Slashdot Mirror

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185 When asked “Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” ... “Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation Good thing Pelosi is not an important Democrat. Tim S.

You are wrong. Obviously they just wanted to clear some downtown space for a mosque. "Remove your armies and bring world peace" act it was not.

Then check my citation.

Where is it? I read back through many of the comments you posted recently, and saw no link to an external site with that information.

What, losing the battle talking about what does exist, so you are making up different unrelated things to talk about?

Losing? Hardly. Logic and facts so far are on my side. Regardless, I like looking at things from a different angle. Who says we have to restrict ourselves to the original question?

I noticed that you didn't bother answering the question though. The answer is that it's pretty ugly for a gringo who gets caught south of the border illegally; certainly worse for him than for a Mexicano north of the border. Where is all your anti-racist outrage at their laws which are demonstrably more draconian?

Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

I seem to remember that you (in one of your other posts) thought that a felony on the second offense was harsh.

I'll tell you what. Go to http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632 and read through it. You are no obligation to believe everything there, or defend it, or attack it, or anything. Just take a few minutes and think about the relative balance of justice that the US is trying to strike with its neighbors, and ask yourself if this AZ law really goes overboard.

Then check my citation.

Where is it? I read back through many of the comments you posted recently, and saw no link to an external site with that information.

What, losing the battle talking about what does exist, so you are making up different unrelated things to talk about?

Losing? Hardly. Logic and facts so far are on my side. Regardless, I like looking at things from a different angle. Who says we have to restrict ourselves to the original question?

I noticed that you didn't bother answering the question though. The answer is that it's pretty ugly for a gringo who gets caught south of the border illegally; certainly worse for him than for a Mexicano north of the border. Where is all your anti-racist outrage at their laws which are demonstrably more draconian?

Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

I seem to remember that you (in one of your other posts) thought that a felony on the second offense was harsh.

I'll tell you what. Go to http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632 and read through it. You are no obligation to believe everything there, or defend it, or attack it, or anything. Just take a few minutes and think about the relative balance of justice that the US is trying to strike with its neighbors, and ask yourself if this AZ law really goes overboard.

You are absolutely correct that persecution of Christians in America does not rise to the level of that in India, Africa, or Indonesia. Very few, if any, Christians are murdered in the U.s. merely because of their faith.

But what persecutiuon there is in the U.S. is sometimes subtle, and no less intentional.

For instance, tolerance and promotion of anti-Christian policies, denigration of Christian holidays while offering admiration for other relgious observances, just in general, but... If this is all the persecution we will suffer, I am blessed indeed. Two weeks ago I listened to a pastor from India name his friends and fellow pastors that had been killed for their faith. Persecution in America is relatively inconsequential. Real, but nothing to fear for my life over.

But it is persecution. And it is intentional, and intended to do harm. Fortunately, we are not in fear of our lives nor loss of our property.

Not that Christians are any bastion of morality. We are, of course, as flawed as anyone else. But we are forgiven. And admonished to do better.

It's interesting that such posts as DaveV1.0's get modded 'troll'. It was a genuine question, and the attitude that Chrtistians are trying to codify their religion in law is actually dead on. Our Constituion is largely a Christ-based document. And as such, it is intended to protect all persons, and include all. John 3:16, 'that none should perish'. A Christian nation should welcome all, without condition. As an insight into evangalism, if you try to exclude nonbelievers, you are missing opportunities for conversion and salvation. As an insight into true freedom, you must guarantee the freedom of your opposition, or you will be denied yours when they take advantage of your laws.

As a conservative, I agree, the whole SC Democrat primary is a mess during this round. It does seem very suspect.

It's interesting, though, that you try to blame the SC Republicans of racism, when it is the Democrat party that refuses to support their primary elected nominee.

The more I look around and review history, I find that racism is very much a Democrat party issue and Republicans, for the most party, are color blind. I could give a number of references, Woodrow Wilson, but I don't have the time at the moment, so I'll let this article do the talking.

If only the US could treat immigrants the way your country Mexico does. Then all would be wonderful.

Anyone remember when the far right religious wing started saying that playing D&D turned people into Satanists who then ritually killed people? Same stuff, different decade. Believe it or not, Ann Coulter of all people even called this type of reasoning BS when she said, "Consider the harmless fantasy game, Dungeons and Dragons -- which happens to be played almost exclusively by young males. When murders were committed in the '80s by (1) young men, who were (2) Dungeons and Dragons enthusiasts, some people concluded that factor (2), rather than factor (1), led to murderous tendencies."

Conspiracy theories? Those are from the left mostly. With Ozone, I know the NASA scientists very well that tried to measure the hole and found it wasn't there. It was supposed to be a crises until at least 2020. It was a hoax to the point that almost nobody even remembers it now. I remember the plans for blimps and such to "fix the problem." It was all scrapped when the hoax was exposed. Just type in cfc hoax. Some interesting stuff comes up that may be right. I remember having these discussions/arguments over how 1999 there would be no ozone up there and we would all be dead (this was in 1992). I remember a woman in particular that was fighting as if her life depended on it and really believed it strongly. All BS I said. History showed I was totally right. Last I knew she is a housewife.

As for this topic, read the news today? The Russians found that they deleted the data from them that they didn't agree with as well. What other revelation will there be? Complete admission this is all a hoax? Let me focus this for you, read this - http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34896 if you dare. Tough to dispute that. It's measurable and verifiable (and undeniable for most people). The question is are you going to continue to believe the con job or not. As for the scientists, they will simply say that they were lied to and salvage their own careers. Others will say it was someone insignificant that changed or deleted the data they were using and throw them under the bus. I've seen that before. I've even seen history rewritten to save certain people. Then there is Hansen at Goddard that said it was a year 2000 bug that made his findings wrong for the hottest decade/year for example. Don't know if I sent this to you or not - http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/ Interesting, eh?

As for these posts, yea, it's stale. You would be surprised at how they are read, however. I sometimes get responses from stuff I wrote even 6 months or more out. As if I would be the least bit interested by then. I shouldn't have responded in the first place and probably shouldn't have responded here. I know better and I didn't mean to pick on you, it was just right there to hit reply and you were the lucky guy. It was there mocking me! Just kidding. It is hard sometimes to not say anything. Especially when I see a con job going on. Some may later say how come nobody said something? We did. Scientists from around the world have raised very serious questions about this topic. They (people like you) were too busy telling us we are stupid or don't understand or had an agenda or pick some other distraction aimed to discredit. I've even been brutally persecuted before for being right. It's no fun. Sometimes they admit it and pay for their error. I've also been wrong before, however I'm very careful to make sure I don't trash them. Consider what they are saying. They may be right. However a sign that they are wrong is when you find data is missing. Especially data contrary to their point. Ignore it perhaps at the risk of your reputation. If you have something that is very compelling to show me that I'm wrong, please forward it. I'm still willing to consider it, even against my better judgement.

"Seeing no evidence of a conspiracy to erode our precious culture myself, it does come down to your credibility. "

Right I mean, who would consider massive rallies and marches of hispanics to that end with major media coverage evidence.

"You worry that you'll have to learn a new language and you don't want to bother. I don't either, but look at it realistically: to graduate college and get a real job, you need to speak english."

Not in Miami and I suspect not in California. There are areas like Miami beach where English is spoken primarily and a couple neighborhoods where both are spoken. But throughout the rest of Miami all the shop signs and clerks speak Spanish only. You can't find anyone willing to assist you in English already. Spanish is the default choice of language on all telephone menus and even for government services there. The reason? The immigration influx was massive and rapid enough that all the politicians and most government officials there are Cuban. Many don't think of themselves as American at all, they are Cubans in exile from their home.

From what I have heard something similar has happened in at least part of California and in the past decade the immigrants have rapidly begun to spread throughout the country. With enough immigrants there will be immigrant owned businesses providing support only in Spanish throughout the country just like there are in Miami.

Some interesting reading that shows a common theme:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/mexicoflag.asp

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/57772/protest_ends_with_mexican_flag_on_california.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13863

http://across.co.nz/AlienRights07.html

I have found an article where a constitutional lawyer, who hails from Honduras, explains what happened and why it happened. My best guess analysis mirrors just about exactly what he is saying. There is fault on both sides, but their constitution clearly states not only is it illegal to try and change the one term limit, but it is a crime to even propose it! I didn't know that part.

      His own political party, who control the legislature there, voted overwhelmingly for his ouster. Their attorney general ordered the referendum halted, but he was trying to go ahead with it anyway, just by calling it "an opinion poll", just some weasel words. By their law, he shouldn't have been deported (that's the only thing they did technically illegal), but immediately should have been jailed, but they decided it was better to break that one law to avoid mass bloodshed. They estimated if he was still in-country, there just would have been a big bloody mess, and they didn't want that, the rock and the hard place scenario, or what I called picking the lesser of two suckages.

    Here is the article Miguel Estrada: 'Honduran Ouster of Zelaya was Constitutional'

Uuhhhh... how about Donald Rumsfeld plastering reports to the president with scriptures that "supported" his expansionist policies? Is that enough proof that the bible is being used in policy making? Oh and here is Hillary Clinton doing it at home, in case somebody thinks I am picking on republicans. And these took all of 8 seconds worth of yahoo time. if i actually wanted to spend time on it I can plaster a 500 page document from one end to the other with supported links and not run out.

And the fact that we were total bastards during Jefferson's times doesn't really make it right to be total bastards now, does it? After all, you are talking about a guy whose was raping and impregnating slaves. Not really the one I would look to for advice on how to treat non whites. Unless you are one of those true believers I would like to hear your explanation of why we are pumping up Israel to the tune of 84 billion, which I noticed you completely ignored. Explain to me why, when Americans are losing jobs left and right and are economy is a corpse, we should be packing a 747 load of cash and shipping it to Israel every single year? Hell even the Soviets during the bad old days of the cold war didn't prop up any of their puppet states anywhere that high.

So call me names all you want. I have found that those that call names usually do so because they know their arguments don't hold water and therefor have to resort to name calling. But the simple fact is there is NO reasonable explanation as to why we would spend 84 billion a year to prop up Israel if it wasn't for conservative Christians screaming from the pulpit "But Jesus won't come back! No matter what Israel does we must support them to save Jesus a place to land! All praise Jesus!". So we get a bill for 84 billion and climbing each year while our economy tanks and Americans lose our homes, we have most of the middle east that hates our guts because they are having to dodge bombs and get shot at by guns with "Made in the USA" stamped on them, and all because fundie Christians think a 2000 year old guy needs a place to park his cloud. I repeat, that is some seriously scary shit.

Never heard of that one, but I did take the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries and print it out as a Required Reading list.

Here's a great recent example. It happens all the time, difference is the conservative blogosphere and groups like NewsBusters are around to point it out.

Eliot Spitzer: A Man Without a Party

Um, I've been running around trolling the internet for republicans all weekend with the main premise of either educating them or just getting them pissed off enough to look something up which is close enough. One of my main points is that about 100% of economists are capitalists, yet a majority (about 60-70%) are liberals. The point being that conservatism is not capitalism and capitalism does not exclude liberalism. When I face a snide remark I tell them to get a Pell grant (US grant for higher education) - it's funny but I keep waiting for one of them to say they already did, hasn't happened yet. So, my solution to the problems with the economy is to combat conservative viewpoints through online activism (trolling conservative sites). It's fun, but I do have to admit it's like arguing with thousands and thousands of twitters. Come on guys let's go save the world. http://www.humanevents.com/

No one is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine. This is a right-wing/libertarian talking point. Let it go, ffs.

How about Schumer and Pelosi? Or Sen. Jeff Bingaman? Then there's the fact that it was included as part of the Democratic Party Platform in 2000. Oh, then there's this article quoting Nancy Pelosi's support of it. Illustrious leader Dick Durbin has also advocated its reinstatement.

Just because they're paranoid, doesn't mean there's nobody out to get them.

Um, did you actually READ the link you just sent me? It just said that the Obama campaign lied. Yes THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN LIED! Isn't that the important part? They misrepresented the McCain platform and the platform of the Republican Party in a deceitful ad which I am surprised did not garner more attention.

Back to what I said before, I defend my position completely. The link says that the ad (which was NOT run by the McCain campaign) was incorrect about the state of the law. What is factual however is that babies actually DID die in dirty linen closets. What else is factual is that Barack Obama IS THE ONLY vocal critic of the bill which intended to put a final stop to that practice. He is so Pro-Death that he could not see the forest for the trees and saw the bill as an assault on abortion itself which it was not.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24354

Actually socialistic policies CAUSED the meltdown. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28714

Strictly speaking, being a better looking Republican operative than Ann Coulter does not in fact equate to 'kinda hot looking'.

Of course, I'm fairly sure Ann Coulter is actually Michael Chertoff in drag. The eyes are just contacts.

Pug

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28577

Hmmmm, seems I remember Democrats bitching about just this sort of tactic when the Republicans were in charge. I guess revenge is more important now than a realistic energy policy. Now one must ask themselves - would this situation improve with the same party running Congress AND the White House, or would the American people be subjected to even more legislative inaction and tyranny? My guess is for the latter. Obama is way too weak and spineless to keep Drill-Nowhere Pelosi and Tax-Dodger Reid from running roughshod over the rest of us poor plebians.

Random thoughts...

Isn't it odd that the man who is in charge of tax legislation in this country is having all sorts of tax problems right now - like having been caught not reporting rental income from one of his houses in the Dominican Republic for the last 20 years? Harry Reid may think that John McCain has too many houses, but my guess is that Harry Reid also has alot of houses, and John McCain pays his taxes.

Joe Biden's own words:

Barack Obama is surprisingly clean and well-spoken for a negro.

Hillary would be a better VP than him.

A woman in the White House is a step back for women just because she doesn't believe that murdering children in utero is a sacred right that the founders secretly encoded into the Constitution.

I think we can all agree that electing a President that has already started down the slippery slope of saying its ok to let babies die by denying them medical care would be a really bad idea.

No, we can't all agree that.

You know it is sad but true. I didn't vote for McCain in the primaries but he is who the Republican party got stuck with. He needs to wake up and start learning to have a real tech platform and soon. For one thing he needs to get on the right side and be FOR net neutrality even if he doesn't think that means legislation is needed just yet.

Barack Hussein Obama (Barry Soetoro) may have a good tech platform on his website but HE DIDN'T WRITE IT! In fact I doubt he knows about half the stuff up there. Even if that is his tech platform I think we can all agree that electing a President that has already started down the slippery slope of saying its ok to let babies die by denying them medical care would be a really bad idea.

How convenient. The liberal mainstream media ignores the Pelosi/Fairness Doctrine story, then you complain that only "rightwing" (I guess Investor's Business Daily is now equal to Rush Limbaugh) news outlets report on it. How convenient!

Shoot the messenger all you want. The fact is, Pelosi has been quoted. Are you disputing these quotes?

At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, I asked Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.

"No," the Speaker replied, without hesitation. She added that "the interest in my caucus is the reverse" and that New York Democratic Rep. "Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now."

Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall. There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill.

"So I don't see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor," Pelosi said.

"Do you personally support revival of the âFairness Doctrine?'" I asked.

"Yes," the speaker replied, without hesitation. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185#continueA No guarentees on accuracy; this was a quick search.

I feel the voter id law is wrong... -chris http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26725 The well-publicized nuns in South Bend, who were reportedly unable to vote during this year's primary election due to not having proper photo ID indeed had the opportunity under the law to cast a provisional ballot and have their votes count by producing ID within ten days. This is eight days longer than Jimmy Carter even suggested when the Carter-Baker Commission suggested photo ID was needed in the polling to boost election integrity and participation. Sadly, they all waived this right to participate in the election process.

This is totally wrong but I will cite sources to prove my point that the Indiana law DID go into effect already.

http://www.in.gov/sos/photoid/
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26725
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/28/uselections2008.usa?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/scotus.voter.id/

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ad+hominem

As for the definition of the word "racist": There are only a tiny handful of peoples who are capable of producing a man who can win a Fields Medal or a Nobel Prize in Physics: Largely they are Caucasians [to include the Ashkenazim & the Lebanese Christians], Pacific Rim Asians, and [only] the very highest castes from the Indian Subcontinent; conversely, the finals of the 100 meter dash at the Olympics will always consist almost entirely of men who are descended from the tribes of West Africa [or at least the finals would consist almost entirely of such men if national quotas didn't unfairly and unnaturally limit and restrict the participants at the Olympics].

No one - not even the most ardent marxist academic - bothers to try to convince himself otherwise anymore.

But, of course, the modern definition of "racist" does not identify, as the villain, he who notices these differences - we all notice them - but rather the word "racist" has come to apply to anyone who has the temerity [or foolhardiness] to verbalize the observation.

On the other hand, that's not what the word "racist" is supposed to mean: A racist is supposed to be someone who believes that a government should enforce [with the barrel of a gun] an agenda which:

1) Involves seizing the private property of dis-favored races.

2) Involves setting aside educational appointments and business opportunities for favored races.

3) Involves denying taxpayer-subsidized goodies to dis-favored races.

4) Involves the racialization of criminal arrests, prosecutions, and convictions.

5) Involves the seizure of entire continents from dis-favored races.

6) Involves the enslavement of dis-favored races.

7) Involves the slaughter of dis-favored races.

Etc etc etc.

So it's impossible for any classical liberal - one who believes that men should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by rather the content of their character, and who believes that governments, and their gun barrels, really ought not exist in the first place - it is impossible for him to be a "racist" within the bounds of any meaning which that word was intended to connote.

But, again, as I have said over and over in this little conversation of ours: NONE OF THE SEMANTIC DISTINCTIONS ARE OF ANY IMPORTANCE WHATSOEVER.

What is important is the underlying truth of the matter: Barring some unforseen tragedy [your being struck by lightning, etc], YOU WILL LIVE TO EXPERIENCE THE IMMINENT TRAGEDY [& CATASTROPHE] OF DYSGENIC FERTILITY.

In the meantime, perform your very small - yet almost infinitely important - role in making the future a better place for us all [both we who are already born, and those of us who are yet-to-be-born]: Go find the smartest girl yo

Because that is exactly what they are told.... over and over and over again. Many scientists, geologists and meteorologists disagree.

What, five of them?

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.

Also, JunkScience.com is offering $125,000.00 to anyone who can PROVE that humans are causing catastrophic global warming.

Those are the ones that don't get grants and do get fired. No wonder they don't speak out.

Ah yes, it's the great conspiracy. So tell me, when Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, were these same scientists being denied federal grants? It seems to me that it's the Conservatives complaining about the silencing of critics, but they were being silenced by officials of an all-Republican run government.

Sorry, but Republicans do not rule the world.
From HERE:
Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."

and HERE:
In a paper issued Jan. 3, 2007, UCS accuses ExxonMobil of funding "front groups" opposed to the climate-alarmist agenda of groups such as UCS and of former Vice President Al Gore. The company, said the UCS report, had distributed $16 million to 43 advocacy groups from 1998 to 2005 "to confuse the public on global-warming science."
Let's leave aside the fact that $16 million over eight years can't match the $2 billion that the federally funded Climate Change Science Program spends each year on global warming, or even the $4 million annual budget of just one of the many well-funded global-warming advocacy groups, Strategies for the Global Environment (the umbrella organization for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change). Moreover, the UCS document is hardly an investigative breakthrough. ExxonMobil itself publishes its philanthropic contributions to nonprofit organizations online.

And HERE is where the state climatologist in Oregon gets fired for questioning global warming:
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist...

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

Then there is THIS one where a scientist was fired for correcting bad data:
University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was dismissed on March 12 from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains...
Cliff Mass, a professo

Studies like this are begging the question.

Also, the study may be immoral to do in a society where this will be spun and spun by the media...scientists do not have the unique privilege of ignoring the predictable consequences of their actions (however humble the researchers may be in their conclusions).

Beyond that, the world is not divided into "liberals" and "conservatives", however much people like Ann Coulter would like us to believe that. The liberal-->conservative spectrum of opinion in the U.S. is a very narrow one, certainly not representing my views or those of many people I know.

Add this to:

- McCain-Feingold censoring of political speech that criticizes incumbent politicians before elections.
- Reinstitution of the fairness doctrine to censor all "controversial" broadcasts
- Opening the door for terrorists to sue ordinary citizens who say "I saw something suspicious" to security personnel
- PBS censors film for not being sensitive to radical "insurgents" who threaten folks who argue for moderation
- Don Imus shut up by Al Sharpton's forces
- Numerous incidents on college campuses

Free speech is too important. It needs to be protected and the Supreme Court isn't doing an adequate job (see the McCain-Feingold decision).

At least you use the right analogy: Environmentalism is a religion. Unfortunately, it also has a lot more in common with militant Islam than religion in general, as in its most vocal and influential adherents advocate actions that kill people : and a lot more of them than Islamist Terrorism has.

My great grandfather fought for this country, my grandfather fought for this country, my father fought for this country, and my friends have fought for this country. So you can play the Veteran card and act like that has any real bearing on the situation, and I'll just go on stating the facts of the matter. Don't get me wrong; I respect your service to the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, but just as you have spared me no harsh words, I shall act accordingly.

You may not think that we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but I'll tell you right now, you are WRONG. In Iraq alone they found 1.77 metric TONS of enriched uranium. They found 1,500 GALLONS of chemical weapons. They found 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin. Do you know what cyclosarin is? It's a deadly nerve agent with five times the effectiveness of sarin gas. But more importantly, they found 1,000 radioactive materials that are used in dirty bombs. Don't believe me? Well, CNN sure as hell won't cover that. MoveOn.org won't have that on their front page. And you damn well better believe that the Democrats did their best to cover that up.

I'll even post my sources. I'll be fully transparent in this, and I'll be ACCOUNTABLE for what I say... which is more than I can say for you, Anonymous Coward. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=38213 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10101&of fer=&hidebodyad=true http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2 004/mariani052804.htm http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

...unless the government wants to put checkpoints on every crossing. which would never happen.

Global warming doesn't exist, it is merely a naturally occurring, temporary, raise in the global temperature.
I suggest that everyone should at least read this article written by Senator James Inhofe, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17645
This isn't a scientific article, but rather an article on the journalistic habit of creating hysteria with stories on temerature change. You should know the science behind what is going on, instead of just the hype, no matter which view you take.