"did you skip history class?" Abrasive? Yes. Patronizing? No. At least that was not my intention. If thats how you took it, my apologies. However, I found the head up the butt comment offensive and just a little over the top, and I have real thick skin. Anyway, I think we can both agree that you feel the election was rigged, I feel it was flawed by human incompetence but with no malice.
As for the now-infamous "disenfranchised voters" I personally think its a good thing that the votes of people who can't read a ballot don't get counted. If every eligble voter cast a vote our elected officials would consist of racists like Al Sharpton and David Duke.
No actually, I find that very uncomfortable. But the bottom line, despite your rant, is we do not elect presidents on popular vote. In case you haven't noticed Al Gore is not president. Al Gore won the popular vote. Therefore the popular vote doesn't elect presidents. That's the law. Personally I'd like to see that change but until it does thats how we elect presidents. Ah, Salon.com! That bastion of unbiased reporting. Even though the report is given behind the veil of a liberal media outlet, there's nothing in there to prove that voter rolls were deliberatey rigged. In fact according to your source, some of the largest counties where "Internet Al" contested the tallying didn't even use the purged rolls! Of course there were mistakes made. But rigged? The laws in the state of Florida require voter rolls to be purged of dead people and felons. Katharine Harris was following the law. She hired a private company to purge the rolls. To me this seems better than her office doing it, which would certainly have drawn the ire of the left, and rightly so. Everyone that was purged was sent a letter advising them of their rights to protest. If mistakes were made the opportunity was there to correct it. Many people did. It seems that the left is just upset because with the elimination of felons a significant portion of their voting block was gone since a majority (54%) of the felons purged were black and blacks voted 93% for Al. Personally, I think the real argument should be why are so many black men in prison, but thats another argument for another day. But there was no rigging of elections by Republicans.
And just because "many presidential and constitutional scholars" believe something doesn't make it true. I can show you just as many that don't think it so. Who's right? We don't know. Judges are people. People are biased. No matter how much we would like them to be different thats just the way it is.
And there may be some truth to your statement that we are effectively an oligarchy. In my opinion thats a direct result of the federal government usurping more power from state and local governments over the last century. To me, thats the real constitutional crisis. Why should I have to wear a seat belt to receive federal highway dollars that I gave to the government to begin with!
On a personal note, I don't think of myself as ignorant or patronizing. And your pit bull tactics of attacking me personally because I disagree with you are distasteful. I bet you're a pinko, huh? Marxists always seem to hide behind the mask of democracy. Or maybe you're an anarchist. "Rage Against the Machine" rules dude! So go ahead and rant. Dubya will be president in 2004 and you'll still be moaning about how he stole the election of 2000.
Did you skip history class? Our elections are not based on popular vote! If you don't like that, work on changing it instead of moaning about some non-existent conspiracy. There is no conspiracy. Bush is the elected president. The constitution was not violated. Deal with it. And by the way, our form of government is a Republic, not a Democracy.
An oxymoron if there ever was one! Does anyone really believe that any guest on this show is impartial? At best, they're leftists. The show's host (Amy Goodman) is an avowed communist who's heros are Castro and Che Guevara. Her one mission is to establish a socialist system of government in the United States. She very rarely has any guests with dissenting opinions. Like any spokesman for communism, she can't argue on merits so she preaches to the choir. Hey, if you're a communist be proud of it! Let us all know! Don't hide behind a title like "Democracy Now". Otherwise shut up and be happy we live in a country with the worst system of government...except for every other system! How long would Amy's program last in Castro's Cuba? If this story had any merit whatsoever and you don't think the mainstream (read Liberal) media would jump all over it you're living in a dream world and should probably join Amy and her pink cohorts.
Looks like a very beautiful place. I hope to get there someday. From the pictures I've seen of Australia, and Tasmania in particular, there are sights that are so different from anything I've seen here in the states.
I meant to ask earlier, you mentioned you lived in Tasmania. Are you from there or just lived there? That's one of those places that has always fascinated me. It seems like almost an alien world! I hope to visit one day.
Very well put. Looking at one part of the equation is where, as I said earlier, the politization of environmental science leads us astray. Jumping to conclusions because some blow-hard polititian decides that he needs a cause can lead to unnecessary action. And I'm not trying to say that banning CFCs was a bad thing by any means. Sometimes actions must be taken before science proves a theory. It's like the argument between an aethist and christian (jew, muslim, etc.) on whether God exists . If the christian is wrong nothing is lost but may a hedonistic life. But what if the aethist is wrong...? DDT was a good example of a theory proving to be correct. The recovery of birds of prey in the U.S is amazing. If we had waited much longer for that ban things would have been much different. But nature seems to be very resilient and adapting. By the way, pesticide companies also still produce DDT in Mexico! That, my friend is obscene! I've really enjoyed this discussion. It's nice to have a civilized debate!
From the same website two months later here's a link that shows that two months after the largest hole ever, the hole disappeared. I argue that these fluctuations are naturally-occurring and you can't scientifically make the jump from CFC concentration to ozone depletion. After all, at the point in time when these articles were written the CFC concentration had peaked but not yet started the very slow decline we're seeing now. By your argument, if the CFCs were causing the depletion that created the largest hole ever witnessed, how could it completely disappear in two months? I think that there are many factors affecting ozone concentrations, CFCs being one, but a minor one.
I'll look around for some data too. Free radical chemistry is pretty weird. But my point is:
We have a good handle on what quantity of CFCs have been released annually, at least relatively speaking.
The theory that showed CFCs were the culprit was based on what quantity of CFCs we know was released
Based on that theory it was calculated how long it would take for things to get better (50 years, or whatever) and things would get worse before they got better.
Well, just the opposite of #3 happened. My contention is that the whole premise of the theory fell apart when that happened. In response to your earlier question in another post, I work for a commercial environmental testing laboratory that mainly does EPA compliance testing for the petrochemical industry. Let the flames begin!
"Do you acknowledge that this provides a causal link that at least some of the damage to the ozone layer is caused by CFC's?"
Sure, but it has negligible effect on the ozone layer. And you're making my argument for me! You stated "Nor is the fact that CFC's take quite a while to degrade" and that's right. And if that is indeed a fact then the initial argument that it would take 50 years for the CFCs that had been released prior to the Montreal agreement to degrade must also be a fact. And if that's a fact, and if the CFC concentration in the upper atmosphere was responsible for the hole, then the ozone layer could not have regenerated itself. "Jeez, what does it take?"
And the data in the chart you referenced doesn't show any kind of scientific correlation to the decrease in the production of CFCs. It just simply shows a change in the hole over time. How exactly does that support your argument? This is what I'm talking about. "See, here's the data!" It's as logical as saying that the post WWII baby boom ended because Ford started producing the Mustang in 1964.
I'm not implying that with more CFCs the hole would grow slower. I'm implying that CFCs had negligible effect on the hole to begin with; that changes in the hole were just a natural fluctuation over time. And you're wrong about the production of CFCs being stopped. They didn't stop, they just moved the manufacturing to the countries that weren't part of the agreement. I live in Texas and we have a real problem of "black market" freon being smuggled across the border. And the reference to "Chicken Little" is from a children's story where the chicken ran around screaming "The sky is falling!". By the way, I'm a professional scientist too (environmental chemistry) and I'm quite certain I know what I'm talking about. The worst thing to happen to the environmental movement over the last 30 years is the politization of environmental science. The whole issue of global warming is a perfect example of that. When books like Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance" become an environmentalist's Bible things are out of control.
Yeah, I am! And scientists said it would take 50 years for the degradation of the ozone layer to stabilize, in other words the hole will keep getting bigger for 50 more years. Well that didn't happen. In less than 10 years it completely shrunk down to the size it was when they first started measuring it. That wasn't because the U.S stopped using CFCs. And by the way you can still go to Mexico, China, and India (among others), two of which are the most populus countries on the planet, and buy the same CFC-containing compounds that the U.S. banned so there is no "heroic international effort". Don't get me wrong, it was a good ban if for no other reason than the compounds are toxic right here at ground level. Just don't try and force your Chicken Little science on the rest of the world. Just because Mother Jones says it doesn't make it so.
Slashdot Mirror
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
"did you skip history class?" Abrasive? Yes. Patronizing? No. At least that was not my intention. If thats how you took it, my apologies. However, I found the head up the butt comment offensive and just a little over the top, and I have real thick skin. Anyway, I think we can both agree that you feel the election was rigged, I feel it was flawed by human incompetence but with no malice.
As for the now-infamous "disenfranchised voters" I personally think its a good thing that the votes of people who can't read a ballot don't get counted. If every eligble voter cast a vote our elected officials would consist of racists like Al Sharpton and David Duke.
No actually, I find that very uncomfortable. But the bottom line, despite your rant, is we do not elect presidents on popular vote. In case you haven't noticed Al Gore is not president. Al Gore won the popular vote. Therefore the popular vote doesn't elect presidents. That's the law. Personally I'd like to see that change but until it does thats how we elect presidents. Ah, Salon.com! That bastion of unbiased reporting. Even though the report is given behind the veil of a liberal media outlet, there's nothing in there to prove that voter rolls were deliberatey rigged. In fact according to your source, some of the largest counties where "Internet Al" contested the tallying didn't even use the purged rolls! Of course there were mistakes made. But rigged? The laws in the state of Florida require voter rolls to be purged of dead people and felons. Katharine Harris was following the law. She hired a private company to purge the rolls. To me this seems better than her office doing it, which would certainly have drawn the ire of the left, and rightly so. Everyone that was purged was sent a letter advising them of their rights to protest. If mistakes were made the opportunity was there to correct it. Many people did. It seems that the left is just upset because with the elimination of felons a significant portion of their voting block was gone since a majority (54%) of the felons purged were black and blacks voted 93% for Al. Personally, I think the real argument should be why are so many black men in prison, but thats another argument for another day. But there was no rigging of elections by Republicans.
And just because "many presidential and constitutional scholars" believe something doesn't make it true. I can show you just as many that don't think it so. Who's right? We don't know. Judges are people. People are biased. No matter how much we would like them to be different thats just the way it is.
And there may be some truth to your statement that we are effectively an oligarchy. In my opinion thats a direct result of the federal government usurping more power from state and local governments over the last century. To me, thats the real constitutional crisis. Why should I have to wear a seat belt to receive federal highway dollars that I gave to the government to begin with!
On a personal note, I don't think of myself as ignorant or patronizing. And your pit bull tactics of attacking me personally because I disagree with you are distasteful. I bet you're a pinko, huh? Marxists always seem to hide behind the mask of democracy. Or maybe you're an anarchist. "Rage Against the Machine" rules dude! So go ahead and rant. Dubya will be president in 2004 and you'll still be moaning about how he stole the election of 2000.
Did you skip history class? Our elections are not based on popular vote! If you don't like that, work on changing it instead of moaning about some non-existent conspiracy. There is no conspiracy. Bush is the elected president. The constitution was not violated. Deal with it. And by the way, our form of government is a Republic, not a Democracy.
An oxymoron if there ever was one! Does anyone really believe that any guest on this show is impartial? At best, they're leftists. The show's host (Amy Goodman) is an avowed communist who's heros are Castro and Che Guevara. Her one mission is to establish a socialist system of government in the United States. She very rarely has any guests with dissenting opinions. Like any spokesman for communism, she can't argue on merits so she preaches to the choir. Hey, if you're a communist be proud of it! Let us all know! Don't hide behind a title like "Democracy Now". Otherwise shut up and be happy we live in a country with the worst system of government...except for every other system! How long would Amy's program last in Castro's Cuba? If this story had any merit whatsoever and you don't think the mainstream (read Liberal) media would jump all over it you're living in a dream world and should probably join Amy and her pink cohorts.
Looks like a very beautiful place. I hope to get there someday. From the pictures I've seen of Australia, and Tasmania in particular, there are sights that are so different from anything I've seen here in the states.
I meant to ask earlier, you mentioned you lived in Tasmania. Are you from there or just lived there? That's one of those places that has always fascinated me. It seems like almost an alien world! I hope to visit one day.
Very well put. Looking at one part of the equation is where, as I said earlier, the politization of environmental science leads us astray. Jumping to conclusions because some blow-hard polititian decides that he needs a cause can lead to unnecessary action. And I'm not trying to say that banning CFCs was a bad thing by any means. Sometimes actions must be taken before science proves a theory. It's like the argument between an aethist and christian (jew, muslim, etc.) on whether God exists . If the christian is wrong nothing is lost but may a hedonistic life. But what if the aethist is wrong...? DDT was a good example of a theory proving to be correct. The recovery of birds of prey in the U.S is amazing. If we had waited much longer for that ban things would have been much different. But nature seems to be very resilient and adapting. By the way, pesticide companies also still produce DDT in Mexico! That, my friend is obscene! I've really enjoyed this discussion. It's nice to have a civilized debate!
From the same website two months later here's a link that shows that two months after the largest hole ever, the hole disappeared. I argue that these fluctuations are naturally-occurring and you can't scientifically make the jump from CFC concentration to ozone depletion. After all, at the point in time when these articles were written the CFC concentration had peaked but not yet started the very slow decline we're seeing now. By your argument, if the CFCs were causing the depletion that created the largest hole ever witnessed, how could it completely disappear in two months? I think that there are many factors affecting ozone concentrations, CFCs being one, but a minor one.
- We have a good handle on what quantity of CFCs have been released annually, at least relatively speaking.
- The theory that showed CFCs were the culprit was based on what quantity of CFCs we know was released
- Based on that theory it was calculated how long it would take for things to get better (50 years, or whatever) and things would get worse before they got better.
Well, just the opposite of #3 happened. My contention is that the whole premise of the theory fell apart when that happened. In response to your earlier question in another post, I work for a commercial environmental testing laboratory that mainly does EPA compliance testing for the petrochemical industry. Let the flames begin!Sure, but it has negligible effect on the ozone layer. And you're making my argument for me! You stated "Nor is the fact that CFC's take quite a while to degrade" and that's right. And if that is indeed a fact then the initial argument that it would take 50 years for the CFCs that had been released prior to the Montreal agreement to degrade must also be a fact. And if that's a fact, and if the CFC concentration in the upper atmosphere was responsible for the hole, then the ozone layer could not have regenerated itself. "Jeez, what does it take?"
And the data in the chart you referenced doesn't show any kind of scientific correlation to the decrease in the production of CFCs. It just simply shows a change in the hole over time. How exactly does that support your argument? This is what I'm talking about. "See, here's the data!" It's as logical as saying that the post WWII baby boom ended because Ford started producing the Mustang in 1964.
I'm not implying that with more CFCs the hole would grow slower. I'm implying that CFCs had negligible effect on the hole to begin with; that changes in the hole were just a natural fluctuation over time. And you're wrong about the production of CFCs being stopped. They didn't stop, they just moved the manufacturing to the countries that weren't part of the agreement. I live in Texas and we have a real problem of "black market" freon being smuggled across the border. And the reference to "Chicken Little" is from a children's story where the chicken ran around screaming "The sky is falling!". By the way, I'm a professional scientist too (environmental chemistry) and I'm quite certain I know what I'm talking about. The worst thing to happen to the environmental movement over the last 30 years is the politization of environmental science. The whole issue of global warming is a perfect example of that. When books like Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance" become an environmentalist's Bible things are out of control.
Yeah, I am! And scientists said it would take 50 years for the degradation of the ozone layer to stabilize, in other words the hole will keep getting bigger for 50 more years. Well that didn't happen. In less than 10 years it completely shrunk down to the size it was when they first started measuring it. That wasn't because the U.S stopped using CFCs. And by the way you can still go to Mexico, China, and India (among others), two of which are the most populus countries on the planet, and buy the same CFC-containing compounds that the U.S. banned so there is no "heroic international effort". Don't get me wrong, it was a good ban if for no other reason than the compounds are toxic right here at ground level. Just don't try and force your Chicken Little science on the rest of the world. Just because Mother Jones says it doesn't make it so.