placed in. Imagine if you leave your car with a full tank of hydrogen at the airport on Friday and you come in on Sunday afternoon and your down 1/8 of a tank. Sorry I went down this sorry road too until I researched it myself. But don't believe me. Read what Joseph Romm, author of "The Hype About Hydrogen" says about fuel cell technology.
As for drilling, that's a non-starter. As long as we use fossil fuels, like gasoline and diesel, to power our cars we will always import oil. The US has only 2% of proven global oil reserves but consumes 25% of those reserves. Drilling in ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf or in Nebraska doesn't change that one bit.
"Hydrogen fuel cells are at least 5 decades away from development,"
I have not advocated hydrogen fuel cells but the burning of hydrogen directly as a fuel in internal combustion engines.
"The storage issue is the biggest problem. Hydrogen leaks through any high pressure storage tank it is placed in. Imagine if you leave your car with a full tank of hydrogen at the airport on Friday and you come in on Sunday afternoon and your down 1/8 of a tank."
Gee, you should try telling Ford, and BMW about that. They have both produced hydrogen demonstration vehicles with no such problems.
Lobo Gris
Any car company can build a concept car. That's what the big 2½ always do. They parade these concept cars at every car show but unless there's an actual prototype that leads to commercial mass production these cars are just vaporware.
As for BMW's limited production, VERY LIMITED PRODUCTION, Hydrogen 7 it only goes 125 miles in hydrogen only mode before the gas fuel source kicks in. Then if you want to refill it with hydrogen you will have to find a hydrogen filling station or its back to good ol' gasoline.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw-hydrogen-7/
When it comes to storing hydrogen you have to use a 5000 psi tank, at least, to store enough hydrogen on board the vehicle to provide appreciable range for the car. Joseph Romm, who ran the Energy Efficiency and Renewables Administration at DOE contends that you would need a 10,000 psi tank to get decent range with the car.
Regardless of whether the storage tank explodes or not in a collision, if the storage tank's integrity is breached your going to have problems as anyone who has witnessed the horror of the scuba tank dropped on the ground can attest to. Oh, one more thing. Hydrogen still leaks out of the storage tank no matter who's company logo is on the car.
As for burning hydrogen in an ICE why not just buy a Honda Civic NGX that runs on natural gas? It’s far cheaper than hydrogen and stores easily, is domestically produced and is far cleaner than gasoline or diesel. You can buy one today and drive it. It can be refueled in your garage with the addition of a natural gas filling station installed by Honda in your garage. When I worked in the oil industry back in the 80's the oil companies' hybrid trucks that I drove ran on both propane and gasoline.
Of course even with natural gas cars there's still the problem of depletion of the resource. With natural gas reserves also predicted to run out in North America in the next ten years energy supply will be limited. So get in now and enjoy it while you can.
Cheers.
"Hydrogen Fuel cells are very promising...Yes...I think they should be developed...CNG too
but until they are viable...Drill"
It doesn't get near as much press as fuel cells but hydrogen can be burned directly as a fuel also, the same as CNG or gasoline. Every vehicle on the road right now could be converted to run on it for about $1000-$2000 per vehicle and they could also still run on gasoline too. A switch on the dash would allow you to switch back and forth between the two fuels.
Lobo Gris
Thats very interesting...I didn't know that...
I guess the hang up is finding stations willing to carry it?
You don't need to go to a fueling station for CNG really. You could get a fueling compressor that installs in your garage and you could fill up overnight. The only two disadvantages are that the heat content in BTU's is lower so you have to burn more fuel to get where you want to go and there are only 1300 CNG filling stations in the country. So you will probably have to fill up at home. Below is a link for such a home station. There's one other thing. Right now natural gas is cheap relatively speaking when you compare it with gasoline. However, as I've stated previously, natural gas is in limited supply in North America and it will likely run out in about 10 years.
http://www.myphill.com/ *
Just for fun you'll probably want to know what the equivalent in cubic feet is in gas for a gallon of gasoline. If you're lucky enough not to have E10 than you can plug 124,000 BTUs into the calculator below and get the equivalent in cu ft. If you're unlucky and you do use E10 then the BTU content is around 120,000 BTU's and you can plug that in and see how many cu ft of natural gas is equivalent to a gallon of gas.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/science/energy_calculator.html
* DISCLAIMER: I do not work for, own stock in or receive remuneration in any conceivable form from said company listed in the link.
"I guess the hang up is finding stations willing to carry it?"
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Vision and Announcement
The "Vision 2010" for California's Hydrogen Highways is to ensure that by the end of the decade every Californian has access to hydrogen fuel along the State's major highways, with a significant and increasing percentage of that hydrogen produced from clean, renewable sources. This vision for California is real and attainable; however, it will take time so we must plant the seeds now.
The Hydrogen Car Company
HCC is an innovative, environmentally-conscious company that produces hydrogen internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles that enable consumers to reduce air pollution and dependency on foreign oil, while at the same time meeting government imposed environmental mandates without compromising performance, reliability and comfort.
Ford U Car Concept
Powered by the world's first supercharged hydrogen internal combustion engine, equipped with a hybrid electric transmission and pioneering green materials and processes, Model U is a vision for the future. It is Ford's model for change - exploring the benefits a vehicle provides to its users, the way it is manufactured and how it impacts the world.
BMW CleanEnergy
With the BMW CleanEnergy World Tour, the BMW Group presented hydrogen technology and the hydrogen internal combustion engine to foremost opinion leaders and decision makers from politics, industry and science. The goal is now to establish a hydrogen infrastructure through global partnerships in order to cause the breakthrough of the fuel of the future.
Lobo Gris
The hang up is not finding filling stations.
The problem is the amount of energy it takes to liberate the H2. And cracking it from water is the least efficient way of doing it. Natural gas is a much richer source. But then you are using up natural gas.
The greater problem with H2 is that to store it and transport it, you have to liquify it, which means LOTS of refrigeration equipment, which means even more energy used. Then you have to account for expansion and natural loss, because the H2 atom is so small it will eventually slip past even your best seal. And any amount of warming will cause the liquid H2 to sublimate and evaporate, so you have to have a safety venting system.
And vehicles with a straight H2 fuel tank will be very vulnerable to damage in collisions. Does the name 'Hindenberg' ring a bell? Not to mention that the vehicles will have to have LARGE and very well insulated fuel tanks and refrigeration systems which must be powered 24/7 when fueled up.
Don't forget that H2 expands 800 times it's liquid volume. And if you are using compressed, non liquid H2 you are looking at heavy, bulky fragile compressed gas tanks. exactly the kind of thing that would cause major problems in even a minor collision.
These are just some of the major technical deficiencies to an H2 powered fleet of vehicles. And the US military discovered all of these problems when they had a test program concerning H2 powered vehicles back in the Fifties and Sixties.
H2 systems are NOT the answer. Hydrogen is just another PR stunt by the oil companies to make it look like they are doing something about the looming disaster of oil depletion.
Walk in peace.
Galenwainwright, your reasoning against the feasibility of hydrogen as a fuel source is impeccable but there's one slight error of fact.
Your mention of the Hindenburg explosion doesn't take into account that it was actually the airship's skin painted with a lacquer and metal flake combination that initially triggered the fire and subsequent explosion on the Hindenburg. This lacquer is actually a type of rocket fuel. Even a spark could set it off. On the day that the Hindenburg was mooring in Lakehurst, NJ there was thunderstorm activity going on in New York and the surrounding areas in New Jersey. A single spark could have set of the fire of the ship's skin. It was only later when the rear hydrogen sack on board the airship exploded that its stern bowed down to the ground. The rest is history.
"The problem is the amount of energy it takes to liberate the H2. And cracking it from water is the least efficient way of doing it."
We can either start converting to hydrogen or else we can watch oil and natural gas supplies dry up while we park our cars, trucks, buses, and trains.
"The greater problem with H2 is that to store it and transport it, you have to liquify it,"
Hydrogen doesn't have to be liquified it is just transportable in larger quantities in liquified form.
"And vehicles with a straight H2 fuel tank will be very vulnerable to damage in collisions."
No more so than gasoline tanks, can you say Ford Pinto.
"Not to mention that the vehicles will have to have LARGE and very well insulated fuel tanks and refrigeration systems which must be powered 24/7 when fueled up."
Simply not so. Several car companies to include Ford, BMW, and FCC have demostration cars on the road right now with no such requirement.
"These are just some of the major technical deficiencies to an H2 powered fleet of vehicles. And the US military discovered all of these problems when they had a test program concerning H2 powered vehicles back in the Fifties and Sixties."
The fifties were sixty years ago, technology has progressed a long ways from there
Lobo Gris
Lobo Gris, the Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) is so negative that it’s a non-starter. Hydrogen cracked from water requires 4 times the electrical energy than storing that electricity in flooded cell lead-acid batteries would require.
The cheapest source of hydrogen is natural gas and that still uses 1.6 times the energy that storage in lead-acid batteries uses. No matter how much engineering prowess you put into it the energy has to come from somewhere. 98% of the hydrogen we get comes from natural gas.
You are dealing with the laws of thermodynamics and the first law says you can't create or destroy energy only transfer it. Well that transfer comes from natural gas and changes into hydrogen. In addition the second law of thermodynamics states that all energy flows from a low state of entropy to a high state of entropy. Basically that means that every time energy is changed it flows from an easily harnessed and usable form to one that is less usable and emits energy products in the form of heat, and waste products during this conversion.
So you loose energy when you convert natural gas into hydrogen and no technological innovation can change that. In addition it makes no sense to take a high value energy product like natural gas for heating and convert it into hydrogen which saps huge amounts of energy in the process. Its akin to turning gold into lead.
"So you loose energy when you convert natural gas into hydrogen and no technological innovation can change that. In addition it makes no sense to take a high value energy product like natural gas for heating and convert it into hydrogen which saps huge amounts of energy in the process. Its akin to turning gold into lead."
I have never advocated converting natural gas into hydrogen. As for producing hydrogen from water, we either do that or park all of our transportation, cars, buses, trucks, and trains when the oil and natural gas runs out.
Lobo Gris
Exactly. Welcome to peak oil.
Interesting post. Thanks.
Evidence mounts dai...Where? Faux News?
Try reading the reports of the IPCC or Union of Concerned Scientists. Or even the climate scientists censored by Bush for not toeing the party line.
Denying the mounting (and multiple corporation and Pentagon acknowledged evidence of) Peak Oil and Climate Change is slow suicide, which, given your Tush Limburger leanings, will be a blessing for the rest of us.
Try reading the other side------------lizard
I have.
It makes me giggle.
To see such blind ignorance and propaganda masquerading as science is always amusing. At almost never do the authors of anti peak oil and climate change stances state the data, or cite the peer reviewed journal or paper for details.
And it's nice to see one of CD's favorite pro-neocon trolls back on site. What's COINTELPRO paying these days, BTW?
The IPCC is being discredited daily...there are currently no sunspots whatsoever...The Farmers Almanac (with an 85% accuracy rating..whats your local forecasters record?) says the next 5 years are going to be harsher than normal winters....no warming whatsoever since '98
we are globally cooling...not warming...pray for warming...
Actually the IPCCs projections are conservative. They first predicted loss of sea ice at the North Pole in the summer by 2050, then 2030 and then by 2015. With the loss of significant amounts of ice at the northern polar ice cap this year we are on track to, at least, match the loss of northern polar ice or even exceed it.
It turns out that although National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration prediction for a warmer winter is at odds with the Farmer's Almanac on winter projections; it is in agreement that the northwest will be drier than usual. It also has sections on environmental awareness, frugality and living a sustainable life. It has sections on conservation, fuel efficient motor scooters and growing food without a yard.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/25/farmers-almanac-predicts_n_121099.html
We have been warming since 1998 and not cooling. Again we are talking about global average temperature increase and not a harsh winter that occurred in Broken Arrow, OK. What happened was that in 1998 the average global temperature increased substantially above the trend line but the graph of average global temperature clearly indicates an upward trend thus we continue to warm and not cool down.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329
Not to put to fine a point on it, but these were the same arguments I heard before drilling in Pudhome Bay and other areas and building the Alaska pipeline. None of them turned out to be true.
I frankly don't know if I think we should drill there or not, I simply am not informed enough to say yes or no.
But one thing I'm sure of, if it is permitted not one drop be allowed to the world markets. 100% to America. Thats the primary reason thats being put forth isn't it, to help us decrease use of foreign oil?
"But one thing I'm sure of, if it is permitted not one drop be allowed to the world markets. 100% to America. Thats the primary reason thats being put forth isn't it, to help us decrease use of foreign oil?"
As much as I would like to see ALL oil taken from all U.S. oil wells stay here in the U.S. for our use only (btw, I am opposed to drilling ANWR under any circumstances), it just isn't going to happen. The oil companies are not in business to help us Americans out with cheap gasoline and diesel prices, rather they are in business to make as much money as possible, which means any oil recovered by them will wind up on the world markets. It seems to me that the only realistic way to keep our oil here is to nationalize the oil companies, which I personally have no problem with at all. Another idea I believe we should consider (and I have felt this way since the Arab oil embargo of the early 1970's) is to impose a windfall profit tax on the oil companies. They should be allowed a certain percentge of profit on top of their investments, and beyond that percentage they should be taxed at 100%. It seems obvious at this point that the oil companies will not invest in the research necessary to discover alternative energy sources, even though the benefit to the company that does discover a new, clean and reliable energy source would profit immensely from such a discovery. The revenues derived from these taxes would then go 100% into research for clean, renewable and efficient energy sources.
Dr. Mohammed Mossadeg tried to nationalize Iran's oil company.
We all know how that ended...
Walk in peace.
So did Hugo Chavez. So far that seems to be working ok. In all reality, I would prefer that the oil compamies would take the initiative to appy some of those humongous profits they are reaping from us and apply them to alternative energy research. It seems to me that this would be good long term thinking for continued top dog status in the future energy markets. Problem is American companies don't like to plan for the future, but rather settle for whatever profits they can put in the bank today. Toyota's standing in the automotive industry above our own "big three" is a perect example of how long term planning tends to pay off...in the long run.
Take care Galen!
Its working faitrly well for the rich and urbanites, but the poor and especially the rural poor are getting less than nothing. And their economy is degrading as we speak.
Forgot the Exxon Valdez so soon? Besides, if Exxon/Mobil can get a better offer from China (they have our money to use, after all) why would they sell it here. Would a free-market-loving Republican put restrictions on big oil just so you can heat your home? I doubt it.
And where is Prudhoe Bay now?
I'll tell you.
Going dry. It is passed it's peak production.
Drilling in ANWR will take ten years to bring online in increasingly difficult conditions as the permafrost melts, and will only provide oil for 6 months.
Hmmm. Ten years hard work for six months profit. Any economist would laugh out loud at that kind of return. And because the oil would be being extracted by an INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, the oil produced would immediately go onto the world market, going to whoever would be willing to to pay the going price at the time.
Walk in peace.
I don't mind if the oil companies lose money on the deal. But let me say again, if its agreed to drill ANWAR or offshore, by agreement, the oil stays here. period. Or forget it.
In 1980 we were running out of oil. Now we are running out of oil. Why is it true now and not then? Same folks telling me the same thing again.
Besides we will run out when we run out, we had better be using all our own power sources now and instead of sending the money out of the country, use it to develop new sources.
Or Americans, with their obese asses could... I don't know... walk or ride a bike? ... Amazing how people just cannot seem to think of life with out oil. What was that you say? You live 50 miles away from work? THIS is the problem. So wildlife in Alaska (or anywhere else on the planet that has been destroyed) has to suffer because you were stupid enough to think that the suburbs where safe for your children??? The American Mind is the problem here. We tried oil dependency. It ISN'T WORKING!!!!!!!!!!! ... Next option?...
Anyone who thinks that this is okay, is a world class a**hole. Period. Our lifestyle is causing this.
http://www.ibrrc.org/images/gannet_oiled_ps.jpg
http://www.greenexpander.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/00c1ftdr.jpg
Can someone tell me another species on the planet that causes this kind of suffering for other species? Causes billions of tons of WASTE? Didn't think so.
How’s this for starters. There was a survey done by the US Geological Survey in 1998 in ANWR. They did a follow up in 2002. It basically reinforced what they said back in '98 even though their abstract for 2002 says there is substantially more. This is true if you mean to say that 2 to 3 Billion bbls more of oil is 'substantial.'
Nevertheless back to the 1998 report. In it they gave a range of possible reserve levels. These are by no means proven reserves. These are what oil geologists call conceptual reserves or undiscovered oil. They found that the unproven reserves could range from 11.7 Billion barrels of to around 4.2 Billion bbls. The report says that there is a 5 % chance of probability that there will be 11.7 Billion bbls of recoverable oil and a 95% chance of probability that there will be 4.2 Billion bbl of recoverable oil with a mean of 6.4 Billion bbls.
This is a small find by comparison with reserves in other locations containing far more capacity. For example the Gawar oil field in Saudi Arabia, the king of oil wells, was estimated to be 200 Billion bbls. Also keep in mind that the U.S. uses about 7.5 Billion bbls per year.
If we relied only on the oil from ANWR it would last us about a little over 6 months. Now the 2002 USGS study came up with a 95% chance of probability that there are 5.9 Billion bbls and a 5% chance of probability that there is 13.2 Billion bbls with a mean of 9.3. Again this is not much to write home about and it will undoubtedly be difficult to get at. Think brutally cold winters with oil that congeals like Chap Stick. It's not worth destroying a pristine environment for 6 months worth of oil.
Oh, this oil doesn't go to the US. Thanks to the globalized economy it goes on the world market where it won't amount to a spit in the ocean. You can read about the 2002 study here http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs045-02/ and the 1998 study here http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/.
Mendo Chuck
Well all those choice remarks are all well and good. For those of you that have forgotten 2004 . . . Bush was re-elected!!!
Now based on this one fact, what makes you think all these tid-bits of serious information will have any effect. Wake up folks . . . this has energized the Republicans in case you haven't been reading anything else besides Common Dreams.
The election just got very, very serious and you had better be ready to get out and off your couch and onto the streets, because the change we need will not happen by sitting in front of your computer and preaching to the choir.
For those of you that pray . . . Do so and do it a lot.
This is serious . . . The Rove gang have planned well and the last eight years should point out that intelligent conversations are not the way to win in 2008.
i agree 100%. well said. hit these republicans and hit em hard. call them on the last 8 yrs. the devastation they have caused. the torture. get them. all of us together. and do it with class.
The reason (in my opinion) that it has energized the Republicans is that the Mainstream Media was Loathe to "follow the money" on the John Edwards affair and illegitimate child (do you really believe its not his?) because of the (D) after his name and yet will totally embaress all over the front page a 17 yr old child of a woman with an (R) after her name
if that isn't despicable I don't know what is
This is going to backfire on the Democrats big time
Since you asked, I'll answer. I really believe Edwards's mistress's child is not from Edwards. I think Edwards threw that little bit of scuttlebutt in to slightly reduce the stench of his having the affair. Kind of a cheap debating tactic.
If he'd said "Yes I had an affair but I'm kind to cats" some goofball would say "No he's not kind to cats!" and the debate would be derailed to one Edwards could win.
From: ADITA98@aol.com
Date: September 1, 2008 7:39:51 AM PDT
To: norwestmor@att.net
Subject: Fwd: alaska witness: John McCain's VP nominee
This comes from a friend. She belongs to my synagogue. She sent this out to folks.
Please read this in all seriousness..
when you are finished with this then go to following link and read.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26426721/
from a college classmate of mine who lives in Alaska
Elizabeth M. Schneider
Rose L. Hoffer Professor of Law
Brooklyn Law School
250 Joralemon St .
Brooklyn , N.Y. 11201
718.780.7988 (ph)
718.780.0376 (fax)
liz.schneider@brooklaw.edu
Fall 2008
Visiting Professor of Law
Columbia Law School
212.854.8079 (ph)
eschne@law.columbia.edu
________________________________________
From: bmc1968@googlegroups.com [bmc1968@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of jacsiegel@mac.com [jacsiegel@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:04 PM
To: BMC1968
Subject: [BMC1968] John McCain's VP nominee
Dear classmates -
As an Alaskan, I am writing to give all of you some information on
Sarah Palin, Senator McCain's choice for VP. As an Alaska voter, I
know more than most of you about her and, frankly, I am horrified that
he picked her.
The most accurate description of her is red neck. Her husband works in
the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay and races snow mobiles. She is a life
time member of the NRA and has worked tirelessly to allow
indiscriminate hunting of wildlife in Alaska , particularly wolves and
bears. She has spent millions of Alaska state dollars on aerial
hunting of these predators from helicopters and airplanes, dollars
that should have been spent, for example, on Alaska 's failing school
system.We have the lowest rate of high school graduation in the
country. Not all of you may think aerial predator hunting is so bad,
but how anyone (other than Alaska wolf-haters, of which there are
many, most without teeth), could think this use of funds is
appropriate is beyond me. If you want to know more about the aerial
hunting travesty, let me know and I will send some links to
informative web sites.
She has been a strong supporter of increased use of fossil fuels, yet
the McCain campaign has the nerve to say she has "green" policies. The
only thing green about Sarah Palin is her lack of experience. She has
consistently supported drilling in ANWR, use of coal-burning power
plants (as I write this, a new coal plant is being built in her home
town of Wasilla ), strip mining, and almost anything else that will
unnecessarily exploit the diminishing resources of Alaska and destroy
its environment.
Prior to her one year as governor of Alaska , she was mayor of Wasilla,
a small red neck town outside Anchorage.The average maximum education
level of parents of junior high school kids in Wasilla is 10th grade.
Unfortunately, I have to go to Wasilla every week to get groceries and
other supplies, so I have continual contact with the people who put
Palin in office in the first place. I know what I'm talking about.
These people don't have a concept of the world around them or of the
serious issues facing the US . Furthermore, they don't care. So long as
they can go out and hunt their moose every fall, kill wolves and bears
and drive their snow mobiles and ATVs through every corner of the
wilderness, they're happy. I wish I were exaggerating.
Sarah Palin is currently involved in a political corruption scandal.
She fired an individual in law enforcement here because she didn't
like how he treated one of her relatives during a divorce. The man's
performance and ability weren't considered; it was a totally personal
firing and is currently under investigation. While the issue isn't
close to the scandal of Ted Steven's corruption, it shows that Palin
isn't "squeaky clean" and causes me to think there ay be more issues
that could come to light. Clearly McCain doesn't care.
When you line Palin up with Biden, the comparison would be laughable
if it weren't so serious. Sarah Palin knows nothing of economics
(admittedly a weak area for McCain), or of international affairs,
knows nothing of national government, Social Security, unemployment,
health care systems - you name it. The idea of her meeting with heads
of foreign governments around the world truly frightens me.
In an increasingly dangerous world, with the economy in shambles in
the US , Sarah Palin is uniquely UNqualified to be vice president. John
McCain is not a young man. Should something happen to him such that
the vice president had to step in, it would destroy our country and
possibly the world to have someone as inexperienced and inappropriate
as Sarah Palin. The choice of Palin is a cheap shot by McCain to try
to get Hillary supporters to vote for him. when McCain introduced her
today, Palin had the nerve to compare herself with Hillary and
Geraldine Ferraro. Sarah Palin, you are no Hillary Clinton.
To those of you who, like me, supported Hilary and were upset that she
did not get the nomination, please don't think that Sarah Palin is a
worthy substitute. If you supported Hillary, regardless of what you
think the media and the democratic party may have done to undermine
her campaign, the person to support now is Obama, not Sarah Palin. To
those of you who are independent or undecided, don't let the choice of
Palin sway you in favor of McCain. Choosing her shows how unqualified
McCain is to be president. To those of you who are conservative, I
guess you have no choice for president. But please try to see how the
poor choice of Palin tells us a great deal about McCain's judgment.
While the political posturing inherent in the choice of Palin is
obvious, the more serious issue is the fact that the VP is, literally,
a heartbeat away from the presidency. Sarah Palin is totally and
unequivocally unqualified to be vice president, let alone president.
I know this is a lengthy and emotional email, but the stakes are high.
I thought it might help for all of you, regardless of political
affiliation, to know something about Palin from someone who has to
live with her administration in Alaska on a daily basis.
Jackie S.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--
I have a bit of a problem here. Alaskans live with wolves and hate them because they hurt their animals. We should, apparently, stop Alaskans from killing the wolves because a few of us want to be able to visit Alaska and see wolves and the wild untouched. But Alaskans, who live there, and call it theirs,don't. They want to do strip mining and drilling to ruin the pristine beauty of parts of Alaska, but we must object because a few of us want to be able to vist Alaska and see it 100% pristine. Who's state is it anyway? Don't people have a right to like what they like as long as it is legal? I agree that Alaskans don't sound like my kind of people but do I have a right to expect everyone to be like me? Of course they are probably not very bright and slow down progressive development, but don't Americans have the right to be stupid? We do need to change the mentality of the people, but we won't achieve this by belittling anyone. We change mentalities by argument, not by using terms like red neck as a blunt weapon. We need to have clear arguments in defense of abortion, environment preservation, sustainable development, freedom of belief, and individual rights. Red neck stupid without teeth is not an argument. I don't mean to say this is a bad post, a lot of it is useful, but it lacks compassion. Are they so undeserving of that? Perhaps they are and I just don't know better----------------------------------------lizard
Yes, I see a bit of a problem with your position. It is the problem of states rights and the presumption of ownership. We don't "own" our children, and the law correctly prohibits our abusing them. Mississippi didn't "own" its black population in the 1960's. and had no right to prevent them from entering state universities. Wyoming ranchers don't "own" eagles, and have no right to shoot them from helicopters (or crucify "their" gays from fenceposts.) We don't "own" wildlife, and have no moral right to exterminate animals for sport. Alaskans have the right to trash their state because it "belongs" to them? Some interpretation of the law might make a case for that, but I persist in the idea that we are global citizens and that we are each responsible for all of it. You do have a right to expect the Jangaweed to be more like you, and for consensual norms of civility to be universally respected. As a practical matter I have no more control over Alaska rednecks than I have over the Jangaweed, but not to press for their disappearance is unimaginable.
Excellent post.
The wolves were there first, and so was the wild. And don't try to speak for all the Alaskans. And we don't object because we want to visit the place, I object because we've already destroyed most of the planet, and it would be nice to leave at least one place alone.
Some of the best people I know are what you in elitist and bigoted language are calling
'red neck' and I don't think it is a crime to be missing teeth, nor practicing your rights to engage in what is legal in our country.
Personally I think golfing should be outlawed before any form of hunting is, but I won't hold that against Obama, nor do I need to say he won't make a good president because he spends his leisure time golfing, when he could be doing more to prepare himself to become president.
Which I think he could, he is very inexperienced and also has lost his spiritual base.
Golfing will not enrich him spiritually or administratively no matter how many holes he buts his balls into. And getting a birdie, will not save a bird.
So to not digress any further into such pointless personal thoughts as mine and yours, I'll point out that any of you who really want Obama to win, would be most wise to support him and support shifting the power back on to your shoulders.
I wonder what this person from alaska has done for the wolves, bears or children who don't get a good education? That would be most instructive at this point.
This "person from Alaska" wasn't the governor so it isn't fair to ask what she has done anymore than asking what you have done. Palin was governor and didn't do anything for those uneducated children. She is indeed responsible, it's her job! Her beliefs are obtuse, like that of most Americans, and this must be pointed out. Her 17 year old pregnant daughter says a lot about her. She deserves to be questioned on this because she is against abortion and sex education. Look at the consequences. Palin is an unintelligent person, as are most Americans, and she should be confronted and argued down. Most Americans have to be confronted and argued down. Yes, they won't listen, but the alternative is to beat them over the head. I am not for that. It is a long road but there is no choice. We have to win the arguments and better yet, present the argument in a non_hostile way if we want to change the mentality of the people. The problem is the people and Palin is a very good example of the people and the problem----------------------------------------lizard
As is now being evidenced over and over again with the progressive talking heads, the republicans with intention or not found a goldmine of progressive democratic weakness.
A fear of women.
This wound is unraveling even the soundest of minds, and bringing down such an ill constructed progressive movement, a ram shackle straw house,that with so small of a brush of air as a woman letting her hair down, we see it self imploding in a bizarre storm of indignation and utter confusion.
Once this group of people affiliating themselves as supporters of the democratic ticket get done with their shock and awe induced analysis, I wonder what the extent of damage will be?
The progressives would do well to realize this, and start the hard work of building a brick house by really including women in their movement.
"...progressive democratic weakness. A fear of women."
You're delusional. You deserve Republican misogyny if you believe your own baloney. They put a pretty face on a dying ticket and you think this is a boon to women's rights? How about Palin being against choice for women, or against equal pay, or in favor of banning books? The women's movement would have been politically dead without continued support from Democrats. Not one Republican woman supports woman's rights - you pretenders deserve each other.
Let's see McCain's first wife was a cheerleader; his second wife, a model; it's a natural fit for his third--whoops!--his VP choice to be a beauty pageant queen. I'm sure he thoroughly vetted her when he laid eyes on her.
It seems to me that no one has mentioned yet that Gov Palin has decided to go into the national spotlight but must humiliate her 17 year old pregnant daughter to do so. They are praising her mother hood qualities but what kind of mother does this to a teen age daughter to get ahead. Need we mention that having also a Dons baby and leaving it at this stage of his life to go on the road for her career seems to me to be a very shoddy way to tout motherhood.
Let me count the ways Gidget and geezer have made the Republican Party so fascinating:
First there's the sexual tension between the two. As a matter of fact, Gidget with a semiautomatic is something I imagine I could find in a sex shop.
There's an extreme Pentecostal hubris now. Anyone who objects gets spat upon. This just adds to the tension.
There's the Governor's elaborately choreographed fake pregnancy. Now there's a fake pregnancy for Bristol too. What happens when that baby doesn't come out? You could not fake this V.P. choice if you tried.
They'll probably do a secret adoption...
If fitness for the job was the most important criteria, we wouldn't have got 8 years of Bush.
or 8 years of Clinton and 4 of Carter...lets face it....The Washingtons, Jeffersons and Lincolns just don't go into Politics anymore...you'd be a fool to because of the 'take no prisoners' sleazy politics played today
Although on second thought it may be nothing new...
I once heard that during one of his reelection campaigns, LBJ alluded that his opponent was a bit "too fond" of the livestock on his ranch...One of his staff told him "Sir, nobodies going to believe THAT" and he replied..."Hell...I know that...I just want to hear the son-of-a-bitch deny it"
Clinton had 4 good years before NAFTA.
"What does it say about John McCain that he picked not only the least experienced Vice Presidential nominee in America's history, but someone he really doesn't know?"
McCain probably does know her, in the biblical sense, and it is yet another reason he chose her. Johnny Boy likes to be around good looking "babes"; combine that with his fear of death and a lack of gray matter that would make both appealing and plausible such a poor choice and you have some understanding, dim as it might be, of what McCain is actually like.
SP is Rove-chosen but not for the reasons stated. Clearly, the neo-loons have decided they'd better pull back and regroup before the incredible hell they've unleashed sucks them into the abyss forever. Hence, SP was chosen to help JM lose, not win.
The more worrisome quote from the above essay, though, is this: "What does it say about John McCain that he picked... someone he really doesn't know?"
Even the most moronic of so-called "leaders" knows to surround themselves with trusted 'family' members only, and if a candidate can even be bothered to even Wikipedia his right hand and potential 45th President, he's so obviously not qualified to oversee the largest and most complex human organization in history it's pathetic. Hell, they should kick him from the f**king Senate for such lazy and extremely neglectful work ethics.
And who wants to bet McCain The Short-Fused Surly Misogynist can no way stand more than, say, 10 straight minute of SP's oh so annoying voice at a time?
Why lose?
McSame may not know her, but he sure likes her ass....did you see him staring at it and fiddling with his wedding band during her acceptance speach? Dirty old fart.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
With that handle you have the nerve to call him a dirty old fart. Are you counting on people not speaking spanish?------------------lizard