Jane!

Jane!! Two?

I wanted to admire Nancy Pelosi. I truly did. But she’s trying too hard to keep that from happening.

We in this house had very high hopes for the Speaker. We feel awfully let down.

Global warming in our view is the number one issue facing the world. Who among the candidates are best in this critical area?

So — is there any truth to her statement at all? Is there a corporate policy in place with Murdoch? In the U.S.? In Australia? Anywhere?

The feeling here is that it is imperative that the next leader of the free world, be an environmental president.

Why oh why would Pelosi go on FOX at all? I guess her Chevron is saving our planet, commercial will be next.

Leadership and Pelosi are not synonymous.

Eureka Springs @ 7

Why oh why would Pelosi go on FOX at all?

A very good question. If one dares to say that there is a persecution of liberalism in this country, then surely Fox News is the Coloseum. I can’t for the life of me understand why anybody is volunteering to face the lions.

Can’t vouch for the source but News Corp has been at least saying the right things. Of course Rupert is not well known for his honesty…

Pelosi a liberal? Compared to what?

Eureka Springs @ 7

Why oh why would Pelosi go on FOX at all? I guess her Chevron is saving our planet, commercial will be next.

She obviously never saw the Big Dog’s interview from a few months ago with Wallace. Too bad.

petedownunder @ 10

Can’t vouch for the source but News Corp has been at least saying the right things. Of course Rupert is not well known for his honesty…

In much the same way that Rush Limbaugh is not known for his svelteness.

Drug Tests! Drug Tests! Drug Tests!
Nancy is high or crazy sure Fox is hyping that they are trying to be carbon neutral but does anyone who is not HIGH! believe it?
Attack Al Gore about Global warming then pay (well I hope she was paid) Nancy to hype Fox going Carbon Neutral. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!
Whats next O’Reily is going to start ranting about how Congress needs to pass the Fairness Doctrine. Is Rush going to start demanding truth in broadcasting!
Please tell me Nancy is HIGH, CRAZY, OR PAID…please do not tell me she really believes this if so we need to vote in a new Speaker of the House of Representives.

Doesn’t Rupert have the deepest pockets, or, is that George Soro’s distinction…?!!!

Oklahoma kiddo @ 11

Pelosi a liberal? Compared to what?

It doesn’t matter whether she really is. Faux will cheerfully call her one.

I think Kool Aid is pumped into the DC water supply, there’s no other explanation.

I think Murdock’s pockeds go Way Deep.
I applaud Robert Greenwald for continuing to produce these eye-opening Truth Films to challenge Fox’s Propadanda BS.
(and a bow to the Lake for highlighting this.)

Perhaps the Speaker sees the writing on the wall. Clinton and the DLC are looking like the winners right now and she wants to be on the same bandwagon whether it is actually good for the country or not.

Given the way Nancy Pelosi is gritting her teeth throughout this interview and praise of Fox on their global warming initiative, do you suppose she is sending us a cryptic message? Is there a gun pointed at her head? I saw this same expression on kidnapped prisoners telling the world how good they are being treated and how nice their captors are. Was their a Blackwater guard standing behind her, or scarier yet, in front of her?

Here’s the triangle we may very well be faced with in 2009: HRC, Reid and Pelosi.

EvilDrPuma @ 16

Oklahoma kiddo @ 11

Pelosi a liberal? Compared to what?

It doesn’t matter whether she really is. Faux will cheerfully call her one.

I seem to recall that Pelosi getting the gavel was the Repugs’ biggest rallying call in ‘06…!!! ;-)

Eureka Springs @ 19

Perhaps the Speaker sees the writing on the wall. Clinton and the DLC are looking like the winners right now and she wants to be on the same bandwagon whether it is actually good for the country or not.

Perhaps the Speaker should wait until somebody casts a vote. Perhaps it isn’t her job to make our political choices for us.

Jane, can ya get a refund for your Game 4 tix…??? ;-)

CTuttle @ 24

Jane, can ya get a refund for your Game 4 tix…??? ;-)

I hope that you’re right.

petedownunder @ 10

Can’t vouch for the source but News Corp has been at least saying the right things. Of course Rupert is not well known for his honesty…

Tell them what they want to hear and do the opposite. That’s the NeoCon way. Lies are good like greed is good.

QuakerGirl @ 26

petedownunder @ 10

Can’t vouch for the source but News Corp has been at least saying the right things. Of course Rupert is not well known for his honesty…

Tell them what they want to hear and do the opposite. That’s the NeoCon way. Lies are good like greed is good.

They do seem to have embraced the Seven Deadly Sins, don’t they?

please, speaker pelosi – tell me why…

JPL @ 25

CTuttle @ 24

Jane, can ya get a refund for your Game 4 tix…??? ;-)

I hope that you’re right.

Actually, I’m rooting for a 5 game shootout, so they’re plumb tuckered out for the Bosox on Friday in Fenway…!!! *g*

I am laughing at how pissed off this will make many conservatives who deny global warming has a thing to do with humans. (It’s all caused by cows passing gas, and trees, and stuff.)

“Fox News is whut?” lol

I suppose FOX will be exclusively covering the Democratic Convention next year with their special fun House camera lens and LSD gels.

Nancy Pelosi is really pushing the outer limits of political hackery with her tone-deaf, “praying he’ll do the right thing” interview performances of late, having finally emerged from wherever she’s been hiding from her constituents for the last year and a half.

Someone who knows the meaning of taking responsibility, and conscientiously exercising the awesome, inherent power invested in our Legislative Branch of government by our Constitution, on behalf of the American people rather than a narrow and petty party functionary agenda, took up his pen today and went straight to the heart of the matter. A someone whose words just might penetrate the closed minds of the D.C. Royalists in both political clubs, as published today in the New York Times:

How Congress Forgot Its Own Strength

By MARIO M. CUOMO
Published: October 7, 2007

SENATORS Jim Webb of Virginia and Hillary Clinton of New York are right to demand that the president go before Congress to ask for a “declaration of war” before proceeding with an attack against Iran or any other nation. But there is no need for this demand to be put into law, as the two Democrats and their colleagues are seeking to do, any more than there is need for legislation to guarantee our right of free speech or anything else protected by the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8 already provides that only Congress has the power to declare war. Perhaps the founders’ greatest concern in writing the Constitution was that they might unintentionally create a president who was too much like the British monarch, whom they despised. They expressed that concern in part by assuring that the president would not have the power to declare war.

Because the Constitution cannot be amended by persistent evasion, this mandate was neither erased nor modified by the actions or inactions of timid Congresses that allowed overeager presidents to start wars in Vietnam and elsewhere without making a declaration.

Http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10…..ref=slogin

Bill Richardson then reinforced Cuomo’s timely message on ABC’s Sunday talk show broadcast, as it relates to ending our involvement in Iraq, in accordance with an early position of his campaign:

But Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson challenged Pelosi’s assertion just a little later Sunday.

He told ABC News’s “This Week” that Congress could “de-authorize” the war without Bush’s signature, using a resolution already introduced by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).

“I believe a national movement could be built to support that,” Richardson said. “The president cannot veto that because it would be under Article I of the Constitution. That is the decisive step that the American people want. There is a disconnect between the voters and what’s happening in the Congress.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the…..10-07.html

Http://wa4richardson.blogspot……ation.html

Http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..v=hcmodule

Or as James Madison put it so well once upon a time:

“Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. That’s the ticket home for our troops and the way out of our unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of Iraq. The Constitutional road home to a democratic Republic with its central, proudly independent and self-sufficient Legislative Branch of government. Mario Cuomo, bless your responsible patriotic soul.

Margot @ 30

I am laughing at how pissed off this will make many conservatives who deny global warming has a thing to do with humans. (It’s all caused by cows passing gas, and trees, and stuff.)

“Fox News is whut?” lol

Nah. They’ll ignore it and move on to calling Pelosi a Nazi because she’s a Democrat.

Do you think Mark Penn and his boss are deeply concerned about global warming?

petedownunder @ 10

Can’t vouch for the source but News Corp has been at least saying the right things. Of course Rupert is not well known for his honesty…

Thanks for the link. Looks like Murdoch’s idea of a r-r-realy gr-r-reat effort is to change the light bulbs in the Fox studio exit signs and purchase electricity from hydro plants in Scotland if it makes economic sense. This is hardly the stuff of heroic measures. Pelosi ought to have gently twitted Murdoch on these anemic steps. Now if he’d suggested not putting out the WSJ on paper any more … THAT might have altered his carbon footprint.

NYT had a THREE PAGE article a few months back describing some Long Island household’s efforts to become energy efficient: all it amounted to, in the end, was using different light bulbs; everything else was just too much inconvenience. Newsweek just had a copycat article, and there the reporter said she had finally been able to train herself to turn off lights when she left a room and to turn off the computer when she went to work; as I recall, having to pack a lunch was making her late for twice as many appointments as when she didn’t.

I do not understand my fellow citizens, I have to say. I did not realize my upbringing was so atypical.

Things Come Undone @ 14

Drug Tests! Drug Tests! Drug Tests!
Nancy is high or crazy sure Fox is hyping that they are trying to be carbon neutral but does anyone who is not HIGH! believe it?
Attack Al Gore about Global warming then pay (well I hope she was paid) Nancy to hype Fox going Carbon Neutral. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!
Whats next O’Reily is going to start ranting about how Congress needs to pass the Fairness Doctrine. Is Rush going to start demanding truth in broadcasting!
Please tell me Nancy is HIGH, CRAZY, OR PAID…please do not tell me she really believes this if so we need to vote in a new Speaker of the House of Representives.

707! yeah, well I hope she was wearing a wire ;)

demi @ 18

I think Murdock’s pockeds go Way Deep.
I applaud Robert Greenwald for continuing to produce these eye-opening Truth Films to challenge Fox’s Propadanda BS.
(and a bow to the Lake for highlighting this.)

yeah, good one.

What is FOX’s moto, Fox speaks, you decide?

behindthefall @ 35

petedownunder @ 10

Can’t vouch for the source but News Corp has been at least saying the right things. Of course Rupert is not well known for his honesty…

Thanks for the link. Looks like Mirdoch’s idea of a r-r-realy gr-r-reat effort is to change the light bulbs in the Fox studio exit signs and purchase electricity from hydro plants in Scotland if it makes economic sense. This is hardly the stuff of heroic measures. Pelosi ought to have gently twitted Murdoch on these anemic measures. Now if he’d suggested not putting out the WSJ on paper any more … THAT might have altered his carbon footprint.

NYT has a THREE PAGE article a few months back describing some Long Island household’s efforts to become energy efficient: all it amounted to, in the end, was using different light bulbs; everything else was just too much inconvenience. Newsweek just had a copycat article, and there the reporter said she had finally been able to train herself to turn off lights when she left a room and to turn off the computer when she went to work; as I recall, having to pack a lunch was making her late for twice as many appointments as when she didn’t.

I do not understand my fellow citizens, I have to say.

I don’t own a car. If these people get praised in the press, surely I should get a statue. /snark

Super Mario…!!! A Home Run, a Grand Salami…!!!

“Because the Constitution cannot be amended by persistent evasion, this mandate was neither erased nor modified by the actions or inactions of timid Congresses that allowed overeager presidents to start wars in Vietnam and elsewhere without making a declaration.”

Mahalo, Pow Wow!!!

twȝk @ 37

demi @ 18

I think Murdock’s pockeds go Way Deep.
I applaud Robert Greenwald for continuing to produce these eye-opening Truth Films to challenge Fox’s Propadanda BS.
(and a bow to the Lake for highlighting this.)

yeah, good one.

What is FOX’s moto, Fox speaks, you decide?

“We distort, you recite.”

President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party’s leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy.

from helen thomas on friday.

I don’t think the Democratic leadership wants Gore to be president.

Margot @ 30

I am laughing at how pissed off this will make many conservatives who deny global warming has a thing to do with humans. (It’s all caused by cows passing gas, and trees, and stuff.)

“Fox News is whut?” lol

Dr. Goebbels’ wet dream.

Global climate change is all of our nightmare.

And Nancy Pelosi is a simp or a tool – the result is the same in either case.

Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.

They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast – and the seas are rising twice as rapidly – as had been predicted.

[snip]

The study, published by the US National Academy of Sciences, shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by about 3 per cent a year during this decade, compared with 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s.

The significance is that this is much faster than even the highest scenario outlined in this year’s massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – and suggests that their dire forecasts of devastating harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting ice and loss of species are likely to be understating the threat facing the world.

my head hurts…

Oklahoma kiddo @ 11

Pelosi a liberal? Compared to what?

She used to be– before she became Speaker. Now she’s all gooey-eyed while cooing about bipartisanship, doing kissy-poo with George and generally behaving in an embarrassing manner. I guess its all part of the DLC strategy to win over Republican voters. They seem to be more interested in that than in standing up for Democratic principles and values and stuff. After all, what’s more important? Votes or values?

Oops… got carried away with the program. Sorry ’bout that. I better go Prime the Pump some more. Got new stuff on Cheney to compile.

Bob in HI

Margot @ 30

I am laughing at how pissed off this will make many conservatives who deny global warming has a thing to do with humans. (It’s all caused by cows passing gas, and trees, and stuff.)

“Fox News is whut?” lol

i’d believe that was her intent if the house was actually doing something significant about trying to save the planet.

pow wow @ 32

Or as James Madison put it so well once upon a time:

“Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. That’s the ticket home for our troops and the way out of our unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of Iraq. The Constitutional road home to a democratic Republic with its central, proudly independent and self-sufficient Legislative Branch of government. Mario Cuomo, bless your responsible patriotic soul.

Great comment pow wow, I’ll read through the rest later.

EvilDrPuma @ 38

behindthefall @ 35

snip

NYT has a THREE PAGE article a few months back describing some Long Island household’s efforts to become energy efficient: all it amounted to, in the end, was using different light bulbs; everything else was just too much inconvenience. Newsweek just had a copycat article, and there the reporter said she had finally been able to train herself to turn off lights when she left a room and to turn off the computer when she went to work; as I recall, having to pack a lunch was making her late for twice as many appointments as when she didn’t.

I do not understand my fellow citizens, I have to say.

I don’t own a car. If these people get praised in the press, surely I should get a statue. /snark

Don’t know how you do it. Not even small cities have the infrastructure (busses and stores) to let people shop and live any more. What kinda statue would you like?

Days and nights are much warmer than normal in my neck of the woods this Fall (AC still on and we should be having our first fires in the fireplace) and we had the latest hard freeze any old timer can remember this Spring.. resulting in no fruit, berries, or nuts on the trees. Critters are going to suffer a great deal this winter no matter what the weather brings. And I didn’t see one honey bee all summer long.

I have never been a single issue voter. But it has finally come down to this: The first thing I look at in a candidate’s record is his or her’s stand on global warming.

Sorry Madame Pelosi, going to stroke Fox’s criminal ego is not part of your job description. There are bad criminals that should be impeached now… You know, before they start necluarizing Iran. You would not want that on your conscience. How do you sleep knowing how many soldiers have died since the surge was approved???

I think Rupert is starting to worry about his legacy thus his conversion to actually believing that global warming exists and his attempt to buy respectability via the WSJ. Alas for him, we know him for what he his, a guy who would rip his own mother off.

Does Nancy really think that by begging she can change the mind of a single Fox Viewer? Polite lies only go so far to ease you past a touchy subject they are ok for parties that you can’t escape from.
But Nancy is the Speaker of the House she can either act like it or keep pretending that she has to be nice to odious people to get what she wants.
Her party has a huge fundraising advantage she has 70% support for ending the war, but she begs!
She says polite lies/stories to be accepted by the unpopular kids who won’t accept her nomatter what she says or does?
Did Nancy watch “Mean Girls ” backwards?

Oklahoma kiddo @ 50

I have never been a single issue voter. But it has finally come down to this: The first thing I look at in a candidate’s record is his or her’s stand on global warming.

Well, you certainly have more to look at than trying to find one who’d like to give back the Unilateral Unitary Executive President/Decider-person powers they’ll be inheriting.

Having watched the clip of my Congresswoman, I’m going to say she’s setting FOX up. The next time one of their comedians rants about global warming being a hoax, if there’s a rational person present, he or she can quote the Speaker’s accolade to FOX News and say: if FOX thinks global warming is a fraud, why is your boss Rupert Murdoch taking NewsCorp to a carbon neutral stance?

Notice how Chris Wallace sez quickly — “Well, I had nothing to do with it.” Clearly the “news” folks have their response ready when presented with Murdoch’s initiative.

There’s a little too much cat/canary twinkle in her eye with Chris Wallace for me to believe otherwise.

ymmv.

behindthefall @ 48

EvilDrPuma @ 38

I don’t own a car. If these people get praised in the press, surely I should get a statue. /snark

Don’t know how you do it. Not even small cities have the infrastructure (busses and stores) to let people shop and live any more. What kinda statue would you like?

Speaking of statues:
PRINCE HARRY “DEAD” IN IRAQ WAR MEMORIAL

wtf?

selise @ 46,

I know…I don’t believe that was her intent and don’t really believe that’s how it will play to Fox News listeners.

Trying to make myself laugh is just a little effort I make to maintain a bit of sanity.

selise @ 44

my head hurts…

True, a nagging migraine… that doesn’t appear to be remedied in ‘08… As, Helen, pointed out in her classic understated manner…

“They have left the voters little choice with those answers.
Some supporters were outraged at the obfuscation by the Democratic front-runners.”
And,…”So what are the leading Democratic White House hopefuls offering? It seems nothing but more war. So where do the voters go who are sick of the Iraqi debacle?”

Enough is enough…!!! 8-(

EvilDrPuma @ 40

twȝk @ 37

yeah, good one.

What is FOX’s moto, Fox speaks, you decide?

“We distort, you recite.”

They lie, we deride!

selise @ 44

my head hurts…

This ain’t Jimmy Buffett singin’ it but maybe this song will help…

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming website.

~~~committee was established by Speaker Nancy Pelosi in early 2007 to add urgency and resources to the commitment of this Congress to address the challenges of America’s oil dependence and the threat of global warming.~~~

Selise, Ed Markey MA-07. Is he yours?

Let’s hope you are correct, TSF.

TeddySanFran @ 55

Having watched the clip of my Congresswoman, I’m going to say she’s setting FOX up. The next time one of their comedians rants about global warming being a hoax, if there’s a rational person present, he or she can quote the Speaker’s accolade to FOX News and say: if FOX thinks global warming is a fraud, why is your boss Rupert Murdoch taking NewsCorp to a carbon neutral stance?

Notice how Chris Wallace sez quickly — “Well, I had nothing to do with it.” Clearly the “news” folks have their response ready when presented with Murdoch’s initiative.

There’s a little too much cat/canary twinkle in her eye with Chris Wallace for me to believe otherwise.

ymmv.

As noted here before, I voted for the Speaker several times when I lived in Pelosi’s area in Cali. I truly hope you’re right.

selise @ 41

President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party’s leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy.

from helen thomas on friday.

Yes! Thank you, Helen Thomas! Invertebrate Democrats, take note and straighten up!!!

Dear Nancy,

I just wanted to write to you to let you know that someone impersonating you appeared today on the Repug Propaganda Channel.

Yup, that’s right. On Faux News! Can you believe it?

I know that it couldn’t have been you since you would never, ever be an enabler for Wingnuts profiting from their propaganda.

From what I understand, that impersonator was actually practicing “comity” with the Repug propagandists. Oh lawdy, I’m afraid I might be sick.

Now who in their right mind would believe for a second that someone as chaste, wholesome, and devoted as you must be would ever get in bed with Repug propagandists?

I sure hope you’re able to track down that impersonator and make sure she gets what she deserves, because she actually looked as if she liked Repugs. Oh lawdy, the thought of it, I’m afraid I might be really sick.

Anyways, don’t be surprised if you get a lot of nasty phone calls or find your phone number listed on the restroom walls.

I’m afraid you’ll just have to work harder to restore your reputation, but since that’s all you got, you’ll just have to try real, real hard.

Hugs and smooches, you poor thing!

Mad Dogs

Oklahoma kiddo @ 62

TeddySanFran @ 55

Having watched the clip of my Congresswoman, I’m going to say she’s setting FOX up. The next time one of their comedians rants about global warming being a hoax, if there’s a rational person present, he or she can quote the Speaker’s accolade to FOX News and say: if FOX thinks global warming is a fraud, why is your boss Rupert Murdoch taking NewsCorp to a carbon neutral stance?

Notice how Chris Wallace sez quickly — “Well, I had nothing to do with it.” Clearly the “news” folks have their response ready when presented with Murdoch’s initiative.

There’s a little too much cat/canary twinkle in her eye with Chris Wallace for me to believe otherwise.

ymmv.

As noted here before, I voted for the Speaker several times when I lived in Pelosi’s area in Cali. I truly hope you’re right.

So did I.. She made voting for Di Fi a little bit easier.

CTuttle @ 58 -

advil is my friend. just took 3.

If the Repubs split 50-50 into two parties, do the Dems follow suit with Triangulating Centrists and Progressives? We’d probably be looking at four parties with about 20-20-30-30% (going right to left, as it were). Progressives could just get pluralities across the board, PLUS elected officials who actually REPRESENTED THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THEM.

Has anybody worked this idea through recently?

Valley Girl @ 61

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming website.

~~~committee was established by Speaker Nancy Pelosi in early 2007 to add urgency and resources to the commitment of this Congress to address the challenges of America’s oil dependence and the threat of global warming.~~~

Selise, Ed Markey MA-07. Is he yours?

Let’s hope you are correct, TSF.

She set this committee up to get around John Dingell, who’s owned by Big Auto and whose wife Debbie is a GM lobbyist.

dakine01 @ 60

selise @ 44

my head hurts…

This ain’t Jimmy Buffett singin’ it but maybe this song will help…

This is, Bra, and it works, too…!!! *g*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzUhzRgk9xk

dakine01 @ 60

selise @ 44

my head hurts…

This ain’t Jimmy Buffett singin’ it but maybe this song will help…

lol.

behindthefall @ 67

If the Repubs split 50-50 into two parties, do the Dems follow suit with Triangulating Centrists and Progressives? We’d probably be looking at four parties with about 20-20-30-30% (going right to left, as it were). Progressives could just get pluralities across the board, PLUS elected officials who actually REPRESENTED THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THEM.

Has anybody worked this idea through recently?

I’ve been thinking that myself minus the numbers.

Teddy, if you’re right, I wish she’d use that kind of political wit more often. After all, if she hesitates to hold Bush to account, what makes you think she’ll do any better with Rupert? To me, she sadly seems to be too afraid of and/or worried about the Bush Dogs to do anything that smacks of holding anyone’s feet to the fire.

Yah boo sux to Nancy and Foxaganda.

As for corporate and other policies, there are lots of them. Follow the money generally helps.Philips, for instance, intended to run their incandescent manufacture through 2011 but hey! if people want CFTs, there’s more profit to be had there than in 1890 technology.

Now, I’ve been using CFTs for a dozen years, where applicable. They don’t like a lot of on-off duty cycle. And don’t drop one or you might end up with a $2,000 decontamination bill like the woman got in changing out the old nasty incandescent in her daughter’s bedroom.

The honcho from Nissan confirmed something I’d read some time back — ethanol is a net-loss answer. Diverting corn for food to production is oil intensive in the agricultural side and in delivery and processing and the end cost is great per gallon than refining gasoline. And the energy factor is about 40% less.

There are policies — and good policies.

I’ve been studying environment, pollution, oil, and climate longer than many people here have been alive. The hey! moment was probably Admiral Hyman G. Rickover’s contention in 1953 that “the oil would run out in a hundred years.”

Isaac Asimov articles in the 60s about potential climate change. Lyall Watson in the 80s. An obscure journal about ‘cycles’ of various kinds, astronomy magazines, you name it.

Of course climate change exists; it’s a feature, not a bug. We may not have much effect on the outcome but if we put all our emphasis on GW, the rest of the environmental crises could overwhelm us anyway.

Water. Air quality. Depleted uranium and other nuclear contaminations. Chemical dumping. Turning Brazil into one vast ethanol plantation by felling carbon sinks.

And as long as war and empire are the priority, it may all be moot anyway. If you as an individual live by spending more than you earn, sooner or later the music will stop. Same for an out of control government.

When the rest of the world gets tired of buying our debt, the chickens will come home to roost. And the environment then will shrink then to “where’s my next meal coming from?” Brother can you spare an Amero?

Valley Girl @ 61

Selise, Ed Markey MA-07. Is he yours?

nope. jim mcgovern is mine.

… and does markey’s committee have the power to do anything other than hold hearings? i’m still pissed off about cafe standards.

Peterr @ 72

Teddy, if you’re right, I wish she’d use that kind of political wit more often. After all, if she hesitates to hold Bush to account, what makes you think she’ll do any better with Rupert? To me, she sadly seems to be too afraid of and/or worried about the Bush Dogs to do anything that smacks of holding anyone’s feet to the fire.

Maybe it the Peter principle. No pun intended with your moniker.

She is first lady speaker and maybe doesn’t want to risk the term on the political edge.

looking at four parties with about 20-20-30-30%

20 Paul
20 Fundie
20 DLC
30% Who? (Kucinich for me but I see more support for DLC candidates on lefty blogs than progressive Democrats when it all comes down to it. ymmv)

CTuttle @ 69

dakine01 @ 60

This ain’t Jimmy Buffett singin’ it but maybe this song will help…

This is, Bra, and it works, too…!!! *g*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzUhzRgk9xk

Well, I was lookin’ for the specific song… Since it starts off “My head hurts…

And with no action on the war except to give Bush not one cent more than whatever the hell he wants, and almost single-handedly removing the impeachment clause from the Constitution…

I hope Sheehan wipes the floor with Pelosi. Sometimes you have to debride the body of dead tissue to encourage healthy growth for the long term.

twȝk @ 71

behindthefall @ 67

If the Repubs split 50-50 into two parties, do the Dems follow suit with Triangulating Centrists and Progressives? We’d probably be looking at four parties with about 20-20-30-30% (going right to left, as it were). Progressives could just get pluralities across the board, PLUS elected officials who actually REPRESENTED THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THEM.

Has anybody worked this idea through recently?

I’ve been thinking that myself minus the numbers.

Would put dealmaking on a party v. party basis, as far as the two left parties were concerned, whereas now dealmaking is entirely hidden and subject to being biased by seniority within the party. Also, pressure on the CenterDems from the left would be explicit and more intense than it is now; they might even be coming to the ProgDems on their knees. Alternatively, the CenterReps might find themselves being dragged closer to the CenterDems, and THAT could be interesting.

twȝk @ 75

Peterr @ 72

Teddy, if you’re right, I wish she’d use that kind of political wit more often. After all, if she hesitates to hold Bush to account, what makes you think she’ll do any better with Rupert? To me, she sadly seems to be too afraid of and/or worried about the Bush Dogs to do anything that smacks of holding anyone’s feet to the fire.

Maybe it the Peter principle. No pun intended with your moniker.

She is first lady speaker and maybe doesn’t want to risk the term on the political edge.

No, she’s got the smarts. She couldn’t have outmaneuvered Steny Hoyer to get the Minority Leader’s job, and then the Speakership, if she didn’t. I just wish those same smarts got aimed at Bush more often.

I miss Mario.

Once upon a time, there were lots of politicians who could speak in complete sentences that commanded the attention of their audiences, regardless of political affiliation. Today, not so much.

behindthefall @ 79

twȝk @ 71

I’ve been thinking that myself minus the numbers.

Would put dealmaking on a party v. party basis, as far as the two left parties were concerned, whereas now dealmaking is entirely hidden and subject to being biased by seniority within the party. Also, pressure on the CenterDems from the left would be explicit and more intense than it is now; they might even be coming to the ProgDems on their knees. Alternatively, the CenterReps might find themselves being dragged closer to the CenterDems, and THAT could be interesting.

yeah, and progressives could work with libertarians on a lot of things too.

Peterr @ 80

twȝk @ 75

Maybe it the Peter principle. No pun intended with your moniker.

She is first lady speaker and maybe doesn’t want to risk the term on the political edge.

No, she’s got the smarts. She couldn’t have outmaneuvered Steny Hoyer to get the Minority Leader’s job, and then the Speakership, if she didn’t. I just wish those same smarts got aimed at Bush more often.

I have no doubt that she has the smarts. I just wish she had an edge to it.

WOW. She’s running the show?
Oh H E l l o. Someone shoot me now please.

Eureka Springs @ 76

looking at four parties with about 20-20-30-30%

20 Paul
20 Fundie
20 DLC
30% Who? (Kucinich for me but I see more support for DLC candidates on lefty blogs than progressive Democrats when it all comes down to it. ymmv)

Fortunately, the 72 Progressives represent 30% of the Dems in the House…!!!

http://www.americanrhetoric.co…..984dnc.htm

go down an click on YouTube

(newt turned me onto this Cuomo speech)

Peterr @ 81

I miss Mario.

Once upon a time, there were lots of politicians who could speak in complete sentences that commanded the attention of their audiences, regardless of political affiliation. Today, not so much.

This site has had me addicted for quite a while (thanks selise!), with its wealth of really cool stuff. This link allows listening and DOWNLOADING of Gov. Cuomo’s 1984 Democratic Convention keynote. Awesome.

Peterr @ 72

Teddy, if you’re right, I wish she’d use that kind of political wit more often. After all, if she hesitates to hold Bush to account, what makes you think she’ll do any better with Rupert? To me, she sadly seems to be too afraid of and/or worried about the Bush Dogs to do anything that smacks of holding anyone’s feet to the fire.

She’s looking at her legacy, which will likely long outlast Bush. She is 67. Speaker Rayburn, the longest serving Speaker, served from 1940 to 1961, with two two-year interruptions for GOP control. It’s entirely possible Pelosi could serve as long, until 2028, or even longer.

But sometimes the long game gets interrupted in ways one least expects it.

Personally, I think Democrats should boycott FOX News. I don’t know why they don’t.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 21

Here’s the triangle we may very well be faced with in 2009: HRC, Reid and Pelosi.

Yup. We very well might see that triumvirate in 2009. Given that the alternative appears to be Giuliani, Lott, and Boehner, I think I’ll take it.

I am just looking for a candidate that will tell the truth. It’s not complicated.

CTuttle @ 85

Eureka Springs @ 76

20 Paul
20 Fundie
20 DLC
30% Who? (Kucinich for me but I see more support for DLC candidates on lefty blogs than progressive Democrats when it all comes down to it. ymmv)

Fortunately, the 72 Progressives represent 30% of the Dems in the House…!!!

Go Blue America! *s* I should have specified I was thinking about presidential races.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 21

Here’s the triangle we may very well be faced with in 2009: HRC, Reid and Pelosi.

Well. That’s an improvement on the current Bush, Reid, and Pelosi.

I don’t like HRC, but no one’s as bad as Bush.

newtonusr- SNAP! The one I found is on “Great American Rhetoric” – it really something, that speech.

Valley Girl @ 93

newtonusr- SNAP! The one I found is on “Great American Rhetoric” – it really something, that speech.

No doubt.

(link to American Rhetoric’s speech bank is here . . . but don’t go unless you’ve got plenty of time!)

Valley Girl @ 86

http://www.americanrhetoric.co…..984dnc.htm

go down an click on YouTube

(newt turned me onto this Cuomo speech)

wow, yeah, I remember that speech.

TeddySanFran @ 55

Having watched the clip of my Congresswoman, I’m going to say she’s setting FOX up. The next time one of their comedians rants about global warming being a hoax, if there’s a rational person present, he or she can quote the Speaker’s accolade to FOX News and say: if FOX thinks global warming is a fraud, why is your boss Rupert Murdoch taking NewsCorp to a carbon neutral stance?

Notice how Chris Wallace sez quickly — “Well, I had nothing to do with it.” Clearly the “news” folks have their response ready when presented with Murdoch’s initiative.

There’s a little too much cat/canary twinkle in her eye with Chris Wallace for me to believe otherwise.

ymmv.

I agree. And I like the fact that she thanked him for coming to the Speaker’s office at the end was planned so that people know Wallace didn’t get her to hippity hop over to FOX.

Oh sure… I’ll vote for Hillary if she’s the nominee. Will I like it? Not one damn bit.

LMHO! – FAUX carbon neutral? They’d have to have some sort of incredible new invention to counter all the hot air and methane spewed by their talking heads and TV shock jocks.

direct youtube link to Cuomo speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOdIqKsv624

No more lies. No more triangulating. No more spin. Truth is not complicated. Lies are.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 97

Oh sure… I’ll vote for Hillary if she’s the nominee. Will I like it? Not one damn bit.

Scootch over. This box is gettin’ crowded ;-)

According to David Broder’s stenography of RNCC head Tom Cole, Hillary will not win Georgia or Kansas or Texas, damaging the prospects of incumbent Congressional Democrats there.

If Georgia and Kansas and Texas are the battleground states for 2008, I’d say we’re in pretty good shape!

Ed*ard Teller @ 98

LMHO! – FAUX carbon neutral? They’d have to have some sort of incredible new invention to counter all the hot air and methane spewed by their talking heads and TV shock jocks.

They’d have to reforest the entire Amazon Basin, to even think about neutralizing their spew…!!! ;-0

Ed*ard Teller @ 98

LMHO! – FAUX carbon neutral? They’d have to have some sort of incredible new invention to counter all the hot air and methane spewed by their talking heads and TV shock jocks.

And if they are really carbon neutral, that’s got to carry throughout the organization: all kinds of new recycling bins in many colors, very confusing for Orally and Gibby, I bet.

LHP up!

new post upstairs

LHP is upstairs

New Thread…

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..s/#respond

OT:

I’ll say it now and loud, if Hillary is elected by Dems who don’t know about her, it won’t take long after she’s in office before they all start saying, “Hey, wait a minute. I didn’t vote for her to do *that*.”

If they don’t start paying attention now they’re going to be very disappointed later.

Remember, Bush II was hardly the same as Bush I, so why should Clinton II be anything like Clinton I.

And this is what frightens me about the dems in 2008. Dems have an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. There are times when it seems that some dems like Pelosi are actually working for the republicans. Even though the Reps are despised right now by a majority of americans, it doesn’t mean victory for dems in 08 is assured. I fear for my country and I fear for the world.

TeddySanFran @ 55

Having watched the clip of my Congresswoman, I’m going to say she’s setting FOX up. The next time one of their comedians rants about global warming being a hoax, if there’s a rational person present, he or she can quote the Speaker’s accolade to FOX News and say: if FOX thinks global warming is a fraud, why is your boss Rupert Murdoch taking NewsCorp to a carbon neutral stance?

Notice how Chris Wallace sez quickly — “Well, I had nothing to do with it.” Clearly the “news” folks have their response ready when presented with Murdoch’s initiative.

There’s a little too much cat/canary twinkle in her eye with Chris Wallace for me to believe otherwise.

ymmv.

I remember seeing the look in her eye as well, and being rather bewildered at her comment. Without understanding what it was, I decided it was a landmine. Thanks for shedding a little light on the text for me Teddy.

Pelosi hails from Bodymore Murderland and was raised doing constituency services at her fathers knee. I am very dissapointed at congress, but Pelosi has a lot of admiration from me. Getting the legislation passed that has made it into law with President* Bush in office is admirable, Iraq occupation notwithstanding.

TSF, saw your comments to Andrew Rice and his answers. Good on both of you. If we are serious about Global Warming, the chief political denier, Inhofe, needs to be living on Tulsa time.

So look at that, Fox News leading the way in environmental protection and reversing global warning.

I don’t know. “So, look at that. Gee…FOX leading the way….” Sounds like there might be some drippy sarcasm hiding in there. Can you imagine the apoplexy caused in some of FOX viewers after that statement.

Eureka Springs @ 65

Oklahoma kiddo @ 62

As noted here before, I voted for the Speaker several times when I lived in Pelosi’s area in Cali. I truly hope you’re right.

So did I.. She made voting for Di Fi a little bit easier.

Pelosi made voting for DiFI easier?

You voted for DiFi?

I sure as hell hope it wasn’t because you thought that she’d help us get out of Iraq.
One thing living in San Francisco has taught me: Dianne is the quintissential “DINO.”

moose @ 73

Yah boo sux to Nancy and Foxaganda.

As for corporate and other policies, there are lots of them. Follow the money generally helps.

[snip]

Water. Air quality. Depleted uranium and other nuclear contaminations. Chemical dumping. Turning Brazil into one vast ethanol plantation by felling carbon sinks.

And as long as war and empire are the priority, it may all be moot anyway. If you as an individual live by spending more than you earn, sooner or later the music will stop. Same for an out of control government.

When the rest of the world gets tired of buying our debt, the chickens will come home to roost. And the environment then will shrink then to “where’s my next meal coming from?” Brother can you spare an Amero?

moose, I love your comment (well – most of it *g*) I’m a nerd, and I’ve been readig sci-fi and Asimov since the late 60’s….I still remember seeing the “Dangerous Visions” anthology for the first time (in the public library where I worked thoughout high school).

You raise many excellent and valid points:

lethal war and our lethal empire

about the inverse correlation between (apparent) affluence and teh capacity to make short-term choices which – while more “costly” in immediate terms, are far more thrifty for our children.

Love your summary of (non-climate) threats:

Water. Air quality. Depleted uranium and other nuclear contaminations. Chemical dumping. Turning Brazil into one vast ethanol plantation by felling carbon sinks.

I hope you’ll tell me what CFT’s are – and I agree with you on ethanol as a dead end – immediately for forests, organgs, bonobos and gorillas (our living relatives, save for a percent or so of DNA), and soon for us all.

Of course climate change exists; it’s a feature, not a bug. We may not have much effect on the outcome

Unless I’m not following, this observation seems to have lost the plot

regarding the data and widespread scientific consensus reflected in the IPCC.

Like this fellow:

More intense cyclones, rising sea levels and increased flooding will be the pattern for Australia’s coastal communities by 2050, according to one of Australia’s leading climate change experts, Professor Nick Harvey.

The University of Adelaide professor is one of five Australian lead authors on the Australia and New Zealand Chapter from the second Working Group of the IPCC, the global body assessing the scientific evidence for climate change.

IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) released the group’s report, called Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, in Brussels last month.

[snip]

Professor Harvey, from the University of Adelaide’s School of Social Sciences, has had a long involvement with scientific global change research.

He was Vice-Chair of the international peak body examining the effect of global change on the world’s coastlines, LOICZ (Land Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone) from 1997-2002. Professor Harvey is currently Chair of the international START-Oceania committee, based in Fiji, dealing with global change research and training. He has also authored more than 100 scientific papers and books.

He is also a member of the University of Adelaide’s Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability and the only IPCC lead author from South Australia.

On the issue of causes of climate change, Professor Harvey said: “Cycles of climate change are evident from the geological record, but human impact is now adding to the natural cycle. In fact a few years ago the prestigious scientific journal Nature published an article referring to a new geological era called the `Anthropocene’ reflecting the significance of human influence on global change.”

IPCC was established by two United Nations organisations – the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

The report, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, is the second volume of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment on global warming involving 2500 of the world’s most respected scientists, including 25 from Australia.

Or this fellow, Crutzen:

He’s the joker who came up with that wacky term “the Anthropocene”.

Crutzen and his colleague even went so far as to assert:

To assign a more specific date to the onset of the ‘anthropocene” seems somewhat arbitrary, but we propose the latter part of the 18th century, although we are aware that alternative proposals can be made (some may even want to include the entire holocene). However, we choose this date because, during the past two centuries, the global effects of human activities have become clearly noticeable. This is the period when data retrieved from glacial ice cores show the beginning of a growth in the atmospheric concentrations of several ‘greenhouse gases”, in particular C02 and CH4 (7). Such a starting date also coincides with James Watt’s invention of the steam engine in 1784. About at that time, biotic assemblages in most lakes began to show large changes (11-13).

Without major catastrophes like an enormous volcanic eruption, an unexpected epidemic, a large-scale nuclear war, an asteroid impact, a new ice age, or continued plundering of Earth’s resources by partially still primitive technology (the last four dangers can, however, be prevented in a real functioning no6sphere) mankind will remain a major geological force for many millennia, maybe millions of years, to come. To develop a world-wide accepted strategy leading to sustainability of ecosystems against human induced stresses will be one of the great future tasks of mankind, requiring intensive research efforts and wise application of the knowledge thus acquired in the noösphere, better known as knowledge or information society. An exciting, but also difficult and daunting task lies ahead of the global research and engineering community to guide mankind towards global, sustainable, environmental management (15).

We thank the many colleagues, especially the members of the IGBP Scientific Committee, for encouraging correspondence and advice.

Paul J. Crutzen

Max-Planck-Institute for Chemistry

Eugene F. Stoermer

Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic

Sciences

University of Michigan

Uh – moose – whole lotta footnotes in the global consensus IPCC work.

And this crackpot Crutzen – the guy who coined the term Anthropocene?

He’s such an outlier – an atmospheric chemist, how’s that for airy-fairy? –

…..he’s such an outlier that he won the Nobel Prize.

Now moose, in the sciences we show our work.

I may have misunderstood – but if you are suggesting what the Nobel Laureate Crutzen describes as the Anthropocene is a normal climatic variant…

can you please show us your work?

The Lake, the IPCC, and a certain Nobel Laureate would be most edified by the results.

As would I.

Thanks in advance.

RickinSF @ 113

Eureka Springs @ 65

So did I.. She made voting for Di Fi a little bit easier.

Pelosi made voting for DiFI easier?

You voted for DiFi?

I sure as hell hope it wasn’t because you thought that she’d help us get out of Iraq.
One thing living in San Francisco has taught me: Dianne is the quintissential “DINO.”

I don’t think you should be shocked about someone voting for someone you don’t approve of. What were the choices? Would you rather they had voted for a republican? Or possibly a third party candidate? I have no idea who was on the ballot, so I can make no judgement. Since I do not know who was on the ballot, I can see very little wrong with at least voting for the democrat.

I’ve two reactions to the report of Pelosi complimenting FOX on their global warming policies:

1) She’s bending over backward to say something nice about FOX to show she’s bipartisan and not like those radical Democrats who boycott FOX debates and FOX in general.

2) Pelosi is messing with their heads.

I wish it were 2, but I’m afraid 1 is far more likely. It’s a conditioned reflex by now.

I have a friend who works for big Fox. They do get a rebate/stipend if they purchase a hybrid. It is a good place to start..