tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-142858112024-03-07T22:06:24.107-08:00ImmediateBeing well informed is the first duty of citizenship. Telling people what they want to hear is the first rule of survival for private enterprise media. Do we have a problem here? Some are illiterate, many innumerate but of what use are those skills if you think there is truth in advertising?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-44443971229197811152009-08-03T05:02:00.000-07:002009-08-07T20:38:10.966-07:00cash for stupidityI admit that I once owned an 8 cylinder Chevy Suburban, a true gas guzzler...that was 1985. Before then and since, I have driven much lighter cars and since around 1990, I have often left the car home and gotten to work on a bicycle.<br /><br />That history divulged, I will chance being called a hypocrite to tell you what I have felt about the automobile since my high school days when tail fins and tyrannosaurs roamed the earth.<br /><br />It is a cheap thrill for some apes, and perhaps a necessary evil for the hapless working class who can not find work where they live or live where they can find work. <a href="http://www.bfi.org/node/422">Buckminster Fuller was one of the more prominent but hardly the earliest voices to question the massive per capita use of petroleum, metals and other resources</a> to which the automotive addiction [and the severely dysfunctional use of land that goes with the addiction] committed us. The vision of the conventional automobile and its usage patterns as arch nemesis of sustainability was not exactly his message. He also thought more technology could be applied to help us live as well on less resources. His book "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth" was old news by the time I read it in the late 60's. Having been taken on as a kind of manifesto for the technically inclined hippie and tossed as kookie by most others, its influence is far less than it prescience about our resource-starved present would justify. That is not the only source of my revulsion at the clumsy dirty machines, the love of which we subsidize, but it was important intellectual support. I also have youthful associations of noisy cars with bullies and negligent scholarship. It was, in my formative years, a cultural institution to rival the black holes of gambling and public drunkenness [the latter has been radically exacerbated in both opportunity and severity of consequences by the illusory freedom to escape that advertisers use to promote car ownership.]<br /><br />That is not all I can say about my bad reaction to one of the pillars of both our economy and our culture but enough of that. Suffice it to say that since GM and Chrysler are sucking up billions of YOUR dollars on life support, you are owed a moment of sanity: the pillars of life in this allegedly great nation are rotting out from under you. I have not the time nor you the patience for me to explain to you that from a fundamentally economic perspective, the collapse was inevitable. That explanation would be one that puts the whole of our support system: the resources we acquire at severe political cost, the resources do we command: coal, air, water, iron, health and the costs to patch up bodies corroded by lives lived in cars...and the money that makes all those resources fungible... all counted on the ledger. Saying that collapse was inevitable and that any, ANY, reasonable extrapolation of consumption trends since the 60's amounts to a set of tracks ending at an ecological and economic cliff is unnecessary because we are at the cliff now. Plenty of smart and far sighted people already did that explaining...you didn't listen to them either. I am making plans to jump off the train since it won't even slow down.<br /><br />Won't even slow down. The same psychology as ever quietly commands the body politic: "I don't want to know the ultimate costs of any ploy of government/industry as long as it minimizes my immediate discomfort or protects me from the scary, the unfamiliar effort or privation. The same corporations, oil companies, and automobile companies, that benefited from congressional dispensation will continue to benefit based on the excuse of the jobs they represent in spite of the now obvious fact that the future they represent is one of empty shelves, uprooted lives, dirt and want. The corporations still have vastly disproportionate representation via lobbies and representation that speaks far better for the largest blocks of share holders than for individual workers or families. We will always see congressional creativity in new forms of subsidies overt or subtle. In the past we have had tax funded highways, tariffs on imported cars, tax breaks on car loan interest...a long and varied list to which we now add "cash for clunkers". We seem bent on rewarding the very stupidest behavior. Now, I who can pay more taxes because I have spent far less of my family wealth on cars, will pay more in taxes now and later so that you morons who bought SUVs long after they became the laughing stock of the ecologically minded, can get a do-over. A do-over of the mistake of buying a car at my expense financially and at my expense environmentally...this program sucks.<br /><br />And if you think you can tolerate the suckage because at least the dupes will be driving more fuel efficient and less polluting cars, please consider:<br /><ul><li>They will have to buy a Japanese car or a [German owned] "Smart" car to get anywhere above 38 MPG average. American worker's benefit from this will be much less than advertised.<br /></li><li>Another ton of iron will be mined or refined and another ton of coal burnt to make the replacement car. A comprehensive analysis factoring in more than job-angst would have us just drive the clunkers more slowly and trade them in when they were really ready to trade.</li></ul><br />Its a hoax, folks. The popularity is just a tip-off on how fatuous the fans of this "solution" are.<br /><br />At one time or another, we have given Detroit and <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&q=5959+Las+Colinas+Boulevard+Irving,+Texas&ie=UTF8&split=0&gl=us&ei=r-p2SsjqA43-MafXybEM&ll=32.893948,-96.951427&spn=0.013189,0.043945&t=h&z=15">Dallas</a> <sup><a href="http://abombanation.blogspot.com/2009/08/cash-for-cluelessness.html#footnote1">[1]</a></sup>every conceivable advantage using the general revenues of this nation. Now, populism provides a willing if blind alliance of the least conscientious consumers and the least conscientious industries to raid the coffers when they are already empty by the accounting standards that your bank would apply to <span style="font-style: italic;">you</span>.<br /><br /><hr /><br /><a name="footnote1">Did you think XOM was an oil company?</a> If they were an oil company they would need a headquarters in the oil patch but I doubt they <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&q=exxon+mobil+corporation+washington+dc&fb=1&split=1&gl=us&cid=0,0,15852633250690878358&ei=vPt2SrGmMI6mMPTE9LAM&ll=38.902556,-77.046905&spn=0.005477,0.013797&t=h&z=16">drill much oil on K street yet profit spectacularly</a>. Like almost any other corporation, the sole logic of their existence is profit...they are a profit company more than an oil company. Hence the nice HQ office by the beltway. <a href="http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2009/02/new-dc-lobbyist-named-for-exxo.php">Your government and your oil company are so very much in bed together you probably can't tell who is on top unless you rip off the covers.</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-22939741359061263202009-07-18T20:09:00.000-07:002009-07-18T20:15:18.589-07:00Thats the way it wasI note the passing of Walter Cronkite with the same sadness as many older Americans.<br /><br />But do you think the news was more balanced and unfiltered when he broadcast it? Are you sad because with his passing , you think the period is now placed on the last sentence of real news and no one is likely to scold us for consuming the news we want to hear and little else? I'll scold. The reason most of us would smirk if either Huffington or O'Reilly signed off "Thats the way it is" is because we know we tuned for "that is what you wanted to hear".Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-48946346719012484092008-07-15T17:07:00.000-07:002008-07-15T19:35:33.117-07:00And when they came for the bloggers, no one was homeYou know there is a series of books and probably a television show on the theme of "<span style="font-style: italic;">what would you do to survive</span> X" where X is something dreadful most of us would expect to kill us. X is things like a shark attack, a lion stalking you, your car going into a skid on an icy road, the elevator you are in suddenly snapping its cables etc.<br /><br />Here is a modern media problem: you get a subpoena about the forum or blog you run, requesting the identities of commenters or posters ... and you are under threat of jail if you even reveal that you have been asked to reveal names. What would you do to survive that? <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/technology/15law.html?ex=1373860800&en=15bbdd45207b2e16&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink">Its not a hypothetical question</a>.<br /><br />In the case of the operators of the website <a href="http://www.r8ny.com/blog/admin/pressure_on_bronx_da_continues_to_mount.html">Room 8</a>, a forum for talking about NYC politics, the game played out thusly...<br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"><blockquote>This, of course, is a blogger’s nightmare: enforced silence and the prospect of jail time. The district attorney eventually withdrew the subpoena and lifted the gag requirement after the bloggers threatened to sue. But the fact that the tactic was used at all raised alarm bells for some free speech advocates.</blockquote></span><br /><br />So maybe you could sue the DA, but the "but" in that paragraph tells you that if you blog or even just comment on blogs, you might want to read the article and learn how to cover your ass. Beware of the advice you find linked in the article however: the date on their linked technology story is 2006. Check around for more up-to-date software for identity protection. The feds probably do not have to be as overt at the DA in New York...they don't need a warrant or a subpoena, they can just bust in to your packets and see who is saying what to whom. For instance, don't you suppose then Attorney General Alberto Gonzo sorely wanted to subpoena anyone who was in touch with <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/197848.php">Paul Kiel and Justin Rood</a> around Jan. of 2007?<br /><br />I find it oddly incompetent or naive of Mr. Smith, one of the proprietors of Room 8, that he runs web site yet doesn't know what the police would want with an IP address. If you use, for instance, sitemeter.com, to count the hits on your blog, poke around in the user interface to the stats. Even if you don't pay for the service you get the first three fields of the IP, the portion that maps to a domain usually. If you pay, you get to see the full server log entry and it would tell exactly which machine if the user was not using some kind of cloaking measure. The ISP will mask the location, maybe even lie about the town just to protect the privacy of its customers from stalkers but trust me, the ISP can be pressured to provide the correct details and now that the carriers are immune from lawsuit or prosecution for privacy violations, how long until ISP's get the same dispensation. You know a democratic congress including a certain democratic senator running for president passed the present swiss cheese version of FISA. I think means the imminent departure of Bush guarantees no rights in this matter.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-67976357499714244762008-06-10T05:53:00.000-07:002008-06-10T06:27:27.525-07:00Kinda like The Cream but with a lot of garage bands just off stage<a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/199415.php">Huffington visits Marshall</a>. These two comprise my first-reads of the day more often than not. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-webby-awards-are-only_b_106045.html">HuffPo is getting a Webby award</a>. Well, someone has to get them. <br /><br />There are a million more of us out here scribbling away and I think that is good <a href="http://abombanation.blogspot.com/2008/06/settling-for-virtual-impeachment.html">just to make sure nobody who isn't in a coma misses the import of peril, perfidy and possibility of our precarious times</a>. You may be one person reflecting, repeating and writing...but always distilling the broad stream, even if only by choosing what to link or paste: You are voting, by emphasis, for what you think matters most. If you have one reader or only a few, you still strengthen the synapses of the hive mind around the knowledge that matters and you still hammer your little blow to forge the more sane and informed consensus that keeps the elections and legislation from sliding toward fascism. Do the courts, the State department, the Congress, the regulators of banking, commerce and communications hear us? They certainly won't if we don't speak up.<br /><br />First the crowd hears itself, then the leaders hear the crowd. Most bloggers are more audience than artist or author but they really do get to be a bit of both. That exemplifies the two-way conversation between authority and subject that should mark all aspects of a democracy. But MSM has eschewed real dialog for the profit of an assembly line of news. Assembly lines only flow in one direction, most of their output briefly in our hands on its way to a landfill somewhere. Huffington is asking for suggestions for a five-word "acceptance speech". I wish I could find five words to say "news factories broken, dialog prevails"...but those particular five words only work at the end of a blog post.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-23195023476994620652008-06-05T18:30:00.000-07:002008-06-05T18:32:11.233-07:00I don't mind paying for my newsRIP LAT :<br />I took a journalism course back around 1970. I don't recall what text we used but the prof did most of his teaching around our mandatory subscription to the LA Times. Nobody, not even the editor, agrees with every word printed in a serious news paper but a proper and progressive attitude for being an informed citizen demands that spectrum of coverage. To be so informed I consider as much an obligation of citizen-powered nations [we abuse the word "democracy"] as voting or willingness to pay taxes and serve in defense forces.<br />So, I am sad when <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/business/media/22paper.html?ex=1358744400&en=db8b0c55ade8c639&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink%20">an important news organization crosses a threshold of demise and heads towards the trash heap of trivialized "major media" mush</a>. <br />I don't think there is any way to be a serious newspaper for a publisher who won't provide enough budget to send adept and knowledgeable sleuths among our businesses, politicians and other influencers of world events and enough freedom to write the complete and cogent exposition and analysis of what those sleuths find, regardless of the wishes of the subjects and sponsors [too often the same party] to spin news favorably. Those are two things that get me to pay any attention to a paper. Those are things I will pay for in cash because they ARE value to me and only such coverage actually satisfies my hunger to be realistically informed of the state of the world and our prospects in it. <br /><br />NY Times recently polled on line readers to get a profile of the readers and their responses to various features of the Times' product. I had to add a comment that I was willing to pay for sound reporting since they took their premium content out from behind the pay wall. If you, as a consumer of news, insist on getting something for nothing, you deserve the pablum press and trite talking heads that are displacing real news sources. How long will you be able to change the channel to PBS and NPR?<br /><br />I doubt they are listening to me but if Mr. Zell or the Board of Directors at NY Times, [you go to hell, Rupert, you are just a pusher] have any interest in keeping ME as a customer they had better not water down their news any further nor pander to politically powerful. Yes, the Wal-Marts of the world make money...but not from me. I would caution publishers strongly against the urge to become a Wal-Mart of news with an abundance of formulaic fluff you can print at a profit. Wal-Mart shoppers wind up with few choices. Josh Marshall's Talking Point Memo, for example, sometimes quotes mainstream media outlets but they have been freer than the mighty NY Times to dig and to disclose the dreck that Washington does and disguises ...so who is my first read in the morning? Who's ads do I see first? Its getting to be a toss-up.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-10811714716237212212008-06-04T17:34:00.000-07:002008-06-05T04:19:17.901-07:00Is Green the new Black?Green as a fashion statement is corrupt and useless. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/announcing-huffpost-green_b_105033.htm">I welcome Huffington Post to the market in environmentally conscious news with a mix of appreciation and skepticism</a>. I hope the objective of Huffpo is to compliment, not harm, the longstanding promoters of green living and green economies by moving in on its trendy new find. The inaugural "green" page had 12 adds this afternoon, adsensed for relevance...that's more than they have on their politics page or their business page.<br /><br /><a href="http://pithingcontest.blogspot.com/2007/05/sign-of-times-posts-heralds-globes.html">I am aware that HuffPo is more of a business than a cause</a> and therefore the ad count raises red flags for me concerning the sincerity in putting up a "green" section. I am hopeful, since it marks at least a recognition that to run a paper in the black, you should go green, i.e. that is the direction in which the hearts and minds of readers are drifting. I am hopeful and watchful...<br /><br />Green, if it means LEARNING to live with a less damaging net impact on the ecosystems is good. If it is mesostream medium cutting into the market of, or regaining the market lost to, those whose values [yes, it IS a values matter] had already made a tiny economy out of environmental awareness...then its a sham and not really helpful. If HuffPo will reach new audiences and change minds or at least awareness, all the better. If they are just selling Green hummers and green day spas, why bother? The awareness that we must all use less of the planet is not entirely consistent with strident commercialism. I wonder if the advertising rates are reduced for struggling but truly environmentally beneficial enterprises, dot-orgs and such. <br /><br />As to the timing of this new enthusiasm... <a href="http://www.motherearthnews.com/">Some people have been working this beat since the 80's and earlier</a>. The HuffPo writers critcized McClellan's new found honesty as<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/scotty-come-lately_b_103983.html"> "Scotty come lately" </a> . Should people who want to move into a green house throw stones?<br /><br />I love and I link the HuffPo...Arianna and company have dead accurate tone and damn quick presentation of news facts in politics. I just hope they use their reportorial muscle to make politics less of an obstacle than it has been to those of us who have made no money by trying to spare the planet...it really isn't a money making game. First comes the revolutionaries, then comes the traders. If HuffPo does not dedicate some of its efforts to making a difference in how consumers see their impact on the livability of the near and long term future, I will be pointing out the failures.<br /><br />UPDATE: A. H.'s inaugurating post for the HuffPo green pages was taking comments. It has about 60 at this time, one of which is not mine. I submitted this post, sans links as a comment last night and it has not appeared. They want fans, not critics.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-1136859876143126112006-01-09T18:12:00.000-08:002006-01-09T18:39:18.046-08:00A bit of bad news for anti bush blogging.<a href="http://haloscan.com/tb/atrios/113681627728160792">Atrios</a> and <a href="http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/4002154">Lindsay</a> have both got posts today about a bill just signed into law by Bush which could be used by the bush league to harrass their political enemies. This <a href="http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html">new act has a name that sounds like it would be protective of good citizens but the language allows it to be used to protect bad politicians</a>. For those who, like myself, blog anonymously to save themselves and their family or employer from distress and unwanted attention, this is clearly a threat to free speech. As <a href="http://haloscan.com/tb/mumon/113682148963299144">Mumon</a> points out, you don't even have to lose the lawsuit that could show this is an unconstitutional bit of bushwhackery to be damaged by exposure...who wants to sue first?<br /><br />But why should I worry? The bush league would never harrass someone just for saying bad things about them. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/branded_b_13272.html">Of course not</a>!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-1136297726023937792006-01-03T06:04:00.000-08:002006-01-03T10:21:19.850-08:00Wee, the mediaNYTimes, getting even with the bloggers who have been stealing the the Times' thunder or at least explaining to the rest of us that the loud booming sounds we hear are just the flatulence of a paper that sleeps with its sources, review's the new book by <a href="http://www.wonkette.com/">Wonkette</a>'s A. M. Cox. To make darn sure we don't pay for the book, the Times quotes the only two good jokes they think the book has. To make sure you don't buy that issue of the Times just for the jokes, here are those jokes:<br /><br /><blockquote>Sparse as it is, the book's snarky humor is welcome. In an otherwise dopey parody of the Swift Boat Veterans' assault on Senator John Kerry, the fictitious Democratic candidate is libeled by "Citizens for Clear Heads" as having been brainwashed, "Manchurian Candidate"-style - "which at least would give him some foreign policy experience," Melanie supposes. Reading The Economist at bedtime, she asks herself: "Is it still passing out if you're sober?"</blockquote>[Melanie is Ms. Cox's alter ego in this novel, ur ah, I guess thats "blovel".]Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-1131038904592985212005-11-03T09:23:00.000-08:002005-11-03T09:28:24.606-08:00Blame it on the Democrats<a href="http://news.com.com/Democrats+defeat+election-law+aid+for+bloggers/2100-1028_3-5929587.html?tag=nefd.top">news.com was one of the first places I saw news the bill to exempt blogging from campaign reform had been defeated</a>. I would have been angry about the news as it is written: it seems like Democrats are all for bureaucracy. But the real deal is that they are against loopholes for dodging campaign spending limits. Those loopholes are the bane of our democracy...let a better law be offered to "free the bloggers from the government". Damn lying repugs. Damn lying reporters.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-1128689497125923112005-10-07T05:46:00.000-07:002005-10-07T05:56:33.030-07:00A bit of Good News for bloggingThe <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/D8D2LHF06.html">Delaware Supreme court overturned a lower court</a><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/D8D2LHF06.html">,</a> finding that anonymous bloggers who target goverment officials DO NOT have to divulge their identity at request of the government.<br />Unless the ever more mideval SCOTUS gets in on the act, Delaware's ruling that blogs are the 21st century equivilent of the time honored political pamphlet [you know, the kind Sam Adams used to publish] and clearly protected free speech will stand as the last word in that state and probably be regarded as precedent in other states as well.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-1128631797663076402005-10-06T13:46:00.000-07:002005-10-06T13:49:57.670-07:00Basics of Objectivity<a href="http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/10/journalism_and_.html">Lindsay has just written a post</a> that is about as clear as you can get about the difference between cultural sensitivity and ideological clutter in journalism. She is always worth reading.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-1128536985533355622005-10-05T11:15:00.000-07:002005-10-05T11:29:45.543-07:00What global warming?If you search googlenews for "climate change", you get a <a href="http://news.google.com/news?q=climate%20change">clear picture of US media bias</a>:<br />...only one US pub even mentions all the activity to remedy a problem the US govt steadfastly refuses to pull its head out of its ass and admit exists. The one exception: auto dealers claim US position on gutting climate change policy statements is still dominating the response...oh yeah? not on the planet where UK, EU, Russia and Canada are located! Give Time Mag a rare bit of credit for asking on its cover 2 weeks ago whether global warming was making for worse hurricanes...they ask a question most academics and scientists answered some time ago but being at the back of the parade beats marching the wrong way. Hell, even "business"es<br />pledge to help redress climate change...I thought my govt always listened when business talked.<br /><br /><span style="font-family: courier new;font-size:85%;" ><blockquote>Business 'will help' on climate change<br />Times Online, UK - 39 minutes ago<br />Business leaders have signalled their willingness to make a "significant" contribution to tackling climate change but warned against extra regulations and ...<br />Government fires industry climate change warning Guardian Unlimited<br />Climate change strategy meeting BBC News<br />Business and government search for climate change answers DeHavilland<br />News Wales - Reuters AlertNet - all 38 related »<br />Students and Researchers in Churchill to Study Climate Change<br />Canada NewsWire (press release), Canada - 2 hours ago<br />... The students are working to understand the effects that climate change is having on the far north and its delicate, threatened ecology. ...<br />Melting Planet ZNet<br />all 6 related »<br /> <br />ITAR-TASS EU launches climate change project in Russia<br />Gateway 2 Russia, Russia - 14 hours ago<br />... goal of this project is to help the Russian government implement the Kyoto Protocol under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). ...<br />US Appears to Win Global Warming Debate American International Automobile Dealers Association<br />EU to fund Kyoto Protocol implementation in Russia RosBusinessConsulting<br />European Commission Gives Russia an Additional ˆ2 Million for ... Kommersant<br />all 6 related »<br />Media Advisory - Dutch Canadian Conference on Climate Change 2005<br />Canada NewsWire (press release), Canada - 22 hours ago<br />... On October 6-7, 2005, the Governments of the Netherlands and Canada will convene a multi-stakeholder conference on "Innovation in Combating Climate Change". ...<br /> <br />BBC News Cities gather for climate change summit<br />This is Local London, UK - 23 hours ago<br />REPRESENTATIVES from more than 20 of the world's major cities are meeting in London today to discuss climate change. The World Cities ...<br />London Mayor Holds Climate Change Meeting Backed by BP, EDF Bloomberg<br />London hosts climate change talks DeHavilland<br />Cities offer hope for cleaner world Nature.com (subscription)<br />All Headline News - BBC News - all 9 related »<br />Climate change boosts visitors to Alaska, Antarctica<br />Mongabay.com - 23 hours ago<br />... visitors, about half of them arriving by cruise ship. Concern over climate change is contributing to the rising number of visitors. ...<br />Organising to stop the threat of climate change<br />Socialistworker.co.uk, UK - 23 hours ago<br />Climate change is leading to devastating hurricanes, melting the polar ice caps and threatening the planet. George Bush and Tony ...<br />Provinces chided on climate change<br />Globe and Mail, Canada - Oct 3, 2005<br />The ways Canada's provinces are addressing climate change are "piecemeal, scattered, and in some cases, "non-existent," a new report from the David Suzuki ...<br />Provinces inconsistent over climate change National Post<br />Provinces mixed bag when it comes to tackling climate change: new ... Brandon Sun<br />Provinces differ on climate change action CTV.ca<br />all 18 related »<br />Flying in the face of climate change<br />innovations report, Germany - Oct 4, 2005<br />In 75 years’ time, the UK could be plagued by fly populations 250% up on today’s levels if forecasts of climate change prove accurate, ecologists have ...<br />EU to launch second climate change programme<br />EurActiv.com, Belgium - Oct 4, 2005<br />During a stakeholder conference on 24 October, the Commission will start a new phase of its climate change strategy. The accent ...<br />Climate change conference EUROPA (press release)<br />all 3 related »<br /> <br />New! Get the latest news on climate change with Google Alerts.</blockquote></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-1128112711721867992005-09-30T13:00:00.000-07:002005-09-30T13:38:31.726-07:00I can't believe this!<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/books/29cric.html">NYTimes reports that our congress will seek the opinions of Micheal Crichton</a> on what to do about global warming and emissions control. I would fully expect our pro-oil anti-science white house to seek such advice but congress? I voted for some of those turkeys [well, not Inhofe]! WTF is going on here? Were all the scientists too busy Sen. Inhofe? Or is it that you just don't understand what you don't like. Writing fiction is NOT a qualification for explaining environmental data to congressmen. There ought to be a law that congress has to get expert witnesses who have proper credentials, resume's and accomplishments or publications in their fields. Heavens! Just give us a college professor at least! Maybe we could even extend this law to FEMA appointments?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-1128009179848931822005-09-29T08:43:00.000-07:002005-09-29T08:52:59.853-07:00What would real homeland security include?I think <a href="http://archives.trblogs.com/2005/09/illegal_alients.trml?trk=nl"> Simson is onto something here.</a> A truely safe country would, among other things, be one where there would be enough benefits for registering your entry to the country with authorities that those who only crossed borders for the usual economic reasons all remained "visible", leaving only those with nefarious purposes to be detected.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-1124321648075388622005-08-17T15:28:00.000-07:002005-08-17T16:34:08.090-07:00US Presidential elections buy the numbersUniversity of Buffalo sociologist <a href="http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.cgi/article-page.html?article=74380009">James Campbell has done a study of the 2004 election</a>. It has a few sobering numbers in it. I am a babe in the woods when it comes to political science and sociology [and much else as I hear from the few who have read my blogging] so I am left wondering a few things when I encounter a paper like Dr. Campbell's.<br /><br />Some of Campbell's conclusions:<br /><ul> <li><span class="body"> According to Campbell, the net result of the 2004 campaign was quite small, shifting no more than one percentage point of the vote in Bush's favor. The election was as close as it was, and there was so little change during the campaign, because of the extent of party polarization in the electorate, he says. "With the public polarized, the campaign in 2008 is unlikely to shift many voters one way or the other."</span></li> <li><span class="body">Presidents can survive sub-50 percent approval ratings. "The actual neutral point for presidential approval appears to be in the mid-40 percent range,"</span></li> <li><span class="body">With the 2008 election lacking an incumbent candidate, and with one party seeking a third term, we should expect a close race,</span></li> <li><span class="body">Opinions on the war of terrorism favored Bush in 2004 by a margin of at least 10 points, but opinions about the war in Iraq were nearly evenly divided. [gagggh!]</span></li> <li><span class="body">The 2004 election once again demonstrated that northern liberal Democrats face an uphill battle in post-1968 presidential elections. A majority of the electorate consistently regarded Bush as the candidate who shared their values. </span></li> </ul> <span class="body">["values"? values shouldn't get people killed!]<br /></span><span class="body"><br />My questions:<br /></span><br /><ol> <li>Is this study to be taken seriously? Most of its conclusions are bad news for liberals. <a href="http://urwatch.com/Government.htm">Campbell did predict</a> a Bush victory but by Sept, 04, so were many others.</li> <li>What does it take for a scholarly treatment at a lesser known academic institution to float all the way to the top of the information sewer so people would even know this information and opinion existed? The author/title get a whopping 4 hits in Google and that is the equivilent of near invisibility. Does everyone just assume invisibility is always deserved? I don't think so.</li> <li>Full content of the study are on sale in a <a href="http://www.psqonline.org/aps_books/21amdemocracy.htm">collection published by the Acadamey of Political Science</a>. The whole book looks interesting but I don't have the time or background to determine this book's proper location in the hierarchy of "things to know if you want to fix America". Any takers? Anyone read it already? <a href="http://majikthise.typepad.com/">Majikthise</a>, you got the chops for this sort of reading, interested?. <br /> </li> <li>If the vote fraud stories have become dust in the wind to all but a few Bev Harris supporters and don't get a line of newsprint any more, is there somewhere else to look beside the papers or Harris' web site when you want to get refereed and reasonably neutral retrospective assessments of the extent of vote tampering? The APS book doesn't seem to directly touch on the matter even though one article calls for electoral reform via constitutional ammendment. </li> </ol>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-1121175034874698952005-07-12T06:19:00.000-07:002005-07-12T06:30:34.876-07:00Lies and ConsequencesFrank Rich has a<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/opinion/10rich.html?incamp=article_popular"> good article in the NYTimes today</a>, noting the decay in freedom of the press that has occurred over the years between Watergate and the present. It its sad and scary to see the corruption of journalistic notions of right and wrong under the steady pressure of Republican administrations. But right and wrong are not just points in a debate...there are consequences and Mr. Rich points them out vividly:<br /><blockquote>"Time Warner seems to have far too much money on the table in Washington to exercise absolute editorial freedom when covering the government; at this moment it's awaiting an F.C.C. review of its joint acquisition (with Comcast) of the bankrupt cable company Adelphia. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/politics/01comply.html">"Is this a journalistic company or an entertainment company?"</a> David Halberstam asked after the Pearlstine decision. We have the answer now. What high-level source would risk talking to Time about governmental corruption after this cave-in? What top investigative reporter would choose to work there?"</blockquote>I think I can let my Time mag. subscription expire now after 40 years of reading it nearly every week. [Were you looking for THAT consequence Mr. Pearlstine?]Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14285811.post-1120771030294579902005-07-07T13:59:00.000-07:002005-07-07T14:17:10.303-07:00who wants to know? who wants you not to know?The news that Halliburton quietly got another 5 billion dollar contract was "underplayed" to say the least. <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/49DE55BF-FF64-4588-A2CB-33B401107787.htm">This story</a> was linked "above the fold" on Al Jazerra.net's English edition. It was nowhere to be found on NYTimes or WashingtonPost. From the article:<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span id="TitleTextPlaceHolderControl"><b><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></b></span></span></span></strong><blockquote><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span id="TitleTextPlaceHolderControl"><b><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Halliburton bags another Iraq contract</span></b></span><br /> </span> <table id="tblAuthorTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> </tr> </tbody></table> <br /> <!-- always make sure the<br />above is right next to the asp:img closing tag with --> <span style="font-weight: normal;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family: courier new;" id="DateDisplayer_lblDateTime" class="articledatetime">Thursday 07 July 2005, 5:02 Makka Time, 2:02 GMT</span><span style="font-family: courier new;"> </span></span></span></strong><br /> <span style="font-size:180%;"><p><span id="HtmlSummary"><b><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:85%;">The US military has signed on Halliburton to do nearly $5 billion in new work in Iraq under a giant logistics contract that has so far earned the Texas-based firm $9.1 billion. </span></b></span></p> <p><span id="HtmlArticle"><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Linda Theis, a spokeswoman for US Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Illinois, said on Wednesday that the military signed the work order with Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root in May. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">The new deal, worth $4.97 billion over the next year, was not made public when it was signed because the Army did not consider such an announcement necessary, she said. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">"We did not announce this task order as this is really not something we ever really thought about doing," said Theis.</span></p></span></p></span></blockquote><span style="font-size:180%;"><p><span id="HtmlArticle"><p><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span></p></span></p></span>Maybe 2:00 P.M. GMT is late for the NYTimes but it was not in their Reuters or AP feeds either and the deal was actually signed yesterday. I guess these news outlets agree with the Army's hush hush stance: "nothing to see here, move along now!"Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1