Slashdot Mirror


Alaska's Mt. Redoubt Has Erupted

alaskana98 writes "Alaska's Mt. Redoubt volcano has erupted 3 times, with the first event starting at 10:38 PM Alaska standard time. The ash cloud is estimated to be higher than 50,000 feet. So far, only light ash fall is predicted for areas north of Anchorage."

327 comments

  1. It's still dark in Alaska by Kludge · · Score: 3, Funny

    The web cam just shows blackness

    1. Re:It's still dark in Alaska by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently this is what the inside of a layer of ash looks like at this time of morning.

      Global cooling on its way?

    2. Re:It's still dark in Alaska by genner · · Score: 1

      I see a few dots of light

    3. Re:It's still dark in Alaska by Slumdog · · Score: 1

      Global cooling on its way?

      Global cooling by cutting off sunlight won't be good for life on our planet.

  2. What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can Governor Sarah Palin see it happening from her house?

    1. Re:What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, she doesn't believe in monitoring volcanoes.

    2. Re:What I want to know... by Hanners1979 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can Governor Sarah Palin see it happening from her house?

      I'd always assumed that her lair was in the volcano...

    3. Re:What I want to know... by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Good catch. I'll be surprised if that joke doesn't show up on the Daily Show

    4. Re:What I want to know... by LordKronos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Doh....I wish I hadn't posted that. I just recalled it was Jindal who trashed the volcano monitoring (though perhaps Palin jumped on the bandwagon and I never heard about it).

    5. Re:What I want to know... by ThePsion5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can Governor Sarah Palin see it happening from her house?

      And if she does, does this make her a qualified Vulcanologist?

    6. Re:What I want to know... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bzzt, volcano's are for masterminds only, not for lackeys.

    7. Re:What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only in texas ;)

    8. Re:What I want to know... by tmbailey123 · · Score: 1

      Don't know if she can see it from her house. However her press agent has declared the Obama Administration is responsible.

    9. Re:What I want to know... by Quiscalus · · Score: 1

      No doubt the eruptions are politically motivated and are being caused by the liberal media in a frivolilous attempt to discredit the Govenor of Alaska and her policies. Also.

    10. Re:What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left off the thing that the volcano owns. FAIL!!!!

    11. Re:What I want to know... by Specter · · Score: 1

      Minor nitpick: I don't believe she ever said that. I think it was on SNL and now most people believe she actually said it.

      Still funny though.

    12. Re:What I want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al Gore and Obama made it blow its top

    13. Re:What I want to know... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You right but everyone else is too smart to realize that.
      She said Russia is Alaska's neighbor and can be seen from Alaska which is a correct statement. Tina Fey said "from my house" on SNL and people didn't know the difference. My only regret is that the star of "nailin palin" didn't look as much like Palin and Fey did.

      This is what you can expect when the future get's their news from fake news shows and boasts about how informed they are because of it.

  3. It's not Russia, but... by ptomblin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sarah Palin reports she can see it from her house.

    --
    The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    1. Re:It's not Russia, but... by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      http://www.avo.alaska.edu/activity/Redoubt.php
      Fox News says it erupted tomorrow.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:It's not Russia, but... by necro81 · · Score: 5, Informative

      In truth, Sarah Palin almost certainly can see this from her house. Mt Redoubt is only about 100 miles from Anchorage, and a lot of the intervening distance is the open water of Cook Inlet. On a clear-ish day, one can see Denali (20,320 ft) from Anchorage, and that's over 100 miles away. A 50,000 foot tall ash plume will certainly be visible - once daylight arrives, anyway. I can only imagine what the view will be from the many towns on the east coast of the Kenai peninsula, where they'll be able to look right across Cook Inlet to the volcano.

      [to be technical, Sarah Palin lives in Wasilla, which some consider a suburb of Anchorage, even though it's an hour away by car]

    3. Re:It's not Russia, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes, but does that make her a vulcanologist?

    4. Re:It's not Russia, but... by cashman73 · · Score: 4, Informative

      And the Republicans want to eliminate money for volcano monitoring?!?! Great idea!

    5. Re:It's not Russia, but... by oldr4ver · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Let us not forget that there are only 6 continents on Palin's map of the earth. Africa is apparently of no concern to this dimwit. Could you imagine her first argument for a piece of legislature she would have pushed, "Why? Because I want to, that's why!"

    6. Re:It's not Russia, but... by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Only if she writes down what she sees.

    7. Re:It's not Russia, but... by DrWho520 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The volcano god will demand a virgin sacrifice, so we can count out Bristol.

      --
      The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
    8. Re:It's not Russia, but... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Well, if it eliminates "Sarah Palin"s... I say that's a good deal! ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    9. Re:It's not Russia, but... by skeeto · · Score: 2, Funny

      I redoubt it.

    10. Re:It's not Russia, but... by eggoeater · · Score: 3, Informative

      >In truth, Sarah Palin almost certainly can see this from her house.

      She might be able to see a vague outline of ash in the sky today, but as the ash blows north any further viewing will be obscured.
      You can see Denali from Anchorage because it's mostly flat in between the two.
      The view south from Anchorage however is mostly mountains; seeing anything off in the distance is unlikely.

      BTW, the drive from Anchorage down the Kenai to Homer is staggeringly beautiful. I highly recommend it.

    11. Re:It's not Russia, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      still can't tell Tina Fey from Sarah Palin, huh.

    12. Re:It's not Russia, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see it from my house...problem it is still dark here. and probably cloudy. so I will not ba able to see it. But the last few days have been clear and Alaskan cold. I could see the steam plume. I live across the inlet from Mt redoubt. By the time it gets light I will be off to work, So if it is clear I will miss seeing the ash plume. I bet Sarah can see it from her house . she would be looking at the north side where as I am looking at it from the south east. Anchor Point. On to work....

    13. Re:It's not Russia, but... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      well, at least it was russian between 1733 and 1867

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    14. Re:It's not Russia, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually she most likely wouldn't be able to see it since, as Alaska's governor, she's in Juneau and not Anchorage or Wasilla.

    15. Re:It's not Russia, but... by necro81 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This was a point of contention that came out during the campaign. Although the official governor's office is in Juneau, a lot of state business is conducted in Anchorage (by far the largest city), and Gov. Palin spent a lot of time conducting state business from her home in Wasilla. The point of contention was that, while working from her home, she charged the state per diem for travel because she was working away from Juneau. I don't remember if she later paid it back.

    16. Re:It's not Russia, but... by regular_gonzalez · · Score: 1

      I agree, this clearly falls under the auspices of the interstate commerce clause, so the federal government should be all over this!

      --
      Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
    17. Re:It's not Russia, but... by darth+dickinson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dude, your side won. Move on.

    18. Re:It's not Russia, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      not so long as there is a snowballs chance in Texas that she will be elected to any public office anywhere ever again.

    19. Re:It's not Russia, but... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I've made the drive from Anchorage to Wasilla. It's hard to really consider a suburb, but there really isn't much there, so I'd be hard pressed to call it a "city" either. But hey, out there, where it's a long drive to the next thing resembling anything, sure, call it the 'burbs. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    20. Re:It's not Russia, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, No. You can't see Redoubt from Anchorage at all. And Wasilla is another 35 miles further north east.
      If the plume turns black we'll be able to see it, but at this point it's still only the fine, nearly invisible ash, like the kind that caused the Alaska Airlines jet engine to flameout during the last eruption. And it's blowing west.

    21. Re:It's not Russia, but... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      His side was won quite a while ago, when she started doing interviews.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    22. Re:It's not Russia, but... by ivan256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hah! I get it!

      It's funny because, unlike you, she's not a virgin!

    23. Re:It's not Russia, but... by oldr4ver · · Score: 1

      My Side? As if I am the only one on this article that commented about Palin. Pfft. Go piss n moan to someone who gives a fuck. Try here http://www.republicanoperative.com/ they'll give you all the sympathy you need.

    24. Re:It's not Russia, but... by oldr4ver · · Score: 1

      I second, third, and fourth that ... !!

    25. Re:It's not Russia, but... by Windows_NT · · Score: 1

      I told you its: step, hip, step, hip. Are you trying to piss the volcano gods off?

      --
      Go go Gadget Nailgun!
    26. Re:It's not Russia, but... by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      Well, that would be one day to the right on my calendar.

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    27. Re:It's not Russia, but... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      I should mention here that Anchorage is not the Capitol of Alaska. Given that she's still Governor, odds are that she's in Juneau, which is about 1,000 miles east of Anchorage.

      That's like claiming you could see Florida from New York City.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    28. Re:It's not Russia, but... by necro81 · · Score: 1

      See this response I posted to someone who argued this as well. Although she's the governor, and the capital is in Juneau, she spends most of her time in Anchorage and Wasilla. She even got paid per diem travel "expenses" when working from home. More background.

    29. Re:It's not Russia, but... by 7Prime · · Score: 1

      Yes, she's been doing her best to try to unofficially move all the guts of the government to Anchorage, which is sorta what most governors have been trying to do for decades. The reality is is that Alaska doesn't wan't Juneau to be the capital. It never really did. Jeneau is completely out of the way, there are no roads there, and landing there is like riding a rollercoaster. Problem is, then it's a battle between Anchorage and Fairbanks (where I live), as to where the capital is. The state voted, back in the 70s, to move the capital to Willow, which is a town north of Wasilla (about 100 miles north of Anchorage), but then when asked whether they wanted to pay for it, the people voted NO. It'll eventually just get moved to Anchorage, because every governor moves the infrastructure there little by little.

      Oh, and Jeneau isn't 1,000 miles east of anchorage. Try more like 400 miles, it's just that you can't drive there, so it doesn't matter much anyway.

      --
      Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
    30. Re:It's not Russia, but... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      It's hard to really consider a suburb, but there really isn't much there, so I'd be hard pressed to call it a "city" either.

      Before urban sprawl, I think they called it a "town"

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    31. Re:It's not Russia, but... by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that archaic term.

          You either live in the urban area, the metro area, or the suburban area. Otherwise, there is no civilization. I hear the zombies roam free out there. People could never survive outside of the cities, unless they stay inside their cars.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    32. Re:It's not Russia, but... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Although billing the state for travel seems sketchy, it's perfectly understandable why you wouldn't want to do business in Juneau -- it's in the bloody middle of nowhere. You can't even drive there, because it's not connected to the road system.

      I really hate to be apologizing to Sarah Palin, but Alaska really does need to move its capitol to a more sensible location. Last I heard, money was the only thing holding the decision back -- there were also plans at one point to construct a new city halfway between Anchorage and Fairbanks that would serve as the capitol.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    33. Re:It's not Russia, but... by Kitanin · · Score: 1

      Well, she would be able to see it from her house, but Jindal convinced her that volcano monitoring was a waste of time and money, so she doesn't look that way.

      --


      Teach your kids: "C++ made baby Jesus cry."
    34. Re:It's not Russia, but... by bitrex · · Score: 1

      As an Alaska resident perhaps you can tell me if there is any truth to the following stereotype - it seemed that Palin in some ways suffered from a personality flaw that I have seen in several young men and women who grew up in Alaska but went to college or worked with me on the East Coast. That flaw being, they seemed to completely lack an ability for self-censorship - they would happily state whatever thought came to their mind on any topic without regard to the company they were in. Speaking one's mind can certainly be a good quality, but when taken to a fault it can certainly hamper one's social (or political?) life when done in a different environment as it did for at least some of the men and women from Alaska whom I met on the East Coast. By taking it to a fault, I don't mean being firm on one's position on say, a political issue that is unpopular, but more things like "Gosh, you have gotten FAT since last semester!" and unappealing social behavior like that.

      Perhaps it has something to do with growing up in small communities that are fairly socially/ethnically homogeneous?

    35. Re:It's not Russia, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for sure, and when was the last time we had a good old fashioned human sacrifice?

      Bring on the lamb's blood

    36. Re:It's not Russia, but... by northforkriver · · Score: 1

      > You can see Denali from Anchorage because it's mostly flat in between the two. The view south from Anchorage however is mostly mountains; seeing anything off in the distance is unlikely.

      I live in Anchorage.

      First, it is not all that flat between Anchorage and Denali. Denali is visible because it is so much taller than the surroundings.

      Second, the view directly south from Anchorage is split: southeast you see mountains, southwest you see lots of water (the Cook Inlet) with mountains behind, of which Redoubt is one.

      see for yourself: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&gl=us&ie=UTF8&view=map&msa=0&msid=106651514341085066780.000465d677f44c10c3c76&ll=61.840599,-151.040039&spn=3.500754,9.876709&t=p&z=7

    37. Re:It's not Russia, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Are you really that dense? None of the republicans said we should eliminate volcano monitoring. One republican said it shouldn't have been included in one specific bill. That bill BTW, was a stimulus package. If volcano monitoring is important, then why the hell wasn't it properly funded to begin with and instead injected as emergency spending in a stimulus package? We have had two years of democrat control, don't tell me they get a pass for ignoring it so as it needs to be shoved into a stimulus bill. The reality is that volcano monitoring is already funded and what the republicans rejected was the idea that increasing those funds was a stimulus designed to benefit the economy and the American people as the stimulus bill was being sold.

      I don't know who modded you insightful but it should have been "Can't comprehend what I just read". Perhaps there is no tag for that so over rated or stupid might have worked. We have already wiped egg from our faces when they rushed the stimulus bill through without enough time to even read it while screaming "it doesn't have to be perfect" just to find that the administration forgot it asked for laws enabling AIG to pay bonuses and shit after screaming like monkeys about how bad it was. Perhaps if you would take some time and actually read things, you would have a better grasp on what is going on too.

    38. Re:It's not Russia, but... by BoothbyTCD · · Score: 1

      The side that can form coherent sentences? I wasn't aware that had a political affiliation.

      --
      snig
    39. Re:It's not Russia, but... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The money Jindal was referring to was $140M for the USGS for a number of different programs that include volcano monitoring but also earthquake, tsunami & flooding. It will be spent on upgrading and installing new, more advanced and automated equipment, hence spending money on new equipment and the salaries of those required to build and install the equipment, hence a small piece of a bigger stimulus bill.

    40. Re:It's not Russia, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, no. The $140M went to "intramural laboratory repair and renovation" for various institutions. The key here is "intramural". In other words, it was money for things those agencies were supposed to do anyways with the existing funding they had.

      Now if they were under funded, then there is a proper place to fund them. But spending money that they were going to spend anyways, just because it's in a stimulus only means that the money originally allocated for intramural repair and renovation will be used in different ways. It added nothing to a stimulus.

      Of course there could be a completely different definition for "intramural" that only applies to the use of the term in the stimulus bill and I'm not aware of it. But as far as I know, there isn't and the spending was not in addition to what was already being spent. It was no more a stimulus then it was without the funding there which is why it shouldn't have been there at all.

    41. Re:It's not Russia, but... by eggoeater · · Score: 1

      You have taught me a valuable lesson about Alaska and Google maps! I guess I only remember mountains to the south due to the drive around Turnagain arm.

  4. Breakup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess we're finally finding out how Sarah responded to Bristol's breakup with her fiance...

  5. Send in Al Gore by gooman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well this should clearly be illegal, dumping all of that ash and those greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
    Of course there's a Republican governor.
    Won't somebody think of the caribou?!

    --
    "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    1. Re:Send in Al Gore by Samschnooks · · Score: 5, Funny
      It's different. Those greenhouse gases are all natural; therefore, they're safe and healthy. Why I expect the next time I walk into Wholefoods, they'll have canisters with the gas output from the volcano.

      I may even market it in an infomercial: "Volcano Gas! The natural male enhancement! For women too! You can have an Earth Shattering Happy moment with your partner!"

      I'm on my way to film commercials with that smiling couple!

    2. Re:Send in Al Gore by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's nothing we can do about the natural contributions of Earth's own systems to the Greenhouse - except where we're increasing it by cutting trees, replacing them with livestock, helping heat the oceans to kill coral reefs, create dead zones instead of carbon-based life ecosystems and acidifying them to release more oceanic carbon into the air. The Earth's baseline Greenhouse gas cycles are stable enough for us to live in, as we evolved to do over thousands and millions of generations.

      But the sudden extra dumping of Greenhouse pollution is pushing those cycles out of their groove, into a new groove that leaves the weather more violent and the seas swollen with melted ice. If we don't rein in our artificial contributions, even though they're small compared to the natural baseline, we're going to inherit a whirlwind that will probably destroy our civilization.

      That's why Al Gore is warning us so urgently. And why Republican governors are dangerous sources of hot air.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Send in Al Gore by Duradin · · Score: 4, Funny

      How about a tie in with my All Natural Green Organic Hemlock Energy Drink?

      "If it's good enough for Socrates it's good enough for us!"

      Every can comes with a coupon for the sequestration of your carbon.

    4. Re:Send in Al Gore by Duradin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Explain why we are still not in an ice age if the "natural contributions of the Earth's own systems" are stable and don't cause climate change.

    5. Re:Send in Al Gore by ((hristopher+_-*-_-* · · Score: 1

      Apart from supervolcanos, every xxxxxxxxx years. It is stable as far as sudden changes are concerned.

      Actually the eruption of this one may help delay the onset of the clathrate 'dilemma' that may destroy most life. A cooling effect of Siberia should occur now during the summer, although I am not an expert in these matters.

      If I was going to try something 'initial' to delay the clathrate gun, this would be it. Clap clap to god, quantum spirits, or some mad scientist.

    6. Re:Send in Al Gore by T+Murphy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Throughout history there have always been those crying "end of the world". Many of them cooks and manipulators.

      Note to self: when someone says the world is ending, do NOT try their soup.

    7. Re:Send in Al Gore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's global warming too! See, as we know, Al Gore invented the internet. This is where it gets interesting. Turns out friction produces heat, right? Well when nerds discovered porn on the internet, there was a large increase in the amount of friction around the world. The resulting heat increased global temperatures to the point that we are no longer in an ice age! So really, you should be thanking global warming.

    8. Re:Send in Al Gore by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      That's why Al Gore is warning us so urgently. And why Republican governors are dangerous sources of hot air.

      And that's why Al Gore's house uses more energy than 50 normal houses. He's using the energy before it can cause ecological problems from wasteful people.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    9. Re:Send in Al Gore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mammoth farts.

    10. Re:Send in Al Gore by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's only a "leader" because he's got lots of money to pay others to offset his excesses.

      Actually, the company he buys his "offsets" from is owned by ... himself. By the way, can I buy "offsets" from myself, and write them off of my taxes?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    11. Re:Send in Al Gore by dupup · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Explain why we are still not in an ice age if the "natural contributions of the Earth's own systems" are stable and don't cause climate change.

      The natural contributions referred to do contribute to climate change, of course, as do other factors like fluctuations in the Earth's orbit around the sun and continental drift. The thing that makes the anthropogenic contributions to climate change troublesome is that they happen over a dramatically shorter period of time than is typical for natural events.

      And when I say, "troublesome", I mean, of course, troublesome to us. The Earth will cheefully cruise along whether we infest it or not.

    12. Re:Send in Al Gore by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      They're 'troublesome' regardless of the cause.

      I know what you're saying, but this is something that the right seems to be ignoring. They've now switched from 'no global warming' to 'global warming is natural'...which somehow means it's fine.

      Yeah, and molten lava erupting from the surface of the earth is 'natural' too. Doesn't mean we shouldn't, you know, try to stop it from melting people.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    13. Re:Send in Al Gore by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Throughout history there have always been those crying "end of the world". Many of them cooks and manipulators, I'm sure. All of them wrong.

      Curse you, short order chefs!

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    14. Re:Send in Al Gore by mr_death · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not Ad Hominem to note that Al Gore doesn't walk his talk. While he prophesies doom, he flys on private G5s, drives in a herd of Suburbans, and his house consumes more electricity in a month than most do in a year. Same with Hansen, who jets around the planet screaming "we all gonna die!".

      "Carbon limits for thee, but not for me" isn't inspiring.

      --
      It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
    15. Re:Send in Al Gore by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh, you're one of those morons who thinks Al Gore is telling you to reduce your energy use, when in fact he's never suggested anything of the sort.

      Gore is attempting to cause societal changes via things like mass transit and fuel efficient cars and large-scale carbon reduction by investing in alternate energy.

      I love how people just imagine that Al Gore is out there frowning at their energy usage, when in reality he could give a flying fuck as to how much energy you use.

      This is, of course, ignoring the fact that the idea that Gore's house is exceptional wasteful is a deliberate lie. It's not wasteful at all for a house that size in that part of the country. It is slightly larger than other houses in that part of the country, but that's simply because he works from there.

      But, hey, prove me wrong. Go ahead and point to a single example of Gore stating how individual people should cut back to reduce emissions. (And when I say 'cut back', I mean it. Suggesting people switch to CFLs is the opposite of cutting back, it's spending less money for the same thing.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    16. Re:Send in Al Gore by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because "stable" is relative. You probably notice the seasons changing, too. But we've been in a stable range for the past 12,000 years or so, neither ice age nor steamy jungle (or parched desert), which is unusually long. We're becoming unstable not from any natural increase in Greenhouse gases or other factors, but from the dramatic and recent increase in accumulating Greenhouse gases from human activity (a dramatic and recent increase in the human population has contributed). The human activity contribution has multiplied many times over, tipping the natural balance from the old stability towards some new global climate different from the old one.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    17. Re:Send in Al Gore by e1618978 · · Score: 3, Informative

      We are still in an ice age, we have been in one for 10 million years so far. We are just in an interglacial period for the last 10,000 years. And the current warm period is caused by Milankovitch cycles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    18. Re:Send in Al Gore by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what? The offsets aren't some magic. If indeed Gore owns the offsets company (which I'll believe when I see proof), then that company has to buy them from somewhere that is actually reducing carbon emissions to sell to Gore.

      I'm always impressed when some Republican (er, "libertarian") badmouths someone like Gore who is using economics to solve real physical problems because they might be making a profit or making some savings. It makes your ideology obviously not economics, but just vendettas.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    19. Re:Send in Al Gore by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should you care at all how much energy Gore uses, if none (or little) of it causes Greenhouse pollution? Do you demand that we all live worse, even if we don't have to?

      Gore is a leader because he leads. He took political risks - and real political damage - for years while he was ahead of public opinion. Now that the evidence is so overwhelming that even bad leaders like Bush admit the problem Gore has been working to solve while they've been working to cause it, Gore is widely recognized as that leader because he helped get the public to accept the science. Though the public is so hard to lead that even an example of a rich guy living well without causing the harm he's working to avert isn't good enough for some people.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    20. Re:Send in Al Gore by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The Greenhouse pipeline of effects from causes is long enough (years) that any event depopulating the Earth enough to stop significant new human contributions would be just the beginning of many years of the climate returning to its recently mild and stable state. Sealevel rise alone, not to mention droughts, floods and storms, will probably displace hundreds of millions of refugees. Most of whom live in or near places already close to subsistence and close to the edge of war or other mass violence - or collapse of their civilization.

      Our civilization is fragile, compared to the destruction that is likely if we don't reverse our Greenhouse pollution quite soon. If we wait 30 years, two human generations (especially in most coastal areas), we're probably going to be depopulated by several billion people, after at least that many are forced to flee to other areas and conflict with the people already there. Such changes are vastly more than what would destroy our civilization.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    21. Re:Send in Al Gore by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nonsense. Gore's home is highly energy efficient. The energy he uses is produced by non/less polluting alternative sources. His large "home" includes offices for his wife, himself, space for staff and a lot of security.

      Even at that scale, and even before he renovated years ago, Gore's house didn't use anywhere near "50 times" as much as a "normal" house.

      You Republicans (er, "libertarians") will just lie and say anything to attack people who actually work to protect us in this country.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    22. Re:Send in Al Gore by vertinox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is not enough scientific eveidence to back up your statement. "Probably" is a strong word. Overpopulation could be the real danger. Humanity might receed, the climate will go on.

      To be fair he specifically said "civilization" and not "life on earth" or even "all the humans".

      Civilization isn't that hard to destroy if you look at the last few civilization that went kaput (Mayans, Romans, Egyptians etc).

      Climate change could do that to ours, but it is pointless to say "we can't do anything" regardless of its man made or not.

      We could spary Gobi and Sara with white reflective paint with B52 bombers. We could drop a few nuclear bombs into an active volcano. We could genetically engeer a new algae that sequesters all the CO2 it can and then sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

      But to say mankind can't do anything is short sited.

      We may be involved in climate change or we may not. (several billion humans, cows, and cars making CO2 obviously does something, but how much? In past times when there were lots of plants there were high oxygen content atmosphere followed by an ice age, followed by an increase in animal life which also happened to coincide with CO2 with increase of temperature which resulted in more plants and then more animals etc. Might be related. Might not.)

      Anyways... My point is not that global warming is man made or not. My point is that either way we should do something about it if we want to keep our civilization.

      Either that means adapting the environment or adapting ourselves.

      We can put some intelligence and technology into this or just let natural selection work its thing.

      Personally, I'd rather not be around when natural selection works it thing.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    23. Re:Send in Al Gore by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wasn't one of the points of his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" that everyone needs to do their part to conserve? His idea is everyone else needs to conserve, he'll use what he wants to and just pay extra money to "offset" his luxurious lifestyle.

      I don't care if 10,000 kwH/month is normal for a house that size in Tennessee, it's excessive for Al and Tipper when Al's claim to fame (these days) is global warming.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    24. Re:Send in Al Gore by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Why I expect the next time I walk into Wholefoods, they'll have canisters with the gas output from the volcano.

      Aisle 3. Chili. Having some now.

      You can have an Earth Shattering Happy moment with your partner!

      Had one. Now she insists on knowing when I've had chili.

    25. Re:Send in Al Gore by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I had some volcanic gas a while ago. It was more of a release than an ingestion though. The gas was deadly, but not the only concern. There was some explosive decompression associated with it. I don't know what I ate, but my posterior feels like a volcano spewed lava through it.

          At least I used the bathroom at work. The toxic gasses should be lingering in there for hours. :) If you think it'll do anything for male enhancement, just take a walk through. For anyone else, I recommend full a full NBC suit with self contained air. You can try a gas mask, but I'd be afraid it'll melt.

          Oh, what was that? I think I felt a little rumbling under the surface. There may be another eruption coming soon.

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    26. Re:Send in Al Gore by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wasn't one of the points of his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" that everyone needs to do their part to conserve?

      No, it was not. At all. I've watched it. The point of his documentary is convince people there's a problem and that if we ignore it we'll all in trouble. Full stop.

      Now, at the end of the movie, during the credits, there's a list of 27 things you can do, which is the very first time suggestions are aimed at people instead of governments. It really isn't the point of the documentary, and it isn't Al Gore saying them, and it is during the credits.

      18 of them boil down to 'talk to other people and your government leaders'. That's right, even 2/3rds of the suggestions actually aimed at viewers of the movie don't have anything to do with changing people's energy usage.

      As for the rest: Three are transportation suggestions, one is planting trees, one is recycling. There are only four that are vaguely applicable to houses:

      'Switch to renewable sources of energy.', which Gore does, paying a premium to do so.

      'Buy energy efficient appliances & lightbulbs.', which he's stated he does, at least with CFL lights, we don't know about the rest.

      So what is left that he possible doesn't do:

      'Change your thermostat (and use clock thermostats) to reduce energy for heating & cooling.', which we don't know if he does.

      'Weatherize your house, increase insulation, get an energy audit.', which he has done, at least in the energy audit. (And as it's a new house, it's hard to imagine it's poorly insulated.)

      You'll note 'live in a smaller house' is not on that list.

      Al Gore has been turned into some sort of uber-strawman by the right, where they imagine he's suggested they all live in tree houses. To recap: His presentation in the movie doesn't suggest any changes for any people to make at all, and even the tack-on-to-the-credits list of things for people to do is mostly 'make other people aware of what's happening, and make politicians aware that you're aware.'

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    27. Re:Send in Al Gore by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      It's not Ad Hominem to note that Al Gore doesn't walk his talk. While he prophesies doom, he flys on private G5s, drives in a herd of Suburbans, and his house consumes more electricity in a month than most do in a year. Same with Hansen, who jets around the planet screaming "we all gonna die!".

      "Carbon limits for thee, but not for me" isn't inspiring.

      I agree perfectly, but it's not the reply itself I gave the link for, it's what the reply was replying to.

      That's why Al Gore is warning us so urgently.

      Offering nothing but a rebuke to Gore's character in response to this is Ad Hominem, in context.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    28. Re:Send in Al Gore by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Moderation -1
          100% Flamebait

      That comment explaining how climate change threatens our civilization isn't "flamebait". That mod is just one of the Greenhouse denier trollmods.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    29. Re:Send in Al Gore by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1
      As a libertarian leaning individual who happens to realize that carbon offsets are a possible solutions. I personally have a problem with how most carbon offset plans are implemented. They tend to be poorly implemented with very vague rules for what can generate a carbon credit/offset. Some of these offsets are simply not putting carbon into the atmosphere, or even worse not putting as much carbon into the air. I personally don't see how a windmill or solar panels remove carbon that could otherwise be pumped into the atmosphere. Granted the do prevent carbon from entering it, but no carbon was removed so how does this enable someone else to put additional carbon into the atmosphere.

      The problem is that carbon offsets need to be administered globally and in a uniform way. The also need to be better verified since it seems like most don't do a good job of that. Since you can create carbon credits for turning really nasty greenhouse gases into not so nasty greenhouse gasses. Another thing that is allowed is carbon credits for not cutting trees, by not cutting them they may absorb additional C02, but their current absorption is already part of the baseline absorption so this shouldn't count either.

      An example of what I am talking about is lets say you have a coal plant and last year you produced 10,000 tons of CO2 (just a fictitious number). Lets say that this year you sequester 5,000 tons of that CO2. Under most carbon schemes you now have a carbon credit of 5,000 tons since you prevented 5,000 tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere. You can now sell this credit to a subsidiary in a carbon market and then repurchase it. This allows you to claim that you produced no net carbon since you offset the 5,000 tons that was emitted. This setup isn't some straw man argument, but is entirely possible with current carbon credit schemes. Carbon offsets should only be granted for a net amount of CO2 removed not for preventing it from entering, and there should be a fixed amount of excess credits (how much can be emitted that doesn't need to be captured). This then would be a real market so long as there is some reasonable regulation ensuring that others follow the rules such as not having enough credits to emit what you did will result in a fine of X times the highest peak cost of credits in a given year. Thus buying credits would have been the better option.

      Finally credits should not be treated as a tax as Gore is proposing, but should be an actual expense much as raw materials are. This is where most libertarians have an issue is that government wants to create something that generates more government income to waste.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    30. Re:Send in Al Gore by Zordak · · Score: 1

      The offsets aren't some magic.

      That's the real problem with Gore. He's making a fortune off of inciting panic and then selling smoke and mirrors.

      Is global warming happening? If so, is it caused by humans? I don't know. The evidence I have seen for global warming is that supposedly "everybody" agrees that it's happening. Of course, there are a lot of legitimate scientists who are apparently not part of "everybody," and I'm skeptical of anybody who claims to understand something as complex as the earth in such minute detail to say with such certainty "this is definitely what's happening and this is the cause" (Oh, but we have computer models; those are infallible). Maybe it is happening. Maybe we are causing it. And maybe an asteroid will hit tomorrow and wipe out much of humanity. I haven't seen anything yet so compelling as to justify the full-scale panic Gore & Co. want me to feel.

      What I know for sure is Gore has jumped on something that may or may not be happening, has crafted a business model that almost certainly does nothing to fix the problem if it exists (buying "carbon offsets" from people who aren't using that carbon anyway) (in other words, do you want to pay me to not cheat on my wife, which I'm not doing anyway? if so, does that balance out the bad karma in the universe when you cheat on your wife?), and is using it to line his pockets. Hey, that's capitalism, right? Sure, but most people who sell that kind of snake oil call them "Vitamin Compounds" or something along those lines, and are denounced as frauds.

      Somebody prove to me that the globe is really warming catastrophically and that we can do something about it, and I'll jump on board with you. In the meantime, how 'bout we all just try to be less wasteful because it's a good idea anyway and we don't like pollution. But don't try to legislate me (and the rest of the world) into the dark ages over this specter. Show me some real, compelling proof that justifies the very real increase in human suffering as we decrease our own quality of life and pressure others to do the same. And if you REALLY want cleaner energy, when was the last time you marched on Washington to demand more nuclear power?

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    31. Re:Send in Al Gore by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      What a load of malarkey. The overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that humans have already caused serious damage to our climate, pushed it towards catastrophe, and continue pushing it more each day. Their consensus is the closest science can offer to certainty. But you don't know - because you don't want to know.

      What I said is that the offsets aren't magic, which means they're not "smoke and mirrors". If you can decide that "offsets aren't magic" means that Gore's problem is "smoke and mirrors", you should just keep it to yourself, because you're malfunctioning. Dark Ages, blah blah blah.

      You're an ignoramus. Learn basic facts and logic before talking like your sense of the world has any value to anyone else who is interested in reality.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    32. Re:Send in Al Gore by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      What you want is a global cap on pollution, in which each polluter pays for a share on an equal basis. There's no way to enforce such a market on such a distributed, nonphysical "resource" as our capacity for pollution. That needs a government cap, which is the only way we know how to do such a thing like that.

      Cap & trade isn't a tax. But it is compatible with a tax. A tax is also a way of using the government to enforce quotas and limits. Government taxation is a way to get money that's part of the cost of the pollution collected by people who will spend it minimizing mitigating the risks and damages from the pollution. Since government is the way we currently spend the money to protect from and clean up after damage caused by climate change, that is where we're starting.

      And we are just starting. Gore's carbon offsets are a voluntary way to do what a mandatory system will require. He is showing by example how operating that way can still be economical, how such a system can work. If we just mandated it at the beginning, basic ignorance, fear and partisan bias would kill the change without any momentum or clear examples.

      Gore does "trade". The US government will probably phase in "cap" to further encourage people to trade who otherwise wouldn't. If that doesn't establish a normal economy of these costs, we might also tax. That is how wise leaders manage the rollout of such a basic, widespread, and deeply opposed by obsolete powers new system.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    33. Re:Send in Al Gore by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      As humans are natural, anything we do is natural. Global Warming isn't a problem for the planet. It's a problem for us.

    34. Re:Send in Al Gore by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      We could genetically engeer a new algae that sequesters all the CO2 it can and then sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

      That may not work as well as predicted.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    35. Re:Send in Al Gore by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Slashdot, where the only religion we tolerate is the Church of Global Warming, and the only prophet we revere is His Holiness Al Gore. And we dismiss all who are not "true believers" as heretics.

      Now tell me again, how many climate scientists are there in the world total? How many definitely, for sure have signed on to Al Gore's human-fueled global warming theory? How many have definitely, for sure ratified his carbon-trading method as a meaningful solution? And more importantly, what reproducible experiment have they given us that their global warming model reliably predicts results for? If there is one, I'd honestly like to hear about it, because like I said, I don't know. I'm not a climate scientist, so maybe I just haven't seen that experiment. But "we all agree" doesn't cut it for me because one, they don't all agree, and two, even if they did, that doesn't prove anything until they can show me that the reason they agree is that they have been able to consistently reproduce experimental results. Show me some science, not "consensus," and not "we have models." I'm all for models when we're talking about something highly predictable, like orbital mechanics, and/or when we can point to successful predictions, like "we said this is where Venus would be on this day, and it was." I haven't seen climate models accurately predict anything yet. If they have, please fill me in. I'd really like to know.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    36. Re:Send in Al Gore by inviolet · · Score: 1

      Because "stable" is relative. You probably notice the seasons changing, too. But we've been in a stable range for the past 12,000 years or so, neither ice age nor steamy jungle (or parched desert), which is unusually long. We're becoming unstable not from any natural increase in Greenhouse gases or other factors, but from the dramatic and recent increase in accumulating Greenhouse gases from human activity (a dramatic and recent increase in the human population has contributed). The human activity contribution has multiplied many times over, tipping the natural balance from the old stability towards some new global climate different from the old one.

      I see you've mastered the art of frosting your conjectures with sufficient eloquence to silence the opposition. Now that you understand this power, you can recognize it when you see it in yourself and others.

      If you refer to one of the other replies to the parent article, you will find links to the real explanation, namely, the periodic cycles within our current ice age. Even the current ramp upward in global mean temperatures is a repeat of an old, stable, oft-repeated trend.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    37. Re:Send in Al Gore by sryx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is there an emoticon for standing up and applauding a well written and totally spot on comment? You sir deserve it. The really sad thing is that people who understand and value natural resources don't need to be told why it is important to use less, and recycle. For us, even if global warming was completely out of our hands we would still strive to live less resource demanding lives. The people who actually need to be scared by global warming (or resource depletion) are the same people who take aim at the messenger without out acknowledging the message. It's really frightening how much we will have to lose before some people see what they have thrown away.

    38. Re:Send in Al Gore by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      That's the real problem with Gore. He's making a fortune off of inciting panic and then selling smoke and mirrors blah blah blather blather bullshit bullshit

      Funny how we can't have government regulation because everything must be taken care of private enterprise. Unless the operator of said enterprise has the last name of Gore, in which case it's the spawn of the devil.

    39. Re:Send in Al Gore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David-Thin-Cock has had his say, and this is mine. The nitty-gritty of what I'm about to write is this: We must improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come. Only then can a society free of his unctuous pleas blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that what really irks me is that he has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him mete out harsh and arbitrary punishment against his adversaries until they're intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized, impotent, and non-functioning mass or he'll harm others or even instill the fear of harm.

      While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a horny orthodoxy, David-Thin-Cock himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxythe orthodoxy of tyrannical clericalism. He sometimes has trouble convincing people that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. When he has such trouble, he usually trots out a few stolid popinjays to constate authoritatively that society is screaming for David-Thin-Cock's ipse dixits. Whether or not that trick of his works, it's still the case that whenever anyone states the obviousthat David-Thin-Cock's equivocations often lash audiences of cold-blooded misfits into wild storms of applausediscussion naturally progresses towards the question, "What accounts for David-Thin-Cock's prodigious criminality and dissipation?" Apparently, even know-it-all David-Thin-Cock doesn't know the answer to that one. It wouldn't even matter if he did, given that I would never take a job working for him. Given his self-pitying strictures, who would want to?

      The basal lie that underlies all of David-Thin-Cock's inarticulate solutions is that all literature that opposes terrorism was forged by quarrelsome polluters. Translation: Skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views but you should nevertheless be aware that David-Thin-Cock drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes him sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that it is hardly surprising that David-Thin-Cock wants to seek temporary tactical alliances with the worst sorts of blasphemous, lethargic vandals there are in order to silence anyone whom he considers passive-aggressive. After all, this is the same sex-crazed ninnyhammer whose ill-natured prattle informed us that you and I are morally inferior to nit-picky cutthroats.

      If David-Thin-Cock's fulminations aren't invidious, I don't know what is. How dare David-Thin-Cock criticize my values when his are so obviously inimical? To those few who disagree with some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. Given the public appetite for more accountability, thanks to him, we're all in a free fall into a pit of separatism. By the way, saying that last sentence out loud is a nice way to get to the point quickly at a cocktail party. He uses the word "stereophotogrammetry" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. David-Thin-Cock expects everyone else to cater to his every idiosyncratic whim. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that David-Thin-Cock has vowed that some day he'll intensify race hatred. This is hardly news; David-Thin-Cock has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that my goal is to respond to his hariolations. I might not be successful at achieving that goal but I obviously do have to try.

      Speaking of which, if David-Thin-Cock honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from him. He has been fairly successful in his efforts to scorn and abjure reason. That just goes to show what can be done with a little greed, a complete lack of scruples, and the help of a bunch of abhor

    40. Re:Send in Al Gore by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      To learn how to do this yourself, please visit Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator

      Thank you for your time and have a nice day.

      Incidentally, I actually do accuse you of phallocentrism, unilateralism, child molestation, and halitosis, although not in that order.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    41. Re:Send in Al Gore by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      He uses the word "stereophotogrammetry" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary.

      Nonsense. I'm a member in good standing of the American Society for Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing. I'm a world-renowned researcher in the field, and have developed several methods to help solve the correspondence problem. I'm currently writing my dissertation on The Use of Recursive Algorithms in Stereoscopic Photogrammetry in Correcting Satellite Imagery.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    42. Re:Send in Al Gore by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Explain why we are still not in an ice age if the "natural contributions of the Earth's own systems" are stable and don't cause climate change."

      He said stable enough to live in, you will learn more by reading something than you will by building strawmen.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    43. Re:Send in Al Gore by Dausha · · Score: 1

      Gore is widely recognized as that leader because he helped get the public to accept the faux science. There, fixed that for you.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    44. Re:Send in Al Gore by anagama · · Score: 1

      Stop conflating republican with libertarian.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    45. Re:Send in Al Gore by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I think you hit the nail on the head, it's way too boring to actually study the problem and calmly wean ourselves off coal over the next 4-5 decades. It's much more fun to dream up half-arsed geo-engineering ideas and then run in circles ignoring the evidence.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    46. Re:Send in Al Gore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unsere Konkurrenten beschuldigen uns nationale Sozialisten und ich insbesondere, des Seins intolerant und streitsüchtig. Sie sagen, daß wir nicht mit anderen Beteiligten arbeiten möchten. Sie sagen, daß die nationalen Sozialisten nicht an allen deutsch sind, weil sie ablehnen, mit anderen politischen Beteiligten zu arbeiten. Ist so er zum Haben dreißig Beteiligte gewöhnlich deutsch? Ich muß eine Sache zulassen -, die haben Herr diese ist, ziemlich Recht. Wir sind intolerant. Ich habe mich ein Ziel gegeben - um diese dreißig politischen Beteiligten aus Deutschland heraus zu fegen. Sie verwechseln uns für eins von ihnen. Wir haben ein Ziel und wir folgen ihm fanatisch und unbarmherzig zum Grab

      _m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_*i**XiXXiXXX*i*_m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_
      _m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ *i*XiXXiXXiXX#i##i###XX*_m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_
      _m__m__m__m__m__m__m_*i**XiXXiXXX#i##i##i##i##i##XX**_m__m__m__m__m__m__m_
      _m__m__m__m__m__m_ *XiXXiXXiXX#i##i##i##i##i##i##i###X**_m__m__m__m__m__m_
      _m__m__m__m__m_**XiXXiXXiX#i##i##i##i##i##i##i##i##i##i#X*_m__m__m__m__m_
      _m__m__m__m_ **XiXXiXX#i##i##X##XiXX#i##i##i##i##i##i##i##X*_m__m__m__m_
      _m__m__m_ *X*i***XiXXiXXiXXiXXiXXX#i##i##i##i##i##i##i##i###X*_m__m__m__m_
      _m__m_ *X##XX*i***XiXXiXXiXX#i##i##i##i##i##i##i##i##i##i##i#*_m__m__m_
      _m__m_ XX#X##X#XX**_m__m__m_ *i***XiXXX#i##i##i##i##i##i##i##i#*_m__m__m_
      _m__m_X#i##i##XiX**_m__m__m__m__m__m_ *i*XiXX#i##i##i##i##i##i#*_m__m__m_
      _m_ *#i##i###XiX*_m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ *i**XX#i##i##i##i##i##_m__m__m_
      _m_ X#i##X##XiX*_m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ **XX#i##i##i##i##X_m__m_
      _m_ X#i##XiXX**_m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ **X#i##i##i###X_m__m_
      _m_ X#i#XiXX*_m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ *X#i##i#X#X#*_m__m_
      _m_ X#XiXXiX_m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ *XX#X*i*X#X_m__m_
      _m_ X#i##i#X*_m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ *i**i**X#_m__m_
      _m_ *#i##i#X*_m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ **X#_m__m_
      _m_ *X##X#X*_m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_*i**i**i**i**i**XX_m__m_
      _m__m_X##XX*_m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ *i**i**i***XiXXiXXiXXiXXX*i**X_m__m_
      _m__m_*XiX*_m__m__m__m__m__m_**XiXXiXXiXXX*i*XX#i##i###XiXXiXXiX**X_m__m_
      _m__m_ *XX*_m__m__m_ *i**i*XiXX#i##i##i#X*i**X#i###XiXX#i##XiXX*i*_m__m_
      _m__m_ *i**_m__m__m_**X*i*X#X*XiX#i##i##X*_m_ X#i#XiX*i*XiXXiXX*i**i*_m_
      _m__m__m__m__m__m_ *i*X#XX** *i**XiXXX*_m_ *XiXXiX*i***X**XX*i**XX_m_
      _m_ XX**_m__m__m__m_ *X*_m_ *i*XX**X**_m__m_ *i*XiX*XiX*i**i**i**X*_m_
      _m_*XiX**_m__m__m__m__m__m_*i**i**i**_m__m__m_ *i**i**i**i**i** *i**_m__m_
      _m_*XX* **_m__m__m__m__m_*i**i**i*_m__m__m__m_ *i**i**i**i**i**i***_m__m_
      _m_ *i***X*_m__m__m__m__m__m_**_m__m__m__m__m__m_*i***_m_ *i**i**i*_m__m_
      _m_ ** *X*_m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_*i**_m_ *i**i**i*_m__m_
      _m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ *_m__m__m_ *_m__m__m__m_*i**i**i**i**i**i*_m__m_
      _m__m__m__m_*_m__m__m_ *_m__m__m_ **X* *i**i**XiXXiXXX*i**i**i***_m__m_
      _m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ * *i**X*i*X#i##i##i##i#X*i**i**i**i**_m__m_
      _m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ * *i**i* X#i##i##i##i###X*i**i**i**i*_m__m_
      _m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ *i*_m_ X#i##i##i##i###X*i**i**i***_m__m__m_
      FLEIGENDE KINDERSCHEISSE_m__m__m__m_XiX#i##i##i###XX*i**i**i***_m__m__m_
      UND ICH BEIN UNENBALLEN_m__m__m__m_ **XiX##XiX#i##XiXXiX*i**i***_m__m__m_
      PINKEN TRIENGLENS UBER ALLES_m__m_**XiXX*i**i**X**XiXXiXXX*i**i*_m__m__m_
      _m__m_ ACHTUNG JUDEN_m__m__m__m_ *XX*i**_m_**XiXXiXXiX*i**i**i**_m__m__m_
      _m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ *i*** * *i**XiXXiXXiXXiXXX*i**i**_m__m__m_
      _m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ *i**i**i**i**XX**XX*i**i**i***XiXX#*_m__m__m_
      _m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ *i**i**_m__m__m__m__m__m_*i**XiXXX##X*_m__m_
      _m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ *i**i***_m__m__m__m__m_*i***XiXXX#i###XiX*_m__m_
      _m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_ *i*XX*i***_m__m_ *i**i*XiXXiX#i##i##i#XiX*_m_
      _m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m__m_*i***XiXX*i*XiXXiXXiXXiXX#i##i##i##i###XiXX*_m_
      _m__m

    47. Re:Send in Al Gore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir Haxalot was tired after another long day of karmawhoring at slashdot. "Hacky," his mother called, "time for dinner!" Sir Haxalot came upstairs from the basement where the bright lights of the kitchen temporarily blinded him. "Mommy, it's too bright in here!" he complained. His mother smiled "Come here, Hacky. Let mommy make you feel better."

      He followed her voice but kept his eyes tightly shut. He felt a hand massage his crotch.. "MMmm... mommy, you know I like that..." "Yes dear, mommy knows.." The hand undid his zipper and pulled his turgid member forthwith.

      A warm mouth gently licked the head of his penis. It didn't take long. Only moments later a jet of hot wad shot into the mouth.. "Did you like that?" his mother asked from behind him.. "Wha..?!" he asked, suprised. Opening his eyes he saw his daddy eagerly swallowing every drop of his cum.

      "DADDY!! You came back!" cried Sir Haxalot. "Hello son," his father replied, "I had a lot of thinking to do and this was the best way I could think of to apologize for leaving you after that intense round of sodomy 3 years ago."

      "That's OK, daddy. I know you had problems keeping your job as the school janitor. I don't believe anything the other kids said about you touching their pee-pees and putting your pee-pee in their bums."

      His father lost his smile "Son.. that's what we have to talk about.. it's true. For 17 years as a school janitor I was a filthy sodomite. I'd take little 12 year old 'pee-pees' in my mouth and get them hard. Once the lad was past the point of caring, I'd get him to stick it in my bum. Then I'd have my way with them. It was a good 17 year stretch but now, with these new damn laws, I'll have to keep my penchant for anal excusions strictly here at home. 'Home is where the Hard is' you know."

    48. Re:Send in Al Gore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anagama ignorantly wrote

      "Stop conflating republican with libertarian."

      Doc Ruby will stop when the libertarians stop being the lap dogs of the GOP and Bush. Both hate the environment, anyone who is not white, and most of all education while loving the free market. Until then Doc Ruby will continue to ridicule the lap dogs of the GOP.

    49. Re:Send in Al Gore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You Republicans (er, "libertarians") will just lie and say anything to attack people who actually work to protect us in this country.

      As a libertarian I believe everyone should be free to make completely unfounded, ad homenim attacks.

    50. Re:Send in Al Gore by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You must be confused. The argument was never that it isn't happening, it was that it isn't happening in a way that was a problem. It's always been a natural cycle. The argument only shifted from if it was a problem to was it a problem greater then any natural changes.

    51. Re:Send in Al Gore by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It's not funny. People who support private enterprise have long pushed for the prosecution of scams. Gore should be no different in that regard. And yes, he is pushing a scam and not a bona-fide business.

    52. Re:Send in Al Gore by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      No, sadly, you're the one confused.

      Even if the changes are entirely natural, shifting weather patterns and rising ocean levels are, indeed, a threat to everyone.

      Not that I'm entirely sure why we would even vaguely want to listen to people who spent decades denying there was any problem at all, when they show up and explain what is causing the problem they've been denying for so long.

      Especially when they show up with an explanation that just happens to mean that behavior they've been arguing for decades doesn't need to change, coincidentally still doesn't need to change.

      Strange, that.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    53. Re:Send in Al Gore by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, sadly, you're the one confused.

      Actually, you are the one that is confused.

      Even if the changes are entirely natural, shifting weather patterns and rising ocean levels are, indeed, a threat to everyone.

      First, I never said it wasn't a problem. Second, your confusing the argument from a certain sect of people as to why we shouldn't be imposing restrictions on the freedoms of people with what you think has happened. The sea level has been rising and weather patterns have been shifting since Man started keeping records. It's not a static element that all the sudden started looking different. But the way you make it out to be is that there is some pristine picture that we need to return back to. That would be impossible even if humans were the cause and removed from the planet today. The earth, weather, sea levels, and everything else will change and continue to change independent of our existence. We will never stop those changes and regardless of what you want to think, life will adapt and go on.

      Not that I'm entirely sure why we would even vaguely want to listen to people who spent decades denying there was any problem at all, when they show up and explain what is causing the problem they've been denying for so long.

      If the notion behind this is scientific and not some religious endeavor where science is has been turned into a religion, then you should listen to them because that is how science works. You can't claim to be scientific if your not including the discussion of the opposition. Well, you can claim to be but you will end up looking like a bunch of religious pseudoscience zealots pushing an agenda. It is like ID for mother earth.

      And yes, in the past people have rejected the idea that water vapor wasn't being accounted for properly in the models, they have rejected the ideas that solar variances causes the inputs to change, they have rejected ideas about the faulty data being used and mistakes made by researchers. And they rejected all of that because of some tie to an oil company or political group that was opposite of their beliefs only to eventually be forced to consider it all later when their models didn't work or those anti global warming people ended up showing proof of the matter.

      It's almost like you can't talk about their god unless you repeat what they say. But that has nothing to do with the arguments put forth by any political side. The arguments or solutions to the problems put forth by the pro global warming crowd don't fix anything, it only limits and restricts one persons freedoms in order to enrich someone else. Take Shell oil for instance, they gave up on wind and solar as being too expensive to focus on making the existing stuff cleaner and all you global warming freaks about started crying because it wasn't your way.

      Especially when they show up with an explanation that just happens to mean that behavior they've been arguing for decades doesn't need to change, coincidentally still doesn't need to change.

      Why does it need to change? Why can't coal be cleaned? Just because it isn't in practice today doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow. Why must wind and solar power be used instead? Why can't gas and oil exhaust be cleaned? why must cars be more efficient instead of just having cleaner exhausts?

      You see, the problem is largely that lack of options allowed by your side. You side wants to limit individual freedoms and impose some central authority over people in ways and places it never has been before. Political solutions like Kyoto does nothing to reduce Co2 pollution, it only limits certain countries and encourages others to increase their production. Of the 138 some countries signed on, less the 40 have emissions caps. You have buffoons like Al Gore creating and showing misleading propaganda pieces that some courts have ruled to be fundamentally flawed and inaccurate- and he has the answer, spend money at his company so he can be rich.

      Yea, strange that.

    54. Re:Send in Al Gore by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      And yes, he is pushing a scam and not a bona-fide business.

      No more so than Magellan. As is usually the case, take the opposite of the wingnut position and you have reality. Gore is right (back up by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists) and the wingnuts are wrong (opposition based on ideology and greed). Sad day for you.

    55. Re:Send in Al Gore by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. wingnut, your not just biased, your a leader of the cult.

      And no, Gore is not backed up by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. That is a farce and the entire consensus is a farce purpetrated in order to advance those goals. Go ahead, look for the specific time and place where all the climate scientists voted or staked a position behind Al Gore. You won't find it and you won't even find a hard number to stake the claim majority from.

      As is usual, take a look at the far side of anything and you will find idiots blindly following what was fed to them. You and your kind is actually worse then the born against religious zealots. At least they are blindly following something that has centuries of history behind it. You go and find a cult to surrender that just started and don't understand why we laugh at you. You are right, it is a sad day for me. It's a sad day anytime I discover another idiot too weak to think for himself or to even come close to applying some critical thinking skills. Oh well, It's ok, at least the walls are padded where you will eventually end up.

  6. Finally.... by ThePhilips · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally, several months after the loss in elections, Sarah Palin let the steam out.......

    --
    All hope abandon ye who enter here.
  7. Meanwhile by Alzheimers · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Meanwhile, in Louisiana, Governor Bobby Jindal mutters something about all this wasteful government spending.

    1. Re:Meanwhile by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

      Jindal was right! We don't have to monitor volcanoes, just wait for them to erupt and the news media will monitor them for us! Who wants to monitor them when they aren't doing anything interesting anyway? That would be like monitoring weather patterns out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean...boring and useless.

    2. Re:Meanwhile by Workaphobia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > just wait for them to erupt and the news media will monitor them for us!

      Ah, another job better done by the private sector.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    3. Re:Meanwhile by slashmojo · · Score: 2, Funny

      wait for them to erupt and the news media will monitor them for us!

      Why wait for the media to report it - some wordsmith on twitter is sure to get the news out sooner! (in 140 chars or less)

      >mrnin, drnkn cfee
      >sum vlcno rpted, w00t
      >brshin teeth
      >hmm taste lke ash

  8. haha by p3on · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i bet jindal feels like a doof

    1. Re:haha by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No he doesn't; If 8 years of Bush has shown us anything, it's that conservatism means never having to consider the possibility you're wrong.

    2. Re:haha by Alinabi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, being right about the waste and unfunded entitlements in the stimulus is really something that makes one feel doofy

      No, it is not. But I don't see how this matters for Jindal, he has never been right about anything in his entire life.

      --
      "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
    3. Re:haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, except that thing about the unfunded debt obligation. NO he was right about that.

    4. Re:haha by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      I thought it was "Conservatism means never having to say you're wrong".

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    5. Re:haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Chairman Obama is done implmenting an authoritarian police state - if there is a dictionary that can be read if its not from MINITRU - will have Obama's picture next to the world WRONG.

    6. Re:haha by geobeck · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought it was "Conservatism means never having to say you're wrong".

      But happiness is never having to say you're Tory.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    7. Re:haha by Five+Bucks! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two words: Patriot Act

      Not to debate good ol' George (Orwell), but it seems a large oversight to compare Obama to Big Brother when the recent Bush Administration was so opaque, secretive and misleading.

      Who were we at war with again? Iraq or Al-Quaeda? Or was it Eurasia or Eastasia... I always get the two confused.

      Settle down, weirdo.

      --
      52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
    8. Re:haha by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You'll be singing a different tune once you're forced - under penalty of death - to convert to Islam, recite Mao's Little Red Book, and give the black power salute every 10 seconds, Mr. I-love-the-Islamofascistmexicosocialistcheeseeatingsurendermonkeyhomosexuals.

    9. Re:haha by DavidTC · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      In this time of war, you're either with the President or you're against him. We can endure temporary restrictions on liberty when the terrorist threat is so strong.

      Incidentally, I like how, suddenly, Republicans are worried about the government being fascist. Even ignoring the financial crisis, which is just as much an emergency as 9/11, and probably much more of one...I seem to recall that Republicans were still insisting that terrorism existed as of...well, mid-January, and that it and our wars still justified everything Bush was doing.

      Well, we're still fighting those wars, and I can't imagine why terrorists would have suddenly vanished with the election of Obama. (In fact, Republicans seem to think they'd be more of a threat under him.)

      We only have to get behind 'war presidents' when they're Republican, is that it? Or did you guys just forget about this 'all-important and all-encompasing war that justifies everything' the second you got out of power?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    10. Re:haha by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      Sigh.

      Today I am very, very disappointed. You see, I thought I would never have to say this. But I see that I now have no choice, so here it goes.

      LOL WUT

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    11. Re:haha by Experiment+626 · · Score: 1

      The issue wasn't whether volcano monitoring is a useful activity for the federal government to be involved in, but whether it belongs in a bill to stimulate the economy. Now if a volcano monitoring program will somehow get the economy back on track better than, say, cutting capital gains taxes, I'd love to hear how. Otherwise it looks like there are a lot of people in this thread with more reason to "feel like a doof" than Jindal has.

    12. Re:haha by regular_gonzalez · · Score: 1

      The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.

      --
      Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
    13. Re:haha by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1

      The issue wasn't whether volcano monitoring is a useful activity for the federal government to be involved in, but whether it belongs in a bill to stimulate the economy.

      Well, presumably they'd be spending money on equipment and staff for that monitoring. Do you not quite understand the purpose of a stimulus spending bill?

      Now if a volcano monitoring program will somehow get the economy back on track better than, say, cutting capital gains taxes

      Now, why say capital gains taxes? I mean, yeah, I'd personally benefit from capital gains tax cuts, but they're still not in the best interests of the country as a whole. If you're going to do tax cuts, and you actually want to stimulate the economy, they're best targeted at payroll taxes. To be responsible, though, you'd want them at lower income brackets with a compensatory increase at the upper end.

    14. Re:haha by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The issue wasn't whether volcano monitoring is a useful activity for the federal government to be involved in, but whether it belongs in a bill to stimulate the economy.

      See RM above.

      Now if a volcano monitoring program will somehow get the economy back on track better than, say, cutting capital gains taxes, I'd love to hear how.

      Cutting the capital gains tax will do jack and shit to stimulate the economy, and Jack left town. For the obvious reason that when you're facing a depression, you wont have to worry about making any gains to pay taxes on. It's sort of like offering income tax cuts to people who lost their jobs - pointless.

      And really, who still thinks that penny pinching on disaster preparedness is a good idea after Katrina? Save a few million on dikes, loose a few hundred billion and a thousand lives when the dikes fail. Hmm, let me think about that one....

    15. Re:haha by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except that thing about the unfunded debt obligation. NO he was right about that.

      So naturally, you're taking it up with the appropriate people: Reagan, Bush, Bush, and the Republican Congress.

    16. Re:haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a citizen of this country, which I believe in and which I have seen David-Thin-Cock tear apart, I must weed out people like David-Thin-Cock who have deceived, betrayed, and exploited us. Let me cut to the chase: David-Thin-Cock is entirely gung-ho about libertinism because he lacks more pressing soapbox issues. I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind David-Thin-Cock that I honestly wouldn't want to sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that you and I are morally inferior to neocolonialism-prone crackpots. I would, on the other hand, love to wage war on solecism and encourage others to do the same. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this screed.

      People often get the impression that the most grumpy fanatics you'll ever see and David-Thin-Cock's hirelings are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that like a verbal magician, David-Thin-Cock knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. Justice isn't served when his crimes go unpunished. Although others may disagree with that claim, few would dispute that the public is like a giant that he has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and David-Thin-Cock leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to straighten out David-Thin-Cock's thinking. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that David-Thin-Cock's most distasteful tactic is to fabricate a phony war between mawkish Philistines and reckless bigamists. This way, he can subjugate both groups into helping him retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity. I indubitably don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that David-Thin-Cock is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that David-Thin-Cock's new changes will be even more dissolute because he considers it a moral obligation to fool and cheat others wherever and whenever possible. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve, then there is surely no hope for you.

      Let me mention again that David-Thin-Cock keeps telling us that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. Are we also supposed to believe that his words are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos? I didn't think so. I should add parenthetically that it's debatable whether his criticisms do not pass muster by any objective standards. However, no one can disagree that David-Thin-Cock's intimations are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructiveeven intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will decidedly persist as long as David-Thin-Cock continues to create profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue.

      David-Thin-Cock claims that the existence and perpetuation of anarchism is its own moral justification. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another brazen attempt to abandon me on a desert island. Be careful not to be charmed by his reports. All they do is herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses. Although he won't admit it, David-Thin-Cock doesn't care about freedom, as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him.

      David-Thin-Cock should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. Once you understand his bromides, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting David-Thin-Cock have a serious destabilizing effect on our institutions.

      David-Thin-Cock refers to a v

    17. Re:haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a screed I have planned on writing for some time, a screed that I profess is extremely important and one that indubitably must be heeded if we are to undo the damage caused by David-Thin-Cock. Let me start by stressing that I am not attempting to suppress anyone's opinions, nor do I intend to demean David-Thin-Cock personally for his beliefs or worldviews. But I do contend that I must raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding David-Thin-Cock's litigious, rabid sound bites.
      It goes without saying that David-Thin-Cock says that he has a "special" perspective on masochism that carries with it a "special" right to commit acts of immorality, dishonesty, and treason. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools. He somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (mediocrity is a worthwhile goal), distortions (human life is expendable), and misplaced idealism (the moon is made of green cheese). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "ultramicrochemistry".
      No one likes being attacked by grumpy cutthroats. Even worse, David-Thin-Cock exploits our fear of those attackswhich he claims will evolve by next weekend into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacksas a pretext to lead us into an age of shoddinessshoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that if you study David-Thin-Cock's malodorous philippics long enough, you'll come to the inescapable conclusion that all of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of his callow, rotten smears. They are not a cause; they are an effect.
      David-Thin-Cock's profiteering and power mongering will threaten the common good sooner or later. And let us not forget that every so often, David-Thin-Cock tries giving rise to mendacious, cankered whiners. Whenever he gets caught doing so he raises a terrific hullabaloo calculated to take away our sense of community and leave us morally adrift. Let me say that you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart his plans to reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with his ideals while punishing those who oppose them. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to deal with his scary modes of thought on a case-by-case basis. It is imperative that we inform such people that I would like to give you an example of how imprudent David-Thin-Cock can be. David-Thin-Cock has admitted that he intends to interfere with the most important principles of democracy. Okay, that may have been a particularly bald-faced and unsubtle example but you might have heard the story that David-Thin-Cock once agreed to help us speak out against behavior and speech that is intended to eat our nation to its bones. No one has located the document in which David-Thin-Cock said that. No one has identified when or where David-Thin-Cock said that. That's because he never said it. As you might have suspected, David-Thin-Cock and his protégés are, by nature, nit-picky hucksters. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but it would be charitable of me not to mention that David-Thin-Cock should put his own house in order before he tells others what to do. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity so I will instead maintain that he says that he should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. What balderdash! What impudence! What treachery!
      If we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of David-Thin-Cock's uncivilized harangues rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into his world. Why do we want to do that? Because David-Thin-Cock wants to deprive people of dignity and autonomy. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is David-Thin-Cock's gossamer grasp of reality. What kind of loser wants to engulf the world in a dense miasma of clericalism? A loser like David-Thin-Cock. Perhaps it sounds like stating the obvious to say that the r

    18. Re:haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not a good troll. You aren't even fit to lick Craig McPherson's feet.

      My bite-counts are record setting as far as I can tell. If I'm such a bad troller, why you wriggling around in this net?

    19. Re:haha by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      David-Thin-Cock wants to clear-cut ancient forest lands.

      Has David-Thin-Cock ever considered what would happen if a small fraction of his time spent trying to harvest what others have sown was instead spent on something productive?

      And that, folks, is why you need to sanity check your randomly generated complaint, because an anti-environmental troll just accused me of...anti-environmentalism. Heh. Oops.

      Also, something appears wrong with the cut and paste. You're losing your commas or quotes or dashes or something, words are ending up stuck together like 'destructiveeven', 'saucerwho', and 'antidisestablishmentanismpenis'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    20. Re:haha by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      It goes without saying that David-Thin-Cock says that he has a "special" perspective on masochism...decause David-Thin-Cock wants to deprive people of dignity and autonomy. I know because I have experienced that personally.

      Hey! If you're going to tell bedroom secrets I'm not going to play this game anymore!

      Similarly, David-Thin-Cock enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe.

      Okay, that's it. It's over. And 'stupendous' is an idiotic safe word.

      And let us not forget that every so often, David-Thin-Cock tries giving rise to mendacious, cankered whiners.

      And let us not forget that sometimes those cankered whiners can't seem to get it up no matter what I do. And, no, it doesn't happen to all men.

      no one would have doubted that David-Thin-Cock finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages.

      Hey, it tasted weird. I'm not ashamed, plenty of people spit it out.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    21. Re:haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Poopchute-hammer - Peter Gag'reil(4:55)

      You could have a cream train (0:32) - If you'd just lay down some pipe (0:39)
      You could have an anus di-iii-lating (0:44) - If you bring your big sexy backside (0:49)

      All you do is call me (0:52) - I'll be anything you need (0:57)

      You could have a big stiffy (1:02) - Going up and down, all around your rim (1:09)
      You could have a humping fag humping! (1:14) - This amusement never ends (1:19)

      I want to be... your Poopchute-hammer! (1:25) - Why don't you call my name, ahhhhhhhhh (1:30) (note: ahh is a girly fag-bitch screech)
      Oh let me be your Poopchute-hammer! (1:35) - This will be my testimony (1:41)

      Hey - hey! (1:45)

      Show me round your fruitcage (1:52) - 'Cause I will be your semen bee (1:58) - Open up your fruitcage (2:02) - Where the semen is as sweet as can be (2:09)

      I want to be.... your Poopchute-hammer! (2:15) - Why don't you call my name, ahhhhh (2:21) (note: ahh is a girly fag-bitch screech)
      You'd better call the Poopchute-hammer (2:25)
      Put your mind at rest (2:29) - I'm going to be.... the Poopchute-hammer! (2:35)
      This can be my testimony, ahhhhhh (2:41) (note: ahh is a girly fag-bitch screech)
      I'm your.... Poopchute-hammer! (2:45)
      Let there be no doubt about it (2:50)

      Poo! (2:51) POO! (2:53) Poopchute-hammer! (2:59)

      Beowaaawoooweeoooooohooooooooo!!! (3:01) NOTE: Chorus of Flaring Flaming Butt Trumpets
      Beowaaawoooweeoooooohooooooooo!!! (3:06)
      Beowaaawoooweeoooooohooooooooo!!! (3:11)
      Beowaaawoooweeoooooohooooooooo!!! (3:17)

      I get it right (3:20) - I've kicked the habit (3:22)
      Kicked the habit!!!, kicked the habit!!! (3:24) Note: Colored Girl Chorus
      Shed my fore-skin, Shed my fore-skin (3:30) Note: Colored Girl Chorus
      This is the new white-stuff (3:32)
      This is the new white-stuff!!! (3:34) Note: Colored Girl Chorus
      I go dancing in poop (3:37)
      We go dancing in poop!!! (3:39) Note: Colored Girl Chorus
      Oh, won't you poo for me (3:42)
      Poo for me!!! (3:44) Note: Colored Girl Chorus

      I will poo for you (3:47)
      Poo for you!!! (3:49) Note: Colored Girl Chorus
      Unnnnngh, Poo for me (3:52)
      Poo for me!!! Note: Colored Girl Chorus
      I will poo for you!! (3:57)
      Yea, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I do mean you!!! (4:00)
      Poo for me!!! (4:02) Note: Colored Girl Chorus
      Only you (4:04)
      You've been coming through! (4:06)
      I feel you ASSRAMMER!!! (4:09) NOTE: Now begins a cacophony of screaming and grunting like pigs buttfucking.
      Poo for you!!!
      A-gonna build that stiffy
      Build, build up that stiffy, hey Poo for me (4:18)
      I've been feeding on jizzum
      I've been feeding on jizzum
      Poo for you
      Going to feel that stiffy, yeah, stiffy in you, ha Poo for me Come on, come on, help me do
      Come on, come on, help me do
      Poo for you Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, you Poo for me (4:30)
      I've been feeding on jizzum
      I've been feeding on jizzum
      Poo for you It's what we're doing, doing All day and night

      Poopchute-hammer
      Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Etiam condimentum. Aliquam gravida arcu sed urna. Mauris nec velit in ipsum imperdiet malesuada. Sed sollicitudin pede sed quam. Mauris orci est, tincidunt a, egestas non, fermentum sed, odio. Donec in magna. Phasellus quis nibh. Nam ipsum. Donec in neque. Maecenas odio. Vestibulum est quam, cursus eget, dapibus sed, condimentum vitae, lorem. In in libero eget nunc aliquet viverra. Dui

    22. Re:haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Untitled, inspired by Scooby Doo

      "GROOBY ROOBY ROOOOOO!!!" exclaimed Scooby, as his powerful 12 1/2 inches of angry canine lovestick spewed gallon after gallon of semen over Daphne's naked ass and thighs.

      "Oh Scooby, that was amazing, as always,' panted Daphne, as the dregs of her 5th consecutive orgasm died away. "But I do wish you would keep your voice down in the future; you know what my Freddy's like, he gets so jealous - I sure he knows there's something between us.'

      Fred and Daphne had been 'going steady' for some time now, Fred believing Daphne to be a virgin; however, Daphne had neglected to mention to him the hot lesbian affair she was conducting with Velma (the way she cried 'Jinkies!' upon climax still rang in Daphne's ears) and the fact that she was here in the back of the Mystery Machine every other night, letting Scooby satisfy his animalistic urges upon her.

      But she knew she was a slut, and, goddamn it, she liked it. If it had a pulse, or even if it didn't (as had been the case with numerous supernatural entities in the past), hell, then she was game.

      Much as she loved Fred for his sturdy sensibility, his all-American good looks, and his impeccable dress-sense, she found him prudish at times. "Not until we're married, Daph!" he would protest, each time she made her amorous advances towards him. Maybe it was his strict Catholic upbringing. Was it any wonder, she often reasoned, that she had to satisfy her cravings elsewhere? If only Fred could understand, if only he could see the fires that burned within her, within her very being, within her moist and welcoming loins...

      Well, in the meantime...

      "You ready to go again, Scoob?" she purred, winking seductively, and already back on all-fours.

      "UR-HUR-HEE-HEE-HEE-HEE!!!" chuckled Scooby, obviously overjoyed at the prospect.

      Just as Scooby was getting ready to deftly plunge his gargantuan helmet into Daphne's juicy crevice, Daphne warned: "Please, Scooby, try to keep it down this time - I don't want Freddy to hear..."

      "You don't want Freddy to hear what?"

      They both looked round. The doors of the Mystery Machine were torn open, and there, his white sweater glinting in the moonlight, stood Fred, the fire of anger burning fiercely behind his eyes. He surveyed the scene before him - the Great Dane, in an obvious state of extreme arousal, hunched over his precious Daphne's naked ass - and he felt decidedly un-Christian thoughts brewing in his mind.

      "You don't want Freddy to hear...what???" Fred repeated, with even more bile.

      "Freddy!!! I...I...it's not what it seems...we were just...Scooby! Get off! Bad dog!", Daphne stuttered and protested, trying in vain to pin the blame upon Scooby.

      "Oh don't start with that shit, you fucking bitch," spat Fred, his face contorted. "I know what you two have been up to. Every night you come out here, I've been watching you through the Mystery Machine's windscreen. You two make me sick".

      "But," he continued, "as I watched more of your trysts, I came to realize that...I like sick."

      An evil, mischievous grin spread across his lips.

      "And now...it's time for your punishment."

      Unable to move, unable to breathe, Daphne and Scooby watched transfixed as Fred produced a number of items he had been concealing behind his back; a coat hanger; a 12-inch, jet-black dildo; a length of barbed wire; an extra large tube of KY Jelly; and a curious, shapeless item that neither of them could make out in the gloom.

      "RAAAGGYYY!!!! RELLLLP!!!!" cried Scooby in desperation.

      "Oh, Shaggy can't hear you," said Fred, advancing on the pair menacingly. "I'm afraid I had to introduce him and Velma to the joys of S&M, followed by violent anal rape, followed by death."

      "Freddy? Wha...what's happened to you?" stammered Daphne.

      "Oh, nothing much, baby...I just decided to start living," sa

    23. Re:haha by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why would he? Or should I say why would he any more then you?

      His comments on volcano monitoring was about it being in the stimulus bill. So he have to ask, is volcano monitoring a stimulus to the economy and american people? My guess is no, it's a public service that either didn't exist before the stimulus bill was passed or it did and the funding was hidden in it because it wasn't justified in other spending bills.

      The stimulus bill however was 100% pure deficit spending with the purpose of stimulating the economy to benefit the American people. In other words, it's an emergency bill so why was pet projects included and with at least 2 years of democrat control, why is it that volcano monitoring was such an emergency?

      Jindal needs not be embarrassed. He just needs a smarter crowed to speak to.

  9. Correction... 4 NOT 3 eruptions... by denzacar · · Score: 5, Informative

    NOT from TFA:

    Alaska volcano Mount Redoubt erupts 4 times

    By MARK THIESSEN - 40 minutes ago

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- Alaska's Mount Redoubt volcano erupted four times overnight, sending an ash plume more than 9 miles high into the air, but the state's largest city has likely been spared from any ashfall.
    "The ash cloud went to 50,000 feet, and it's currently drifting toward the north, northeast," said Janet Schaefer, a geologist with the Alaska Volcano Observatory.

    The first eruption, in a sparsely area across Cook Inlet from the Kenai Peninsula, occurred at 10:38 p.m. Sunday and the fourth happened at 1:39 a.m. Monday, according to the observatory.

    The wind patterns were taking the ash cloud away from Anchorage, toward Willow and Talkneetna, near Mount McKinley, North America's largest mountain in Denali National Park.
    Geophysicist John Power said no cities have yet reported any ash fall from the volcano, but noted that it was still early.
    Using radar and satellite technology, the National Weather Service is predicting ash to start falling later Monday morning.

    Dave Stricklan, a hydrometeorogical technician with the National Weather Service, expected very fine ash.
    "Just kind of a light dusting," he said. He said the significant amount of ash probably dropped immediately, right down the side of the volcano.
    "The heavier stuff drops out very quickly, and then the other stuff filters out. There's going to be a very fine amount of it that's going to be suspended in the Atmosphere for quite some time, but nothing to really affect anything such as aviation travel. The heavier stuff will filter out," he said.

    Still, Alaska Airlines on Monday canceled 19 flights in and out of the Anchorage international airport because of the ash.
    Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage told only essential personnel to report to work. The Air Force says 60 planes, including fighter jets, cargo aircraft and a 747 commercial plane, are being sheltered.

    The 10,200-foot Redoubt Volcano, roughly 100 miles southwest of Anchorage, last erupted during a four-month period from 1989-90.
    But the volcano became restless earlier this year. The observatory had warned in late January that an eruption could occur at any time.
    Increased earthquake activity over the past 48 hours prompted scientists to raise the alert level for Mount Redoubt on Sunday.
    On Sunday morning, 40 to 50 earthquakes were being recorded every hour.
    A steam plume rising about 1,000 feet above the mountain peak was observed Saturday.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Correction... 4 NOT 3 eruptions... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Funny

      The first eruption, in a sparsely area across Cook Inlet

      Good thing it was in a "sparsely area". That's a kind of spice, isn't it?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  10. I doubt it, and I doubt it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry... this story is a mixup. Someone on twitter said: "D00d, the vulcanoe just 'rupted" and I said "I doubt it" and he said "no reely", and I said "I doubt it" again. And somehow that go morphed into "Mount ReDoubt has erupted"
    Sorry

  11. Speak for yourself nonbeliever... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Jebus is gonna save me.

    Or Xenu... One of those guys anyway...

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Speak for yourself nonbeliever... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Sonny Jebus? He kicks ASS!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    2. Re:Speak for yourself nonbeliever... by genner · · Score: 1

      Budda, Zeus, God, one of you guys, do something!
      Help, Satan, you owe me!

    3. Re:Speak for yourself nonbeliever... by Cerberus7 · · Score: 1

      Definitely Xenu. We're talking about volcanoes, after all.

      Check out the seismograph. I can't wait until daylight and we get some pics of what's going on out there.

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    4. Re:Speak for yourself nonbeliever... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but volcanoes you can't see at night suck. Lightning from the dust cloud is a minimum.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  12. I seem to recall that volcano monitoring was labeled as 'Pork'?

    1. Re:Pork by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Informative
      To be fair... I think the US Congress labels any spending that benefits a single state or group as "pork". So, ya, volcano monitoring is pork, but useful pork in my opinion - especially as ash clouds can affect more than just the source state, though this may not be the case given the size of Alaska...

      Not all government pork is bad - insert joke here - ...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Pork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there such a thing as Kosher pork???

    3. Re:Pork by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      To be fair... I think the US Congress labels any spending that benefits a single state or group as "pork". So, ya, volcano monitoring is pork.

      So would watching a super volcano not be pork?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    4. Re:Pork by geobeck · · Score: 1

      ...especially as ash clouds can affect more than just the source state, though this may not be the case given the size of Alaska...

      Given the number of significant active volcanoes in Alaska, and the fact that ash can spread around the world (remember Pinatubo, St. Helens), volcano monitoring in Alaska certainly isn't single-state pork. It's more like global pork--which would bring out the argument by some lawmakers of why they should do anything to benefit the rest of the world instead of keeping the money in the USofA.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    5. Re:Pork by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      If the funding went only to one state, then, ya, the Congress would call it pork. I'm not saying I agree with them on the appropriateness of their label, but that would be the partisan politics of it. Politician can be pretty narrow-minded at times.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    6. Re:Pork by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1
      It would seem to me that the purpose of monitoring a volcano would be to warn people in the immediate area, and not to be able to alert people in distant area that an ash cloud might be heading their way. The eruption itself would be enough of a warning of the possibility of the arrival of an ash cloud from a long distance away.

      So, yes it does seem to be a local issue.

    7. Re:Pork by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not 'pork', but spending directed to specific projects, as opposed to going into the general budget of an executive branch agency, are what they mean by 'earmarks'.

      I.e., for Christmas, you got a 50 gift card to Barnes and Noble. An earmark would require you to spend 10 dollars of that money on a specific book.

      The real joke is that the Republicans are complaining about it. Removing earmarks would simply remove Congressional restrictions on spending...

      ...which would, of course, let Obama decide on the spending. Or, really, let his policy directives do it.(This is, incidentally, one of the legit uses of signing statements. A bill gives the president X amount of money to use on a specific project, and when he signs the bill he divides the money into amounts for various sub-projects. He could do that with an executive order, but if he does it on the bill itself it stays with the bill.)

      I find it exceptionally silly they criticized his signing a bill with earmarks in it. 'Hey, you sign a bill that required you spend money in certain ways. You promised you'd only sign bills that let you spend the money however you wanted! You liar!'. Well, maybe that's exactly the way he wanted to spend the money, who knows? Or, more importantly, who cares? He could have spent that money that way anyway.

      In reality, the problem with earmarks is that they are almost always outside the budget process and hence the money is added to existing funds, not set aside from money already there, and it's not accounted for in any way. Also, they're often on very stupid things, and attached to unrelated bills, which is a general problem in both houses.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    8. Re:Pork by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      One might ask, though, why the federal government is being asked to fund this instead of the state government. Since it only affects Alaska, it ought to be done by Alaska. That is why it is labeled pork.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    9. Re:Pork by sjames · · Score: 1

      To be fair... I think the US Congress labels any spending that benefits a single state or group as "pork".

      Actually U.S. Congressmen label anything that doesn't directly benefit their pet projects and home state as pork.

    10. Re:Pork by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Because there are no volcanoes in Hawaii or Washington state or anything...

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    11. Re:Pork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I apologize for the sarcastic tone of this screed, but I have found it is the only way to vent the ineffable anger that possessed me when I heard David-Thin-Cock say that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. As I elaborate on that concept throughout this screed I will use only simple words and language so that even a child can understand my message. Yes, even a child should know that David-Thin-Cock's devotees believe that David-Thin-Cock can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that all it takes to start a rabbit farm is a magician's magic hat can believe anything, especially if it's false.
      Think about this: if David-Thin-Cock had done his homework, he'd know that I frequently wish to tell him that he displays the paranoid malice that is the hallmark of true academicism. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. As reluctant as I am to admit it, my cause is to compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that if we don't compare, contrast, and identify the connections among different kinds of overweening nihilism, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, David-Thin-Cock thinks I'm trying to say that big emotions come from big words. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over David-Thin-Cock's head.
      If David-Thin-Cock thinks that he can make me fall into the traps set for me by his goombahs then he's barking up the wrong tree. We must lead us all toward a better, brighter future. This call to action begins with you. You must be the first to drag David-Thin-Cock in front of a tribunal and try him for his crimes against humanity. You must be the one to snap his admirers out of their trance. And you must inform your fellow man that if David-Thin-Cock is incapable of discerning the mad ramblings of self-absorbed rascals from the wisdom and nuance embedded in a sage's discourse then I seriously doubt that he'll be capable of determining that he will probably respond to this screed just like he responds to all criticism. He will put me down as "avaricious" or "anal-retentive". That's his standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise.
      David-Thin-Cock's ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained in large part by the following. David-Thin-Cock keeps saying that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. For some reason, David-Thin-Cock's shills actually believe this nonsense. He is firmly convinced that everything is happy and fine and good. His belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that I am truly at a loss for words when David-Thin-Cock asserts that fetishism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. He can't possibly be serious. I suspect that the real story here is that David-Thin-Cock's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of radicalism and you'll see a hectoring bum hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of fascism in a lackadaisical, juvenile attempt to ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of slovenly troglodytes. Unt

  13. Re:Correction... 5 NOT 4 eruptions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    2009-03-23 02:04:08
    As of 2:00AM March 23, 2009, AVO has recorded FOUR large explosions [...]

    2009-03-23 04:37:08
    Another large explosion is occurring at Redoubt.

    (which IS from TFA)

  14. How much CO2 would this dump into the atmosphere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just curious what the #cars per eruption ratio is.

  15. A new record for currency! by Arancaytar · · Score: 0

    This news item is only one week old - this is surely a record for timely reporting. :)

  16. The Devil Comes for Republicans by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When Republican governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal took to TV immediately after President Obama's address to the Joint Session of Congress last month, he whined that the government funded volcano monitoring is "wasteful spending". Of course he was lying, since he said "$140M for volcano monitoring", when that money is for USGS "facilities and equipment, including stream gages, seismic and volcano monitoring systems and national map activities", all kinds of important stuff for running and protecting our country.

    Then Jindal went into some kind of weird story about his standing for sanity during Hurricane Katrina (which he was lying about, too - and it was a story about the lone Democrat getting things done, surrounded by Republicans including Jindal doing nothing but flapping their lips). Reminding us what happens when the government doesn't monitor predictable local natural disasters that kill thousands and destroy cities.

    This was the official Republican response. Maybe they just want to keep secret their main competition for spewing filthy hot air that kills Americans.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think Jindal was talking about using Stimulus money to fund volcano monitoring. Sorry, but I have to agree with him here. Monitoring volcanoes does nothing to STIMULATE the economy. Now if he were opposed to a stand-alone bill that spent $140,000,000/yr for volcano monitoring, then your points may be valid.

      As to Jindal lying about his actions during Katrina, I can't seem to find your posts of outrage when Hillary Clinton claimed she was shot at in Bosnia, Barack Obama's claims that he had no ties to William Ayers or Tony Rezko, or his ignorance of the blatant racism of his pastor for 20 years. Where is your outrage over a guy who ducked paying taxes being put in charge of the IRS?

      Sorry Doc, but if you want to at least appear to be non-partisan, you must at least make an faux attempt to apply the same standards to both sides. Truth is that there are good people on both sides of the aisle, although few and far between. You really shouldn't hate someone just because of the letter after their name. You used to be fair and smarter than that. Seeing that you've become a hateful, partisan hack disappointments me.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's spending money, right?

      To pay people's wages? That sounds exactly like stimulus.

      To buy equipment? That sounds exactly like stimulus too.

      Sure less multiplier effects than say building roads and bridges to connect industries to transport hubs/people, but you can't say it "does nothing to STIMULATE the economy", since clearly it does.

      Of course stimulating the economy by borrowing/printing money is retarded anyway, but that's beside the point.

    3. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by praedictus · · Score: 1

      Should have spent a little more to ash proof the seismometers. Looks like 2 of the 4 webicorders have gone titsup. RSO went off the air at 4:45 and RDN as of 6:03 am akst. Unless its the slashdot effect melting them.

      --
      Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
    4. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by praedictus · · Score: 1

      Oops, just RSO is off the air, rdn was just slow refreshing.

      --
      Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
    5. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's spending money, right?

      To pay people's wages? That sounds exactly like stimulus.

      To buy equipment? That sounds exactly like stimulus too.

      Sure less multiplier effects than say building roads and bridges to connect industries to transport hubs/people, but you can't say it "does nothing to STIMULATE the economy", since clearly it does.

      Of course stimulating the economy by borrowing/printing money is retarded anyway, but that's beside the point.

      Well, if simply paying wages is the goal, then you could pay a LOT more wages for $140,000,000 a year than you could by simply monitoring volcanoes. How much of that money is spent monitoring volcanoes overseas? How many American jobs does it provide? What is the LONG TERM stimulus to the economy when compared to say a school which employs teachers, janitors, administrators for decades, not to mention educating kids?

      Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against volcano monitoring, but not under guise of "stimulus". $140,000,000/yr will provide 2800 people with $50,000/yr jobs that actually build something, fix something, or make life easier for someone else, all of which would stimulate the economy much more than a few geologists sitting around collecting steam and ash data from a non-active volcano in the Phillipines. Again, I'm not saying it's not important, but it certain is not stimulus.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    6. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Equipment for monitoring volcano's does not belong, and has no business in an economic stimulus package. How many jobs are created from "steam gauges, seismic and volcano monitoring systems and national map activities?"

    7. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $140,000,000/yr will provide 2800 people with $50,000/yr jobs that actually build something, fix something, or make life easier for someone else

      Except with that math, how would the raw materials be paid for? Facilities? Tools? You can't just make jobs out of thin air. There needs to be work for them to do.

    8. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Interesting

      $140,000,000/yr will provide 2800 people with $50,000/yr jobs that actually build something, fix something, or make life easier for someone else

      Except with that math, how would the raw materials be paid for? Facilities? Tools? You can't just make jobs out of thin air. There needs to be work for them to do.

      Um... OK. How about we take the money that was to be spent on steam gauges and what-not and spend it on concrete, lumber and rebar? How about we invest it on green energy, nuclear plants or research into how to turn a volcano into a power station? My point was that there are a million different ways to spend this money that would really qualify as stimulus and do more to benefit the average unemployed auto/construction/technical worker than monitoring volcanoes.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    9. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So you are okay with Bobby Jindal having no morals and lying as long as everyone else is lying? Two or three wrongs make a right? Or are you suggesting that every time you note someone is lying you have to find someone on the other side that lied in the last ten years (on matters that are irrelevant to the current discussion) to be "fair"?

      Bullshit. Katrina wiped a ton of Americans out because the government didn't monitor the situation. Jindal says we should not monitor volcanoes. He lied about his experience. Why do you insist on changing the subject? Because you are a partisan hack yourself.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    10. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by Ken+D · · Score: 1

      You do know that a stream gaging station requires spending on concrete, lumber, and rebar, right?
      Plus construction labor, and transportation expenses, right?
      Plus electronics, and solar cells.

      http://geology.com/articles/gaging-station.shtml

    11. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by brizzadizza · · Score: 1

      Two things:
      1. GP made no claim about being non-partisan. His post clearly was partisan.

      2. Clinton in bosnia, Obama and Ayers or failing to pay taxes all have nothing to do with a volcano erupting. The political connection comes from Jindal specifically mentioning volcanoes and obliquely from New Orleans and hurricane katrina. This is a story about a natural disaster, not a lying politician.

      bonus bonus bonus point point point!!

      3. Even if the GP's central theme was lying politicians he doesn't have to keep quiet just because some politicians he may or may not share affiliations with also lied! A standard conservative tactic is "You to!" Which does nothing to address the criticism leveled at their leadership.

    12. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US economy could be stimulated by paying people to (re)build the infratstructure that's be allowed to languish. However, given the obsession with outsourcing, this would probably entail giving loads of money to CEOs of large corporations so they can import Chinese (or other cheap) labour to do the work rather than paying for over-priced US labour.

    13. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      I'd estimate it employs a good number of engineers, scientists, and anyone at the factories who manufacture this stuff.

      When you pay money to produce something, it doesn't just vanish into thin air.

    14. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      You do know that a stream gaging station requires spending on concrete, lumber, and rebar, right?
      Plus construction labor, and transportation expenses, right?
      Plus electronics, and solar cells.

      http://geology.com/articles/gaging-station.shtml

      Right, but what good does it do for the economy? Steam monitoring stations require a handful of jobs to produce, set up and monitor. That's nothing compared to a school, federal building, museum, algae-to-ethanol research center or whatever that provides LONG TERM economic growth, which makes in an investment that actually has a return! Throwing $140,000,000 worth of $10 bills out an airplane window would do more to stimulate the American economy than a set of steam monitoring stations in the mountains of Alaska, the Philippines, Japan, and wherever else this money is going!

      And before you start telling me about the benefit of knowing when volcanoes will erupt, can you tell me the last time a volcano erupted without our previous knowledge? Right! So why the extra $140,000,000 thrown into a "stimulus" package that could do a whole lot more "stimulating" elsewhere?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    15. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      having the government simply spend money will not create sustainable jobs; it will tend to increase inflation and promote economic stagnation that, in the long term, will destroy jobs. at some point the government will have to stop playing the role of the primary consumer.

    16. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When you pay money to produce something, it doesn't just vanish into thin air."
      So you subscribe to the the theory that smashing all windows in your neighborhood is good for the economy because you're paying money to produce the glass for the smashed windows.

    17. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Well you only need stimulus if there is enough money in private hands, but people are weary of investing it. So ideally the state should spend stimulus money so that it saves money in the long term. Now if that monitoring would lead to prevent economic damage due to some natural disaster - that could save money in the long term. Maybe it's not the most efficient way to spend the money (that's close to impossible to assess) but it seems reasonably sensible. I would guess there are plenty of other spending items which are more worthy of criticism.

      Let's be reasonable in our expectation of politicians (even though complaining about them comes more natural) - it's not trivial to come up with large numbers of *sensible* projects to suddenly spend money on. It is a difficult job to make sure the money is not wasted, with all sorts of lobbyist and corrupt officials trying to get a cut somehow. So really - why attack this item out of all the other possibilities?

    18. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It obviously is stimulus.

      It creates more spending (either indirectly by the workers spending their wages, or directly by purchasing equipment/fuel/etc) and is thus a stimulus.

      Yes other things are much better, because they have multiplier effect.

      Just because something is not the best way to do something, doesn't mean it doesn't do it at all.

    19. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      That's obviously a different thing. That takes money that would have been spent on other things and instead spends it on replacing the glass. It just moves things around and hence there is no net difference (other than the loss of the windows which is clearly a loss of capital and hence a bad thing).

      There's no movement in this case, the government is just creating money out of thin air and handing it out to some volcano monitoring types to buy stuff with. Hence whatever they buy and cause the production of is new and not* just a movement of things around.

      * In reality the money is either borrowed and hence needs to be repaid in the future, so we have just moved things around in time (and due to interest at a net loss). Or it's printed in which case inflation destroys the equivalent amount of capital/wealth in the future, so again it's a movement around in time.

    20. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hillary Clinton lied. It was a really stupid lie, because she's a really stupid person. But her career is done after the end of the Obama administration and she will never be president, so I don't really give a shit.

      Barack Obama never claimed to not know William Ayers or Tony Rezko. He simply denied being their special time friends, which isn't very surprising because people with connections know thousands of people and hardly any of them are their super special time friends.
      Barack Obama said he wasn't present for the sermons in question, and by all accounts he wasn't. But that's ok, because while paranoid and stupid (stupidity in a church?!), they weren't really all that racist.

      A few people that make enough money to have people prepare their taxes had errors that represented a fraction of their tax burden. You might too, but no one looks because you aren't important. Let me know when someone appoints Wesley Snipes and he claims he's not a U.S. citizen and thus doesn't have to pay taxes.

      I am not a Democrat or a Republican, and I don't really care if you think I am non-partisan or not since you appear to be full of shit from the start, but you should go back to the drawing board, find one of the numerous fringe liberals that subscribes to some kind of Luddite beliefs where collective funding of natural disasters is teh wrong and we can both laugh at it. Otherwise you can take your false equivalence, predicated on misinformation, and stuff it up your ass, where you seem to keep your head.

    21. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not having people die may not be "stimulus", buts its, you know, a pretty decent thing to do. Or, if nothing else, its pretty cool.

    22. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by gillbates · · Score: 1

      his ignorance of the blatant racism of his pastor for 20 years

      Link please.

      I've heard people call his pastor a racist, but I've none of his remarks I've heard to date would lead me to that conclusion. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

      When the term racist becomes an epithet used to discredit people purely on political disagreements, it marginalizes the struggles of the oppressed in this country. While some people may take for granted the fact that peoples of all colors can coexist peacefully in this country, it wasn't always so. People died in the struggle for justice, and I'd hate to think that someone would so carelessly marginalize their struggle for the sake of winning an unrelated political argument.

      --
      The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    23. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well lets be realistic - without monitoring in volcanic hot-spots - those people in that economy could all be killed by a freak event, sure it could still happen anyway, but wouldn't you want some warning?

      Its all good saying protect the economy and all that but you have too preserve the civilization that supports it first and foremost.

    24. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by Uberbah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Monitoring volcanoes does nothing to STIMULATE the economy.

      You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. Monitoring makes jobs and buys equipment (creating more jobs). That's stimulus, straight up. That it might not be your favored form of stimulus, but that does nothing whatsoever to change the fact that it is stimulus.

      And seriously, what kind of moron is going to oppose disaster preparedness after Katrina? Pinching pennies on preparedness is a penny wise, pound asinine decision. Save a few million on dike repair, loose a few hundred billion when a hurricane wipes out a major city. Hmmm, that's a tough one.

      I can't seem to find your posts of outrage when Hillary Clinton claimed she was shot at in Bosnia

      Did you look? And even if he didn't, on what planet does that change the fact that Jindal was full of it?

      Barack Obama's claims that he had no ties to William Ayers or Tony Rezko, or his ignorance of the blatant racism of his pastor for 20 years.

      Wow, why didn't you mention how Bill Clinton was responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge, how he killed Vince Foster, how Gary Condit killed Chandra Levy, how Obama is really a Muslim not born in the U.S., or how FEMA is starting concentration camps for conservatives. If you're going to blather pathetic Republican lies, why not go all out?

      Seeing that you've become a hateful, partisan hack disappointments me.

      Pot. Kettle. Black.

    25. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Didn't Jindal actually call it "something called volcano monitoring?" Just in case we missed how opposed he was to it, he let us know that he wasn't even interested in what it actually was.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    26. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monitoring volcanoes does nothing to STIMULATE the economy. Now if he were opposed to a stand-alone bill that spent $140,000,000/yr for volcano monitoring, then your points may be valid.

      Wrongo. Gov't spending money on volcano monitoring does stimulate the economy. It doesn't really matter what you're spending it on so long as the people who get it continue to circulate it rather than sitting on it. So yeah, assuming the scientists who get the money go to restaurants and buy stuff for their kids with their salaries, and the equipment manufacturers who sell the monitors use the proceeds from sales to buy clothes for the winter from their local malls or buy food from grocery stores, then this expense certainly belongs in the stimulus package as it makes its way through the economy and helps keep the US going.

      Oh, and we get some monitoring of natural disasters out of it too.

    27. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Why not give ME 140 million US dollars? I promise to spend it entirely on American made products. Wouldn't it be stimulus?

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    28. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      It would be. That's how the first stimulus package was done, sending a bunch of people some cash - a smaller amount obviously.

      Sending every american a check for 1,000,000 freshly printed dollars would be too.

      All it does is create inflation of course, but inflation is GDP growth apparently.

  17. Link to a story by Matt+Perry · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  18. Re:How much CO2 would this dump into the atmospher by MilesAttacca · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just remember, all the debris kicked up into the atmosphere could actually cause global cooling. Reference the drop in average world temperature caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo awhile back.

    --
    98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smoke, and have sex. Put this in your sig if you like bagels.
  19. Correction... 5 NOT 4 eruptions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Anchorage Daily News is reporting 5 eruptions here

    /Former resident of Eagle River, AK
    //Saw Mt Redoubt the last time it erupted.
    ///Well, at least until the ash obscured the view.

  20. A poem by SoundGuyNoise · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mount Redoubt has blown its spout. Throwing ash and soot about.

    --
    You never expect irony, do you?
    Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
    @iyfwrestling
    1. Re:A poem by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      But with no big rocks, it's just faking its flout.
      You're not in danger, so don't pout.

      --
      Be relentless!
    2. Re:A poem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Burma Shave

  21. Re:How much CO2 would this dump into the atmospher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course this would be temporary cooling, the gasses (warming) released from the event would persist for longer periods of time in the atmosphere than the particulates (cooling).

  22. Not at the moment, she's on her knees by Barsteward · · Score: 5, Funny

    praying for forgiveness for upsetting her god...

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    1. Re:Not at the moment, she's on her knees by cthulu_mt · · Score: 5, Funny

      You had me at "on her knees".

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    2. Re:Not at the moment, she's on her knees by WindBourne · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      upsetting her god...
      Why? how did she upset the neo-cons?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Not at the moment, she's on her knees by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      This is "Insightful" how?

      +1 Funny.

    4. Re:Not at the moment, she's on her knees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modding a post Funny doesn't affect a user's karma; Insightful does.

      The Funny mod should only be used on ACs' posts and those which you think are amusingly bad.

    5. Re:Not at the moment, she's on her knees by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Moderator thought that choice was "inciteful"

  23. Re:How much CO2 would this dump into the atmospher by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

    Car: About 3600 kg for an average car (http://www.terrapass.com/carbon-footprint-calculator/)
    Volcanoes (average for all of them each year): 130,000,000,000 kg (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php)
    Didn't find anything on one volcano.

    So about 36 million cars = all the volcanoes for CO2 emissions.

  24. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  25. Re:How much CO2 would this dump into the atmospher by whoop · · Score: 2, Funny

    The only proper measurement here is how many MP3s would fit in a standard volcanic eruption.

  26. Sarah Palin Jokes, How Original! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Wow, you are all so witty with your Sarah Palin jokes! Those definitely didn't get old!

    1. Re:Sarah Palin Jokes, How Original! by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

      Especially when all of their quotes are from "Saturday Night Live" skits.

      Maybe we should get some good democrat quotes from the same source, like: "It depends on what your definition of is is", "I did not have sex with that woman", "I smoked, but I didn't inhale". Oh wait, those aren't ...

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:Sarah Palin Jokes, How Original! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just like sarcasm amirite

    3. Re:Sarah Palin Jokes, How Original! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I know. Those jokes are getting old and haggard like Sarah. Yes?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Sarah Palin Jokes, How Original! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES, ladies and gentleman, coming at you all the way from 1999 is SnarfQueeeeeest! Let's have a round of applause for jokes older than most elementary school children! Yeaaaaah!

  27. Re:YEP by sabs · · Score: 1

    Wow, you've been sipping the kool-aid pretty hardcore lately haven't you.

    Obama isn't perfect, but you sir have taken paranoidal delusion to a whole new level of fun.

  28. Re:Massive planetary chaos by Vectronic · · Score: 1

    This got -1 Flamebait, but should probably +1 Funny, or if this was Fox News, +1 Informative.

    This is likely how many so-called News reporters will cover it, they'll take something like "there have been reports of birds fleeing the area", and "an estimated 30 animals were killed in the first explosion" something that's pretty much expected, but not bother noting that, then they'll bring on some pseudo-scientist proclaiming the global impact of this, possible rises is mosquito breeding, then transitioning into "here's Dr. Doom, on the recent status of bird flu..." without making note of the fact it's an unrelated report, making it seems as though there is a correlation between this eruption and something else.

  29. 15 240 meters by haeger · · Score: 4, Funny

    Since everyone but Myanmar, Liberia and the United States use the metric system I just thought I'd point out the hight of the ash cloud.

    In case you don't know this obscure "ft" unit. ;-)

    --
    You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
    1. Re:15 240 meters by chinakow · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the British use feet for aviation and MPH for cars. oh and something called "stone" for weighing people. If you want to rail against non-standardization(non-standardisation) go ahead, just remember you are probably just calling the kettle black.

    2. Re:15 240 meters by gawaino · · Score: 1

      Glossary: hight = measured in meters height = measured in ft

    3. Re:15 240 meters by JimR · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't forget the British use feet for aviation

      And I thought we used wings...

      --
      #exclude <ms/windows.h>
    4. Re:15 240 meters by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I think you can actually SEE the ash cloud on Doppler.... (not from Sarah's yard). Try antimating this map and comparing it to this map.

      Looks like the Doppler is picking up the plume.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:15 240 meters by 200_success · · Score: 1

      This is one instance where feet are the relevant units to use. In aviation worldwide, altitude is reported in feet. It's hard-coded in the equipment and regulations. Pilots and air traffic controllers have all developed an intuition for feet. Any change would have to be coordinated internationally, and be extremely dangerous, so it will probably stay that way forever.

    6. Re:15 240 meters by chinakow · · Score: 1

      I should have seen that coming.

    7. Re:15 240 meters by master811 · · Score: 1

      Of course you could be really picky and point out "stones" are used for measuring one's mass not weight.

    8. Re:15 240 meters by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      Most British also won't have a clue what Myanmar is, since they all know it as Burma.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7013943.stm

      </derail>

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    9. Re:15 240 meters by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      1. Most Britons don't fly, making it a non-issue
      2. 8 km to 5 miles, so just pretend the speedo is written in hex to give you km/h
      3. People are the only thing that's measured in stone, and it's more convenient to use the Fat Bastard scale, since that takes height into account

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    10. Re:15 240 meters by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Informative

      not worldwide. russian aviation is fully metric.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    11. Re:15 240 meters by maxume · · Score: 1

      God forbid you just divide by 3. Most people, if you showed them the clouds separately, would have idea that there was a difference between 15,240 m and 16,667 m (numerically, the difference is about 10%).

      Hell, 10,000 m is already pretty abstract (people would tend to think of it in terms of how long it would take to drive or walk that far, but they wouldn't have any sort of useful internal relation to the quantity strictly as a distance, the way we do with a foot or meter).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:15 240 meters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you silly, you just converted 50000 ft into meters. saying 15240 m implies more accuracy than you've got. this is a "round" number. call it 15000 meters, if you please! (or did you actually measure the height of the ash cloud?)

    13. Re:15 240 meters by KORfan · · Score: 1

      What is that in football fields?

  30. Can the devil come for all ideologues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Does politics have to pollute EVERY story here? Seriously, I hate the GOP (hate the Democrats, too), but you raving, spittle dripping ideologues who have to drag politics into every damned story on anything are worse than any of them. Yes, we all know about Jindal's idiocy. You are not unique. You are not special for doing thing. Every point in your post was said in the first 15 minutes after Jindal's original comments.

    Please just die or something. You ideologues, on both sides, are useless.

    1. Re:Can the devil come for all ideologues? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      There's nothing "ideological" about my post. It's purely practical. I'm posting to expose the dangerous lies and stupid preconceptions that Jindal and his party continue to push (all government work is communism and must be stopped) even as we are most in need of coming together to solve the epic problems Jindal's party is responsible for. It's against ideology, in factual, practical terms.

      Whereas your "kill all ideologues, even those who really aren't" is the kind of ideological rant that would, if you applied it, find you killing yourself. Except you're merely an ideologue ranter, not one to practically apply what you say.

      We need volcano monitoring. People who try to stop it must be stopped. People who band together with those people must be stopped. They're dangerous ideologues. That necessity is not "ideology", it's practical survival.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Can the devil come for all ideologues? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I thought all government work was communism which benefited us all? Er, except the work to screw us on behalf of special interests, that is. The communistic stuff is pretty much the only thing the government should be doing. The problem is getting them to stop at the proper point :/

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Can the devil come for all ideologues? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Does politics have to pollute EVERY story here?

      Too damn bad for you. If you AREN'T opposing Republicans after they got over 10,000 Americans killed (911, Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina), blew up the economy and the national debt, then I have to ask you where your head has been the last 8 years.

  31. indeed by eean · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why even bother to predicate hurricanes if government is useless at responding to them.

    "Government is ineffective, vote for us and we'll show you how!" - traditional GOP motto.

    1. Re:indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Why even bother to predicate hurricanes if government is useless at responding to them."

      ...so that YOU can get out of the way. Why do you want the Government to do anything FOR you? Try proving Darwin correct.

    2. Re:indeed by eean · · Score: 1

      I'd like government to tell me when a hurricane is coming, for one.

    3. Re:indeed by againjj · · Score: 1

      Damn! Predict, not predicate. I generally don't do this, but that was bad.

    4. Re:indeed by eean · · Score: 1

      Yea it was, blame it on lack of comment editing in slashdot. :)

  32. Re:How much CO2 would this dump into the atmospher by Vectronic · · Score: 1

    http://www.volcanolive.com/vei.html

    Claims "20-30", so about 1.2 million cars per volcano. Give or take a fair bit because the "lava flow" ones would be putting out a fare bit as well.

    52 Million cars are projected to be made this year, and going by 3600kg per car, means they will be putting out about 187 billion kg ontop of the millions of cars already out there.

    Provided all of the 4 sites are correct, the emissions from cars a year is probably about 5 to 8 times more than volcanoes a year.

  33. Re:YEP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Yes, a document full of facts and factual stements and factual observations is delusional. That makes sense. Care to refute any of it, or just ad-hominate and suggest the guy telling the truth is a nut.

    Very very MINITRU of you.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth

    Thats a sign of being a useful idiot, you know. Not looking at facts.

  34. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans tsarkon reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news today, despite crushing amounts of spending, fusion still does not exist, cancer is not cured and no new nuclear power plants have been built (or are even planned in the "stimulus" ) ensuring our dealings with the middle-eastern TERR_OIL barons for some time to come.

    Public fucking spending is working so great :)

  35. Be nice to DOC RUBY!!! by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Please, don't hammer Doc. He's brilliant, although as of late, misguided. His posts can be fair, open and extremely insightful when he's not just typing with his heart instead of his head. While emotional responses are usually not a problem, in Doc's case, his heart has been filled with partisan hatred of late. I'm hoping that his head will take back over and clean out all the illogical, off balance hatred that has clouded his otherwise sound judgment.

    For example, (and to get back on topic) imagine his outrage if a Republican had spent $140,000,000/yr to monitor volcanoes. He would be screaming in all caps and bold that this was some sort of a payoff to Sarah Palin. He would say that the US has not had a major eruption since Mt. St. Helens in the mid 80's. He would also point out that since this eruption was predicted and prepared for, there is no need to spend MORE money for monitoring since the current system obviously works fine with the current funding.

    I look forward to the day when I can read Doc's posts again and think, "Wow! That bastard made sense."

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Be nice to DOC RUBY!!! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, your post was kinda flattering, if inaccurate. I thank you for the accurate flattery :).

      I've been much less "partisan" since Republicans lost most of their power after holding way too much for way too long. I don't know how I look otherwise. FWIW, my "partisan" attitude is not so much a Democratic partisan, because I'm not a Democrat (I'm independent), as it is highly anti Republican, since that party has been such a damaging collection of bad people for so long, and we're so damaged by it.

      In this case, you're going along with Jindal's Republican lie that $140M is spent by Democrats on volcano monitoring, when I pointed out the fact is that the monitoring gets only a (relatively small) fraction of that overall budget amount. And though Republicans did indeed spend some considerable money on volcano monitoring when they were the ones writing, passing and signing USGS budgets, I never complained - because I never saw evidence it was too much. In fact, if I'd seen evidence that it was too little, I probably would have complained. As I just did when Jindal attacked it, even if he has only lies and partisan posturing to offer, without power to screw up that budget (at the present time). Indeed, I could have pointed out the further Republican hypocrisy of Sarah Palin not only accepting the money Jindal badmouthed (but can't stop), but Palin's refusing to even comment on that dramatic divergence from the official Republican position on that budget, even as she continues to run for president. Because I'm talking about Jindal, disaster preparedness, and Republican refusal to learn from Katrina (or anything else), not the vaster and duller subject of mere Republican hypocrisy.

      If you can show evidence that the current system (including the safety of USGS/contractor jobs in this Republican recession) "works fine" without the stimulus budget, I'd like to see it. All I can see is Jindal claiming he learned from his (imaginary, and self-defeating as a fable) Katrina experience that the government shouldn't fund monitoring for natural disasters. Katrina was predicted by government monitoring, too, but the full necessary system under Republican control and development didn't seem to "work fine". Except to Jindal, for whom it works fine as a (made up, self-defeating) story to tell on TV.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Be nice to DOC RUBY!!! by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Good to have you back Doc!

      That post made sense, you bastard!

      Well, except for the Katrina part. The problem there was you had a Republican on top who respects (expects) state's rights. GWB was even a former state governor next door to Louisiana and didn't take many federal handouts. In New Orleans Louisiana, you had a Democratic Governor and a Democratic Mayor, both respect (expect) big government help from above. So, what you ended up with was a bunch of "leaders" standing around waiting for the next guy to make a move. Notice that Florida and Texas, both of which were hit with bigger, more damaging hurricanes, didn't suffer from such problems. Both have Republican Governors. Even during Katrina, Texas was more prepared than Louisiana, and the hurricane didn't even hit there!!

      Of course, an ideal situation would have been a Republican governor with a Democratic President. Then you'd have the National Guard and other state resources competing with FEMA to see who could get services there first.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:Be nice to DOC RUBY!!! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thanks, here's some more sense. Bush's "respect" for "states rights" saw him ignore Louisiana's request for allowing New Mexico's offered National Guard. The Posse Comitatus act protects states from a rogue governor colluding with a nearby state's invasion, requiring the Federal government to approve any accepted offer for "help" by other states sending their National Guard. Louisiana governor Blanco made the formal request the week before Katrina hit, as New Mexico governor Richardson had offered to send help. Katrina hit on Sunday, but the White House didn't even respond until the following Thursday, during which time New Orleans got whipped, then flooded, and lay drowning in the flood for several days. Though Bush didn't just "ignore" the request: he tried to force Blanco to give up control of the National Guard to Bush, by withholding permission until she agreed. Considering how many people were killed by Federal troops in New Orleans and around the Gulf Coast unnecessarily, Blanco's restraint was exactly what our system provided for when it gave the governors the power to refuse to let their guard be "nationalized".

      But that's just one example, the most immediate. Everyone knows how badly Bush's FEMA failed New Orleans at every step, including to date - 3.5 years later. Most should know that Bush and his Republican Congress, including one of Louisiana's senators, defunded the Federal levees and the other emergency/relief systems everyone counted on, severely once they got the chance. Leaving Louisiana to drown, and then rot while the rest of the Gulf Coast got funded to clean up, was a Republican policy.

      Texas was more "prepared" during Katrina because Bush's Republicans continued funding Texas' preparations, since Texas was a wholly owned Republican corruption operation. But I don't know how prepared Texas actually was for Katrina, since all we have is Texans' word for it - and the Republicans who ran the whole operation, their political headquarters in Texas.

      BTW, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin is a Republican. Louisiana elections are nonpartisan for in-state offices. Nagin personally donates as much to Republican campaigns as to Democratic ones, but his Democratic donations are to people directly connected to Louisiana or himself personally. He donated to get Bush elected - not exactly a Democratic move. And I knew that he was Republican (he had been CEO of the local Cox cable corp) when I voted for him in 2002, when I lived there. Maybe that makes us both "nonpartisan", but there's nothing "Democratic" about Nagin, or how much I hate him.

      "Big government" help is exactly what's needed in the biggest hurricanes in history. It's what was needed when Katrina hit, and in maintaining defenses. It's what was needed when Republicans instead deregulated our financial system. It's what was needed to protect us from the 9/11/2001 planebombs. Bush and his Republicans proved that "shrinking government to drown in the bathtub" just drowns Americans along with it, literally in the case of Katrina.

      This whole conversation is weird. Everyone knows how badly Republicans failed Louisiana in Katrina. Jindal's own story is one of a whole bunch of Republicans failing to do anything except bureaucracy, except for the lone Democrat: Sheriff Harry Lee (who I also hated), who actually cut the BS to get people rescued. Jindal's story is a lie he made up for TV, but the facts it's loosely based on are true, and tell of universal Republican failure and a Democrat's heroic effort.

      An ideal situation would be people choosing officials from the Democratic Party and at least one other party in competition to provide boring government competence, even in "exciting" events like volcanoes and hurricanes. With Republicans filling half the duopoly, we're getting nothing but neverending catastrophe.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  36. Re:How much CO2 would this dump into the atmospher by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

    Provided all of the 4 sites are correct, the emissions from cars a year is probably about 5 to 8 times more than volcanoes a year.

    Not counting the CO2 from the production of the cars.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  37. Re:YEP by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Care to refute any of it...

    Well, I can refute something in there pretty easily: We have no one in government called 'Chairman Obama'. So pretty much any statement that mentioned 'Chairman Obama' is blatantly wrong on the face of it.

    Also, why'd you include links to the 2007 and 2009 budget? Obama, neither your imaginary 'Chairman Obama' nor the actual President Obama, had anything to do with those budgets. (Well, beyond the fact he was in the Senate at that time...but the House does the budget.)

    Those were just the two things that it's trivially easy to disprove and not even up for debate.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  38. Why not? by coryking · · Score: 4, Funny

    New Orleans don't need government waste like something called "volcano monitoring". We should all move to places like New Orleans where they dont need to waste all that kind of money monitoring something that may or may not happen. ...Good to know I'm not the only one who thought Jindel bashing volcano monitoring was highly ironic.

  39. No, no, no... by denzacar · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's a imaginary place in the Simon & Garfunkel song.

    Kinda like Shangri-La, El-Dorado, Hobbiton or New Zealand.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  40. Saddly 50K feet is too low by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1
    to see any potential effect of the global cooling of these events. We'll have to wait for a bigger one in order to update some of those climate science base lines.

    Still waiting for the big one

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  41. Re:How much CO2 would this dump into the atmospher by geobeck · · Score: 1

    No, no, no! I keep telling you, the universal capacity unit is libraries of Congress!

    Just don't confuse LoC with Congress itself when you're talking about capacity for hot gases; Congress has an infinite capacity for hot air.

    --
    Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  42. 75.76 furlongs by geobeck · · Score: 1

    ...because it's a much more suitable unit for this distance.

    --
    Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  43. Mount Redoubt? by afabbro · · Score: 1

    I bet the guy who originally named that mountain feels silly right now.

    "This looks like a good spot for our redoubt...

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  44. What We Can Do by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, you've nailed it exactly (though unfortunately there's more people than just the dwindling "right" that is stuck on the doomed path).

    The debate over causes of climate change is worthwhile only as a means to the end of identifying what we can change here and now to avert disaster. We can't change the frequency and size of volcanic eruptions. But we can reverse the destruction of vegetation that naturally balances our atmosphere, but now synthetically unbalances us as we burn it instead of grow it. And even bigger and more changeable is the amount of ancient vegetation in fossil fuels that once stored Greenhouse gases, giving our atmosphere a stable, mild climate, that we now burn to "fire up" the Greenhouse.

    The real answers don't come from finding someone to blame. They come from finding what we can change. And as hard as the beneficiaries (and irrational lovers/phobics) of petrofuels might make it to change, they're still easier than changing the volcanoes. And, as far as we can tell right now, probably sufficient. So it's worth identifying their contributions, then scaling them down.

    If our climate change and energy debates revolved more around who can change instead of who to blame, we might get workable consensus much faster and more easily.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:What We Can Do by Benfea · · Score: 1

      I see you've bought into the lies by the International Conspiracy of Climatologists. Why do you hate America?

    2. Re:What We Can Do by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Obviously because climatologists control the weather. I fear their power, so I bow to their lies.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:What We Can Do by pod · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I don't see the current debate about climate change revolving around who to blame. There's certainly no one person/country/industry/activity to pin it on when you're looking at global patterns over centuries.

      Where do you get this idea from?

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    4. Re:What We Can Do by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Plenty (though a shrinking minority) of people are still denying that human activity causes climate change. There's plenty of those kinds of comments even in my subthread, the rest of this story's discussion, and lots of places people talk about the causes of climate change. Mainly some (losing) debate that the cause isn't humans (the Sun, unknown cycles, "god's wrath"). Not so much "which humans", though I'd expect some people insisting on their own privileges to pollute will blame the more recently developed countries, "because they're the ones who tipped the balance". And variations on those themes.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  45. Re:haha tsarkon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi David Thin Cock.

    yes, your chimp in the whitehouse (can we call him chimp like you did to Shrub, or is that no PC, oh well, fuck you) is the threat, HE is the clear and present danger and he is who the WAR is with. That fuck is going to usher in the dissolution of this union.

    Fuck you, the war is now with Snobama, and with you, his fucking anti-constitutional traitor treasonists. You are up for a good old tar and feathing you fucking god damn tax, redistribute scum. The Tea Party in 2010 will be throwing YOU in the fucking water, YOU ARE THE TAX, you are the fucking leach.

  46. Silly Repukes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's kinda funny. Remember how all the Goopers where whining about money spent on volcano monitoring?

    Once again, reality just slaps conservative stupidity in the face.

  47. Re:How much CO2 would this dump into the atmospher by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I am always amazed when I see conservatives scream that volcanoes put out far more CO2 than our cars do, while ignoring simple math like this. Nice post.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  48. Re:Link to a Twitter Feed by jmichaelg · · Score: 1

    Here's a twitter feed that provides more current information than the sfgate story.

  49. Re:How much CO2 would this dump into the atmospher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Volcanic Eruptions throw particulates into the
    atmosphere and thus have a cooling effect. The
    amount of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere
    due to all volcanism world wide per year is
    uncertain but estimated to be far less than one
    half of one percent of the contribution due to
    human activity.

  50. Fixed it for you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Shangri-La, El Dorado, Hobbiton, or France"

  51. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans tsarkon by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First of all, you can't predict earthquakes, except in the case of aftershocks. We aren't 'monitoring' earthquakes to predict them, we're simply studying them to see if we can predict them, and to predict tsunamis and volcanoes.

    Secondly, tsunami predictions have saved quite a lot of lives. The last disastrous tsunami, in fact, was predicted in plenty of time to help people, except that there wasn't a unified warning system for the area and that the various countries hit are still mostly third world and had no way to notify their people.

    Tsunamis in general are incredibly easy to predict. You just wait for an largeish earthquake, which can easily see on semographs, and then look for swelling of the ocean at that place. It is sheer stupidity we don't have some sort of global monitoring for them. Two hours after the quake that caused the last one, four hours before it hit anywhere, radar satellites picked the damn thing up. We could easily just tie together existing systems and have fair warning of these things.

    And, of course, the monitoring of Mount Pinatubo saved 10-20 thousand lives when it erupted in 1991. In total, the entire monitoring of that volcano, in the decade the US had done it, came to about 15 million dollars. (Or about the cost of having one guy from AIG work for them that entire time.)

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  52. Re:haha tsarkon by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Funny

    And this is why parents need to monitor their children's internet activity, at least until they're 14 or so.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  53. Quick someone tell Jindal by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

    Quick someone tell Jindal to use a time machine and go back in time to tell himself not to slam volcano monitoring. FASTER! FASTER! FASTER!

  54. About the eruption by jonfr · · Score: 1

    Because of lack of data I cannot be sure. But my best guess is that this eruption is just warming up at the moment. It is also my best guess that this eruption is going be in full power after 24 to 72 hours.

    The amount of ash that can be excepted in Mount Pinatubo levels or larger. However, that won't be clear until after the eruption it self.

    This might be the second large eruption in Alaska in less then 12 months. Last big eruption there took place in April or May 2008. It did create volcano sunset around the globe and possible did cool the planet around 0.1 to 0.3C.

    Mount Pinatubo info.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

  55. Re:YEP by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 1

    Chairman Obama is drastically increasing spending and creating more entitlements that will make the US less competitive [etc.]

    Well, economists differ a little on this I guess. Another viewpoint is that unless we increase spending, demand will continue to plummet, businesses will continue to scale back production, (etc. etc., I'm no economist) and ultimately your kids will be left poor. It's all a little byzantine, so I can't really speak to the veracity of either argument, but it's not entirely black-and-white as you say.

    Rahm and Obama are using Blagojevich and trying to cut his head off to keep him away

    That's interesting. Do you have a source for that? Well, either way, if/when Blagojevich is indicted I expect he'll be rather vocal about anyone who put him in that situation.

    An alternative to the dollar and a forex and a reserve currency came up at the last G20 meeting. The world will not take faith in Obama's liar-socialist spending and welfare state

    This probably has more to do with the fact that the U.S. economy has been crumbling, and there's no conceivable way to pin that failure entirely on Obama, since it predates his presidency. Which isn't to say I blame the previous administration; the economy is fucking complicated. Shit happens.
    Besides, a good chunk of those G20 countries are socialist themselves. Socialism doesn't freak them out like it freaks out Americans.

    As the US nationalizes (read: rations healthcare) to the least common denominator

    The evidence suggests that health care tends to be better and cheaper in developed countries employing socialism. Not always.

    I'm not saying your all wrong, and your skepticism is admirable (if a little over-focused on one side of the political landscape). I'll reply to more later when I have the time.

  56. More government jobs is not stimulus by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    it is a burden on future generations.

    I don't see how funding for a short term any job is stimulus, it is simply a dog and pony show for the ignorant.

    Had to laugh when Obama flew around on AF1 to tout 25 and 65 odd jobs - government jobs funded for ONE YEAR only.

    Stimulus, maybe only for politician poll numbers

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:More government jobs is not stimulus by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Stimulus by definition is burden on future generations.

      It is the government spending money it didn't just take out of the economy somewhere else. In other words it must be borrowed or printed, and hence either must be repaid by future generations or devalues people's savings (which at some point are handed down to future generations).

      It doesn't matter what the job is. The standard pay one guy to dig a hole and the other guy to fill it is stimulus (since those two guys now have more money to spend).

      As I said other things have better multiplier effect and hence would be a better use, but still that spending is *stimulus*.

  57. Re:haha tsarkon by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    You, the jackboot thug of the authoritarian state would want to manipulate and control what others see.

    Object doubling for emphasis, while common in other languages, is not allowed in English. To make that real English, you actually need another comma: You, the jackboot thug of the authoritarian state, would want...

    ...I'm so far out in front of you intellectually its simply me toying with you...

    You used 'its' wrong, and that's horrible grammar. I believe you meant '...I'm so far out in front of you intellectually that it's simply me toying with you...'.

    Also, I don't know why you wrote in the passive voice, especially one with the subject of an undefined 'it'. What, exactly, is 'you toying with me'? The passive voice has its place, but especially don't use it where it's hard to know what the subject is.

    In this case, as you were attacking me, you shouldn't have used it at all, you should have phrased it with yourself as the subject, as that's much more forceful. Here, watch:

    I'm so far out in front of you intellectually that I'm simply toying with you.

    See? Doesn't that sound better and more forceful? Don't overcomplicate your sentences until you have more experience.

    So if I'm yanking that kind of bank and I'm 14, I must be god's gift to mankind, to pull up a chair and listen to what you seem to think is a prodigy.

    Oops, prodigy, you forgot to give that sentence a verb or subject. You have a dependent clause and then the sentence 'to pull up a chair...'. Presumably, you're wanting me to pull up a chair, but I'm not even mentioned in that sentence yet! Possibly you meant 'to mankind, you need to pull up a chair...'?

    Also, if you wish to be taken seriously, don't refer to how much 'bank' you're 'yanking'. That's a very silly expression. Colloquialisms have their place in writing, but using silly ones results in other people thinking you're silly, so their use needs to be weighed against that.

    Now, using what we've learned, why don't you try insulting me some more? You're already ahead of the other 6th graders, let's see if we can make your already excellent writing just a little bit better.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  58. yay! by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1

    I just hope I get to be one of the guards at the re-education camp you get sent to.

    We're gonna have a blast with you, I can see that now.

  59. Re:YEP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China recently confirmed it will keep buying treasury bonds.

  60. Re:haha tsarkon by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    You know, it's sorta weird that you'd assert that I 'bit the bait hard', and at the same time assert that I wasn't able to do anything than refute a few trivial things.

    Hey, dumbass, refuting 'Chairman Obama' in the other thread was a joke at your expense. It wasn't me falling for your troll, it was me mocking you with the idea that you were too dumb to know Obama's actual position. Same with the grammar post!

    In fact, that's pretty much all I've been doing from the start, making fun of you. You showed up at a political debate to troll and the only one responding to you is mocking your choice in shoelaces. So, yeah, nice 'success' at your 'trolling'.

    I haven't even been responding to the actual content of your post until now when you broke character, ya moron.

    You, however, became offended when I said you were a kid and you had to 'prove' how smart you were and how much money you made.

    Insecure much? I think I actually hit a nerve there.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  61. Mt Redoubt by AmericanGladiator · · Score: 2, Funny

    replaces Sarah Palin as the hottest thing in Alaska.

  62. Re:How much CO2 would this dump into the atmospher by Vectronic · · Score: 1

    Also not including all other vehicles and machines:

    4-wheelers
    motorbikes
    racing cars
    fire trucks
    ambulances
    tow-trucks
    tractors (farms)
    tractors (roads)
    graders/plows
    dumptrucks
    forklifts
    cranes
    miltiary tanks
    military trucks
    boats
    ships
    generators
    chainsaws
    weedwackers
    model airplanes
    RC cars ...and on, and on...

  63. Major Eruptions? by lithis · · Score: 1

    He would say that the US has not had a major eruption since Mt. St. Helens in the mid 80's.

    I don't know how what constitutes a "major eruption", but Pu'u 'O'o in Hawaii has destroyed "over 100 homes [...] in a nine-month period" and "189 structures".

  64. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans tsarkon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe when a volcano starts to show activity and erupt people should leave. Maybe when the Ocean begins to rise up and crush a city that was built below the damn thing the people should leave.

    The government failed these people? I like to think of it as culling the herd.

  65. Re:Tsarkon Reports Obama bent on bankrupting USA by colourmyeyes · · Score: 1

    Thank the fuck for that.

    With respect to Slashdot's lack of inline images, this doesn't strike me as a troll response.

    --
    My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
  66. stop government waste! by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Well, if Sarah Palin can see the volcano from her house, what do we need to spend money on "monitoring" for? Just have her keep an eye on it, and if it erupts she'll let us know! Hey, is there a way to make the volcano pay for its own eruption kit?

  67. like Colbert said of Bush by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    He's a man of principle. He believes the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday. No matter what happened on Tuesday.

  68. Re:haha tsarkon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah well I have so much money I just bought an island with the cash I found in my couch (the one in the eighth room down the hall on the fourth floor of my second mansion [second one in Hawaii anyways]).

    So, based on this fact, I must be vastly more intellectual than you. Of course, that was obvious in your earlier posts where you said things like: "or is that no PC", and "you are the fucking leach". Leach? Really? You might want to look that word up.

    And even being as super-duper-awesome rich as you are, you're scared of Obama. That makes me happy. People as obviously mentally handicapped as you shouldn't have as much money as you claim to have. If people like you controlled this nations money you might end up doing something stupid with it, like buying up huge swathes of unholy mortgages. Oh, wait.

  69. Re:haha tsarkon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're not a good troll. You aren't even fit to lick Craig McPherson's feet.

  70. Update on the eruption by jonfr · · Score: 1

    I just got this information in email. This is from the volcano email post list.

    -------
    Alaska Volcano Observatory
    Information Statement
    Monday, March 23, 2009 12:18 PM AKDT (12:18 UTC)

    Redoubt Volcano
    60Â29'7" N 152Â44'38" W, Summit Elevation 10197 ft (3108 m)
    Current Volcano Alert Level: WARNING
    Current Aviation Color Code: RED

    Beginning last night (Sunday March 22, 2009) at approximately 22:38
    AKDT, Redoubt Volcano produced a series of five explosive eruptions
    that each lasted from four to thirty minutes. The last one ended at
    5:00 AM AKDT this morning (March 23). National Weather Service radar,
    pilot reports, and AVO analysis of satellite imagery suggest that
    these events produced ash clouds that reached 60,000 ft above sea
    level (asl), with the bulk of the ash volume between 25 - 30,000 ft
    asl. Traces of ash fall have been reported in Skwentna, Talkeetna,
    Wasilla, and Trapper Creek.

    AVO remains at Aviation Color Code RED and Alert Level WARNING.
    Seismic unrest continues at Redoubt in the form of elevated volcanic
    tremor. NEXRAD radar data show that the last significant ash emission
    was concurrent with the final explosive event at 5:00 AM AKDT. Since
    that time, no ash has been visible in radar, suggesting that if ash
    emission is occurring, it is below approximately 13,000 ft asl and/or
    too fine to be detected. Poor weather at the volcano currently hinders
    visual observations.

    Last night's explosive eruptions caused melting of the Drift glacier
    and greatly increased discharge down the Drift River. AVO plans a
    helicopter overflight to the area today to assess conditions at the
    volcano and along the Drift River. The explosions also destroyed one
    seismic station near the volcano's summit (RSO), and disrupted
    telemetry from AVO's observation hut. This telemetry outage affects
    the web camera, a continuous GPS station, and two broadband seismic
    stations. Repairs to this data link will be undertaken as conditions
    permit. Seven telemetered seismic stations surrounding Redoubt remain
    in operation.

    The eruptions were preceded by approximately 60 hours of elevated
    seismicity in the form of discrete earthquakes under the volcano. AVO
    raised the Aviation Color Code/Alert Level from YELLOW/ADVISORY to
    ORANGE/WATCH on Saturday, March 21 at 22:09 AKDT. This increase in
    seismicity likely reflected the upward movement of magma towards the
    surface. Prior to this weekend, Redoubt had exhibited signs of
    volcanic unrest beginning in the Fall of 2008 which then escalated in
    late January, 2009. Last night's explosions were the first significant
    ash-producing eruptions of the unrest.

    Further explosive activity could occur with little or no warning, and
    could occur intermittently for weeks or months. AVO remains staffed 24
    hours per day will issue further information as it becomes available.

    For up-to-date Ashfall Advisories and wind trajectories, please refer
    to the National Weather Service website:
    http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/volcano.php.

    Heavily ice-mantled Redoubt volcano is located on the western side of
    Cook Inlet, 170 km (106 mi) southwest of Anchorage and 82 km (51 mi)
    west of Kenai, within Lake Clark National Park. Redoubt is a
    stratovolcano which rises to 10,197 feet above sea level. Recent
    eruptions occurred in 1902, 1966-68, and 1989-90. The 1989-90 eruption
    produced mudflows, or lahars, that traveled down the Drift River and
    partially flooded the Drift River Oil Terminal facility. The ash
    plumes produced by the 1989-90 eruption affected international air
    traffic and resulted in minor or trace amounts of ash in the city of
    Anchorage and other nearby communities.
    -----
    A glacier flood seems to be a real danger following this eruption. Along with the ash fall and other related dangers.

  71. Re:The Devil Comes for Republicans tsarkon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To those people who are outraged at David-Thin-Cock's mephitic, malicious biases, this screed will be of interest. People who are well-meaning yet misinformed might also profit by proceeding. For the remainder who are indifferent, faint of heart, or content to let David-Thin-Cock advocate his whinges amid a hue and cry as passive-aggressive as it is goofy, I regret that there is little reason to read further. To get immediately to the point, he has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which truth is merely a social construct. Then again, just because David-Thin-Cock is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids.

    Speaking of which, if I am correctly informed, David-Thin-Cock harbors a sense of entitlement and an expectation of success beyond reason. In any case, his methods are much subtler now than ever before. He is more adept at hidden mind control and his techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized.

    Let me try to put this in perspective: David-Thin-Cock's publications have merged with irreligionism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both make our country spiritually blind. And both intensify or perpetuate gnosticism. It would be charitable of me not to mention that the only thing bigger than the chip on David-Thin-Cock's shoulder is the grossness of his invectives. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity so I will instead maintain that I, for one, have a New Year's resolution for him: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the rabid conclusion that once he has approved of something it can't possibly be stentorian.

    David-Thin-Cock says that the moon is made of green cheese. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely snooty and semi-intelligible lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by David-Thin-Cock's vicegerents. Under these conditions, he occasionally writes screeds accusing me and my friends of being stolid dole-sucking parasites. These screeds are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which he habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that if there's an untold story here, it's that he has announced his intentions to muddy the word "conventionalization". While doing so may earn David-Thin-Cock a gold star from the mush-for-brains irrationalism crowd, we must understand that his perceptions appeal to people who are fearful about the world's political and economic situation and long for simple solutions to complex problems. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible.

    I have no problem with the manifestly obvious statement that David-Thin-Cock's malodorous past resonates in his current campaigns. I have no problem with the idea that the hostility and boredom David-Thin-Cock is experiencing internally is quite evident externally. And I have no problem with the special privileges occasionally granted to merciless, ungrateful lumpenproletariats. What I do have a problem with are David-Thin-Cock's peremptory hypnopompic insights. On the issue of careerism, he is wrong again. Sure, this theme has been struck before. But he and his disciples are wishy-washy, obstreperous moochers. This is not set down in complaint against them, but merely as analysis.

    David-Thin-Cock can go on saying that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a cocky act but the rest of us have serious problems to deal with that preclude our indulging in such shameless dreams just now. The scantiness of his abstract knowledge directs his sentiments more to the world of cronyism. The reason is clear. His scare tactics are merely childish attempts at ridicule. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this screed, viz., that anyone who thinks that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned,

  72. Re:haha tsarkon by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    If people like you controlled this nations money you might end up doing something stupid with it, like buying up huge swathes of unholy mortgages.

    Hey, now. Mocking the really bad trolls is one thing, but comparing them to banking and insurance company executives? Way over the line.

    Call them something that harms society less, like child molesters or something.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  73. MODS by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    How is the parent flamebait?

    Doc Ruby may have forgotten to mention ocean acidification due to CO2 and the effects of changed storm tracks on our agriculture and water catchment but it's a simple statement of fact that the IPCC reports DO resemble the Soylent oceanographic survey.

    And before the usual idiots start screaming about grant money and politics, the financial and organisational documents for the IPCC are all available on the web, they state...

    1. The IPCC is funded and supported by over 300 nations, that is more or less ALL sides of politics.

    2. The IPCC has a annual budget of $5-6 million, yes million not billion!

    3. The reports are written soley by scientists who are NOT PAID for their time and effort.

    4. The scientists who wrote the last report did not write the one before it, nor will they write the next one.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  74. You propably meant the "Fruit Fly"-Gaffe... by atrocious+cowpat · · Score: 1

    ... much worse, actually, for its inane, partisan ignorance: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/24/palin-fruit-flies/
    ac

    --
    sig? Oh, that sig...
  75. Re:haha tsarkon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well it was my job to wake up Jacinda and get her to school as our parents already left for work. Jacinda is my baby sister and at the age of 18 she was real sexy. Her measurements are 36c-22-34 and has a very sexy smile to match.

    Well I yelled at her but there was no answer so I had to go in her room. I saw what she was sleeping in and I like it. She wore a baby blue tank top and a lacy blue pair of panties. I push with my arm to wake her up but she said leave me alone. So I started tickling her and she started to laugh. While tickling her my hands accidentally brushed against her tits, they were firm and soft. I kept tickling her and she turned over and looked at me and smiled. I asked her if she knew how much she meant to me and how much I love her. She said yes Roger I know you love me and I love you too.

    I asked her if I could kiss her and she said yes. We kissed passionately and while kissing her I cupped her right tit in my hand. I felt her nipple harden and she moaned softly. She pulled her tank top giving me access to her tits. I slowly lick one and suck her nipple deep in my mouth, then I move to the other one. She moans yes Roger suck baby sister's tits.

    As I suck her tits I slide my hand into her panties and find out that she has shaved all her public from her pussy. I slowly slide a finger in her and notice that she is very tight. She tells me she is a virgin and she wants me to be her first lover. I slide down and slowly move her panties down and she lifted her sexy ass to let me slide them all the way off. I look at her and smile and see her smiling back. I spread her legs and slowly lick one side of her pussy and then the other side. I spread her lips and see how pink she is and slide my tongue deep inside her.

    She yells yes big brother lick my pussy. As I lick her pussy she tells me to stop and strip, which I slowly take off my pants and underwear she gasps when she sees my hard cock and says she wants to measure it. She gets up and goes to her dresser and gets her ruler and measures it. She said oh God it is 9" long brother. Gee, you really are my big brother. She tells me to lie down and then sits down on my face. As I lick her pussy again she starts to lick my cock. I gasp as she takes it in her mouth. I slowly slide a finger deep in her ass as she has a very intense orgasm and I swallow all of her sweet juices.

    She says she is ready for me to take her virginity and lays on her back. I ask her are you sure you want me to do this? She yells yes Roger fuck my tight virgin pussy! I slowly slide my cock up and down her pussy lips teasing her with my cock. She begs me to put it in her. I slowly slide the head in her and she gasps. I ask her if she wants me to go on and she says yes. I slowly slide in till I hit her cherry. I pull back a little and then thrust it all the way in. she moans and says yes Roger fuck your baby sis's pussy.

    I feel her wrapping her legs around my back and I start to kiss her. I tell her that her pussy is so tight and I don't know how much longer I'll last. She tells me to fill her pussy full of my cum and I push my cock all the way in fire shot after shot of cum deep in her. We lay there holding each other and I say I might as well call your school and say you're sick. When I return she tells me to lie down as I do she takes my cock in her mouth and says I can taste my juices on you cock. She says it is sweet like a peach. As she sucks my cock she slides over and tells me to eat her pussy again. As I do she keeps saying you are gonna to take my anal cherry brother. I tell her she has to be lubed up and she gets her hand lotion and smears it all my cock.

    Then she smears it all over ass and says she wants to be in control of this. As I lay there my cock is sticking straight up. She takes it in her hand and slowly pushes the head towards her ass. I tell her to go easy and she slowly slides down. She tells me that I feel good in her ass

  76. Volcano Monitoring is a waste... by EricTheO · · Score: 1

    ....unless you believe that Volcano's exist and do erupt.

    --
    -Eric