Idus Martias-Just ask Julius Caesar. I find it kind of ironic that the Senate is twaddling with the House to initially pass the Senate's bill and they will reconcile later. Yea right. If the House passes the Senate's bill, that means when Obama signs it, they could technically not do anything else and we are stuck with a bad bill that is signed into law. There are so many issues with this whole healthcare debacle. So many lies, so little time. Kickbacks, back room deals and downright bribery, the Chicago way. If I were the house democrats, especially the ones up for re-election in November, should stand by their principles and morals and vote down this bill. This is Obama's Waterloo. He and everyone knows it. The "anointed one's" ego and narcissism is in full view. Unfortunately for Obama, he can't win. If this passes, he will have hell to pay and become a lame duck President. If it fails, the democrats will feel he has failed on his campaign promises. What a wicked web we weave. Everyone I've spoke with is saying, simply start over with healthcare at a later date, concentrate with a laser beam focus on the economy and unemployment. Today, the White House was almost giddy concerning the 9.7% unemployment stayed the same. Harry (Dr. Smith) Reid said that losing 36,000 jobs lost was impressive and he was happy about it. I guarantee he isn't one of the 36,000 who losted their income. However, he will, come next November. I am so sick with their lies, Kathleen Sebelius was in an interview and she flat out lied about abortion language not in the bill. The same day, Bart Stupak said in an interview that were was abortion language in the Senate bill. Also, he said that he and eleven other representatives will not vote for the Senate bill. Others are taking a serious look at the repercussions of supporting a bad bill. Obama and Pelosi can tell the democrats to fall on the sword for the bill and party, all day long. They are safe, Obama is already working on his 2012 re-election campaign. Pelosi is safe because of the socialistic constituency she represents in San Francisco, the People's Republic of California. So, would you give up your political career for a bill where 73% of Americans say stop the bill and start over? I don't think so. I have called my representatives numerous times and the staff hates my guts. Steny Hoyer, sent me a letter and Barbara Mulkulski sent me the same letter. They don't care what we think. Never give up. We stopped this legislation before (it was supposed to be passed last summer) and we can stop it again. Call and email your representatives repeatedly. "Don't tread on me."
Bart Stupak on SlimeBall:
Daft statement of the day:
"We will pass a biil within two weeks."
Nancy Pelosi
Obama looking to give new life to immigration reform
March 4, 2010
In an effort to advance a bill through Congress before midterm elections, the president meets with two senators who have spent months trying to craft legislation.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Grahamesty, right, and Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer discussed the effort this week with President Obama. (Dennis Brack / Bloomberg News)
Reporting from Washington - Despite steep odds, the White House has discussed prospects for reviving a major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, a commitment that President Obama has postponed once already.
Obama took up the issue privately with his staff Monday in a bid to advance a bill through Congress before lawmakers become too distracted by approaching midterm elections.
In the session, Obama and members of his Domestic Policy Council outlined ways to resuscitate the effort in a White House meeting with two senators -- Democrat Charles E. Schumer of New York and Republican Lindsey Grahamesty of South Carolina -- who have spent months trying to craft a bill.
According to a person familiar with the meeting, the White House may ask Schumer and Grahamesty to at least produce a blueprint that could be turned into legislative language.
The basis of a bill would include a path toward citizenship for the 10.8 million people living in the U.S. illegally. Citizenship would not be granted lightly, the White House said. Undocumented workers would need to register, pay taxes and pay a penalty for violating the law. Failure to comply might result in deportation.
Nick Shapiro, a White House spokesman, said the president's support for an immigration bill, which would also include improved border security, was "unwavering."
Participants in the White House gathering also pointed to an immigration rally set for March 21 in Washington as a way to spotlight the issue and build needed momentum.
Though proponents of an immigration overhaul were pleased that the White House wasn't abandoning the effort, they also wanted Obama to take on a more assertive role, rather than leave it to Congress to work out a compromise.
Immigration is a delicate issue for the White House. After promising to revamp in his first year of office what many see as a fractured system, Obama risks angering a growing, politically potent Latino constituency if he defers the goal until 2011.
But with the healthcare debate still unresolved, Democrats are wary of plunging into another polarizing issue.
"Right now we have a little problem with the 'Chicken Little' mentality: The sky is falling and consequently we can't do anything," Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said in an interview.
Republicans are unlikely to cooperate. On Capitol Hill, Republicans said that partisan tensions had only gotten worse since Obama signaled this week that he would push forward with a healthcare bill, whether he could get GOP votes or not.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said in an interview, "The things you hear from the administration won't be well received."
Schumer, speaking as he walked quickly through the Capitol, said he was having trouble rounding up Republican supporters apart from Grahamesty. "It's tough finding someone, but we're trying," Schumer said.
On Thursday, Schumer met with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who oversees the government's immigration efforts, to strategize over potential Republican co-sponsors.
"We're very hopeful we can get a bill done. We have all the pieces in place. We just need a second Republican," Schumer said in a statement.
Among proponents, there is a consensus that a proposal must move by April or early May to have a realistic chance of passing this year. If that deadline slips, Congress' focus is likely to shift to the November elections, making it impossible to take up major legislation.
"There's no question that this is a heavy lift and the window is narrowing," said Janet Murguia, president and chief executive of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group.
When it comes to immigration, Obama's strategy echoes that of healthcare. He has deferred heavily to Congress, leaving it up to Schumer and Grahamesty to reach a breakthrough with the idea that he would put his weight behind the resulting compromise.
2 Comico:
enough said...
Comment by Bill Gray, Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University on Kerry Emanuel’s Boston Globe (15 February 2010) Op/Ed piece titled “Climate Changes Are Proven Fact.”
This piece has many inaccuracies, and in my view, is not a positive contribution to the global warming debate for the reasons I present in my rebuttal of various Emanuel statements.
Emanuel’s Op/Ed piece is listed first, then a listing of some of Emanuel’s specific comments are given in indented spacing followed by my responses.
Climate Changes Are Proven Fact
By Kerry Emanuel (MIT)
February 15, 2010
Boston Globe Op/Ed
OUTSIDE SCIENTIFIC forums, contemporary discussions of the phenomenon of global warming are now so heated that one wonders whether they are contributing to the phenomenon itself. With all the interest in alleged misdeeds of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hacked email exchanges among climate scientists, it is easy to lose track of the compelling strands of scientific evidence that have led almost all climate scientists to conclude that mankind is altering climate in potentially dangerous ways. Recent suggestions by gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker that the scientific community is split on this issue have unfortunately added fuel to this largely manufactured debate.
A few essential points are undisputed among climate scientists. First, the surface temperature of the Earth is roughly 60 F higher than it would otherwise be thanks to a few greenhouse gasses that collectively make up only about 3 percent of the mass of our atmosphere.
Second, the concentrations of the two most important long-lived greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane, have been increasing since the dawn of the industrial era; carbon dioxide alone has increased by about 40 percent. These increases have been brought about by fossil fuel combustion and changes in land use.
Third, in the absence of any feedbacks except for temperature itself, doubling carbon dioxide would increase the global average surface temperature by about 1.8 F. And fourth, global temperatures have been rising for roughly the past century and have so far increased by about 1.4 F. The rate of rise of surface temperature is consistent with predictions of human-caused global warming that date back to the 19th century and is larger than any natural change we have been able to discern for at least the past 1,000 years.
Disputes within climate science concern the nature and magnitude of feedback processes involving clouds and water vapor, uncertainties about the rate at which the oceans take up heat and carbon dioxide, the effects of air pollution, and the nature and importance of climate change effects such as rising sea level, increasing acidity of the ocean, and the incidence of weather hazards such as floods, droughts, storms, and heat waves. These uncertainties are reflected in divergent predictions of climate change made by computer models. For example, current models predict that a doubling of carbon dioxide should result in global mean temperature increases of anywhere from 2.5 to 7.5 F.
The uncertainties in the models, theory, and observations of climate change and associated risks and the sheer complexity of the problem provide many rounds of ammunition for the agenda-driven, be they apocalyptic or denialist. For the lawyerly, with the ability and will to cherry-pick the evidence, there is much ripe fruit to hurl in the increasingly heated climate wars of our generation.
But when the dust settles, what we are left with is the evidence. And, in spite of all its complexity and uncertainties, we should not lose track of the simple fact that theory, actual observations of the planet, and complex models - however imperfect each is in isolation - all point to ongoing, potentially dangerous human alteration of climate.
It is easy to be critical of the models that are used to make such predictions - and we are - but they represent our best efforts to objectively predict climate; everything else is mere opinion and speculation. That they are uncertain cuts both ways; things might not turn out as badly as the models now suggest, but with equal probability, they could turn out worse. Science cannot now and probably never will be able to do better than to assign probabilities to various outcomes of the uncontrolled experiment we are now performing, and the time lag between emissions and the response of the climate to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations forces us to make decisions sooner than we would like. We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come, nor does it do anyone any good to assassinate science, the messenger.
We have never before dealt with a problem that threatens not us, but our distant descendants. The philosophical, scientific, and political issues are unquestionably tough. We might begin by mustering the courage to confront the problem of climate change in an honest and open way.
Kerry Emanuel is director of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
REBUTTAL COMMENTS BY BILL GRAY
Emanuel “… compelling strands of scientific evidence that have led almost all climate scientists to conclude that mankind is altering climate in potentially dangerous ways.”
Gray – A high percentage of meteorologists and/or climate scientists do not agree that the climate changes we have seen are mostly man-made. Thousands of us think that the larger part of the climate changes we have observed over the last century are of natural origin. I believe that most of the changes that have been observed are due to multi-decadal and multi-century changes in deep global ocean currents. Such changes have yet to be properly incorporated into the global models or into most climate modeler’s physical reasoning processes. Over 31 thousand American scientists have recently signed a petition advising the US not to sign any fossil fuel reduction treaty.
Many scientists believe that a slightly warmer CO2 gas induced world, would be, in general, more beneficial for humanity. The small changes in climate we have seen so far and the changes we will likely see in the next number of decades are not potentially dangerous. It has been noted that vegetation growth is enhanced by higher CO2 levels.
Emanuel “…, the surface temperature of the Earth is roughly 60 F higher than it would otherwise be thanks to a few greenhouse gasses that collectively make up only about 3 percent of the mass of our atmosphere.”
Gray – The globe’s greenhouse gas induced higher temperatures are due almost exclusively to water vapor (the overwelling greenhouse gas) not much at all due to CO2 and methane. It is the variation of atmospheric water vapor (particularly in the upper troposphere) that is of dominant importance to the greenhouse gas warming question. It is likely that increases in CO2 and other minor greenhouse gases will lead to small reductions in upper tropospheric water vapor which will bring about greater loss of infrared radiation energy flux to space. Increases in CO2 and lesser greenhouse gases should (due to their influence on upper level water vapor) lead to little global temperature increase. Such conditions appear to be presently occurring. During the last decade and a half when CO2 amounts have risen there has been an increased (not decreased) infrared radiation flux to space. Little or no global warming has occurred in the last decade.
Emanuel “…, in the absence of any feedbacks except for temperature itself, doubling carbon dioxide would increase the global average surface temperature by about 1.8 F.”
Gray – You can’t at the outset eliminate water vapor and cloud feedback and consider only temperature feedback and expect to have a realistic explanation of CO2’s future influence on global temperature. Water vapor and cloud feedback changes can negate most or all the lesser greenhouse gas influences on global temperature.
Emanuel “The rate of rise of surface temperature is consistent with predictions of human-caused global warming that date back to the 19th century and is larger than any natural change we have been able to discern for at least the past 1,000 years.”
Gray – this is pure ‘off-the-wall’ assertion that the global warmers want to believe in because they do not want to consider other causes of climate change which would negate their human-induced warming hypothesis. The global warming community has yet to come to grips with the powerful potential climate altering influences of multi-decadal and multi-century changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulations. The Medieval warm period and the early Holocene warm period are believed to have been warmer than today’s temperatures. Some natural processes brought about these changes. Why could these same natural processes not be acting today?
Emanuel “… current models predict that a doubling of carbon dioxide should result in global mean temperature increases of anywhere from 2.5 to 7.5 F.”
Gray – All the global General Circulation Models (GCMs) which predict future global temperature change for a doubling of CO2 are badly flawed. They do not realistically handle the changes in upper tropospheric water vapor and cloudiness. They give unrealistically high upper-tropospheric moisture and temperature condition for CO2 doubling. Model global warming estimates for a doubling of CO2 are thought by thousands of us to be many times larger than what will likely occur. The GCMs are not yet simulating the fundamental influence of the multi-decadal and multi-century scale variations of the ocean’s deep circulation patterns.
It should be noted that the GCMs have failed to account for the weak global cooling over the last decade. It is also important to note that the GCM groups do not make official shorter range global temperature forecasts of 1 to10 years which could accurately be verified. If they won’t do this why
should we believe their forecasts at 50-100 years? Any experienced meteorologist or climate scientist who would actually believe a long range climate model should really have their head examined. They are living in a dream world.
Emanuel “… models… represent our best efforts to objectively predict climate; everything else is mere opinion and speculation.”
Gray – As discussed above, the global GCM climate models are likely our worst (not best) guide to the future. The physics and numerical coding within the global climate models will never be able to replicate the overly complex global atmosphere-ocean environment and its continuing changes. Especially so with the need for integrations over hundreds of thousands of time steps. Increases in future measurement detail accuracy and future increases in computer power will likely never be sufficient to make skillful long range climate modeling a possibility. Climate prediction skill should be considered and will likely continue to be about as reliable as long range stock prediction.
Our only guide to the future climate rests with the study of past observations of the globe together with judicious physical reasoning of the primary process which in the past have influenced climate change.
Emanuel “That they are uncertain cuts both ways; things might not turn out as badly as the models now suggest, but with equal probability, they could turn out worse.”
Gray – Ridiculous. The global models have grossly errored on the side of too much global warming though their assumptions of unrealistic positive water vapor feed-back loop and lack of consideration of deep ocean currents. There is absolutely no way the models could have underplayed the role of human-induced CO2 increases on global warming.
Emanuel “We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty, which will never come, nor does it do anyone any good to assassinate science, the messenger.”
Gray – Living in an academic ‘ivory tower’ relieves Emanuel of having to face up to the hard economic and social realities of reducing fossil fuel usage. Following Emanuel’s logic we should move to implement the Cap-and-Trade bill presently before Congress, agree to international standards to implement fossil fuel restrictions and follow UN-global government dictates. I wonder if Emanuel has factored in the ensuing much higher costs of renewable energy and the resulting significant lowering of the global population’s standard of living, which large fossil fuel reductions would bring. I wonder if Emanuel realizes the effects these changes would have on the increased poverty and starvation within 3rd world countries. And has he considered how little the environment would really improve if such human sacrifices for nature were made?
We should all feel an obligation to assassinate ‘faulty’ science wherever we see it, including the blind belief (without evidence except the faulty models) that humans are largely responsible for climate change.
Emanuel “We might begin by mustering the courage to confront the problem of climate change in an honest and open way.”
Gray – Emanuel needs to make a better effort to follow his own advice. His Op/Ed piece is one-sided and is less than an honest and fair representation of the global warming controversy
Quote du jour:
"Veni, vidi, vici."
[I came, I saw, I conquered]
Julius Caesar, from Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, January 1, 1788.
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
IN DISQUISITIONS of every kind, there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasonings must depend. These contain an internal evidence which, antecedent to all reflection or combination, commands the assent of the mind. Where it produces not this effect, it must proceed either from some defect or disorder in the organs of perception, or from the influence of some strong interest, or passion, or prejudice. Of this nature are the maxims in geometry, that "the whole is greater than its part; things equal to the same are equal to one another; two straight lines cannot enclose a space; and all right angles are equal to each other." Of the same nature are these other maxims in ethics and politics, that there cannot be an effect without a cause; that the means ought to be proportioned to the end; that every power ought to be commensurate with its object; that there ought to be no limitation of a power destined to effect a purpose which is itself incapable of limitation. And there are other truths in the two latter sciences which, if they cannot pretend to rank in the class of axioms, are yet such direct inferences from them, and so obvious in themselves, and so agreeable to the natural and unsophisticated dictates of common-sense, that they challenge the assent of a sound and unbiased mind, with a degree of force and conviction almost equally irresistible.
The objects of geometrical inquiry are so entirely abstracted from those pursuits which stir up and put in motion the unruly passions of the human heart, that mankind, without difficulty, adopt not only the more simple theorems of the science, but even those abstruse paradoxes which, however they may appear susceptible of demonstration, are at variance with the natural conceptions which the mind, without the aid of philosophy, would be led to entertain upon the subject. The INFINITE DIVISIBILITY of matter, or, in other words, the INFINITE divisibility of a FINITE thing, extending even to the minutest atom, is a point agreed among geometricians, though not less incomprehensible to common-sense than any of those mysteries in religion, against which the batteries of infidelity have been so industriously leveled.
But in the sciences of morals and politics, men are found far less tractable. To a certain degree, it is right and useful that this should be the case. Caution and investigation are a necessary armor against error and imposition. But this untractableness may be carried too far, and may degenerate into obstinacy, perverseness, or disingenuity. Though it cannot be pretended that the principles of moral and political knowledge have, in general, the same degree of certainty with those of the mathematics, yet they have much better claims in this respect than, to judge from the conduct of men in particular situations, we should be disposed to allow them. The obscurity is much oftener in the passions and prejudices of the reasoner than in the subject. Men, upon too many occasions, do not give their own understandings fair play; but, yielding to some untoward bias, they entangle themselves in words and confound themselves in subtleties.
How else could it happen (if we admit the objectors to be sincere in their opposition), that positions so clear as those which manifest the necessity of a general power of taxation in the government of the Union, should have to encounter any adversaries among men of discernment? Though these positions have been elsewhere fully stated, they will perhaps not be improperly recapitulated in this place, as introductory to an examination of what may have been offered by way of objection to them. They are in substance as follows:
A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people.
As the duties of superintending the national defense and of securing the public peace against foreign or domestic violence involve a provision for casualties and dangers to which no possible limits can be assigned, the power of making that provision ought to know no other bounds than the exigencies of the nation and the resources of the community.
As revenue is the essential engine by which the means of answering the national exigencies must be procured, the power of procuring that article in its full extent must necessarily be comprehended in that of providing for those exigencies.
As theory and practice conspire to prove that the power of procuring revenue is unavailing when exercised over the States in their collective capacities, the federal government must of necessity be invested with an unqualified power of taxation in the ordinary modes.
Did not experience evince the contrary, it would be natural to conclude that the propriety of a general power of taxation in the national government might safely be permitted to rest on the evidence of these propositions, unassisted by any additional arguments or illustrations. But we find, in fact, that the antagonists of the proposed Constitution, so far from acquiescing in their justness or truth, seem to make their principal and most zealous effort against this part of the plan. It may therefore be satisfactory to analyze the arguments with which they combat it.
Those of them which have been most labored with that view, seem in substance to amount to this: "It is not true, because the exigencies of the Union may not be susceptible of limitation, that its power of laying taxes ought to be unconfined. Revenue is as requisite to the purposes of the local administrations as to those of the Union; and the former are at least of equal importance with the latter to the happiness of the people. It is, therefore, as necessary that the State governments should be able to command the means of supplying their wants, as that the national government should possess the like faculty in respect to the wants of the Union. But an indefinite power of taxation in the LATTER might, and probably would in time, deprive the FORMER of the means of providing for their own necessities; and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the national legislature. As the laws of the Union are to become the supreme law of the land, as it is to have power to pass all laws that may be NECESSARY for carrying into execution the authorities with which it is proposed to vest it, the national government might at any time abolish the taxes imposed for State objects upon the pretense of an interference with its own. It might allege a necessity of doing this in order to give efficacy to the national revenues. And thus all the resources of taxation might by degrees become the subjects of federal monopoly, to the entire exclusion and destruction of the State governments."
This mode of reasoning appears sometimes to turn upon the supposition of usurpation in the national government; at other times it seems to be designed only as a deduction from the constitutional operation of its intended powers. It is only in the latter light that it can be admitted to have any pretensions to fairness. The moment we launch into conjectures about the usurpations of the federal government, we get into an unfathomable abyss, and fairly put ourselves out of the reach of all reasoning. Imagination may range at pleasure till it gets bewildered amidst the labyrinths of an enchanted castle, and knows not on which side to turn to extricate itself from the perplexities into which it has so rashly adventured. Whatever may be the limits or modifications of the powers of the Union, it is easy to imagine an endless train of possible dangers; and by indulging an excess of jealousy and timidity, we may bring ourselves to a state of absolute scepticism and irresolution. I repeat here what I have observed in substance in another place, that all observations founded upon the danger of usurpation ought to be referred to the composition and structure of the government, not to the nature or extent of its powers. The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty. In what does our security consist against usurpation from that quarter? Doubtless in the manner of their formation, and in a due dependence of those who are to administer them upon the people. If the proposed construction of the federal government be found, upon an impartial examination of it, to be such as to afford, to a proper extent, the same species of security, all apprehensions on the score of usurpation ought to be discarded.
It should not be forgotten that a disposition in the State governments to encroach upon the rights of the Union is quite as probable as a disposition in the Union to encroach upon the rights of the State governments. What side would be likely to prevail in such a conflict, must depend on the means which the contending parties could employ toward insuring success. As in republics strength is always on the side of the people, and as there are weighty reasons to induce a belief that the State governments will commonly possess most influence over them, the natural conclusion is that such contests will be most apt to end to the disadvantage of the Union; and that there is greater probability of encroachments by the members upon the federal head, than by the federal head upon the members. But it is evident that all conjectures of this kind must be extremely vague and fallible: and that it is by far the safest course to lay them altogether aside, and to confine our attention wholly to the nature and extent of the powers as they are delineated in the Constitution. Every thing beyond this must be left to the prudence and firmness of the people; who, as they will hold the scales in their own hands, it is to be hoped, will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the State governments. Upon this ground, which is evidently the true one, it will not be difficult to obviate the objections which have been made to an indefinite power of taxation in the United States.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.latimes.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
Wikepediahttp://www.quotationspage.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Bill Gray
Kerry Emanuel
Peter Nicholas
William Shakespeare
No comments:
Post a Comment