Politics - 19 June 2007

No joke.

This is the same guy in the 70s who led a small group of climatologists to champion the belief that the return of the Ice Age has come. He also claims to be a self-effacing scientist and that the scientists who support global warming are just trying to advance a name for themselves with some "novel idea." As of 1986, he retired from UW-Madison but decided to work there without a paid tenure. His meterology degree also dates back to 1948 – pretty old for a scientist who hasn’t been in school for half a century. So why would an aging professor who's claim to fame as the "Father of Climatology" attack the overwhelming evidence that links a correlation between human activities and the increase of C02?

Look at what he wrote in his book, "The Weather Conspiracy":

“There is very important climatic change going on right now, and it’s not merely something of academic interest..It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth – like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in a rather drastic way.”

At the end of the day, science trumps all politics and the stack of cards that you cons handpick will eventually fall from its foundations. Who do really believe in this issue, scientists who reason with the evidence or an Ice Age loon who criticizes global warming without providing any other alternative explanations?

2007-06-19 13:04:12 · 9 answers · asked by ibid 3

What do you think you are "entitled" to from birth without having to work for it?

*****This is an economic not a social question.*****

2007-06-19 12:54:49 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/bloomberg_politics;_ylt=AphHk1.cKboX4oKgzWfRAD.s0NUE

NEW YORK - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday switched his party status from Republican to unaffiliated, a stunning move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race.

I never trusted that weasley liberal b*stard for one second.
Now he has left the GOP.

All I can say is, GOOD RIDDANCE!!!

What say you?

2007-06-19 12:41:02 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

Just find it interesting that while Hollywood has a very big reputation for being liberal and there are always liberal actors being mentioned as candidates, it always for some reason seems to be the conservative actors/performers who actually run.
Regan, Arnold, Sonny Bono, possibly Thompson, even the guy from Dukes of Hazard, cooter, ran and Gopher from Love boat, all, I think, as Republicans.

Not really a question but just something I've always found interesting and don't really know why it happens that way.

2007-06-19 12:30:15 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

Industries Served

From foods and beverages to papers and building materials, Corn Products International's product and application experience spans a wide array of more than 60 industries. The primary industries we serve include food, soft drink, brewing, pharmaceutical, paper, textile and corrugating.
The Food Sector
Our sweeteners are found in:
Carbonated beverages
Beer
Sports drinks
Frozen desserts
Canned fruits and vegetables
Drink mixes
Presweetened cereals
Breads
Fruit juices
Jams and jellies Chewing gum
Cream fillings
Syrups
Candy

Our starches are found in:
Cereals
Soups
Sauces Drink mixes
Pudding
Cakes Cookies
Crackers

The Industrial Sector
Our starches are found in:
Paper
Corrugated boxes
Textiles Adhesives
Rubber
Leather Detergents


The Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Sector
Our products are found in:

Baby and face powders
Conditioners
Cosmetics
Deodorants
Intravenous solutions
Pharmaceuticals


Shampoos
Soaps
Vitamins

2007-06-19 12:28:16 · 12 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

Why? How would he do it?

2007-06-19 12:24:25 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

POLICYMAKERS and legislators often fail to consider the law of unintended consequences. The latest example is their attempt to reduce the United States' dependence on imported oil by shifting a big share of the nation's largest crop, corn, to the production of ethanol for fueling automobiles.

Good goal, bad policy. In fact, ethanol will do little to reduce the large percentage of our fuel that is imported (more than 60%), and the ethanol policy will have widespread and profound ripple effects on other markets. Corn farmers and ethanol refiners are ecstatic about the ethanol boom and are enjoying the windfall of artificially enhanced demand. But it will be an expensive and dangerous experiment for the rest of us.

On Capitol Hill, the Senate is debating legislation that would further expand corn ethanol production. A 2005 law already mandates production of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012, about 5% of the projected gasoline use at that time. These biofuel goals are propped up by a generous federal subsidy of 51 cents a gallon for blending ethanol into gasoline, and a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on most imported ethanol to help keep out cheap imports from Brazil. The proposed legislation is a prime example of throwing good money after a bad idea.

President Bush has set a target of replacing 15% of domestic gasoline use with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) over the next 10 years, which would require almost a fivefold increase in mandatory biofuel use, to about 35 billion gallons. With current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no feasible alternative. However, achieving the 15% goal would require the entire current U.S. corn crop, which represents a whopping 40% of the world's corn supply. This would do more than create mere market distortions; the irresistible pressure to divert corn from food to fuel would create unprecedented turmoil.

Thus, it is no surprise that the price of corn has doubled in the last year — from $2 to $4 a bushel. We are already seeing upward pressure on food prices as the demand for ethanol boosts the demand for corn. Until the recent ethanol boom, more than 60% of the annual U.S. corn harvest was fed domestically to cattle, hogs and chickens or used in food or beverages. Thousands of food items contain corn or corn byproducts. In Mexico, where corn is a staple food, the price of tortillas has skyrocketed because U.S. corn has been diverted to ethanol production.

And any sort of shock to corn yields, such as drought, unseasonably hot weather, pests or disease could send food prices into the stratosphere. Such concerns are more than theoretical. In 1970, a widespread outbreak of a fungus called southern corn leaf blight destroyed 15% of the U.S. corn crop.

Politicians like to say that ethanol is environmentally friendly, but these claims must be put into perspective. Although corn is a renewable resource, it has a far lower yield relative to the energy used to produce it than either biodiesel (such as soybean oil) or ethanol from other plants. Moreover, ethanol yields about 30% less energy per gallon than gasoline, so mileage drops off significantly. Finally, adding ethanol raises the price of blended fuel because it is more expensive to transport and handle.

Lower-cost biomass ethanol — for example, from rice straw (a byproduct of harvesting rice) or switchgrass — would make far more economic sense, but large volumes of ethanol from biomass will not be commercially viable for many years. (And production will be delayed by government policies that specifically encourage corn-based ethanol by employing subsidies.)

American legislators and policymakers seem oblivious to the scientific and economic realities of ethanol production. Brazil and other major sugar cane-producing nations enjoy significant advantages over the U.S. in producing ethanol, including ample agricultural land, warm climates amenable to vast plantations and on-site distilleries that can process cane immediately after harvest.

Thus, in the absence of cost-effective, domestically available sources for producing ethanol, rather than using corn, it would make far more sense to import ethanol from Brazil and other countries that can produce it efficiently — and also to remove the 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol imports.

Our politicians may be drunk with the prospect of corn-derived ethanol, but if we don't adopt policies based on science and sound economics, it is consumers around the world who will suffer the hangover.
________________________________________

2007-06-19 12:22:10 · 5 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

Ambassador's Memo Asks for 'Best People'
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 19, 2007; A01
Ryan C. Crocker, the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq, bluntly told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a cable dated May 31 that the embassy in Baghdad -- the largest and most expensive U.S. embassy -- lacks enough well-qualified staff members and that its security rules are too restrictive for Foreign Service officers to do their jobs.

"Simply put, we cannot do the nation's most important work if we do not have the Department's best people," Crocker said in the memo.

The unclassified cable underscores the State Department's struggle to find its role in the turmoil in Iraq. With a 2007 budget of more than $1 billion and a staff that has expanded to more than 1,000 Americans and 4,000 third-country nationals, the embassy has become the center of a bureaucratic battle between Crocker, who wants to strengthen the staff, and some members of Congress.

humm.

2007-06-19 12:21:52 · 4 answers · asked by rare2findd 6

I find this "question" and the subsequent "answers" amusing:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070619154713AAUaZsF&r=w#RsR4WTC1UGLXAOZlOfd26Pr22G__DAD6hVJeJW5TpX.ayPFJ4ZHX

Guy discusses (half of) an article in which the so-called "Father of Climatology" (no explanation of how he got that title or who gave it to him) claims that global warming isn't caused by humans. He just gives his opinion, providing no evidence. Guy fails to mention that the second half of the article was devoted to scientists providing evidence to support their arguments that the current global warming is primarily caused by humans. Answerers eat it up with a spoon.

So now that you know the truth of the article, which would you be more likely to believe?

87-year-old scientist who somehow got the title "Father of Climatology" who gives his opinion that global warming isn't caused by humans.

Other scientists who provide evidence to support their argument that it is.

Evidence or Label?

2007-06-19 12:12:05 · 16 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

maybe you want to show the Muslim world that you do not hate them,so you want to give them territory which is Serbian.give them part of America if you like them so much.i do not hate Muslims,but I'm pi...d off when they want to steal something which is not theirs.

2007-06-19 12:07:34 · 3 answers · asked by Vlad 2

Can it be that he wants to distance himself from corporate corruption?

2007-06-19 12:05:08 · 19 answers · asked by Who Else? 7

2007-06-19 12:01:19 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

the word CHRISTIAN sound so dirty?

2007-06-19 12:00:58 · 12 answers · asked by Your Teeth or Mine? 5

2007-06-19 11:49:59 · 2 answers · asked by Half-pint 5

And not proven to be caused by MAN or even CARBON DIOXIDE !! Hmmmmmm , I wonder how many people who have been fooled will now rethink their positions . And from an extremely Liberal Institution too. . . . UW Madison !! Hmmmm , very interesting !!
His name is Reid Bryson and I'm sure you can find a link . I don't have one because quite simply I didn't learn this from a website . Instead , I read exact quotes from him on the news .
BTW , he also displayed complete disgust with 'An Inconvenient Truth' and Al Gore !! Hmmmmm .

If you believe that man is not only responsible , but also is even capable to change Global Warming , then I ask you. .. . . . . .. . . .. . .. .Will You Rethink Your Position ?

Son of a gun. . . things that make you go Hmmmmmmm !!!

2007-06-19 11:47:13 · 42 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have always leaned right but hate to identify with any LABEL. Most of the republicans candidates and democratic candidates really have similar agendas.

So will you people stop asking questions "why do republicans think....or why do liberals believe...." It is freaking annoying. Stop labeling!!!

2007-06-19 11:42:32 · 13 answers · asked by Beauty&Brains 4

I say yes. The media is mine mine mine!! All mine!!! What's this? Wa wa wa wa wa... Mommy!!!

2007-06-19 11:41:54 · 19 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4

My cousin, a very loud democrat,...

b****ed and moaned about my dad, bf, and her grandmother's smoking(we were out side in wide open area);
made fun of the military even though my dad, my mom, my bf, our grandfather and her dad was in the military;
wouldn't stop cursing;
and brought her 'friend' to a family picnic but as loud as she is, didn't have the balls to say is was her girlfriend(we don't care that she is Les, we care that she's basically lying to our faces).

She's also a high school drop out, doesn't work and is on welfare, she goes out every night bar hopping, and has done every drug I can think of.

2007-06-19 11:35:19 · 42 answers · asked by TJ815 4

Amendment 14
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

2007-06-19 11:31:10 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

If we pull out what would they do if everything that we worked for over there is destroyed and is controlled by terrorist supporters. It be on there heads they would have created that thanks to the very left wing. But they will change my question about Bush anyway they never answer questions without using his name anyway.

2007-06-19 11:31:01 · 7 answers · asked by Jeremy P 2

This is a pretty stupid question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Here goes.
How do you form you're own political party?

ThankYou

2007-06-19 11:29:57 · 2 answers · asked by Cool Guy 2

Settlers to America forged a nation in a wilderness. Without any welfare system, social security system, or national healthcare system, they survived. They fed their families, built homes, and raised crops without any government aid.
Today, Americans seem to turn to the government for every solution to the problems of life. Many Americans seem to think big government can solve big problems in their lives. They fail to see that every one of life's problems ceded to the government also cedes freedom of choice. Every problem ceded to government cedes independence.
One by one, big government will remove the choices in life, for your own safety of course. Government sponsored healthcare will come with a lot more rules than just wearing a seatbelt when you drive.
Are you ready to lose what little independence you may have left?

2007-06-19 11:29:01 · 4 answers · asked by Perplexed Bob 5

Why is it a problem...people always assume a gay person will probably like them or be attracted to them when that is not true. Why is it right to force someone hide who they are and fire them if they reveal it?

2007-06-19 11:26:15 · 18 answers · asked by Lindsey G 5

FOXNews.com Rave Review Included In TV Ads for Michael Moore's 'Sicko'
Posted by Tim Graham on June 19, 2007 - 14:22.

Sometimes, it’s a little tough for the Fox News-bashing left to stamp the Ailes Network with the Uniformly Right-Wing complaint. For example, it’s not every day that Fox News looks liberal on CNN. But I caught the new commercial for leftist propagandist Michael Moore’s new mockumentary "Sicko" on CNN late this morning. One of three ecstatic reviewers in the TV ad is Roger Friedman of FOXNews.com ("Brilliant!")

Is that one of those tricky studio edits that doesn’t really represent the critic’s opinion? Um, no. Friedman’s online review was a rave. It began: "Filmmaker Michael Moore's brilliant and uplifting new documentary, ‘Sicko,’ deals with the failings of the U.S. healthcare system, both real and perceived. But this time around, the controversial documentarian seems to be letting the subject matter do the talking, and in the process shows a new maturity."

Friedman added: "Unlike many of his previous films ('Roger and Me,' 'Bowling for Columbine,' 'Fahrenheit 9-11'), 'Sicko' works because in this one there are no confrontations. Moore smartly lets very articulate average Americans tell their personal horror stories at the hands of insurance companies. The film never talks down or baits the audience." Friedman even agreed with Moore that the film was not partisan – but the commercial has two jokey cuts mocking President Bush, including the old gaffe that OB-GYNS can't "practice their love with women" due to the liability problem. Mature? Nonpartisan?

Of course, film reviewing is about the art of film, and not just the politics, I haven't seen the film so I can't comment on its maturity or lack of confrontation. (The commercial does feature Moore lying to a security guard about whether his camera was on. Cheeky? Or too casual about lying?)

But Friedman also raved the last Moore film was "brilliant" at FOXNews.com: "It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail. As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice." He added it was a must-see: "But, really, in the end, not seeing 'F9/11' would be like allowing your First Amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat."

So much for the cartoon image of Fox News as a land of Bush-loving automatons. The other rave reviewers in the commercial are Leah Rozen of People Magazine ("A massive home run!") and Jan Stuart of Newsday ("Wildly entertaining!")

UPDATE: Scott Whitlock e-mailed that Friedman had a similar rave for Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" -- it's featured on the cover of the DVD, he says. The quote: "It doesn't matter whether you're a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative...your mind will be changed in a nanosecond."

2007-06-19 11:24:09 · 8 answers · asked by GREAT_AMERICAN 1

Having been called a Neocon so many times, and not knowing what that meant, I decided to look it up.
It began as a movement aroung 1945, by the "Intellectual Liberals" who felt all the Social Programs under FDR would hurt America in the Long Term. The first prominant Neocon was Harry Truman. After that, JFK. As they were Democrats who thought a very tough military, tough stand against Communism and Socialism, and a Lower Individual Tax Rate were very important for America.
The first Negative use of the Term Neocon, was by "Michael Harrington" against the "Intellectual Democrats" who were not Liberal enough.
Some of Michael Harrington's Highlights:
In the 50's and 60's had a growing interest in Marxism.
Joined the "Independant Socialist League" under former Trotskyist leader Max Shactman.
Led the "Norman Thomas Socialst Party"
Died in 1989 as the most wll known Socialist in America".
Being I despise Sociaism.
Isn't it a Compliment to be called a NeoCon?

2007-06-19 11:22:03 · 18 answers · asked by Ken C 6

more of an experiment in repressive censorship than a Q & A forum? I've had some questions removed for no reason other than posting known facts about democrats and radical liberals, but I've repeatedly seen slams against anything slightly conservative or anti-amnesty. Who else has had this experience?

2007-06-19 11:21:05 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

answer

2007-06-19 11:20:05 · 2 answers · asked by nati ma 1

Double standards depend on demanding from United States and Europe a sort of impossible perfection. When such utopianism is not--and never can be--met, cheap accusations of racism, colonialism, and imperialism follow. Such posturing is intended to con the West into feeling guilty, and, with such self-loathing, granting political concessions, relaxing immigration, or handing over more foreign aid. Left unsaid is that such critics of the West will always ignore their own hypocrisy, and, when convenient, destroy civilized norms while expecting someone else to restore them when needed.

What, then, to do? Stop feeling guilty, apologizing, and trying to rationalize barbarity. Instead insist on the same uniform standards of humane behavior from our critics that they now demand from us.

Finally, remember that there is a reason why millions flood into Europe from the Middle East and to America from Mexico--and not vice versa. There is a reason why Democrats and Republicans don't shoot each other in the streets of Washington, or why blue-state America does not mine red-state highways. And there is a reason why a Shiite mosque in Detroit is safer in the land of the Great Satan than it would be in Muslim Saudi Arabia. It's called civilization--a precious and fragile commodity that is missed even by its destroyers the minute they've done away with it.

2007-06-19 11:17:33 · 28 answers · asked by Dina W 6

Look for these tracks.........
http://www.geocities.com/wiregrass_willie/foot.jpg

2007-06-19 11:12:48 · 5 answers · asked by citizenjanecitizenjane2 4

Why should they make a profit in private health care as it is life and death and we have many social like fire dept welefare etc etc

2007-06-19 11:03:30 · 17 answers · asked by Gypsy Gal 6