But the IPCC also addresses the question of how climate change will affect us (Working Group II "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"). See their website for a summary. They make it clear that the effects will be by and large very bad (if I can put it plainly).
http://www.ipcc.ch/
So good and welcome comment from the meteorologist.
In order to maintain its independence, Greenpeace only accepts money from individuals. Greenpeace does not take money from corporations or governments.
I'll be voting pretty much straight Democrat (with one local exception) in the election because I trust the Democrats a heck of a lot more than the Republicans at this point, and because the Democrat's policies are generally a lot closer (key word is "closer") to mine than the Republicans. So my vote is worth something.
But you raise a good point. It's not enough just to vote. We still have to keep the politicians honest. Case in point, my own (Democrat) Senator voted for this bill, and has yet to give me a good reason why.
So today I am sending her a third email - quite a bit more strongly worded then the last two:
I did not see "essential liberties", "balance of powers", or "creeping fascism" as options in the drop down list of subjects. So I have chosen, "Civil Liberties", which I suppose is close enough.
My question is, why? Why did you help Bush do this...
This is a direct erosion of the checks and balances that, so far, have kept our country free.
I wrote you urging you not to vote for this bill and you replied...
"As you may know, the House and Senate versions of the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization bill included a provision that would allow the President to deploy the National Guard in specified instances of public emergencies. The President could exercise this authority only in instances when state responders are unable to maintain public order after a natural disaster, epidemic, or terrorist attack."
This response is misleading. For one thing, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the bill actually states, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
Who is to define what counts as an "insurrection" or "domestic violence"? And "unlawful combination"? Really! We have a President that thinks he can legally justify torture and warrantees wire tapping, and you hand him this?!
I am not naive enough to think that a power mad chief executive might not use this bill to further their own goals - at the expense of freedom and against the will of the people of our state.
And I find it impossible to believe you are this naive either. So, again, why did you vote for this bill?
The final authority over the National Guards should be held by the States. Not only so the National Guard will be there to help the people of their state, but to act as a check on federal power - forcing the president to ask for, rather than demand, the use of the Guard.
Sincerely, Andrew Davies....If they hear from enough of us it does make a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
But the IPCC also addresses the question of how climate change will affect us (Working Group II "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"). See their website for a summary. They make it clear that the effects will be by and large very bad (if I can put it plainly). http://www.ipcc.ch/ So good and welcome comment from the meteorologist.
In order to maintain its independence, Greenpeace only accepts money from individuals. Greenpeace does not take money from corporations or governments.
/ questions-about-greenpeace-in
More info available here...
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/faq
um....
t ories
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/vic
And here's a good article about a recent achievement.
I'll be voting pretty much straight Democrat (with one local exception) in the election because I trust the Democrats a heck of a lot more than the Republicans at this point, and because the Democrat's policies are generally a lot closer (key word is "closer") to mine than the Republicans. So my vote is worth something.
....If they hear from enough of us it does make a difference.
But you raise a good point. It's not enough just to vote. We still have to keep the politicians honest. Case in point, my own (Democrat) Senator voted for this bill, and has yet to give me a good reason why.
So today I am sending her a third email - quite a bit more strongly worded then the last two:
I did not see "essential liberties", "balance of powers", or "creeping fascism" as options in the drop down list of subjects. So I have chosen, "Civil Liberties", which I suppose is close enough.
My question is, why? Why did you help Bush do this...
http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
This is a direct erosion of the checks and balances that, so far, have kept our country free.
I wrote you urging you not to vote for this bill and you replied...
"As you may know, the House and Senate versions of the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization bill included a provision that would allow the President to deploy the National Guard in specified instances of public emergencies. The President could exercise this authority only in instances when state responders are unable to maintain public order after a natural disaster, epidemic, or terrorist attack."
This response is misleading. For one thing, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the bill actually states, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
Who is to define what counts as an "insurrection" or "domestic violence"? And "unlawful combination"? Really! We have a President that thinks he can legally justify torture and warrantees wire tapping, and you hand him this?!
I am not naive enough to think that a power mad chief executive might not use this bill to further their own goals - at the expense of freedom and against the will of the people of our state.
And I find it impossible to believe you are this naive either. So, again, why did you vote for this bill?
The final authority over the National Guards should be held by the States. Not only so the National Guard will be there to help the people of their state, but to act as a check on federal power - forcing the president to ask for, rather than demand, the use of the Guard.
Sincerely,
Andrew Davies