Half Moon Bay Review
 
 
 
 
 
TalkAbout Start a topic Login Create Login Forgot Password  
All Categories Around Town Elections Entertainment/Dining Schools
City Council Environment Sports Beyond the Coastside Catch All
Clay Lambert's Blog Mark Foyer's Blog Stacy Trevenon's blog Mark Noack's blog Bill Murray's Blog

John Donovan's sophomoric essay on Socialism

Mr. Donovan's hilarious exercise in attacking the straw man of socialism appeared in the March 4 Review: Web Link

It's so enjoyably bad that it almost does not merit comment, except perhaps for this claim, "The actions of past City Council members who wrongly used federal mandates to deny Charles Keenan his property rights, will now add to the city of Half Moon Bay's financial woes."

Um, federal mandates? John is trying too hard. Everyone else on both sides of this issue knows that it turned on the interpretation (correct) of HMB's LCP as certified by the California Coastal Commission. There was no federal law involved whatsoever.

In the United States, conservatives have never bashed socialism because its specter was actually stalking America. Rather, they've wielded the cudgel against such progressive reforms as free universal education, the minimum wage or tighter financial regulations. Their signal success is to have kept the United States free from the taint of universal health care.

The result: We have the world's highest health-care costs, borne by businesses and employees that cannot afford them, nearly 50 million Americans without coverage, infant mortality rates are higher than those in 41 nations -- but at least (phew!) we don't have socialized medicine!


Comments

I really liked John's Matter of Opinion. John accurately depicted how things are going these days. On CNBC at 730am today Erin interviewed an expert and wanted to know his impression of the market and his opinion, he responded, "We used to have creeping socialism, but today we have galloping socialism, it will be a long time before we can recover."

John's editorial also reminded me of the vid making the rounds where Maxine Waters is grilling the President of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, about energy policies and he responds that the congress is not allowing the energy business to proceed with the needed infrastructure to produce energy. Ms Waters responded that she is a "liberal in support of socializing", hmm, she probably meant socialism, and she stammered for 10-12 seconds, while her committee peers smirked, and then Ms Waters said "we are taking over and government will start running all your companies"

In summary, Mr Donovan has a far better handle of what is going on in America than you, social dem.


"There was no federal law involved whatsoever." Yes, there was. It's called the Fifth Amendment. You can find it here: Web Link

Donovan's comment, "The actions of past City Council members who wrongly used federal mandates to deny Charles Keenan his property rights, will now add to the city of Half Moon Bay's financial woes." would be more appropriate if he replaced the word used with the word violated, to read, "The actions of past City Council members who wrongly violtated federal mandates to deny Charles Keenan his property rights, will now add to the city of Half Moon Bay's financial woes."

There now, ...better?


At least he had the courage to use his real name. Your excuse?

Clay - do you think "sophomoric" is appropriate for the title of a thread in this case? Granted, Mr. Donovan, by putting his name to an opinion, knew he would get criticism.

Why not drive away all people willing to put an opinion in the paper?


Donovan's article is indeed sophomoric. The online Merriam-Webster defines "sophomoric" as "conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature" which is about a direct hit as you can get on the op-ed.

As for Slight correction's suggestion that the Fifth Amendment is a federal law and a federal mandate, that is simply poorly informed.

>>Why not drive away all people willing to put an opinion in the paper?<<

I thought that was your job, Brian. :)

--Darin


Darin,

Fine, call it sophomoric if you like. But in a title? Anonymously? That seems to be pushing it a little.

Should I start all my MWSD threads with "Bumbling MWSD Litigation strategy" or "Inept directors ...insert name of district here..." actions threaten public services"

Mr. Donovan is not a publicly elected official, so Clay needs to be consistent here.

You never did get back to us on what exactly you support about the new HMB Beachwood resolution. What was the "narrow ideology?" Where are the answers? It was your thread, after all.

Web Link


We all have heard of Christian fundamentalists. There are also Constitutional fundamentalists like Supreme Court Justice Scalia. To some, The Constitution is like a fundamentalist bible that everyone has a God given right to make their own interpretation of. Just like the Jihadies that take parts of the Koran out of context to justify terrorism, the constitutional fundamentalists use a language that has evolved for 200 years to interpret The Constitution to their personal values.

John Donovan asks, "Let's get to it, shall we?"

If I found myself in the Church of Property Rights, I might be moved. But, out in the real world it's not polite to make fun of other people's religion.


OK Darin, I'll bite. How about something much simpler. We can bring it down to my level.

The city of HMB violated the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, which is only the document that our society is based on.

"There was no federal law involved whatsoever." HMB far exceeded a federal law.

This exercise in semantics is just "sophomoric".

How's that, Darin, Brian, and social dem? Better?


you can believe "anon" or you can actually see for yourself how the founding principles have been reinterpreted to take away individual rights. Try this:

Web Link


Whew...

Brian, I went to your website, looked at the title, table of contents, and index, and saw 15 significant court case citations just on the first page of the index, from A to C. Heavy reading and all for just $8 at amazon to find the truth on "How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution" I could not bear to start reading the first few pages or I would have to buy the book immediately, and I am busy at the moment --- typing.

Darin, are you a progressive?


JD himself here to weigh in.

Let's put the juvenile name calling aside and get to an argument of principled philosophies. Below is a snapshot of books that I own and have read cover to to cover that have influenced my thinking and political philosophy.

I do not consider myself ignorant nor all knowing and I do not need a university degree to realize how far from our founding we have strayed. In the words of F.A. Hayek, "I am just a humble second hand dealer in ideas". Enjoy.

The Federalist Papers

The Anti-Federalist Papers

"The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson", David N. Mayer

"Democracy in America", Alexis de Tocqueville

"Origins of the Commom Law", Arthur R. Hogue

"Property Rights: From Magna Carta to the 14th Ammendment", Siegan

"Basic Economics", Thomas Sowell

"The Naked Communist", W. Cleon Skousen

"The Road to Serfdom", F.A. Hayek

"The Roosevelt Myth", John T. Flynn

And for those of you who want to examine the results of socialism (notwithstanding Castro & Chavez):

"The Black Book of Communism", Courtois, Werth, Panne, Paczkowski, Bartosek, Margolin


And to clarify another misunderstanding, Clay removed one word from my essay which the top poster is nitpicking. That word, EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) should have been in that sentence, ".....federal EPA mandates to deny Charles Keenan......"

The Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act are federal mandates to the states. Nuff said?


You cannot deny me. You cannot ignore me. You cannot take my rights away. My name is dissent.

The leftist idea of unity is, and always has been............

The elimination of dissent.

Recall local history for a moment.

What did the FSM Free Speech Movement do in Berkeley in the late 60's the moment they had power> Answer--Deny Free Speech to those they did not agree with (ROTC, certain government officials...yet Angela Davis was invited to speak, but Not a General in the US Army)

Recall Stanford in the late 60's--Millions of dollars of damage from "students" and protestors, yet not one person was ever charged by the university, even though 22 San Jose police were put in hospital the night the ROTC building was burned, from being hit by bricks and pieces of glass, no one was ever charged with a crime. I recall that the chief of police from San Jose was not amused, nor was the chief of the Stanford university police. Also note that Stanford used to be called Indians, but under pressure changed their name to Cardinal (a color, not a bird, so that they could not be attacked by another group. smart, huh? not very. )

If you do not stand for something, you will fall for anything.

dissent, dissent, dissent


It is true that certain socially accepted mandates, rights, programs are beneficial to society. Example of a social security system, welfare for those in true need, and possible a national health care system. But socialism as an ideology has a huge history of oppresion, failure and worse.

It's a fine line to walk. To deter the working class from working to acheive leads to dependency and government control. My computer came as a result of a few private entrepreneurs who realized great riches and deservedly so; they enriched and advanced our daily existence.. Had I waited for my government to provide me this technology I would still be waiting.

But there are those that really believe government is the best instrument to health and wealth.

San Mateo County a couple years back, decided to tackle the Childhood Obesity question. They produced a huge pile of paper and empanelled over 250 people in a "Task Force". Their findings? Children should eat sensibly and exercise. The page-heavy document is collecting dust on a shelf where it belongs. Such revelations like this point out the limits of governmental thought.


>>My computer came as a result of a few private entrepreneurs who realized great riches and deservedly so; they enriched and advanced our daily existence.<<

Nonsense. You forgot about the part where your computer came from World War II code-breaking machines, the military and space programs, and massive government investment in funding science and engineering in universities.

--Darin


I am all for democratic socialism. Bring it on. We need Single-payer universal health care. We need to trim our Empire. We need to trim our prison population. We need to invest in education, in rebuilding our manufacturing industries, in creating new green alternative energy resources, in upgrading our infrastructure to join the 21st century.

Some things are best left in private hands and some things are best left for the government to handle. Imagine what Social Security would look like today if pappy Bush had gotten his way back in the 70's and privatized social security and thrown it into the stock market. Do you really want police, fire and infrastructure to be handled by private companies??? Do you really want Blackwater and companies like it to replace our military???

Think about it. The fear-mongering against socialism and communism is soooooo old and weak of an argument that I think most thinking people are beyond it. They have realized the world isn't flat, and that Republicans and the free-marketeers are a joke!!!

Why do you think they were handed a crushing victory.


"And to clarify another misunderstanding, Clay removed one word from my essay which the top poster is nitpicking. That word, EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) should have been in that sentence, ".....federal EPA mandates to deny Charles Keenan......"

"The Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act are federal mandates to the states. Nuff said?"

So, you still don't have it figured out that it was California state laws and regulations, especially the city's LCP that is required to conform to the California Coastal Act, that is the salient consideration for Beachwood.

The federal Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act are not Environmental Protection Agency mandates. They are bodies of laws passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by a President. These laws may be called into play by many different agencies when they are relevant, not only the EPA. You would do well to read a few basic texts on U.S. history and government rather than the mostly right-wingnut books you list if you want to get your stories straight and be taken seriously by most readers.


Coerced Humanitarianism. Shall we explore that a bit further?

Socialists (or the useful idiots of such) know better than you how you should be spending the money you earn. Socialists use government force (deadly force I might add) to take your money because they believe that they are the enlightened ones. Unmanly behavior at best, criminal at worst.

So, all the yallerin' about taking other people's money by people who have not earned it and using it as they see fit, is a fair description of coerced humanitarianism.


Now Pitching,

The Federalist & Anti Federalist papers are "right wingnut"? Liberty is precious my friend and should never be surrended willingly.

Back on point, the Endangered Species Act is a federal mandate to the states. If a state chose to ignore the statutes outlined in such, as they are entitled as a sovereign, they would have a huge constitutional battle on their hands and the feds would penalize them financially.

Quite the anti-thesis to federalism. Federalism: a federal government limited in powers by the compact with the states, the US Constitution.


"The Federalist & Anti Federalist papers are "right wingnut"? Liberty is precious my friend and should never be surrended willingly."

You missed my "mostly," but that is to be expected of the specious true believer. No, the Federalist papers were arguments (promotion, some might say) for a stronger, more centralized federal government (the purpose of creating a Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation) that would stop states from going in their own directions, benefit the wealthy (especially those who had purchased federal IOUs from the Revolutionary War at pennies on the dollar and those who wanted more economic stability so borrowing would be easier), and help put the irritatingly independent and rebellious rural folk (in other words, most Americans of the time) in their place.

The "liberty is precious" throwaway brought tears to my eyes--tears that anyone imagines that superficial kind of sloganeering pap has anything to do with actual freedom.

"Back on point, the Endangered Species Act is a federal mandate to the states. If a state chose to ignore the statutes outlined in such, as they are entitled as a sovereign, they would have a huge constitutional battle on their hands and the feds would penalize them financially."

But not on point at all. You avoid the points that the ESA and CWA are not "EPA" mandates and that they are not near the core of the government regulations, *state laws*, concerning Beachwood. You are winging it in right field.


back on topic. socialism.

Web Link

Socialism, a bastard child of capitalism and communism, like between a rock and a hard place, like between liberty and dictatorship, like between life and death.

Pick your poison.


social dem,

are you defending the webster definition of socialism?


JD, were you drinking some of your namesake when you penned your piece? Just wondering.

It's too over my head to either praise or bitch about it, so I'll take a stab at examples and you fill in the blanks.

Citibank, now a penny stock, has been propped up with taxpayer money.

AIG has received roughly $150 Billion of the same and wants more.

GM, a model of our auto industry, which is no more than a health care provider now, is on life support being fed intravenously with more tax money.

Bear Stearns, and Lehman, were allowed to fold while Merrill Lynch was bought by Bank of America at the request of Uncle Sam. B of A is now around $3 per share, heading lower and in need of more tax money.

I have bills. Nobody is bailing me out.

We pay taxes that our government is using to reward bad business models and corruption claiming "too big to fail". They are now at over 12% of our GDP and growing. That, my friends, is some debt.

Would that qualify as Socialism?

Maybe another point of view is required.

How about our local Environmental Liberation Front (ELF)? The League for Coastside Protection would be the local lead, supported by Committee for Green Foothills, POST, Mid-Pen, GGNRA and others. POST, Mid-Pen, GGNRA and others receive lots of our tax money. They claim benefit to the many at the cost of individuals. Can't build an addition on your house because you might block someone's view. Can't clean a ditch because it's a Riparian Corridor. Can't build 83 homes that our Coastal Commission approved LCP says is in our General Plan, and has been for decades, because our government major flubbed a drainage system which produced government made wetlands which took the rights of the owner away. The Judge in that case assigned a $40 Million price tag for all residents of HMB for that little gem of a move. Something about interpretation and a Taking?

Would that qualify as Socialism?

All these political terms are so confusing. JD, either set me straight or share that bottle and reduce my confusion to a drunken stupor, please.


Give one real-world nation where any "ism" of a dictionary definition sort has ever existed in pure form.

Closest I can come is Catholicism in the Vatican. Dueling isms is for high-school debates and those who have not moved beyond introductory concepts learned by rote. Good for recruiting the glassy-eyed for nationalistic causes, bad for dealing with the complex real world.


Now Pitching,

You forgot the other half, the Anti Federalists won the day in the end, hence, the limited powers of a federal government as per the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The ESA mandates that the states establish environmental protections on their terms and the EPA is the executive body that enforces this legislative act. You are correct in that Keenan was denied his rights by state and local laws, but because of the fear of federal repercussions, the local government made a terrible decision and now everyone will pay the price.

This is why I rant against the feds. When the local and state laws do not fit the wants of environmentalists, they always pull the fed trump card. This is contrary to rightful government.

If Liberty does not concern you, fine and dandy.


John,

help me please. should we just let the all the bad boys fail? who decides which bad boys to save? congress? NOPE, President? NOPE that leaves the Supremes... NOPE. This is a very slippery slope, and once we grant that power to whoever, we keep sliding. from autos to insurance to realtors to homeowners to healthcare providers to... we know all about that,,,that is where we are...NOW...

OK, here is my idea, let the market decide. very simple...

Let me try another approach- Here is a Freedom scale.

If Capitalism is 100, and Communism is 0. Pick a number--

My vote is the number 88. I feel we are about 24 now in this process..at this moment.


"How about our local Environmental Liberation Front (ELF)? The League for Coastside Protection would be the local lead, supported by Committee for Green Foothills, POST, Mid-Pen, GGNRA and others. POST, Mid-Pen, GGNRA and others receive lots of our tax money."

You forgot DAR, AARP, SNCC, IBEW, MADD, LDS, and all the others that also have nothing to do with your (admittedly) confused environmental gripes.


No np, I didn't forget the ones you mention. When was the last time DAR, AARP, SNCC, IBEW, MADD, LDS had anything to do with taking the rights of most for the benefit of the few?

Besides, unless you are JD, I wasn't talking to you.


Confused,

Heh, heh. You are right where you are supposed to be, gettin' ready to be fleeced with the rest of the sheep. Some sheep are more equal than others, so, you better cache plenty of Gentleman Jack, gold, silver and lead.


NP,

One may compare "pure" with "pure" or "existing" with "existing" forms of "isms". To confound comparisons of any mish-mash or combinatorial dyads of "isms" is non-constructive. But, you know that. I choose to speak in the here and now. That would be existing and existing.


"You forgot the other half, the Anti Federalists won the day in the end, hence, the limited powers of a federal government as per the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

Ah, but they didn't win. Enough concessions (Bill of Rights) were floated their way to get the states to ratify the Constitution. But the centralization of federal power was accomplished.

You are still avoiding the fact that the ESA and CWA were not, and are not, the core issues for Beachwood. And, no, the EPA is not the executive (administrative) agency that administers the ESA. The ESA is primarily administered by the USFWS and NOAA.

Keenan was not denied any rights. If you look at prior Supreme Court decisions that say all use of a property must be removed for a taking to occur, there was no taking. One lower-level federal judge said there was, but this opinion carries little weight because it wasn't tested. It stands as a precedent for nothing.


"No np, I didn't forget the ones you mention. When was the last time DAR, AARP, SNCC, IBEW, MADD, LDS had anything to do with taking the rights of most for the benefit of the few?"

But you do not mention any instance in which the acronyms you mention were involved in taking the rights of most for the benefit of a few. That is why I threw in other random organizations that were also not involved. Wish I had a Crayon to write this out so it would be more comprehensible for you. Your tasteless environmental gumbo is much ado about nothing (real).


How stupid can one person be?

"Keenan was not denied any rights."

"...there was no taking."

"One lower-level federal judge said there was, but ..."

That "lower level federal judge" gave HMB 41 Million reasons to pay attention.

How many reasons do you need, oh learned one?

Pull your head out, even if only for a few minutes.


"But, you know that. I choose to speak in the here and now. That would be existing and existing."

No you don't. You choose to speak in dictionary-definition abstractions and hope to push emotional buttons associated with them. Nothing at all real-world about that. What any government does may favor one ism or another more or less, but no government of today, including the most totalitarian ones, can be branded singularly with an ism. Those who rant simplemindedly about isms have taken their eyes off the ball or are trying to get others to take their eyes off.


I think I found the piece on Ms Waters Web Link That should succinctly describe where our democratic congress stands on the issue of Socialism--


Not Pitching,

What, you want me to produce the tree of federal executive authority as per the ESA? Sorry lad, save that for another posting and let's get back to question at hand. Is the philosophy of federalism how we want to be governed or not?

A constitutionally limited federal government, whose powers are clearly delineated unless you are wearing a black robe in the 20th & 21st centuries.


"How many reasons do you need, oh learned one?"

You might try with a single one you can support instead of staggering around stupidly trying to pin the tail on a make-believe donkey. And when you do take the blindfold off, try looking up what the various non-profits and governmental agencies actually do as their mandated activity.

That lower level judge gave HMB nada except a loss in his court. You don't know diddly if you don't know that without clarification through the appeal process, the decision remains minor and parochial. Nothing carries any significant weight as a precedent, and especially not any weight on a Constitutional question. Don't blame me if the city was too stupid to appeal it, hoping instead to appease the developer who sued it by caving in to a dictated settlement. As it is now, the city's problem is a parochial one. Just like you imagine your silly little local attitude amounts to some kind of truth. The epitome of "small-town."

And there was no taking because not all uses of the property had been removed by the city's actions.


Is it just me, or did anyone else find it peculiar that, given the equal choice of socialism at a national level and socialism at a local level, our local genius np went to the local socialist example exclusively and without delay? Did I touch something close to you? Are you sympathetic to our local ELF property rights thieves?

Oh wise one, you are so sheeple.


NP

ROTFL--

You are a hooter.

NP says "You choose to speak in dictionary-definition abstractions" and that would of course be what humans use as means to interact via a common definition on the terms that we use. You know. a Dictionary.

NP,

When I say GOOSE what does that mean to you?

If I were to say "Socialist" what would that mean to you?

You are a TRUE hooter. NP.

NP.

NP. Waaay beyond the Human Realm. NP, you must be a representative of our very own coast. WAAAAy out there. Vote for our interests. Make me proud of you. Protect our coast. Waaay out there.


"What, you want me to produce the tree of federal executive authority as per the ESA? Sorry lad, save that for another posting and let's get back to question at hand. Is the philosophy of federalism how we want to be governed or not?"

So, now that you have been shown to be ignorant and totally erroneous in your assertions about the ESA, and especially about associating it with central Beachwood issues, you are trying to change the subject and slip out the side door. So typical of true believers who have no support for their quasi-religious babble.


"NP says "You choose to speak in dictionary-definition abstractions" and that would of course be what humans use as means to interact via a common definition on the terms that we use. You know. a Dictionary."

Try bringing the dictionary definitions home to the real world and you will come off as something better than a propagandizing fool trying to push the buttons of others with nothing but a link to an abstract definition of an ism in a single dictionary out of hundreds existing in common use.


"Is it just me, or did anyone else find it peculiar that, given the equal choice of socialism at a national level and socialism at a local level, our local genius np went to the local socialist example exclusively and without delay? Did I touch something close to you? Are you sympathetic to our local ELF property rights thieves?"

Is it just me, or can others see that you don't know what socialism is?


NP,

I am on your side. You convinced me with your impeccable logic. Go NP. Keep cutting and pasting.


Good job with the cut and paste. Your comments, if that's what your dictionary calls them, need work.

Were you at the hotel burning years back? Do you support that mentality?

Aside from yourself, and a handful of mental health care providers, what do you support?


I admit, we Progressives have been trying to rewrite the Constitution. A revisionist approach, a stealth approach with much umbrage and annoyance o the informed citizenry.

Yes, we were caught, much like the people at Watergate. Yet, our current approach is to mount an angry attack on those that caught us. Is is working in a poor fashion for fools, so far. Thank you, NP. But, I must admit for people that have read actual relevant books on American history it is a much tougher challenge. Help. Oh Gawd, help us progressives.


Wow, that made absolutely no sense.


A sophomoric opinion piece merits a sophomoric discussion. Looks like JD's has failed to proselytize his belief system to non-believers.

I'd like to put in a request for some other hot questions:

Does life begin at conception or socialization?

Is marriage between same sex people possible or is that just socialism?

If Clay aborts this topic prior to complete gestation is that a sin? a crime? good business practice? a violation of the First Amendment or a socially responsible action?


NP,

Dear God in Heaven boy! You want to sidetrack the lot of us. The only thing I sidestepped were the non sequiturs of your argument. Heck, I even ceded a point and you still persist with this ungentlemanly behavior.

Here you go, Federalism, yes or no?


Wow, that made absolutely no sense.


JD,

Surely you were not expecting rules, definitions, or gentlemanly behavior when you entered this Talkabout arena were you? How utterly quaint. From what era are you?

This is no Matter of Opinion set piece. This is hari kari, holy war with Clay mediating on occasion.

I am for full blown socialism with government ownership of all your rights, and you?


JD,

Sorry, but you have been thoroughly reduced to one who has no grounded idea of what he is talking about and is tossing out names and terms carelessly, perhaps in the hope the forgiving dolts of HMB, entrained to the lives of sheeple, won't notice. It is difficult to believe you ever made it to the sophomore level; but, hey, this is the town where sheep get to be girls.


Jd,

My hero. standing up to a bunch of coastal crazies with nothing on but a constitution and a bill of rights and a bunch of real history. can I buy you a beer.


When does it begin?

At conception.

It is above my paygrade.

Pick one of the above.


I'm off to bed lads, must get up early to get to the job I am working myself out of. Huh? I was lookin' for a job when I found this one. That's right, being self employed means that I am constantly employed/not employed.

Just a humble carpenter who relies on himself to bring the bacon home. Have your fun, but take care of what you sow.

Who loves ya? Me & God


JD, you will have noted by now that Now Pitching considers him?self to be one of the "brights".

Be that as it may...


NP--

Sorry, but you have been thoroughly reduced to one who has no grounded idea of what he is talking about and is tossing out names and terms carelessly, perhaps in the hope the forgiving dolts of HMB, entrained to the lives of sheeple, won't notice. It is difficult to believe you ever made it to the sophomore level; but, hey, this is the town where sheep get to be girls.

go figure-- your words--go figure--your words--go figure--

NP, my friend. you need some serious help. my place or yours?


JD-

I love you man.

You have a real job and work and pay taxes for the rest of us bozos.

I love you man.


Darin says: ..."Nonsense. You forgot about the part where your computer came from World War II code-breaking machines, the military and space programs, and massive government investment in funding science and engineering in universities..."

No, that is non-sense. NASA uses subcontractors in the private industry for everything it uses. The computers used in those old space capsules came from private sources not governmental.

Government has an excellent capacity to simply spend money. It does not produce products nor does it invent products. President Obama tools around in a converted Cadillac limosene is a fine example of this practice.

No, I stand by my praise of the private system which produces many useful innovations. Government simply uses these items in their own way. The real research and development is very far removed from a government directed enterprise.


Frank B.,

You are wrong again. As a former aerospace worker for a commercial company that worked on NASA and Military contracts, I directly observed instances where NASA, Military Departments or other government agencies supplied the hardware or the detailed design. If you want specific computer examples, look up MIL-STD-1750 and the DF224 originally used on the NASA Hubble Space Telescope. Both essentially designed by the government. Many designs trickled out of classified government projects and DARPA funded research at Universities as well as in industry. Only relatively recently has there been an emphasis on using Commercial Off The Shelf(COTS)for military computers and NASA.


>>No, that is non-sense. NASA uses subcontractors in the private industry for everything it uses. The computers used in those old space capsules came from private sources not governmental.<<

Wow, Frank. Are you suggesting that the technologies that came out of military and space programs were essentially the products of the free market?

Looks like you have a little bedtime reading to do.

--Darin


"Were you at the hotel burning years back? Do you support that mentality?"

What mentality is that? Or is this yet another off-the-wall, unsupported association of yours that fell out of the dunce cap the last time you scratched your head?


The same ELF mentality you seem to favor.

What, a new permitted structure, for profit no less, in HMB? It might block your view.

Well then, just burn it down, grab a cup of tea and enjoy the warmth of the fire of someone elses time and money.

Imagine the irony, right across the street from the FD.


Frank B - I agree with Darin, I think you are downplaying both the role and value of federally funded research and its transfer to the private sector. You are correct that the desktop (or laptop) computer you are using right now is the brainchild of some entrepreneur (that made them billions), but the base technology they employed is the result of the government investing in fundamental research. The ROI since the end of WWII has been enormous for this country and is exactly the reason we have led the world in technology (though that lead is eroding now as other countries have realized the benefits of funding fundamental R&D). An example of a something we may be familiar with that started in a federally funded research lab: all of the amazing medical imaging devices that enable modern doctors to better diagnose what ills you started life as detectors in fields like High Energy Particle Physics, technologies that the medical industry realized could be applied to medicine. Another example is the World Wide Web itself, originating in yet another government funded laboratory, first spreading to other laboratories around the world before finding huge application in the "real" world.

From my point of view, I'm not waiting for the government to provide me with the next new labor saving device, but I'm also not waiting for, for example, GM on its own to produce a car that can run on something other than gasoline. Rather, its the interplay between the government funding long term research (that modern industry can't afford) and industry turning that basic research into an application that is what works best.


Darin & Anon:

Aside from calling out names lets look at historical facts here. An example, the lander on the moon was built by Grumman Corp. Yes, it was built to a spec, but the innovative design and construction was all non-governmental.

yes, the Gov does participate. But many of these reps from the Gov came from where? When I served in the military I was surrounded by stuff built by private industry. That rifle I carried was built by Colt as I recall, an M-16. Loved that little tool, called her "Glinda" after a girl I knew as a kid. She was a bad tempered, mean machine that never failed us.

And that moon project, Apollo, a true triumph of private industry working with Government. Every piece of hardware came from contractors around the country. Certainly no one could argue that these orgs were staffed by dolts following orders.

My take on this Gocvernment enterprise is that the Gov could never survive and process its business without the significant contributions of organizations in the private sector.


And less we forget about the Conservatives' favorite bogeyman, socialized medicine!!!, Socal Dem raised above, socialized medicine involves government financing and direct provision of health care services, so that it's utterly clear progressive health-care reform proposals do not fit this description. I know that is too abstract for JD and the other right wingnuts haunting TalkAbout's halls, but what else is new?


Let's back up a bit here, Frank. We are talking about your claim that government does not produce new technology (and, in a larger sense, benefit to society outside of certain narrow categories). The quote from your post was, in part: "My computer came as a result of a few private entrepreneurs who realized great riches and deservedly so; they enriched and advanced our daily existence.. Had I waited for my government to provide me this technology I would still be waiting."

While it may be true that the government doesn't manufacture Macintosh computers is it nevertheless simultaneously true that the government played a huge role in laying the groundwork and causing the early technologies to be developed that eventually resulted in your desktop computer. The private sector played a role and so did the government.

The government's role is different than the private sector's, as it should be. Here are some of the roles the government plays (off the top of my head):

1) Creation and continued support for an array of National Labs and programs to move technologies from those labs into the market.

2) Military research programs and efforts to move some of that technology to the private sector.

3) Acting as the first (sometimes only) customer of a new technology. (Allows that technology to mature.)

4) Funding of basic research in universities.

5) Financial support of pre-market, post basic research technologies in an effort to move them into the market.

6) Laws that encourage venture capital and angel investors to make investments in early-stage technology. Laws that continue to encourage companies to invest in R&D.

Bottom line: The government has been a major player in our country's technological achievements and continues to be so.

A perfect example of the fallacy promoted by the op-ed piece that government is the enemy and that its role should be limited only to defense, etc. That might be fine for a farming society (such was the view of the Anti-federalits) but in an advanced, technological society it simply will not do.

--Darin


Frank,

>>Aside from calling out names lets look at historical facts here....Certainly no one could argue that these orgs were staffed by dolts following orders.<<

fyi, calling someone a "dolt" would be "calling them a name."

--Darin


A word or two to "I'm so confused" and others in a spirit of clarification about government bailouts. Regarding government intervention into the host of monumental business failures we are all aware of, we should remember that an ultra conservative Republican administration headed by the retired billionaire from Goldman Sachs, Hank Paulson, going against his pure Free Market pedigree determined this had to be done or the entire world monetary system could possibly, and in all likelihood would, collapse.

Most Americans learned in school that when the Great Depression began, Herbert Hoover was the Republican in office who decided to ride it out and let the system correct itself. Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke knew that doing nothing today would be just as disastrous, but there are still lots of Free Market religionists who think that the market should sort itself out. Herbert Hoover's America doesn't bother them a whit. Fortunately for the rest of us, they're just a noisy minority. (Apologies to John Donovan.)

AIG is worth paying attention to. Few of us realize just how big a supporting role to the entire financial system it plays, which happened inadvertently and without government supervision in the last dozen years, and thanks largely to Alan Greenspan dissuading Congress from regulating these activities "because the markets act more wisely than politicians".

AIG created its Financial Products division in 1998 that invented a form of insurance that allowed it to underwrite other financial institutions' risk without any government supervision of these instruments. AIG added billions to their top and bottom lines with what looked like money for free, because they did not have to pony up reserves for possible failures other companies might experience. It was all predicated on the housing market continuing up, which it happily did. Until late 2007.

The bottom line is that AIG's Financial Products division underwrote trillions of dollars in reverse credit swaps and derivatives for the banks large and small, insurance companies, hedge funds, pension funds (think of California's mammoth Employee Retirement Pension fund that covers all state, county and municipal employees), and you begin to understand what Too Big To Fail means. These instruments only had to pay off if other firms experienced losses, and also if AIG's credit rating fell from its stellar high. Once it began making payments, its rating fell as its reserves dropped. In just months they were out of cash.

The question then is, does the government have a choice to not keep backing AIG's losses since it's entwined with and throughout the entire rest of the system? So far $180 billion have been committed, but that's not even the tip of the iceberg. Is it socialism to have money as script instead of gold coins or clamshells? Think long and hard about what it would be like if everyone lost all of their money on the same day or withing weeks. Are we ready for a barter economy?

AIG is a special case of bad practices. GM sunk mostly because credit dried up that caused it to stop selling its line and run out of cash, and because it is so big and has such high overhead, took it down before the other auto companies, but even Toyota is now seeking relief from Japan. Millions of jobs throughout the industrial midwest and northeast depend on GM, so that's a lot of unemployment to absorb as we head for over 10% in the next few months without that event.

Socialism is where the government owns and runs everything. US history and culture tells us we'll never go there, but government involvement to help smooth the potholes along the capitalist road is something Americans expect, even the business community itself. Just not the Free Market religionists like JD.


"that government is the enemy and that its role should be limited only to defense, etc."

perhaps you are trying to paraphrase, but that is a very poor job of trying to misstate his premise.

The point you are missing - the Federal government has strayed way too far from the founding principles set forth in the Constitution (and State and Local governments routinely misuse Federal mandates incorrectly). The nonsensical sidetracks here into socialized medicine are for another discussion (we already have one single payer system, Medicare, that is $10s of Trillions underfunded - experiment already failing).

Case in point - how does the Commerce clause (which regulates *interstate* commerce) have anything to do with a creature like the CRLF (which lives *only* in California)?


>>."that government is the enemy and that its role should be limited only to defense, etc."

perhaps you are trying to paraphrase, but that is a very poor job of trying to misstate his premise.<<

Maybe not a perfect paraphrase bit I captured the essence of it.

Frank is supporting the op-ed by pointing out that government not only had little or nothing to do with his computer but that government is incapable of playing a productive role in developing technologies such as his computer (thus, government's role should be limited to narrow niches as envisioned by the farmer Anti-Federalists).

I responded, pointing out Frank's gross misunderstanding of the history of technology development in the United States, showing that government not only had a role but played a tremendously important role in technology development. By doing so I offered a very clear example of a desirable government role well outside of the narrow limits envisioned by the Anti-federalists (who opposed the Constitution and lost, in the event).

I'm right on topic, misstating nothing. :)

--Darin


Frank B.,

From the sixties NASA was the public part of our the space program. The Air Force space program was very classified. As I said earlier, "Many designs trickled out of classified government projects and DARPA funded research at Universities as well as in industry." Many of the military designs I saw were ten years ahead of the NASA designs. I was assigned to HST to transfer some military technology that was five years ahead of what NASA had. Many of my coworkers on HST felt it was giant welfare project designed to crosspollinate different NASA contractors. We were told at the time, give Perkin Elmer(one of the contractors on HST) what ever they want. They were clearly the weak member of the project team. History now tells us Perkin Elmer was responsible for one of the biggest screw ups in space history, the misfiguring of the secondary mirror on the Hubble.

The Apollo 204/1 disaster was a real exposure of private contractors. The investigators found a socket from a wrench left on one of the bolts in the burned out Apollo capsule left by a contractor. With 10G accelerations that socket could have become a lethal projectile. But, hey time is money.

If you look at any of the military contracts with a Boeing, Grumman or Lockheed, a portion of those contracts is set aside for independent research and development(IR&D). The government oversight of what military contractors did with IR&D was pretty minimal. IR&D was typically ten percent of the overall contract. Show me any post startup commercial company that spends 10% on R&D. Without that subsidy, the military contractors had very little incentive to develop new technology.

No need to believe me, check out references like "Deep Black" by William S. Burroughs, "Dark Hero of the Information Age" by Conway Siegelman and any of James Bamford's books about the NSA. There is a whole part of US technology that never saw the light of day. But, secrets can only be kept so long. If an employee walks out the door and takes only the knowledge that a technology can work to another industry, that is a huge advantage for that new commercial enterprise. The new industry now knows what technology works and what to pursue on their own directed project as opposed to pure research. It guarantees a "research project" will be cheap and successful, which is a huge advantage. When this happens, the government just looks the other way, because they aren't going to tip off our enemies that some technology is important or that they are actually using it. So, many are under the false impression the genesis of some new technology was some commercial genius.


Seems I hit a nerve here....

As far as calling some a "dolt" I didn't. I said that NO ONE would call these people dolts who worked in the private sector. I wouldn't. I think they are marvelous gifted people.

Apollo 1 fire. Obviously something as complex as building this moon ship required a super human effort. And humans fail. No news here. They fixed it is a more important point. The argument could be made, as it was by North American Rockwell in the Senate Hearings, that the PUSH to meet the deadline of landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade created a dangerous athmosphere. The push was primarily from the Gov side of things. But the problem was fixed. The technology developed was both exquisite in its functunality and its effectiveness.

Everything in that program was either undeveloped unknown technology or cutting edge. It was up to the sub-contractors to build it. And they did. To suggest that this was a truly government enterprise is false. NASA sought the expertise and ability of private contracrtors as they do today.


Private sector can not run health care. They can not regulate themselves. They can not run prisons well, or run public safety well, or supply our military well or defend the country well.

They can innovate, manufacture, offer unique services and participate in all sorts of capitalistic endeavors better than the government can.

Bottom line is that there are certain things that government does better than the private sector, and vice versa. We just need to recognize the areas where each excells and go forward from there.


And with this government over all argument: I could have invested in Government bonds and securities. Very safe, 2-5% returns. But in the very early days of Microsoft I bought in heavy. Told everyone around to do the same. I made out wonderfully and retired at a young age. A poor boy with no real formal education. But I can tell a good thing when I see it and I was just amazed by the offering of this private company.

Capitalism, I recommend it. Buy stocks now, my friends, the price is down.


Frank B. writes:

"Seems I hit a nerve here...."

No, you are misrepresenting history. You have not provided any facts to back up your statements or references. Your claims about your examples are false.

"The argument could be made, as it was by North American Rockwell in the Senate Hearings, that the PUSH to meet the deadline of landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade created a dangerous athmosphere. The push was primarily from the Gov side of things."

Astronauts die at the hands of government contractors and now you claim what you previously disclaimed:

"Certainly no one could argue that these orgs were staffed by dolts following orders."

Another new absolute:

"Everything in that program was either undeveloped unknown technology or cutting edge."

False. Reference: "Deep Black"

"To suggest that this was a truly government enterprise is false."

I didn't write that. I wrote the government had an instrumental role which was largely hidden form the public, because it was classified or became proprietary research results.

"Buy stocks now, my friends, the price is down."

Let me write that one down.


Deep Black sounds like a one sided polemic tome. It or you seem to indicate the Moon Program some kind of black bag operation. Non-sense. The entire event happened in full view of the world. The good and the bad. The astronauts placed their lives into the hands of those contractors. That must say something of their trust in the hardware. Their lives, not a book.

And astronauts knew their butts were on the line. You must think that being a test pilot carries some guarantees? Because they die in highly dangerous experimental space craft is not an indictment of the program or the builders. You notice no one else has had the ability to reproduce these flights in the past 40 years. Very rarified program filled with danger.

Yup. Buy stocks. Certain ones are great buys. I made myself very comfortable checking this out in the past. I would recommend some things to you but will violate the policy here I am sure. Stocks held over the next five years to ten should be worth the effort now. Certain ones will do very well. Of course, I could be wrong on some as my wife has already pointed out.


To credit the manufacture of something, and not the underlying research and design and development of that thing, with bringing it into being is foolishness.

Basic research underlies all applied research, and, with only a few notable exceptions like Bell Labs, private companies are notoriously absent from basic research efforts in the U.S. This creates a situation in which almost all companies conducting private applied research and making products for sale are, in essence, subsidized by the funding of basic research. This has been discussed universally in the scientific world and considered a "given" for so many decades that it seems almost foolish to point it out in a thread like this. Anyone who does not know it either just fell off the turnip truck or is hopelessly naive.

Basic research is not funded by most corporations except in the sense that we all fund it through our taxes and private enterprise buys rights to some patents resulting from basic research in universities and scattered private scientific labs. (Most private labs do applied research, working toward a payoff.) A huge portion of basic scientific research is funded by government through grants and contracts, though large sums enter by way of donations to universities and even self-funding by researchers.

And that is how it should be. Private enterprise wants to see a short-term return on its investment and doesn't give a damn about fundamental knowledge. It would, and does, only support a few very narrow avenues of basic research that it believes have a high probability of leading to quick profits. Basic research involves a lot of failure and, in many cases, indeterminate amounts of time, and companies don't want to spend their money on that kind of activity.

Accordingly, leaving basic research explorations up to private enterprise would cause us to miss almost all scientific achievements that provide the biggest benefits to society over the long term. This can be seen to be true across the board, from the physical sciences and mathematics through the life (including medical) sciences and into the social sciences. Breakthroughs in understanding don't come from corporations.

Given the inequities, inefficiencies, politics in scientific enterprises, occasional dishonesty, and other problems with research, both pure and applied, in the U.S., the overall effort could be much better. But no matter what improvements are made, it is difficult to imagine a model in which business will get credit for any but a few of the basic scientific successes that make possible the products and services they sell. Private corporations will always prefer to get on board in midstream when they can plot research that will be of monetary value to themselves.


"The same ELF mentality you seem to favor.

"What, a new permitted structure, for profit no less, in HMB? It might block your view.

"Well then, just burn it down, grab a cup of tea and enjoy the warmth of the fire of someone elses time and money.

"Imagine the irony, right across the street from the FD."

Babbling apropos of nothing known in the real world. After a long investigation, ATF came up with no conclusions on responsibility for the arson. Of the reasonable possibilities, even radical environmentalists like the ELF are not near the top of the list of guesses.

This, of course, does not stop fools from rushing in with aspersions that fit their backward agendas. They are so used to floating false claims and lying about who does what on the coastside, and so used to acceptance by the small uncritical mob that buys their unsanitized slop, that they feign offense whenever anyone calls them out on their ignorance and unwarranted behavior.


Deep Black was a book written in 1986 by William Burroughs that chronicled the use of satellites for space espionage-- Keyhole, Rhyolite, Jumpseat, Chalet, and many others. Fascinating accounts of personalities and policy wonks in CIA and USAF jockeying for control of these new assets. Deep Black is a companion piece for Puzzle Palace, Spooks, Ghost Wars, and Skunk Works.


Anon, King, Progressive, Now Pitch, Darin, Social Dem, et. al,

Looks like y'all have had your fun. Seems that this funnin' has me concerned as to why I should trust individual's such as yourselves and others who share your philosophy with the reins of government, especially the reins of a an unbound federal government.

A quick aside: thanks Frank for your service, this government has shed much blood rightly and wrongly in the name of Liberty, and this here humble hillbilly is in your debt.

I would like to get this discussion back to governing principles because without them, the ship of state is rudderless and its captain prone to mischief. So what's it to be lads? Please identify the principles with which you would govern me. My cards are on the table, I called your bet, show 'em or fold 'em.

Brian's post as to the constitutionality for all the federal intrusions into our state's business has not merited a response so why don't we take a gander at the all the cabinet positions and put 'em up against the Constitution.

Education:

Why are we letting the Feds mandate policy at the local level?

No Child Left Behind

Health & Human Services:

Wouldn't this money be more effectively spent at the state level?

Homeland Security:

Ahh yes, just what we need, another unwieldy liberty trashing and state sovereignty destroying bureaucracy that continues to leave the borders wide open.

Any more takers for having the feds meddle in your state's affairs?

Not that I trust the bum's in our state legislature and governor's mansion, but they are our bums and much easier to impeach or recall than the miscreants in Congress or the White House when they step out of line.


Ken King,

I believe that I know you. This here saloon is a pert bit rowdy.

As to your post, I would love to address all the particulars, in particular the reference to AIG, Fed Reserve, and "Shifty" Paulson as Jerry Doyle would say, however, we will need to go into the history of the Federal Reserve and its predessors, the US Bank. Therefore, I would like to start another Post for this sole purpose. Game?

It will get rather pointy headed and some believe conspiratorial, but if you do a quick search on President Andrew Jackson, you will find that he was the last President to successfully kill the "vipers nest". This battle with the central bankers contributed greatly to his early demise. It's a big rabbit hole.


John Donovan,

Those who corrected you about federal mandates not being involved in Walker's Beachwood decision don't seem to have convinced you with facts or logic, and I think arguing about your religious convictions masked as political philosophy is a supreme timewaster. So, no, I don't accept an invitation to your party.

I said what I said about AIG because the public at large is uninformed about the nature of the country's financial crisis - it's potentially ruinous if not dealt with intelligently. You know more about it, enlighten us at your pleasure.

With good wishes.


I don't know why I bother.

Frank B. writes:

"It or you seem to indicate the Moon Program some kind of black bag operation."

I didn't write that. The reference I provided earlier, didn't say that either. Try reading what I wrote. Take a minute to check out these online references if you can manage:

Web Link

Here is another reference to the declassified CORONA program at the CIA:

Web Link

Here is another reference to the declassified CORONA program at the NRO:

Web Link

Here is a broader survey of purportedly still classified space programs:

Web Link

"You must think that being a test pilot carries some guarantees?"

That doesn't mean it's OK to leave tools behind in a space capsule or shrug about frayed wires in a pure oxygen environment, when human lives are at stake.

"You notice no one else has had the ability to reproduce these flights in the past 40 years."

The nations priorities changed: the Vietnam war dragged on, The Great Society was not sustainable along with the war and the refrain, "and whitey's on the moon". The USAF kept pushing their technology with remote controlled and robotic satellite technology you never heard about. The Gary Powers U2 incident and the non-start of the USAF Manned Orbiting Laboratory(MOL) put the USAF on a different technology path from NASA. Why endanger a human or risk them being captured by an enemy, when a robot can do the job and a missile can keep the technology form falling into the wrong hands? Principle investigators and NASA labs woke up and bypassed manned NASA flights and emulated the USAF. They built robotic probes in their own labs that were cheap and successful. More recently the Mars Rovers captured the public's imagination. It was mostly built at NASA JPL. Meanwhile, mainstream NASA promoted shuttles and space stations, gave away our technology to our enemies and blew up two shuttle crews including a school teacher (outsourcing almost everything routine to contractors).


JD,

You promoted a belief and failed to defend it in discussion with others. I can't see wasting any time with it.

I wrote much earlier:

"...it's not polite to make fun of other people's religion."


Not polite, but it sure is fun!!!

Now off to watch Bill Maher's "Religulous".


anon seems very concerned about spy satellites. Why? This is not new, the military has had them for many years. We also have spies on the ground in many countries. As do most other countries. In Iraq, those drone planes that were so vital to Ops were directed via satellites placed in orbit for that specific purpose. Think anyone else took note of this? As a former ground troop dodging bullets I can tell you I would have liked to have a few of those drones buzzing positions.

Well you all seem very smart, smarter than me. When you look at that Moon next time, think of those six flags standing there. The trials and tribulations of getting there pale next to the larger picture of having done it.


Anon & King,

It was a simple query, "Identify the principles with which you would govern me and our fellow Americans". The reticence on your part speaks for itself because when you drag socialism out into the daylight, it's not a pretty thing to look at nor to experience.

I'm not seeing my failure. I took the risk (Clay's risk actually) of publishing this essay so that I could drag this 'spectre' of socialism from the dark recesses of our halls of government into the light of day for all to judge. This posting has been a success.

Check again the jurisdiction the court finding for Keenan was in lads.....federal, as Ronald Reagan used to say to Tip O'Niell & the Democrats, "There they go again".

AIG.....Since my reading list has been labeled right wingnut and my writings "religionified", I'll suggest y'all do some Googlin' of the list below if you want to "know the rest of the story".

Franklin Raines-CEO Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac-salary

Community Reinvestment Act-Barnie Frank-Christopher Dodd

George Bush-Failure of Fannie & Freddie-Congressional Hearings

Greenspan-Fannie & Freddie threaten banks-Congressional Hearings

When you dig a little deeper into the Fannie & Freddie economic logistics, you will find that they sold the paper of their "sub prime" or "toxic" loans to these banks that are failing now at the behest of the government. Fannie & Freddie (government) sold their risk to the banks. Brilliant!

What's the government's answer for this problem that they created? Print 2 Trillion new dollars of fiat currency, spend more money that they don't have, attack the rich, raise taxes, attack all forms of energy, ad infinitum.

In Liberty, JD


Prior to letting this sleeping dog lay about, I need to address one more falsehood espoused by Mr. King. His statement is below.

"Most Americans learned in school that when the Great Depression began, Herbert Hoover was the Republican in office who decided to ride it out and let the system correct itself."

For starters let's review "most Americans learned in school". To the victors go the spoils. In the context of federalism, how does this fit?

After the War of Secession, Lincoln set the stage for the perversion of federalism that we are experiencing today. FDR cemented this perversion of our political consciousness. The meddling in education by the Feds accelerated under Richard Nixon, Dept of Education was established. The federal government took control of our children's textbooks, not good.

Therefore, the textbooks that teach "when the Great Depression began, Herbert Hoover was the Republican in office who decided to ride it out and let the system correct itself", are falsifying reality.

I will address this falsehood in another Post titled, "Hoover and Roosevelt" in the near future. Since any bibliography will be labeled "right wingnut", I'm going to have y'all do some prepatory homework.

Google the following or visit your library the following: Fractional Reserve Banking, US Bank, Federal Reserve Bank, Gold Standard, Bretton Woods, Fiscal Policy vs. Monetary Policy, in order to prime yourself for the economics of my future argument.

I will attempt to show how the relationship of natural laws and lassiez faire markets directly coincide with the principles of federalism.

In Liberty, JD


Ask a young (or not so young) person today who Hubert Hoover was and if they don't draw a blank (trying to recall if he's a cartoon character or they've read about him in People) they might--just might--venture that he was head of the FBI.

And those Roosevelts are so confusing, too...

Thanks for the reading list, JD.


Your welcome Heever. Yep, if it's not on UTube, MTV, or David Letterman, then it must not be true. You forgot one Hoover, the vacuum cleaner. Heh, heh......those Kennedy's can be a poser too (dangling participle?).

Yours in Liberty, JD


Now Pitching writes: "hey, this is the town where sheep get to be girls."


Seems you guys are wingin' it a bit. Any top down intel available? Does anyone even have a compass or a north star or a mole? Perchance tomorrow is another day. But with galloping socialism one never knows. Time for some serious confabulations and perambulations. I think anon may have violated his security clearances. Clay may want to close down this thread before the feds arrive.


Should I be cashing in my Confederate Bonds now?


Gold! I tell ya, take delivery of the hard stuff, as much as you can get your hands on, and bury it in your back yard. Then sit back, all smug like, while socialism takes over and JD chases his tail, circling to the right, of course.


These tools throw the word socialism around without even knowing what it means.


Commie,

Just when I thought this thread was at an end, we get a new batch of puerile name callers, alrighty then.

Please enlighten us with the definition of socialism, I seem to have missed this amongst the 90 or so posts.


Old school definition with its communist/Stalinist connotation, which is the inference that the right tries to make with the use of the word.

Socialist, as in democratic socialist, ie Senator Bernie Sanders. Which is the democratic socialist model practised by most European countries today.

Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

We know that this is exactly what the majority of Americans want. We have already voted for the implementation of these policies. It is time for us to return to the liberal foundation on which our country was founded.


"We know that this is exactly what the majority of Americans want."

Who is "we"?


CSFP,

Thanks for an honest answer. I will beg to differ.

There are few problems with your philosophy when it comes up against our Constitution & Bill of Rights. Our "liberal foundation" may be found in the words penned by Mr. Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence.

I cannot get to your position unless 2/3rd's of state legislatures agree to a Constitutional Convention for an amendment/s that do away with my inalieable Rights of Man if you will. If you clear that hurdle, you will then need 3/4's of the state legislature's to approve the determinations of the convention.

If you are so desirous of this European utopia, you have two choices, one is outlined above, the other involves a plane or boat ticket because what we are experiencing now is a perversion of our founding philosophy.

I suspect that any argument I make for Liberty will not sway you, but I will continue to fight for my sovereignty and yours because I am not in search of the coercive power of government nor looking to others to force my will upon others. Liberty, with all the risks and responsibilities, is the proper context of federalism.

Hey, don't take my word for it, listen again to Dr. King's words. He sure as heck did not want to be shackled by no man, no how, no more.


Gold, I tell ya! Bury it under the back stoop. That way your fortune will be safe while you shake in fear of the takeover by the Constitution-hating socialistas.


JD, you have these folk on the run. Fed law trumps state law. All elected officials at the time when they swear in THEN so swear to support the state constitution AND the US Constitution. If one were to read the US Constitution it does not sound like socialism, so how is this happening?

Well, it turns out, much like the way the 2000 HMB city council interpreted the definition of "wetland" they chose to use the first sentence, and ignore the second sentence of the definition. Voila, we get a Beachwood decision. $41M for ignoring the US Constitution/ Pay up.

Thank you JD for reminding us that the US Constitution does matter, and does trump the state constitution. Maybe the 2nd, 5th, 14th and other amendments will live a bit longer?


Sorry, Hooter, but the settlement the city made with Keenan prevented any constitutional test of Walker's decision. Keenan made sure of that in the language he dictated. Now, why do you suppose he was so against clarifying the ruling through appeal?

The Fifth Amendment is not defined and clarified by property wrongs right wingnuts in HMB. For that we have the federal courts, through which a case must climb several levels to have any weight as a precedent.

As it stands, there was no taking at Beachwood, because some development would have been allowed. Thus, one of the Supreme Court's rulings on takings would most likely have prevailed on appeal, as the ruling has in other California coastal cases. It's all easily found on Internet law sites.


Somebody's missing the point.

"Sorry, Hooter, but the settlement the city made with Keenan prevented any constitutional test of Walker's decision."

Gee, I thought the "Constitutional test" took place in Walker's court room at 450 Golden Gate. I could swear that's the location of the trial I went to.

"As it stands, there was no taking at Beachwood,..."

What a crock. Judge Walker handed us 41 Million reasons to pay attention. How many more do you need?

And to think, the cost is actually so much higher when thought about. Everytime some moron pens the crap you do, our cost goes up. Since you don't live here, you are free to simply amuse yourself at our expense.

What a guy.


People, no matter what you think or wish to believe, there is a chill on our land. The US Constitution is Supreme, and it will reign once again. If you think that our local authorities are powerful and you choose to trust them, think again. No wrong goes unpunished for long. The hammer will come down. Do not go into a federal court with stupid ideas. Socialism is not yet the law.


"Since you don't live here, you are free to simply amuse yourself at our expense." Actually, that's what John Donovan (from Pescadero) is doing - amusing himself with his pseudo historical, red-bating nonsense.

NP stated clearly, and this was confirmed earlier by John Knox, the city's consultant, that the Walker decision would not be a precedent if it was overturned at the appeals court level. Walker ruled it was a takings, but since the city refused to appeal, we just have Walker's word for it. And George's and all the other liberty-loving Keenan supporters, of course.


>>Gee, I thought the "Constitutional test" took place in Walker's court room at 450 Golden Gate. I could swear that's the location of the trial I went to.<<

You may be deliberately misunderstanding. A constitutional test of the Walker decision did not (obviously) occur. To say that the Walker decision was the constitutional test is silly--what was the decision testing? Itself?

--Darin


You're just being silly now, Darin. If you don't believe the question of Constitutional violation was the whole purpose of the trial you're not as smart as I thought you were.

I may not agree with a lot of your positions politically, but I've never underestimated your intelligence.


"Walker ruled it was a takings, but since the city refused to appeal, we just have Walker's word for it."

Walker is a Federal Court Judge. That's his job. That's all anyone needs is Walker's word for it. The Constitutional test was in his office at 450 Golden Gate.

Now, just because some don't like his decision doesn't mean his decision is invalid, nor does it mean that the $41 Million penalty is in question or invalid.

For those that may wish the City had appealed, and we've been through this ad nausium, the City made a decision based on the facts of the case, the quality of the Judgment, and the expert legal advice they paid for that the cost of going forward with an appeal was not worth it. In other words, the 'odds' of winning balanced against the cost of the fight were not in our favor.

That's a Council's job. They did that job. Whether one likes it or not, it's done and a Settlement Agreement was reached.

It makes no sense to dance around a bush of shouldda/wouldda/couldda on what might have happened if ...

A risk analysis was performed, and we are where we are. That's it.

My beef is that it never had to happen in the first place. There were a plethora of opportunities to avoid this over a period of years. Those opportunities were either ignored or casually discarded - squandered at our expense.

The facts speak for themselves.

If we want to ‘go back in time’, let’s go all the way back to March 1999, and May 2000, and look at the BS the City pulled, led by Ferreira and his band of thieves (according to Walker) that got us into this mess in the first place.

Otherwise, let's look forward to resolution.


>>If you don't believe the question of Constitutional violation was the whole purpose of the trial you're not as smart as I thought you were.<<

The court case had to do with a "takings" but the ruling was never tested. Without being tested it isn't much of a precedent (nor terribly convincing, in my eyes). But we are stuck with it now.

--Darin


Why would it need to be "tested?" What exactly is "testing" a ruling?

You are not confusing that with an appeal, are you?


Darin, with all due respect, the ruling was the test. That's my whole point. The avenues pursued, or not, as a result of the ruling might make great fodder, but won't change the ruling or the facts in the case.

I like to keep things as simple as I can. To me, it's pretty simple.

Our elected officials, and their appointed representatives took, in a predatory manner, the rights of Keenan.

It has meandered through the judicial system since 2000, culminating with a Federal Judge ruling against HMB centered on a violation of the US Constitution - the fifth amendment - a Taking.

Anything after that is after the fact, and speculation; except for the Settlement Agreement. That, too, is a fact.


>>Why would it need to be "tested?"<<

I seem to remember California Lawyer magazine referring to the Walker ruling as a "novel interpretation" of the Takings Clause...hmmmm. Seems like a test was in order to me.

But it is too late now.

--Darin


You avoided the second question:

"What exactly is "testing" a ruling?" Are you saying that "appealing" and "testing" are the same?


>>You avoided the second question:

"What exactly is "testing" a ruling?" Are you saying that "appealing" and "testing" are the same?<<

Brian,

I remember the painful experience not long ago when I tried to convince you that the concept "political precedent" was a common one and was a key idea regarding Beachwood and AB 1991. I remember how you insisted that no such concept exists. It went on and on.

I recommend that if you want to learn about our political and legal system and to get a basic grounding in constitutional law and process you visit a library.

--Darin


Brian is the master of the stupid, obvious question.

Just call him Mister ?????


Why change the subject and avoid the question? Weak attempt to pass off the question as genuine.

What is "testing?" Please give me a link so I can get started.

Since the evidence cannot be tossed aside, what in the ruling could be "tested?" Specifics, or leave this discussion like you leave most - hanging for an answer that never comes from you.

I also recall the ridiculous "political precedent" issue - on and on because it was never resolved. Still ridiculous to this day. Either AB 1991 passed or it did not. On its merits or problems.

Recall that it passed the Assembly - was "political precedent" set with the passage there?


>>Please give me a link so I can get started.<<

I would be happy to, Brian. I believe it is more effective to teach a man to fish...

Here is a list of law schools that you might consider attending:

Web Link

And a list of schools with the LSAT scores needed for acceptance:

Web Link

In addition you might consider one of the country's public policy schools:

Web Link

If you don't have the time, interest, or capability for an actual degree in the field you might consider a look at the reading lists for specific classes. Much of this is online nowadays and may prove enlightening.

Good luck on your studies!

--Darin


Well, well, well, what do we have here, are we actually getting closer to identifying the governing principles of these antipodal philosophies? At the very least, we have some more tidbits of legal reasoning to decimate.

Let's get started with a quote from John Locke shall we? "Whenever legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience."

Right powerful words them, pretty much fighting words. Or how 'bout them fightin' words in the Declaration of Independence when we told the King of England and his merry band of Tory sympathizers to take a long walk on a short pier?

This undertaking was not taken lightly when we declared that the inalianable Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were to be secured by Government. Thus, Rights that are inalianable cannot be limited in the name of the public interest; instead, the public interest will be achieved by the protection of these Rights. Is this Federalism thingy-bob starting to make sense?

Alrighty then, let's take a gander at the 14th Amendment if you are still not convinced. I'm a wee bit leary treading down this path because the Courts have turned this Amendment onto its head, what the heck, in for dime...... Under the 14th Amendment, properly understood and applied, your state and local governments have no more right to violate the constitutional rights of citizens than the federal government has to intrude on the legitimate powers of state and local governments.

Federalism is not a shield for local tyranny. It is a brake on tyranny, whatever its source. With this in mind, let us take a look at the "takings clause".

A couple of posters above believe that Keenan's property rights were not "taken" because he still had other uses. If we put this thinking up against the common law understanding of property rights, it fails miserably.

To shorten this discussion, I shall refer to property rights as a "bundle of sticks" (Madison or Jefferson, I forget) which may be delineated as such: right of acquisition, right of enjoyment, and right of disposal. For an example of enjoyment, you as a property owner may forbid trespass i.e.- the right of exclusion.

We are at the point in our societal consciousness where everything that is not permitted is prohibited. Quite contrair to our founding principle: everything that is not prohibited is permitted - where "permitted" means "freely allowed", NOT allowed by "permit".

To further illustrate this silly interpretation of a "taking" by the aforementioned posters, try this poser on for size. You have $100 dollars, they will say that if the government came along and took all $100 dollars, it is a taking, but if the government only took $50 dollars, it is not a taking.

Apply this simple test to Charles Keenan, and you do not need some judge, federal or otherwise, to know that Keenan was robbed of his property rights.

What made the reprehensible actions of HMB's City Council even more egregious was the "ex post facto" nature of their determinations.

In Liberty, JD - The Federalist


So Darin shifts the focus from law to public policy. He has a degree in Public Policy. Whoop de doo. I have a degree in Finance. Together we could probably get the Country out of the recession.

But what does that have to do with constitutional law? Darin has way less experience than me in business law, that much is for sure. That gets me a cup of coffee (without needing a quarter too). Darin has way more experience in public policy than me. We now both have a cup of coffee. Where does this lead us? Nowhere.

Back to JD's topic...how about some answers, please.


JD,

Keep on Keeping on. Tell it like it is. I like what dissent had to say.

"The leftist idea of unity is, and always has been............

The elimination of dissent."

If you think you see socialism creeping or galloping our way, Sound the Alarm.

Thank you, JD.


A fan chiming in here from Lefty La Honda. You'll hear enough from the argumentative types--just wanted them to know you have like minded friends out there.

Too bad Loma Mar isn't on the "Select a City" pulldown list. I believe someone thinks you're from Pescadero...


I am glad that someone is finally standing up to mob rule. or media rule. or whatever you call what is going on these days. Go JD. Our founding fathers did not have socialism as their vision. or nationalization of our businesses, or redistribution of wealth. Our US Constitution is still valid and enforceable, nothwithstanding the efforts of a bunch of self styled reformers. In particular I like the 2nd, 5th, 14th amendments.


But these same tools were strangely silent during the creeping corporate fascism of the last 8 years.

What a pathetic joke. No thinking American is buying their BS. They are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

You just have to look at the polls to see just how far removed from reality they are. All they need to do to further their demise is cling to their flat-world views.


"Gee, I thought the "Constitutional test" took place in Walker's court room at 450 Golden Gate."

Lower court rulings have little precedent setting authority on Constitutional grounds unless tested through appeal. But because the appeals process was not engaged, and because there are contrary federal appeal court and Supreme Court ruling that seem to contradict Walker's rulings, the Beachwood decision becomes no more than the local anomaly it is.

"A couple of posters above believe that Keenan's property rights were not "taken" because he still had other uses. If we put this thinking up against the common law understanding of property rights, it fails miserably."

Obviously, you need to catch up on U.S. Supreme Court rulings on takings.


NP,

Nope, common law understanding as per Sir Edward Coke or William Blackstone (though Jefferson thought there was a "Tory hue" to his writings), is a far cry from case law or 'precedent'.

If you would like to compare US Supreme Court rulings (apples) to the understanding of common law (oranges), I'm a gamer. If you want to imply that SCOTUS has ruled that regulatory takings are not takings, I'm a gamer.

The ball is in your court, what ruling/rulings have proclaimed that a regulatory taking is not a taking?

Be forewarned I will put these to Karl Llewellen's test in his 1960 publication, "The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals", 'Can the Simple Cite be Trusted?'

Please show me my ignorance of common law or of SCOTUS rulings of property rights.


NP,

Forgive me for intruding on your response to George, but I would like to know the "contrary federal appeal court's rulings and Supreme Court rulings that seem to contradict Walker's ruling"."

One other bone of contention if I may, do these hypothetical rulings "seem to" contradict Walker or do these hypothetical rulings de facto contradict Walker? Please name the cites.


NP,

Just one other niggling thing. Your statement, "Lower court rulings have little precedent setting authority on Constitutional grounds unless tested through appeal", has me doing some mental gymnastics to get to its alleged logical conclusion.

'Precedence' gets in the way of the conclusion you have drawn. Mind you, I do not have a law degree, but when you apply this statement to the courts behavior, it is lacking in substance. Supreme Courts cite Supreme Court rulings and lower court rulings for their determinations, and vice versa for the lower courts.

I'll give you this, you are one heckuva sophist.


“Lower court rulings have little precedent setting authority on Constitutional grounds unless tested through appeal.” Whew, glad we got that clear. It has absolutely no bearing on past and current events, however. Again, np, you miss my point.

I don’t want to repeat myself, but in this case, since you’re so special, I’ll go for it.

“…the ruling was the test. That's my whole point. The avenues pursued, or not, as a result of the ruling might make great fodder, but won't change the ruling or the facts in the case.”

“Anything after that is after the fact, and speculation; except for the Settlement Agreement. That, too, is a fact.

Do you feel the need to hijack every thread, or is it something that you just can’t help?

What gets the attention of most of us, the ones that will pay the cost (that, of course, excludes you, as you are not a HMB resident), is the $41 Million spanking Walker gave us, not “precedent setting authority”.

The Findings of Fact and resulting Judgment are “precedent setting” enough, thank you.


George,

Yep, it just does not hold any water, judges will cite all manner of cases if the arguments of the cite bolster the case at hand. Or am I just a dumb hillbilly carpenter who fell off the turnip wagon, well to fess up, I did fall off, but it was some time ago.

Yours in Liberty, JD - The Psuedo Red Baiting Federalist


George,

Furthermore, this "test" that Darin and NP keep harping on is starting to not pass the smell test. The only "test" I can come up with is 'standing'. If Keenan had no standing, the courts will refuse to hear. Period.

Yours in Liberty, JD - The Red Baiting Psuedo Historian Federalist


Pobrecitos, so eager to impose their offhand and self-serving beliefs on us all.

There has been much Supreme Court activity on takings law from time to time. Here, in blessedly plain language characteristic of Indiana and Illinois that might prove comprehensible to even property-wrongs George and outer-space-flailing JD, is a review of takings law through 1994:

Web Link

Try to read it for the principles distilled and for the areas of law that are not cut and dried as you would have them. In it, you can begine to learn that only removal of ALL economic interest in a property is certain to constitute a taking. Below 100 percent removal, the law is indeterminate and, to this day, handled on somewhat of an ad hoc basis by the Supreme Court.


Did you lightweights read the last link? Well, good for you. Here is a review of takings decisions that brings us close to up to date (2006). Enjoy. In it you will see the important precedent established by Lucas and learn the major cases since then. Again you will see the importance of "totality" if you want to be certain a taking has occurred.

Web Link

Not because it relates to Beachwood--it doesn't--you can also learn about one of the private landowner victories that is an important precedent for access issues on the California coast, namely Nollan. It gets into "proportionality," another factor in these debates. As a humorous aside, the virtual killing of future OTD requirements by the Coastal Commission through the chilling effect of Nollan did not work out entirely as the coastbusters wished. Groups and local governments favoring coastal access were energized to accept ownership and responsibility for dozens of existing OTDs up and down the California coast that would otherwise have expired if it wasn't for the stimulus provided by the Nollan case.

JD and George, you have no clue what is meant by a legal "testing" of a decision by a lower court and how that testing must take place before the decision has much weight as a precedent. In this commonly used sense, a judge's ruling in no way constitutes a "test."


NP,

Nice try. From the start, the conclusions of 2 judges who are Senior Vice President and President of Clarion Associates, Inc., a national real estate and community development services firm, with offices in Chicago and Denver, were suspect.

The cases cited start in 1915, the 9 Principles are subjective jokes, they rely on "legal analysts" for their conclusions, published in 1995, the last cite 1992, and the clincher, the cherry picking of cites favoring the government.

Furthermore, these 2 yahoos whose livelihood depends on government largesse, have no respect or knowledge of common law as shown in their "Takings Law in Plain English".

I gotta hit the rack, but you can bet your booties that this little sidetrack will get a vigorous debunking.


To quote a friend.... "Below 100 percent removal, the law is indeterminate and, to this day, handled on somewhat of an ad hoc basis by the Supreme Court." That made me wonder about all 50 states, and since Kelo, many states have taken steps to put sideboards on eminent domain and regulatory takings. Here is just one, Oregon.

Web Link


You still don't get it, np? As smart as you profess to be?

Still trying to redirect?

Oh, wise one, it must be very difficult for one so smart and all knowing to communicate on the simple level of us mere mortals.

I'll try one more time:

“…the ruling was the test. That's my whole point. The avenues pursued, or not, as a result of the ruling might make great fodder, but won't change the ruling or the facts in the case.”

“Anything after that is after the fact, and speculation; except for the Settlement Agreement. That, too, is a fact.

And you responded with, "JD and George, you have no clue what is meant by a legal "testing" of a decision by a lower court and how that testing must take place before the decision has much weight as a precedent. In this commonly used sense, a judge's ruling in no way constitutes a "test."

For you to pontificate from your all knowing throne about what could have been, or the price of tea in China, is all hypothetical crap; the stuff you pitch everyday.

I am not interested in your attempt at enlightenment on what could have, maybe happened, nor the cleaning of your stalls by pitching it all on TA.

What is, is. If I want to glimpse into a fantasy land of what might be I’ll go visit Disneyland.

Go ahead and act like you have a clue about arguing a case in front of a judge, or like you have achieved some unattainable level of academia for worldly knowledge if you like. The rest of us mere mortals will deal with what is, as best we can, recognizing the rules of the game, which start with the US Constitution, and Walker’s clear message that we violated it by taking Keenan’s property. That is what happened and what the court records show. That’s all the precedent we can handle around here.

Keep watching those Perry Mason reruns, though. We do occasionally enjoy your little fantasies.


NP,

To rely upon the Court or any governmental body to justify unlawful behavior is the way of the despot.

All laws must pass the muster of the US Constitution & Bill of Rights, the Supreme Law of the land. SCOTUS's determinations will always be suspect when ignoring the bedrock of our legal system, common law.

This attempt to steer the discussion from federalism vs. socialism, will be brief. Stay tuned for my analyses of SCOTUS and the understanding of common law. I will meet this challenge and then we will move on to the discussion of socialism's governing principles.


Round and round and round they go, JD with his denials of what actually goes on and George (with his girls in tow?).

Their ignorance of how takings cases are variously handled by the courts these days and of the shifts and trends in takings rulings in recent decades make them and their wished-for fantasies worthless. So like the right wingnuts of HMB to think the world works according to their parochial, simple-minded notions.

So, no meaningful precedent established by Walker's Beachwood ruling and no certain establishment of a takings when less than 100 percent of economic uses of a property are removed by government actions. Sorry boys, them's the realities. Reread the web links, check out their references, learn the half dozen cases most used as takings precedents in recent decades, and try to understand the entire world is not what you see under your rocks.


Would you like a personal copy of The Federalist Papers? Have you ever wondered if they even exist?

Take it from me, they DO exist! And now you don't even have to go through the bother of reading them!

Learn how to safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection!How to restrain legistlavie authority in regard to the common defense! You may even gain the powers necessary to the common defense!

You can learn all this just by listening! You do not even have to be skilled at reading!

That's right! You can download them onto your personal iPod™ (or generic mp3 player) and listen to them in the privacy of your own digital world!

Friends who drop in won't see incriminating evidence on your coffee table! No need for delivery in a "plain brown wrapper". Friends will think you are listening to your digital collection of Elton John, The Grateful Dead or Neil Young, not a narrated version of an important historical document! Your authoritarian neighbors will never know that you have been listening to such shocking fare!

There will be NO paper trail!

No trees will have been killed in this production of of The Federalist Papers! Yes, it's completely GREEN! It's completely digital! The mp3 cannot be PRINTED OUT!

Best of all, this item is completely free! That's right, I said completely withoug charge*!

Where can you obtain this wonderful item? Here's the Web Link. Click on over there right now, before they are gone!

* Donation accepted


"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher


Maggie's got it!

If, for some strange reason, you need further clarification, just ask us. Send all questions to Gorbichov or Putin, at the Kremlin.

We will put our best man on it immediately. We may need to confer with the Germans, the French, the Chinese, the Argentineans, and all the rest around the world and throughout history that offer Socialism, Communism, and all the other isms that don’t fit well with our Constitution.

We’ll answer all questions, just as soon as we have a group hug with all mentioned, and can scrape together the money for the paper, envelope, and stamps to complete the circle.


Looks like the lads want to pile on....hmmmm, where are the arguments defending the governing principles of socialism? What we do see displayed, is the behavior of persons who enjoy spending other people's money that has been acquired by government force and gleefully using the power of government to force their will upon others.

Let's get to the shenanigan's of the US Supreme Court, shall we? Part 1:

NP's first link, "Takings Law in Plain English". This document is a sales brochure for a legal firm. I am not impressed. Read for yourselves the majority opinion's and the dissents of the cites relied upon for their thesis and you will come to the realization that they have taken license to a new level, even for lawyers.

Someone must have slipped this gem to the lawyers representing the city of HMB prior to taking on Keenan and judging by results......Which leads me to a quick sidebar of the "test" Darin & NP are so quick to use as a club, the question before the court (Keenan) was put to the "test" by Walker.

Alrighty then, enough of the rhetoric, let's get to meat (Red Meat, Get it?) of the matter. The premise of their argument (Duerksen, Roddewig) begins with an admission of unconstitutionality and the prevalant thinking of Ivy Leaguers today, a 'living' Constitution, with the heading, "The Courts Reshape the Constitution".

Duerksen & Roddewig cherry picked one sentence from Justice Holmes opinion (and incomplete)(Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon), "The general rule [at least], is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking". Holmes went much further than this simplistic statement.

Holmes, "As long recognized some values are enjoyed under an implied limitation and must yield to the police power. But obviously the implied limitation must have its limits or the contract and due process clauses are gone."......."The protection of private property in the 5th Amendment presupposes that it is wanted for public use, but provides that it shall not be taken for such use without compensation. A similiar assumption is made in the decisions upon the 14th Amendment. When this seemingly absolute protection is found to be qualified by the police power, the natural tendency of human nature is to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappears. But that cannot be accomplished in this way under the Constitution of the United States."......."We are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change."

These quotes show that Holmes always had the principles of Federalism as his guide through the question brought. In the dissent of Justice Brandeis, you will find the germination of the Courts meddling in the legislative and executive domains that we have so despise today.

Part 2 tomorrow, if work and the Honey-Do's permit.

In Liberty, JD - The Red Baiting Psuedo Historian Federalist


"Would you like a personal copy of The Federalist Papers? Have you ever wondered if they even exist?"

The Federalist Papers were published to explain and expand upon one political philosophy's point of view. They are not law. They did not represent everyone--and probably not the majority--when they were written. They did try to set up and promote a new Constitution to replace the Articles of Confereration, a Constitution that would put in place a more centralized and powerful federal government that could quell disagreement, give urban areas and non-agriculturalists more authority, try to stabilize a financial environment in the new country that was making borrowing difficult for those who wanted to increase their fortunes, and pay off holders of federal paper from the end of the Revolutionary War (who had purchased said paper at pennies on the dollar).

"'The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.' Margaret Thatcher"

This is equally true of modern-day capitalism, which is heavily financed by borrowing. Borrowing what? OPM! A lot of capitalistic enterprises going down nowadays because the availability of OPM has diminished greatly.

Hitch your future or your criticisms to *any* of the isms because that makes the economic universe simple enough for you to understand, and reality will kick your butt.


Howdy folks, no, I have not abandoned this quest. Work is gettin' in the way of this Talkabout thingy.

Part 2 will be a dandy, yessirreee, stay tuned.......

In Liberty, JD


I'm back, y'all miss me? heh, heh

My night job (as the Red Baiting Federalist) on Talkabout does not pay the same as my day job. Anyhooos.............

Let's take a closer look at NP's assertion that "no certain establishment of a takings when less than 100 percent of economic uses of a property are removed by government actions".

NP's second web link was better written, yet still lacking in substance, as I will demonstrate. I pursued this sidebar because it strengthens my argument for a return to the principles of federalism as outlined in the US Constitution by our Founding Fathers.

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) for the past 100 or so years has not adhered to the Law of the Land which is why I will not rely upon them to uphold my Rights as a sovereign or the Rights of the sovereign State. If I drag Karl Lewellen into this argument, it will get pointy headed indeed, therefore I beg of you to become familiar with his works on your time. Put simply, the Courts are suspect because they are on the same team, government. However, now and then they get it right as in Mack/Printz v. USA (SCOTUS).

The arguments in NP's web links rely heavily upon Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council for their conclusions. There is some weight there, but not in the context as they would have you believe. For my argument I will use the dissent in Penn Central and the majority in Lucas for the proper application of federalism in a "taking".

I will also expose the eggregious errors in the Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency so that y'all can see for yourselves how far from the Constitution SCOTUS can stray.

Justice Rehnquist in Penn Central, "The rubric of 'zoning' has not yet sufficed to avoid the well-established proposition that the Fifth Amendment bars the 'Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole'." He also said that this case "requires a closer scrutiny of this Court's interpretation of the three key words in the Taking Clause- 'property', 'taken', and 'just compensation'"......"property - includes the entire 'group of rights inhering in the citizen's ownership'".

He does allow an "examination of the two exceptions where the destruction of property does not constitute a taking (nuisance & secure/s an average reciprocity of advantage)" and he "demonstrates" after exploring these exceptions, "that a compensable taking has occured here".

Going further, "Appellees (New York) have imposed a substantial cost on less than one one-tenth of one percent of the buildings in New York City for the general benefit of all its people. It is exactly this imposition of general costs on a few individuals at which the 'taking' protection is directed. The Fifth Amendment 'prevents the public from loading upon one individual more than his just share of the burdens of government, and says that when he surrenders to the public something more and different from that which is exacted from other members of the public, a full and just equivalent shall be returned to him'".

Rehnquist was not content to rest there, "Appellees in response would argue that a taking only occurs where a property owner is denied all reasonable value of his property. The Court has frequently held that, even where a destruction of property rights would not otherwise constitute a taking, the inability of the owner to make a reasonable return on his property requires compensation under the Fifth. But the converse is not true. A taking does not become a noncompensable exercise of police power simply because the government in its grace allows the the owner to make some 'reasonable' use of his property. It is the character of the invasion, not the amount of damage resulting from it, so long as the damage is substantial, that determines the question whether it is a taking."

The damnation of the majority's opinion continues, "Of all the terms used in the Takings Clause, 'just compensation' has the strictest meaning. The Fifth does not allow simply an approximate compensation but requires a full and perfect equivalent for the property taken."

The next quote exposes the wealth envy of the statists then and now, "The City of New York is in a precarious financial state, and some may believe that the costs of landmark preservation will be more easily borne by corporations such as Penn Central than the overburdened individual taxpayers of New York. But these concerns do not allow us to ignore past precedents constuing the Eminent Domain Clause to the end that the desire to improve the public condition is, indeed, achieved by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change."

Lastly, in the spirit of federalism, "It is irrelevant that appellees interfered with or destroyed property rights that Penn Central had not yet physically used. The Fifth must be applied with 'reference to the uses for which the property is suitable, having regard to the existing business or wants of the community, or such as may be reasonably expected in the immediate future'".

I am going to have to address Lucas and Tahoe tomorrow night, this here dog is hittin' the rack. I know I have not swayed those of you who are obsessed with using the power of government to force your will upon others, but I hope I may have opened the eyes of those who like to sit on the fence.

In Liberty, JD the Federalist


Trusting SCOTUS with your liberty is akin to trusting an indigent hitchhiker with your gold while your on vacation. Nevertheless, we will see that Lucas is weighter than alluded to or cited.

I am going stray from a chronological discussion of the majority's opinion because I would like to emphasize certain principles embodied in their decision.

This first quote is appropos considering the shenanigan's that the California Coastal Commission is up to in El Granada,

"....affirmatively supporting a compensation requirement, is the fact that regulations that leave the owner of land without economically beneficial or productive options for its use - typically, as here, by requiring that land to be left substantially in its natural state - carry with them a heightened risk that private property is being pressed into some form of public service under the guise of mitigating serious public harm".........."The many statutes on the books, both federal and state, that provide for the use of eminent domain to impose servitudes on private scenic lands preventing developmental uses, or to acquire such lands altogether, suggest the practical equivalence in this setting of negative regulation and appropriation".

Citing the context of Holmes in Penn Coal v. Mahon, Justice Scalia emphasized, "that, if the protection against physical appropriations of private property was to be meaningfully enforced , the government's power to redefine the range of interests included in the ownership of property was necessarily constrained by constitution limits. If, instead, the uses of private property were subject to unbridled, uncompensated qualification under the police power, the natural tendency of human nature would be to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappeared".........Exactly what the socialist's crave in their quest for unbridled power!!

It gets better, "In general (at least with regard to permanent invasions), no matter how minute the intrusion, and no matter how weighty the public purpose behind it, we have required compensation".

Remember the bedrock, common law, that our Constitution rests upon? Justice Scalia rightly reminds the government, "It seems unlikely that common law principles would have prevented the erection of any habitable or productive improvements on petitioner's land; they rarely support prohibition of the 'essential use' of land..........We emphasize that, to win its case, South Carolina must do more than proffer the legislature's declaration that the uses Lucas desires are inconsistent with the public interest, or the conclusory assertion that they violate a common law maxim such as sic utero tuo ut alienum non laedas. As we have said, a 'State, by ipse dixit, may not transform private property into public property without compensation'........Instead, as it would be required to do if it sought to restrain Lucas in a common law action for public nuisance, South Carolina must identify background principles of nuisance and property law that prohibit the uses he now intends in the circumstances in which the property is presently found. Only on this showing can the State fairly claim that, in proscribing all such beneficial uses, the Beachfront Management Act is taking nothing."

There you have it, Federalism in a nutshell. It is not a complicated philosophy, but it does entail taking responsibility of oneself. See y'all tomorrow with my dissection of Tahoe-Sierra v. Tahoe Regional Planning............

In Liberty, JD the Federalist


If you think you see socialism creeping or galloping our way, Sound the Alarm.

Thank you, JD.


You still sippin your namesake, JD?

Your arguments must be pretty good. You've chased off Now Pitching, who is a legend in his own mind. No easy feat.

Your writtings are very good. I hope people are paying attention.


I'm so confused & OBW,

Heck, and I've just got started, what no more competition? OH, I get it, socialism is a hard sell when the sales brochure is chock full of despotic principles.

But then again, if you've got the might of the federal government behind you, a willing Fourth Estate (or is that the Fifth Column?), and some pigs that are more equal than other pigs........yeah, that's a seller's market.

I think I'll keep fighting for a free market.........don't miss tomorrow's essay.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Red Baiting Federalist and a Committee of One


Free-market is a nice fantasy, but not practicable in reality.


DS,

Would you care to demonstrate why a command economy is more "practicable" than laissez faire? What countries are the shining example: Cuba, Venezuela, USSR, East Germany, England, or China?

And could you demonstrate how the sovereign individual fares in this type of political environment?


Let's get Politics out of Economics, and while you are at it get Politics out of Health Care, Autos, Education, Auto parts, and the Land Grab.


Property rights have been under assault since the Progressive Era (1920 or so) because the despots who love government know that if you eliminate private property rights, you control the individual. This thinking is prevalant in 'planning commissions' as demonstrated by the format of 'public input' or 'community consensus' meetings facilitated by government lackeys.

In these forums, the 'group'(community) is paramount and the individual is shunted. Let me state this differently. Individuals whose Rights might be at 'stake' (pay attention to this word) are morphed onto a 'level playing field' with individuals who have an 'interest' in the matter at hand. These persons of 'interest' are now the 'group' (good) and therefore have more weight in the issue before them than the individual (bad).

The 'group' now has a seemingly righteous name, 'Stakeholders'. The individual is now relegated to an undesirable and inconvenient minority. Yessiree, they have turned common law on its head, thus is the common law distinction between Rights and 'interests' blurred and eventually lost. This matter has now transformed from one of protecting Rights to one of deciding whose 'interests' should prevail.

This, my fellow humans, is not federalism but a blatant exercise of social democracy (democratic socialism) as per the warnings of Alexis Tocqueville. Democracy always favors the tyrant and his faithful.

Keeping this context in mind, let us now explore the how far astray SCOTUS can be from the bedrock of common law with their wrongful conclusion in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. I will use the dissents of Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist to further my argument.

Here is an incredibly damning indictment of the majority by Rehnquist, ........ "Under the Court's decision today, the takings question turns entirely on the initial label given a regulation, a label that is often without much meaning. There is every incentive for government to simply label any prohibition on development 'temporary', or to fix a set number of years. As in this case, this initial designation does not preclude the government from repeatedly extending the 'temporary' prohibition into a long term ban on all development. The Court now holds that such a designation by the government is conclusive (pause here to digest that) even though in fact the moratorium greatly exceeds the time initially specified. Apparently, the Court would not view even a 10 year moratorium as a taking under 'Lucas' because the moratorium is not permanent."

Rehnquist continues,....."First English stated that, 'temporary takings which, as here, deny a landowner all use of his property, are not different in kind from permanent takings, for which the Constitution clearly requires compensation'...... It is well established that temporary takings are as protected by the Constitution as are permanent ones."

Justice Thomas in a separate dissent, ..... "A taking is exactly what occurred in this case. No one seriously doubts that the land use regulations at issue rendered petitioners' land unsusceptible of 'any' economically beneficial use. This was true at the inception of the moratorium, and it remains true today. These individuals and families were deprived of the opportunity to build single family homes as permanent, retirement, or vacation residences on land upon which such construction was authorized when purchased. The Court assures them that a 'temporary prohibition on economic use' cannot be a taking because 'logically' the property will recover value as soon as the prohibition is lifted'. But the 'logical' assurance that a 'temporary restriction merely causes a diminution in value', is cold comfort to the property owners in this case or any other. After all, in the long run we are all dead..............It is regrettable that the Court has charted a markedly different path today."

The bottom line here folks? This decision demonstrates how far the government will stretch credibility and common sense to further the reach of government by providing some citizens with benefits at the expense of the Rights of other citizens, thus creating more who will kneel at the feet of Big Government.

In Liberty, JD, the Religionified Red Baiting Federalist


Wow, reading this stuff from JD is inspiring. It makes me sit up and take notice of what has been happening to my quaint, rural community over the past 20 years. And, it is not a pretty sight, and the future is bleaker and bleaker. Government is buying up all my friends farms, and for what? The old farmers took far better care of the land than POST or the government, plus the government is seriously broke, so now what do "we" do? I hear the plan is "we" pay more taxes.

JD used to be on our PMAC and he did a helluva job. JD is not the sort of fellow to sit back and watch us drive at warp speed into a sinkhole or a brick wall. Speak the truth JD, forget about political correctness.


Memories,

Thanks for the memories!...wink, wink...nudge, nudge.....Monty Python.

On a more serious note, thank you, whoever you are. It does help keep the inspiration alive with some positive feedback now and again.

If only PMAC had took to heart the lyrics of, "Take the Power Back", or "Wake Up", or "Fistful of Steel" by the lads, "Rage Against the Machine". I know the lads were a bit misguided in their "proletariat" mindset, but what a great album.

Yours in Liberty, JD the Federalist


This coming week we can discuss the tenets of Marx and/or look at the record of countries around the world past and present that govern their people with varying degrees of socialism.

If we really want to have some fun, we could examine Ruth Bader Ginsburg's record of using Internatiional Law for her unconstitutional constructions.

Stay tuned..................

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


I think HMB and the midcoast could learn how government can be used to help and protect people from the way the PMAC runs its business, and the Pescadero Fair, and the fundraisers that we have, and the way we take care of our own. What is with all the bickering in HMB? and the midcoast? Come to a PMAC meeting and learn how life should be on the coast. Smile, talk with your neighbors, help them.

Thanks, JD.

Do not go to a Midcoast Community Council unless your stomach is lined with lead. Consider all the blowback from just one meeting at MCC on Big Wave. There must have been EIGHT topics on Talkabout with a theme--"Hey, we don't want no developmentally delayed kids in our neighborhood" That would never happen at a PMAC meeting. In Pescadero, we take care of our own.

Thanks, JD


i am looking for some land that i cannot farm, but which i can receive subisdies for not farming. In addition, I would like to sell to post. now that we have socialism in america, i should be swamped with offers. please email me. ( or contact jd)


You're in luck farmer ron. There just happens to be a little parcel in HMB that fits what you're looking for.

Nice little 24 acre spot just off the center of town.

It's called Beachwood.


Good ol' JD, the true-believing Federalist, caught out of his time and of the impression the negative impacts of property use on others are of no consequence. Losing battle, bud. Too many people have been damaged too much to go back to the selective old quasi-religious dogma about the sanctity of what you choose to sanctify and then interpret all in light of your chosen myths.

Try depopulating the country back down to 15-25 million people and you can probably gain sympathy for getting rid of much of what you erroneously call "socialism."

With big population and urbanization comes big government serving wealth and power in an attempt to hold off chaos. If you don't like it, consider the root causes rather than succumbing to simple-minded wrong-wing babble.


Looky here folks, more sophistry by NP, gots to admire persistence.

Instead of thrashing Ruth (the Red) Bader (Get it?) Ginsburg or extemporizing on the benefits of socialistic rule in countries like Cuba or Venezuela, why don't we explore the movement of evironmentalism seeing as it has infected our body politic with a socialist taint.

NP & et al. like to portray my vision of our federalist roots as "quasi-religious" because in their belief system, religion is bad. They are not recognizing that their freedoms of speech, redress, etc., stem from the inalienable Rights of the sovereign individual. Government is here to secure those Rights. A government bound by the principle of federalism is not the grantee for the Rights they enjoy. Socialism, on the other hand, does not honor the individual.

Which is why we will explore this "quasi-religion" of environmentalism. This is where 'group-think' and democratic socialism reign supreme. Now don't take my word for it, let's look to the actions/statements of our new commander-in-chief and the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for some excellent examples. We could also look at the nonsense taught at public schools and universities, but that would require a new thread and has been thoroughly documented by:

John Taylor Gatto (New York City & New York State Teacher of the Year) in his book, "The Underground History of American Education, A Schoolteacher's Intimate Investigation into the Problem of Modern Schooling", The Oxford Village Press, 2001, 410 ppgs.

Why don't we start with the sovereignty trashing issue of 'Manmade Global Warming' which the environmental movement has seized upon to further the proletariats utopian vision of one world government. A strong statement that I will back with scientific fact because after all, our new 'leader of the free world' has stated that, "We will put science in its proper place".

The lie of "man-made global warming', as pronounced by the IPCC, has been spread far and wide by willing accomplices in the press, major media outlets, and our universities. The planet is now cooling again, hence the new name for this alleged man-made catastrophe, "climate change", and the repetitive sounding of alarm for its causation, that evil pollutant, carbon dioxide. Prior to getting all worked up about the scientific facts that I will presently set before you, ask yourself a few questions:

Who benefits from sounding this false alarm, governments, corporations, universities, or the individual?

Will the environment actually be enhanced by enacting the IPCC mandates?

Are these IPCC mandates to help the evironment or to keep the the third world countries as third world countries?

Are these IPCC mandates to help the evironment or to put these United States on a 'level playing field' with the Euro's and third world countries?

I'll throw a few more your way as we go along, the dinner bell is wringing and when the wife says, "Eat", I eat.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


More quasi-religious rant from true-believer JD. Yawn.


Haling back to a previous paragragh of mine, a few more questions to ask yourself afore retiring for the evening:

Whose "interests" shall prevail from enactment of the IPCC mandates?

Better yet, who will be the arbiter of the "interests" of the "stakeholders" who are railing for the enactment of the IPCC mandates?

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


The Mystery.

What came first? The CO2 or Cosmic Rays? Did the earth's temperature rise first, and then carbon dioxide levels increased, or vice versa? Which was the cause and which was the effect? Why did dozens of scientists resign and withdraw from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)

Oh Vey, I am off topic, but au contraire, maybe this is the real topic that is currently driving us to socialism in America and the world today. This is a story about the mechanisms by which socialists disguise their reasons to make us do as they wish us to.

Check six. Taxman at dawn, make that midnight. And, oh by the way, add 1% to your sales tax starting in 3 hours, and that is just the start of your pain. Really, I cannot make this stuff up, it is way too grisly to make this crap up. This comes from your very own elected California legislature. On April first add 1 more per cent to your sales tax in perpetuity. Think I will shop on internet tile they close that option down, then I plan to resort to barter.

NP, hey. get a grip.


Looks like the quasi-religious crowd is working up to the critical mass for a local tent meetin'. Do you believe?


"the quasi-religious crowd is working up to the critical mass for a local tent meetin'."

Isn't that what Mike and his quasi-religious "environmentalist" (he only plays one for the cameras) pals have at Joe's on a regular basis?


Are you jealous Ferreira and cronies actually talk substance rather than the innuendo and unsupported generalities your local ilk purveys?

No one confuses Ferreira with someone primarily concerned with "environmental" matters, so your ignorant or defaming slip is showing.

Some environmentalists do deal in belief and approach their concerns more on a spiritual basis than anything else. They might reasonably be called "quasi-religious." But most deal in real-world facts, principles, and logic that would be strangers to the petty destructionists of HMB.


Right again nipper. "No one confuses Ferreira with someone primarily concerned with "environmental" matters..."

For him, it's all about control.


Bill, you nailed it, no one ever confused Mike with the environment. But Mike did try to use the "environment" as a cudgel.


"For him, it's all about control."

Whereas altruists like Bill, George, Brian, and the rest of the Old Guard and property wrongs gangs in HMB act out of the goodness of their hearts. Benefits to "financially self-interested" developers and other city, community, and environment wreckers are purely incidental.


NP,

My good wo(man),

Your prior impeccable credentials and proclamations precede you my wo(man).

The topic is Socialism, not the Old Guard. Please stay on topic, if possible.

To parapharse Churchill " Change is good, as long as it is in the right direction"

Social control of private property is fraught with multitudinous random reverberations, some not seemly. Witness the past 4 months for the USA. Collectivism is not a hallmark hallowed government system.


Jd, where you be. I have many pleasant memories of your long flowing auburn hair, with a shirtless vest and bulging biceps, but I digress.

Forget all of that, I am interested in your mind. Really.

I found a great website. Web Link


I have already seen that website, here is my favorite. Web Link


Sorry,

it should be Web Link


Looks like I touched a nerve or two. For those of us who value Liberty, are we imagining these snakes in the grass (or Reds under the bed, Get it?) of the UN's wildlands? Let's take a gander, shall we?

We will start with Mark Louzek of the Czech Centre for Economics and Politics and his statement that, "environmentalism strives for the reform of the social order and for the removal of social and environmental injustices created by the operation of free markets".

In the year 2000, we have France's Jacques Chirac stating that, "the Kyoto Protocol was the first component of an authentic global governance", and EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom expounding on, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide'.

Or how about Janet Biehl who writes, "The ecological crises is resolvable only through totalitarian means and that an 'ecodictatorship' is needed", in her publication, "Ecology and Modernization of Fascism in the German Ultra-Right".

Following up this thought with this dandy by a leading 'green thinker', Mayer Hillman, "The Chinese live in a totalitarian state, you don't have to persuade the Chinese people, all you've got to persuade is the Chinese government". Seems as if the members of Congress and the newest occupant of the White House have been 'persuaded'.

Going further, we have this pronouncement by, David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith, "The Climate Change Challenge (notice yet another mutation of the "global warming crisis") and the Failure of Democracy". The premise of their book? Global Warming can be effectively dealt with only by an 'authoritarian form of government'.

This tyrannical theme that runs through the hysteria of global warming seems to have carried over to the party in Bali when the 'Friends of the Earth sent their messenger, Emma Brindal, to remind the participants of this gala, that "a climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources".

Jumping forward to today's headlines, the G20 Summit and Cap & Trade, (of course the politicos and environmentalists are already working on a name change for 'Cap & Trade') we see the culmination of the socialist mindset quote above. Spend your way out of debt with other people's money that is taken by force and if you create a problem out of thin air (or is that man-made warm air?), spend other people's money that is taken by force.

Seeing as this essay is gettin' abit long in the tooth, let me wrap this one up with a tid bit or two from the EPA and a congressman, Jeff Bingaman, who may have inadvertantly spoken truth.

The EPA claims that the 'Global Warming' bills moving through Congress will reduce CO2 concentrations by 25 parts per million by the year 2050 for a heart stopping reduction in temperature rise of one tenth of one degree Celsius. For this alleged earth saving result Bingaman had the temerity to say that, "the Cap & Trade bills will increase the price of energy across the board and that this substantial cost will ultimately be passed on to its consumers".

Yeah right, it's not about control, stupid, it's about the environment.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Hey Memories,

Knock it off! This is a family blogsite. If you can't say it in front of grandma, it shouldn't be said.

Awwwright, thank you and I'll have you know, I didn't get these "bulging biceps" pettin' kitty kats.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the non-pettin' of Kitty Kats Federalist


Bind ideology is nice in theory, but untenable in reality.

Please, JD, join us in the real world.


Did I hear my name? It’s starting to look like you have a ‘thing’ for me. People are talking.

Nipper, as someone has called her (very appropriate), says "Benefits to "financially self-interested" developers and other city, community, and environment wreckers are purely incidental."

Perhaps you can wade through your bile long enough to open your eyes and find an example of where, or how, I may have benefited, nipper.

You have maintained, for some time now, that there is personal gain being had by those "shilling" for that dastardly demon developer Keenan, who, btw, won a $41 Million Judgment against HMB (News Flash, sport).

We'd all love to see an example of these "benefits".

How many times can one individual open her mouth to change feet? I don't know that I can count that high, but maybe, in the end, we'll see.

PS: what's shakin' JD. Good to see you having at 'em here.


Is that something like S&M?


I think it is like M&A.


JD said: "For those of us who value Liberty..."

ok, anyone on this thread who does not value their Liberty please raise your hand! Right, I didn't think so. We ALL value our Liberty. Of course, in typical right wing fashion, JD has hijacked this to only apply to HIS definition of Liberty, which indicates to me that he is still living in the late 1700's when the earth's population was a fraction of what it is today. But, earth to JD, we no longer live in a limitless world without consequence for our actions!

In what I find to be a disturbing trend, it has become common practice to deny science when it doesn't give you the result you like. This began with the religious right denying evolution and their attempt to create a parallel "science" to propose as an "alternate theory". What's interesting is the contradiction between these these people being plenty happy to reap the benefits of genetically engineered advances in medicine, while denying the underlying fundamentals of the science that brings it to them (and which their pseudo-science doesn't predict).

The same is true with climate change. No serious scientist denies that climate change is occurring right now. Further, no serious scientist denies that increasing levels of greenhouse gases, predominantly from man made sources, are driving this. Yet the entrenched energy and transportation companies of the world (or, it seems, mostly in the US) fear the loss of their hegemony and have worked to create yet another pseudo-science of denial to turn this into a political issue.

What I don't understand is why the "free-market" out there doesn't embrace this as a new opportunity for economic growth? There are entire new technologies which can, and will, help us to live in harmony with our planet, the companies on the leading edge of this stand to become the dominant players in the near future.

What bothers me is that so far it doesn't look to me like those companies will be here in the US. JD and his ilk are working overtime to make sure that the new technologies are dominated by Europe and Asia with the result that we could see the US become a third world nation in our lifetimes.

What will Liberty mean when that happens?

Thanks JD!


Looks like a worthy stepped into the ring. Welcome. Hereafter, I'll address you by Millie.

At first blush, Millie's essay seems to be defending some type of 'totalitarian' rule to stave off this imminent destruction of the planet by man-made global warming. A closer look reveals a passive-aggressive degradation of the "free market", a religious non-sequitor, and an attempt to re-define the Lockeian/Jeffersonian vision of Liberty as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.

This evening I was prepared to examine another horrible decision by SCOTUS (Massachusetts v. EPA, 2007) which will illustrate yet again how one must never rely upon the Courts to defend and protect your Rights as a sovereign individual. However, there are statements by Millie that must be addressed.

Your Rights are 'inalienable'. Does this mean that you get to behave in a self centered manner? Of course not silly goose, although you may pursue your self interests, the common law roots of Federalism does not permit you to violate another's Rights, nor does Federalism permit the government to behave despotically toward another or others. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is not a complicated thesis.

Liberty does entail an agreement to be governed by law, hence the limits of governmental powers as per the US Constitution, and the affirmation of individual sovereignty in the Bill of Rights. So, if you want to surrender your Liberty to despotism painted as environmentalism, have at it, however you will not come after my Liberty dressed up as righteous warriors of Gaia and expect submission. I live standing in Liberty under the rule of law, not kneeling in Freedom under the rule of man.

Millie is quite right when he says, that "we could see the US become a third world nation in our lifetime", but his casual economic theory is much suspect because he is ignoring the elephant in the room, Cap & Trade, which is designed to 'level the playing field'. Problem is, it's the US's standard of living that must be leveled with the third world's.

It is also hard to overlook the Tom-foolery of re-labeling 'Global Warming' with the all encompassing 'climate change' and claiming that only "serious scientists" would agree that man-made CO2 emissions are the cause of the changes in the Earth's climate.

Let's ask a simple question or two to test this hypothesis:

Are the rising concentrations of man-made CO2 emissions causing the rise in the Earth's temperature?

Or, is the rise of the Earth's temperature causing the increasing concentrations of CO2?

Some hints to arrive at the proper scientific conclusion:

The PDO

Sunspots

Clouds

Volcanic Activity

These are just a few of the "inconvenient" variables not included in the climate models relied upon for the myth of man-made 'climate change'.

In Liberty, JD - the "ilky" Federalist


Lest the alarmists (deniers?) forget:

"The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale and misery for mankind", Nigel Calder, International Wildlife - 1975

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialisation, mechanisation, urbanisation and expoding population", Reid Bryson - 1971

Which is it, warming or cooling? Neither, it'climate change, stupid.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


>>You have maintained, for some time now, that there is personal gain being had by those "shilling" for that dastardly demon developer Keenan, who, btw, won a $41 Million Judgment against HMB (News Flash, sport).

We'd all love to see an example of these "benefits".<<

Do you mean aside from campaign contributions, George? Aside from gaining a seat on the HMB City Council this fall?

--Darin


JD said:

"Are the rising concentrations of man-made CO2 emissions causing the rise in the Earth's temperature?

Or, is the rise of the Earth's temperature causing the increasing concentrations of CO2?

Some hints to arrive at the proper scientific conclusion:

The PDO

Sunspots

Clouds

Volcanic Activity

These are just a few of the "inconvenient" variables not included in the climate models relied upon for the myth of man-made 'climate change'."

It would seem you have bought into the pseudo-science hook, line and sinker. None of these explain what is observed, for example, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation doesn't explain the current observed depletion of the North and South Pole ice sheets (else, since it is a "decadal" oscillation we would have observed this before). Similarly, variations in sunspot and/or volcanic activity don't explain the massive CO2 levels observed in our atmosphere now versus the record in ice cores from the poles. Etc.

This is the same tactic used by anti-evolutionists: "there are gaps in the fossil record!" Except it ignores the fact that there aren't really any gaps in the fossil record. Or, even better, that the fossil record doesn't matter - the science of genetics (which brings us wonderful advances in many fields) IS evolution at work and to deny evolution is to deny genetics. Sort of like loving your cell phone but not believing in electromagnetic theory (which, after all, is "just" a theory!).

The problem with global warming is that it happens at such a slow pace that its hard for today's femtosecond society to wrap their heads around it. The slow pace is good, we have time to act... unless we decide to bury our heads in the sand and wait until its too late.

Personally, I don't see how my liberties are infringed by having the choice to buy a car that doesn't rely entirely on fossil fuels - something I have not had until very recently. Or to get electricity from a power plant fueled by something other than coal. It might cost me a little more directly (but, then, once the economies of scale kick in maybe it will cost me less?), but this has to be a pittance in comparison to what we will all pay if we don't take responsibility for our actions.

In looking back over this thread I realize now it is not a thread on climate change... sorry for the hijack! Will try to stay on topic for any future posts...

Also in Liberty - Millie the Realist


Vocabulary word of the day: femtosecond.

Equals ten to the negative 15th.

I didn't know that word!

--Darin

Darin Boville


No need to worry about a "hijack" Millie, the context of this 'global warming' discussion is to better illustrate where the socialists are hiding out and to put an end to the use of the environment as a hammer to stamp out Liberty.

Your musings on the PDO, sunspot activity, volcanic activity are truthful in that "they do not explain the increase of CO2....or loss of ice sheeting in the Arctic" (pardon the paraphrasing). Considering each variable by themselves in looking for the cause of the alleged warming (empirical data on the last decade shows cooling, hence the name change to 'climate change') will never hold to to scientific scrutiny or peer review. That is my point.

The warming or cooling disasters that alarmists allege are based upon the two climate models (Canadian Climate Centre Model & United Kingdoms Model) relied upon in the 2001 Climate Action Report, published by the EPA, do not include the variables mentioned and a host of others. I will single out one glaring example of omission which demonstrates a willful bias towards keeping the klaxon of alarm blaring.

The CCC model forecast that the average temperature in the US to rise 8.1 degrees F. (4.5 C.) by the year 2100, more than twice the rise of 3.6 degrees F. forecast by the UK model. Compare this with what actually occurred during the past century. The CCC model predicted a warming of 2.7 F. in the US over the course of the 20th century, but the observations published by the US National Climatic Data Center show that the increase was about .5 F., or about 5 times less than forecast.

If the observed ratio continues into the future, the US temperature increaseby the year 2100 will be around 1 degree F. Whew, it's getting warm in here.

Furthering the shenanigans of the government and its alarmist lackeys, Michael Mann's "hockey stick" study, which can be characterized as a meta-analysis of a rather small sample of paleoclimate indicators, is getting quite a thrashing by those "climate criminals", Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard University. Shall we tread this path?

As for Millie's assertation that his "liberties [have not been] infringed by having the choice to buy a car that doesn't rely entirely on fossil fuels", he is once again correct. A big but comes into the argument here when you consider the implications of Cap & Trade.

We'll get to the cause of the rising levels of CO2 and why the Artic's loss/gain of ice is a cyclical matter in the next essay........stay tuned.

In Liberty, JD - the Responsible Federalist


Aw, Darin, what is it that you're up to now?

You are a funny guy. For some reason, you can't seem to find the time to answer a very simple question on a thread that you initiate, Web Link , but you can find the time to come over to this thread at 1:00 AM, and try to stir a pot; I'm not sure what pot, as we've been over this many times, but it's obvious something's bothering you. You just can't seem to comprehend civics and our political system, versus financial gain.

Let's try again, shall we? First of all, I'm going to assume that you actually read the quote you restate. That said, I'll ask if you understand the difference between 'personal gain' and our political system?

Next, perhaps we can address your interpretation of “shilling”. We’ll use the noun, shill:

From Webster’s – shill \’shil: one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler)

I am guilty of shilling – for the City of HMB. Been doing it for almost 5 years now. Who do you shill for, Darin?

Every move I make, regarding any and every HMB issue, has always had and will continue to have one well defined foundational question: ‘what is in the best interest of HMB’? Pretty simple and clear. Now, you may disagree with what I think is in HMB’s best interest, and that’s your right, but I call them like I see them and put my resources behind my efforts.

Those resources would include running for HMB City Council. That’s right, Darin, I rolled up my sleeves and made a difference. Have you? Oh, that’s right, you don’t live in HMB; how silly of me.

Have you ever run for any elected seat out here? Yes, I remember you running for a seat on the MCTV Board; I’d forgotten about that powerhouse move. Way to put yourself out there, Darin; Huge move. Way to step up.

Unlike your politico ‘friends’, I actually look for what will benefit this town, not myself; and I do it at my own expense, but we’ve been over this too many times.

I’ll add one more point here. You seem to have comprehension issues. I’ve said repeatedly that I have no political aspirations in HMB. Apparently, you either don’t understand that, or don’t believe that. Your closing comment, “Aside from gaining a seat on the HMB City Council this fall?” would indicate confirmation of what I just addressed.

I find it humorous that you seem to know what I’m doing, thinking, and planning before even I do. You really are special. I guess in the future, I should just call you before I do something just to make sure it’s OK with you and that it fits well with all your conspiratorial theories. Goodness knows, I wouldn’t want to do anything that might make you look foolish. You seem to do a fine job of that without my help.

PS: Do you think that now you could answer the questions I asked you on February 27, 2009 at 1:13 pm, from the thread I linked above?


Hmmmmmm.......I guess we can rightly say that this George character is not an obfusicator, however if he continues to disrupt my worldly essays on the dangers of a Marxian government, I will drive on up to HMB and teach him the meaning of discipline..........on second thought, I may get hurt (notwithstanding those "bulging biceps" that weren't got pettin' Kitty Kats), so I think I'll call his wife and tell him what a bad boy he is being.........heh, heh

In Liberty, JD - the Web Blog Moderator of a Federalist


Sorry, JD. I didn't mean to stray from topic. I was simply trying to satisfy inquiring minds.

It started with nipper's off topic again comments above:

Now Pitching, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on April 2, 2009 at 12:16 am

I probably should have ignored her bs as I usually do, but every so often she needs a reality check. You know how it is, JD, lies beget lies, and so on; particularly from nipper, who apparently has an issue with staying on topic, and prefers to be a horse's ass hijacking topics with personal attacks rather than facts.

Those darn facts can be so pesky, ya know.

Then Darin, who also seems to prefer personal attacks over resolution of issues, felt the need to slide in. I just felt I should respond. You know how I like things simple and clear.

I'll try to be a little more sensitive going forward, JD.


JD, if you would be so kind as to allow one more indiscretion, I'd offer it now to satisfy nipper's and Darin's quest for truth. I did address Darin's point specifically, for another anonymous individual, recently here: Web Link

The thread is titled, "City Council Report Card", authored by 'Just asking'.

For a fair comment addressing Darin's recent and ongoing concern, perhaps he should go to the thread link and find my comment from,

George, a resident of Half Moon Bay, on March 18, 2009 at 2:58 pm

I suppose some just need to hear it and see it over and over and still may not get it.


OK, so we have to admit I am fast, very fast, and the relevance to this thread is....?

Darin,

are you a hijacker?


JD - First, there is no morphing going on here as the anti-science advocates would like you to believe. Climate change means more than just rising temperatures, including, for example, things like changing rainfall patterns (which could significantly impact an already mostly arid California). So, Climate Change is the all inclusive term, Global Warming is but one aspect of it.

And your quoting short term trends reminds me of the relatively recent Laffer article in the WSJ (see this Web Link) which was discussed on last year on TalkAbout (sorry, don't remember the thread). He had a nice plot showing a nice rise in income to prove his point but a closer examination of the data showed that he had "cherry picked" the range to prove his point, looking at the trend over the full range of data nullified his argument.

When you quote short periods of time and say "see, its cooling" you are cherry picking to prove the point you want to make. If you look at the trend over the long term then is unmistakable and clear that the trend in temperature is up. Yes, its currently small, but it doesn't need to be that large to have significant impacts in the world we live in - and that we can see today. For example, here is a news item from today that popped up on Google News: Web Link The question is: how large does it need to be before we take action?

When the depletion of the ozone layer was discovered in the late 70's it took some time but the governments of the world took action. The result is that the rate of depletion has slowed significantly. This is the perfect example of how 1) we can take action, and 2) it can have an effect.

Finally, why is cap and trade not simply a new business opportunity rather than some evil plot to strip away our constitutional rights? Here is something that can help solve a problem (CO2 emissions) using a free market mechanism... and I'll bet there are a whole group of entrepreneurs who will seize on this opportunity to become the next group of billionaires (like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, etc., in the late 70's-early 80's, or all the web billionaires from the 90's). Paradigm shifts represent the only true opportunity for the average person to really break into the ranks of the rich.


>>And your quoting short term trends reminds me of the relatively recent Laffer article in the WSJ (see this Web Link) which was discussed on last year on TalkAbout (sorry, don't remember the thread). He had a nice plot showing a nice rise in income to prove his point but a closer examination of the data showed that he had "cherry picked" the range to prove his point, looking at the trend over the full range of data nullified his argument.<<

Here's the thread:

Web Link

Brian Ginna posted the original post praising Laffer's piece and I rebutted, pointing out the cherry picking. Brian, of course, continued to defend Laffer.

--Darin

Darin Boville


Is Darin taking "re-interpret discussions" lessons from Ken King?

Why would I "defend" Laffer? I simply pointed out that Darin's point made no sense (which is something that seems to occur all too often - the no sense part, that is...)

You still do not get the point that Reagan's tax reform did not take full effect until the time frame presented. Darin argued otherwise without substantiating his argument. He just "cherrypicked" an addition to his liking.


Anything right-wingers don't agree with automatically becomes "socailsm". Same sorry playbook that they have used forever. Used to "communism" that they demonized their opponents as, but now it's "socialism".

When anyone uses these terms, you immediately know they can't win the argument on issues and have to resort to fear-mongering.


It's always fun to see someone jump on a thread and cubbyhole others, rather than argue a position with fact &/or opinion.

Very fruitful.

"When anyone uses these terms, you immediately know they can't win the argument on issues and have to resort to fear-mongering."

Doesn't this sentence contradict the first? Or are you just saying that although you disagree with a prior poster, you're no better than they are by resorting to exactly what you accuse them of?


Did I call anyone a fascist?


Silly me, here I done went and assumed that Millie was a new opponent in the ring, Nipper does seem to have toned down his ad hominem brand of sophistry. No worries, we'll address the relevant points. Let also welcome the latest bomb thrower, Commie Socialist Traitor.

Prior to addressing Millie's latest, I believe we should look to what the socialists posing as environmentalists are really after. The telltale heart, so to speak? There has only been one poster who defined and defended socialism on this entire thread, when rebutted, he went away. Why?

In a nutshell, Federalism and the rule of law does not mesh well with the tenets of Marx because the sovereign, be it an individual or state, must kneel at the feet of the collective or an omniscient central government. For this to become a reality, the socialists must have the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution nulled & voided. The Constitution lays before them how to do just that.

However, these socialists know that this is nigh on impossible, therefore they have infested our Courts, Legislatures, and Executive Mansions with like minded fellows, fellow travelers if you will. My purpose for the original essay that started this thread was to lure these travelers of Marx into the daylight for all to judge. I'll ask again, the question, so that's we can get back to this "Global Warming" or was it "Global Cooling" crisis. Oops, that's right, it's now "Climate Change".

Why should the sovereign individual surrender his Liberty to the collective consciousness of a mob that has the coercive force of government at its back?

Onward now to Millie's latest rebuttal. We can address this Laffer Curve non-sequitor and your attempt to label Cap & Trade as an exercise of lassiez-faire in my future Post - "Hoover & Roosevelt and the Parrallels Today". We have not had a 'free market' since the dawn of the Progressive Era and it's cheerleader, Woodrow Wilson.

As for your introduction of the Ozone Layer, I will have you know that I have in my personal library a copy of:

"The 15 Year Evolution of a Sudden Global Emergency: The Ozone Crisis"; by Sharon L. Roan; John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1989. With a forward by none other than, Senator Al Gore.

We can discuss the hue & cry of the ozone layer depletion later on but right now before us is your claim of the "problem of CO2 emissions" and your failure to answer one of the questions that you took the time to paste into one of your postings.

"Is the rise of the Earth's temperature causing the increasing concentrations of CO2?"

Or, at your insistence of non-morphing, "Is the cooling of the past decade causing the increased concentration of CO2?"

Or yet again, at the behest of the politicians of the IPCC, "Are the increased concentrations of man-made CO2 causing this warming/cooling trend?"

My lovely wife is ringing the dinner bell, whilst I'm away, would you care to respond directly to the questions before the Court? What court you ask? The Court of Federalism.

In Liberty, JD - the Paradigmly Constitutionalist of a Federalist


Pasta and Beef Bouillabaisse with a side of steamed Broccoli in case you were wondering.

Back to this CO2 nonsense and then we'll attack the calamitous melting of the ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic, and hey, why don't we throw in Greenland for a thorough debunking?

A quick sidebar on temperature data. Have any of you 'green thinkers' wondered if there was corelation to the warming trend in the 1990's of the closure of over half of the Soviet Union's weather stations when the Wall came down?

All these pesky questions are probably generating indictments over there at the International Criminal Court for being a "climate criminal" or maybe on par with a "denier of holocausts" like the bonehead over there in Iran.

I'll get to the CO2, but first let's jump back to the political with some more "inconvenient" questions.

For this scientific debate of this alleged "climate crisis", are we to rely upon the politicians of the IPCC and their fantasy of "consensus" or do we rely upon individuals such as: Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Jay Zwally, Nils-Axel Morner, Christopher Landsea, Richard Lindzen, Stanley Goldenberg, Roger Pielke Jr., I. Polyakov, and S. Akasofu to name but a few of the "psuedo-scientists" that Millie would dismiss.

Shall we try on the shenanigans of the scientists of the "Arctic Climate Impact Assessment" for a scientific fit of bias when they increased the surface area of the Arctic by redelineating the Arctic from 66 degrees - 33 minutes N. Latitude to 60 degrees N. Latitude? (An increase of area by 50 percent) In politics they call this gerrymandering.

Or how about ACIA's selection of 1966 for their baseline of temperature, the absolute low point for measured temperatures in the past hundred years (this tilts the solution towards warming). I guess I am not the only one allegedly "cherry picking" short time spans.

Looks like y'all will have to wait for another day for the "inconvenient truths" about man-made CO2 as the cause-celebre of the Earth's "Warming/Cooling/Climate Change"...........I'm hittin' the rack.

In Liberty, JD the Federalist


JD - it might be helpful if you actually understood the work of some of the people you list in an attempt to gain credibility for your viewpoint!

For example, here is a quote from Jay Zwally: "The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines." (Zwally, a NASA glacier and polar researcher on his prediction that the Arctic ice sheet will completely melt much sooner than expected).

Another example: In an interview on PBS, Christopher Landsea said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. The question is whether we're seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity." (Note that Christopher Landsea is a hurricane forecaster/researcher who disagrees that warmer temperatures will lead to more frequent and more intense hurricanes).

And of the people you listed, which believe that the high levels of atmospheric CO2 are NOT man-made? Answer: none.

Of course, hijacking a name is nothing new... for example, remember back in 1984 when Ronald Reagan tried to associate himself with Bruce Springsteen after he heard "Born in the USA"? He didn't know who Bruce was and, worse, never actually listened to the words of the song but he sure liked that "Born in the USA" refrain!

As with you JD, I find myself disappointed to discover that this thread does not contain real discussion and debate, only pompous blustering with no real substance. I'm guilty as charged, though I claim my blustering was mostly free of big and hard to pronounce words (I freely admit to not spending any time in the dictionary if it can be avoided - I'm good with the 1000 words in my vocabulary). Anyway, I'll not waste any more of everyone's precious time on this thread. In any case, my point has been made it we're only going to start arguing minute details in an attempt to cloud the picture.

over and out -


itsanew, you might want to reread the beginning if this thread and the title--

As I wrote at the top of the thread: "Donovan's article is indeed sophomoric. The online Merriam-Webster defines "sophomoric" as "conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature" which is about a direct hit as you can get on the op-ed."

A direct hit on this thread, too.

While seemingly valuable in that it gives JD the attention he seems to crave it really isn't the place to attempt adult discussion.

--Darin


Waaaayyyyyyyy too much time on your hands, JD.

Put down the coolaid and step away from the computer.


"Silly me, here I done went and assumed that Millie was a new opponent in the ring, Nipper does seem to have toned down his ad hominem brand of sophistry."

Just as bad with your analysis of people making comments as you are with your fractured, true-believer philosophy, JD.

When I worked on Market Street in the city, a large, rumpled street-corner preacher used to hold forth on the nearest corner, waving a Bible in one hand and yelling bits of scripture at no one in particular. Neither his failure to make the least bit of sense, nor his failure to bathe, nor his failure to be concerned about the wet patch that dominated the front of his pants some days slowed this guy's preaching one bit.

That's how I think of you, JD; and because the image is depressing, it's happier that I not toy with your flailing, goggle-eyed rant. It appears that itsanew millenium (or "millennium," but what's in the spelling of a name) has reached the same conclusion regarding dealings with thrashing fanatics in this thread, though hopefully for different reasons from mine in this instance.


I'm not sure what y'all do for a living (Darin, Millie, King), but I work for mine, and I'm 6 months from the big 50. Today I had the pleasure to hump lumber up a hill for 2 hours in the rain and finish the day with concrete forms.

Looks like Millie's Google button is malfunctioning or that fancy computer of his with the latest gigabytes is not computing because they are not holding up to my 12 year old computer and a library filled with those old fashioned things called books.

Conspicuously absent from the Trio's (new name for Darin, Millie, King) postings are the replies to the queries on whether man-made emissions of CO2 are the cause of "global warming" or not, with which these poseurs of debate want to base all future sovereignty trashing legislation upon.

Sidebar: In the Trio's haste to drag Reagan into their non-sequitor, I am surprised that Bush was not somehow implicated. And bragging about the non-opening of a book (dictionary) is what, an attempt to hurt my feeling?

As for the sophomoric reference to the NASA scientist, Jay Zwally, why don't we look a little deeper than the malfunction of the Trio's Google button.

J. Zwally, M. Giovinetto, J. Li, H. Cornejo, M. Beckley, A. Brenner, J. Saba, and D. Yi published a piece, "Mass changes of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (take note of this minutiae, ice sheets) and shelves and contributions to sea-level rise: 1992-2002", in the Journal of Glaciology. They found that the combined net loss of ice from Greenland/Anarctica would account for a sea-level rise equivalent of 0.5 MM per year during 1992-2002, the "hottest decade on record". How does this hold up to Al Gore's claim of a 20 foot rise in sea-level? It would take 1 thousand years to rise 5 centimeters.

Now let us examine the "cherry pickens" that the Trio's fancy computer with the gigabytes googled up on the latest "extreme weather" events caused by man-made CO2 emissions.

PBS interviews are always suspect, but the eye opener here is Millie's subtle allusion that Chris Landsea of NOAA is one of those despised and dismissed "deniers". Why such angst? In January of 2005, Christopher Landsea resigned from the UN's IPCC in protest of its politically motivated "consensus" that man-made emissions of CO2 were the cause of an alleged increase of "extreme weather" events.

The "denier" indictment by the greens/socialists may stem from another action of Chris Landsea's when he took on the 'green' saint from MIT, Kerry Emanuel, by suggesting that Emanuel's findings for man-made (or was it Bush-made?) hurricanes may be "artifact of the data".

This Emanuel ignored some "inconvenient facts" about the Atlantic when he hypothesized for the man-made 'warmer sea temperatures' causing the "extreme weather" patterns. The Atlantic is getting colder and his hysteria for the 2006 hurricane system was for naught as there were no landfalls.

I could go on for days thrashing this 'green' (Red?) professor of MIT, but I think I'll let Stanley Goldenberg of NOAA's Hurricane Research Division finish up, "Katrina is part of a well-documented, multi-decadal scale fluctuation in hurricane activity. This cycle was described in a heavily cited article printed in the journal 'Science' in 2001....I speak for many hurricane climate researcher in saying such claims [man-made CO2 emissions] are nonsense". Right strong words backed up with his scientific integrity.

To finish up this essay we must delve back into the political because that is where the bogus "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change leads us.

Robert Lindzen of MIT was one of the 11 scientists on the panel of the National Academy of Science that was asked to evaluate the work of the UN's IPCC and its "Summary for Policymaker".

Of which he says that, "The Summary for Policymakers [the only part ever read or quoted], which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the United States government. The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence."

Is it any wonder that he is now one of Greenpeace's "climate criminals"? And y'all believe that it's "about the environment, stupid"?

Stay tuned............ for some more "inconveinent truths" and queries of socialism that the Trio dare not recognize for then they would have to publicly aknowledge.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Well, I'll be darned, the Nipper has shattered my hypothesis as to this Millie character. Not a word about socialism, CO2 fallacies, the myth of man-made global warming, but plenty of reticence towards queries directly asked.

Maybe I'll have to upgrade "The Trio" to "The Quads". The flavor of this collective is the same, of the 'puerile name callers of the hide behind the skirts of the yard teacher' variety.

Now, who's going to quit on me?


cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo


Prior to retiring (the cuckoo clock has chimed, or does it caw?), I'll leave you with another beauty of the alarmists.

"The advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed. The devastation will be astonishing." Mr. Gregg Easterbrook of Newsweek published this nonsense under the title: "Return of the Glaciers".

Now don't y'all fret, we'll get to that unlawful SCOTUS decision (Massachusetts v. EPA) soon.........

In Liberty, JD - the Timeless (Get it?) Federalist


Oop-de-do, forgot to mention that Easterbrook published that proclamation in 1992 during Al Gore's "hottest decade of record".

Yours again in Liberty, JD - the Federalist


I am focused like a laser beam on this alleged pollutant, CO2, because this is the last gasp effort that the socialists, under the guise of environmentalism, have at destroying the rule of law and the US's standard of living. Thus, the continual drumbeat for Cap & Trade.

The further we get into this chronological escalation of alleged man-made calamities, "Global Cooling", "Global Warming", and now "Climate Change"; the farther that the alarmists/socialists retreat from science. This claim of 'man-made CO2 causing climate change', is a purely political reliance upon the most abundant naturally created 'greenhouse gas' in order to bring about the nullification of the US Constitution and to destroy the sovereignty of this great Republic. The 'green' movement has nothing whatsoever to do with science or the love of Mother Earth. I share this observation with Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace.

Any thinking person who read the scientific reports of the IPCC in 2001, not the Summary for Policymakers, would come to the conclusion that science could not back up the hysteria for the radical changes in US sovereignty and world economics that the 'Summary' advocates.

Enter stage left: some environmental groups in the state of Massachusetts realized that if they could get the Courts to force the EPA to regulate CO2 as a "pollutant", Congress would have the justification needed to pass some onerous legislation such as Cap & Trade. This came to fruition in Massachusetts v. EPA, 2007.

The majority went to great lengths to ignore the common law understanding of 'standing' in order to grant petitioner's request for 'standing' as I will demonstrate using the scathing Dissents of Justices Roberts & Scalia. I most likely will not honor a chronological dissection.

Robert's begins with, "Before determining whether petitioners can meet this familiar test [standing], however, the Court [majority] changes the rules".........Relaxing Article III standing requirements because asserted injuries are pressed by a State, however, has no basis in our jurispudence, and support for any such 'special solicitude' is conspicuously absent from the Court's opinion. The general judicial review provision cited by the Court, 42 USC, affords States no special rights or status."

Roberts goes on to say, "Nor does the case law cited by the Court provide any support for the notion that Article III somehow implicitly treats public and private litigants differently........it is ironic that the Court today adopts a new theory of Article III standing for States without the benefit of briefing or argument on the point." Another example of SCOTUS legislating from the bench or better yet, furthering the misbegotten notion of a 'Living Constitution'.

Roberts then goes on to attack another key common law application of standing that the Court sidestepped, "If petitioners rely on loss of land [alleged loss due to man-made rise of sea-level] as the Article III injury, however, they must ground the rest of the standing analysis in that specific injury..........If petitioners' particularized injury is loss of coastal land, it is also that injury that must be 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical' [and be] 'real and immediate and certainly impending'".

He continues, "As to 'actual' injury, the Court observes that 'global sea-levels rose somewhere between 10 and 20 centimeters over the 20th century as a result of global warming' and that these rising seas have already begun to swallow Massachusetts' coastal land'. But none of the petitioners' declarations support that connection. One declaration states that a 'rise in sea-level due to climate change (the silly majority is still using the 'old' version, global warming; and the petitioners are using the 'new' version) is occuring on the coast of Massachusetts, in the metropolitan Boston area', but there is no elaboration. And the declarant goes to identify a 'significant' non-global warming cause of Boston's rising sea level: land subsidence. Thus, aside from a single conclusory statement, there is nothing in petitioners' 43 standing declarations and accompanying exhibits to support an inference of actual loss of Massachusetts' coastal land from 20th century global sea-level increases. It is pure conjecture."

Let that one sink in abit (Get It?). The majority ruled in favor of the socialists/environmentalists without a shred of scientific proof with which to base their construction.

Roberts immediately follows that, "The Courts' attempts to identify 'imminent' or 'certainly impending' loss of Massachusetts' coastal land fares no better. One of the petitioners' declarants predicts global warming will cause sea-level rise by 20-70 centimeters by the year 2100. Another uses a computer modeling program to map the Commonwealths' coastal land and its current elevation, and calculates that the high-end estimate of sea-level rise would result in the loss of significant state-owned coastal land. But the computer modeling program has a conceded average error of about 30 centimeters and a maximum observed error of 70 centimeters. As an initial matter, if it is possible that the model underrepresents the elevation of coastal land to an extant equal or in excess of the projected sea-level rise, it is difficult to put much stock in the predicted loss of land. But even placing that problem to the side, accepting a century-long time horizon and a series of compounded estimates renders requirements of 'imminence' and 'immediacy' utterly toothless."

Farther on, Roberts goes on to point out the "Petitioners difficulty demonstrating causation and redressability" and we have not yet brought in Scalia's whole-hearted concurrence with Robert's dissent.

Maybe later tonight or tomorrow we'll bring in Scalia's arguments. There is plenty to digest here, if digestion is possible, I only feel heartburn............Stay tuned.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


wow!

I read this line: "This claim of 'man-made CO2 causing climate change', is a purely political reliance upon the most abundant naturally created 'greenhouse gas' in order to bring about the nullification of the US Constitution and to destroy the sovereignty of this great Republic." and stopped.

I can't tell you why, but what popped into my mind was a scene where "the smoking man" was telling Mulder that it was the aliens that killed Kennedy.

I couldn't read anything after that. I hope it was good for you.


Mr. King (or is that, Millie?),

I thought you were "over and out" and that you were "disappointed to discover that this thread does not contain real discussion and debate"?

So, are you in or out, and if so, can you present an argument based upon your worldview to rebut my assertion, or are you going to rely upon some Hollywood mind-polluting nonsense?

In Liberty, JD - the "Good for You" Federalist


JD,

Are you seeking someone to rebut your positions? If so, I am not your wo(man).

Communism is dead (except in the east bay). Socialism is on the rise (in Sweden), and Piracy is all the rage (in Somalia).

Look around. We live in the greatest country on Earth. The USA.

JD, our biggest enemy IS.....Ourselves. If we Choose to be Ignorant, If we Chose to ignore outrageous behavior by elected officials, If we choose to believe our self absorbed media, then... we deserve to die.

We just saw our first President elected by the Media. Has anyone noticed the mainstream media is dying? What does that say about our situation. Time to step up America. Pay attention. Freedom is not Free.

Re-Butter


Re-Butt,

A lovely and concise snippet as to the State of the Union. Thank you.

How 'bout I add a few more "inconvenient" snippets to awaken the sleeping silent majority.

If the entire world (and the US) fully met their emission reduction obligations as per the Kyoto Protocol, we could reduce the amount of alleged 'warming' by about .07 degrees Celsius by the year 2050, and by 0.15 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

Problem: These temperature "savings" are based upon the fallacy that man-made CO2 emissions are the driving force for this alleged warming trend. Joe D'Aleo and Willie Soon are just a couple of the scientists who debunk this fallacy.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Re-Buttedless Federalist


Hey, JD, boy. You going to be there again this year? Web Link


Afor retiring, I'll leave the latest bomb thrower with this quote from Christine Stewart, Canada's Environmental Minister:

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits to Global Warming Policies......Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

She must be related to Ruth (the Red) Bader (Get It?) Ginsburg.

In Liberty, JD - the Luv Me or Leave Me Federalist


After viewing the words of Christine Stewart again, I am going to put Scalia's argument to the side and look to the words of Marx so that we may better understand our socialist brethren.

Maybe we'll even explore Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, (picked up this 1st edition gem in a used bookstore for a quarter many moons ago) and see how the worker's paradise has resolved their issues with the Tibetans. Yeah, that might bear some looking into considering that the Tibetans were insisting on those Right Wing-nut principles of sovereignty and freedom of religion.

I'll use Anon's favorite line: "Let's get to it, shall we?"

The Communist Manifesto:

1.- The overthrow of capitalism

2.- The abolition of private property

3.- The elimination of the family as a social unit

4.- The abolition of all classes

5.- The overthrow of all governments

6.- The establishment of a communist order with communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society

Rather enlightening to see this in black and white, don't you agree? I think I could safely state that all the governments on this planet that are or have practiced/ing this philosophy, have failed to reach objective #6, the end game dreamed of by Marx and Engels. Why?

Thankfully, they did not think through #5's objective. I believe they underestimated those of us in countries with some manner of individual sovereignty. Now wouldn't a sane people reject all manners of Marxism after experiencing directly or indirectly the tyrannical behavior of the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Khruschev, Kim Jong Il, Breznev, Ho Chi Minh? Sadly, no.

South & Central America is rife with Marxian despots, and then we have the Castro's in Cuba, and Fidel's henchman Che, who are for some uncomprehensible reason, still revered by the Democrats in Congress. Then we have our sister, England, unrecognizable as the birthplace of the Magna Carta. (Add the French bashing here) And let's not forget the Eastern Bloc, who are still reeling from the effects of Marxism.

For an independent curmudgeon like me, the endless cheerleading for these Marxian principles, is staggeringly baffling. The few emigre's from the Eastern Bloc that I know, are the most perplexed at this sudden lurch towards socialism, as shown in this last national election. And then we have the most patriotic Americans I have ever met, the Cuban-Americans (alright, I'll refrain from uses of the hyphen from here on out).

And as for objective #4 of the Manifesto, are we there yet? No, but our government tax policy is on the "fasttrack" in its attempt to achieve just that. We gots to penalize those more successful.

I will put objective #3 off to the side for this discussion, because discussion of this will further inflame the bomb throwers more than is usual for them. However, I will say this, a thorough look at the educational system, and its products (graduates), that we have in place, confirms that the end game is nigh on here.

Anyone who wants to deny that the number 1 objective of the Manifesto (overthrow of capitalism) is not being achieved at lightspeed has their collective heads buried in the sand. This subject matter requires too much background for the context of this thread, therefore I will invite y'all to my future posting that will address it most exhaustingly: "Hoover & Roosevelt: And the Parallels Today".

That leaves us with objective #2, the abolition of all private property. The vehemence of the left towards this bedrock of Liberty thoroughly astounds me because the loudest detractors are usually of the artistic bent. You would think that movie stars, writers, painters, potters, musicians, sculptors, et. al., would be its most vociferous defender. After all, what was all the fuss about in the Hollywood studios and the music studios when all this online downloading became the rage? I still call a CD an 'album'.

So, there you have it. The tenets of Marxism, the big brother of Socialism. Are we to have the bomb throwers, or can y'all coherently defend this philosophy that y'all are so enamored?

In Liberty, JD - the Little Red Book Readin' Federalist


Gun 'em down, JD. Let God sort 'em out.


Luv Me or Leave Me,

The Bolsheviks tried that, and look what that got 'em, Lenin. The French tried that when they screwed up their Revolution, and look what they've become. Stalin turned that on its head at Stalingrad, shoot the enemy in the face and your comrade in the back.

Looks to me that your stuck on objective #5 in your utopian quest for objective #6 of the Marxist Manifesto. Re-butt?

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist in God's Con-"sort"-ium


OK, JD, here are a few trick questions.

Should we bail out Banks? Insurance? Autos? Healthcare? HMB?

Has the Market hit Bottom? Is it a Bear Trap? or a Bull Run?

What are the 3 best forms of government in the world today?

Whys was Che not on your list of Marxists?


Re-Butt,

My friend, Che is on the list as a "henchman" for Marxists, look again.........at history........not a movie about a bicycle.....heh, heh

And I'll have you know, that I know, that you are fishing for bottom suckers........I'm not bitin' cause I'm the predator.......check your six........and whatever you catch, don't eat it.........it's polluted from the head down........Get It?

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Re-Buttedless Federalist


Keep sniping from the mud blind on the bottom, JD. God'll take care of the bodies, including the ones of the fools who might agree with you.


Luv Me or Leave Me,

Sounds like your in the mood for some more Marxian Manifestations. Or would you prefer Chairman Mao? I'm feeling magnaminous, let's go for a twofer.

Marxian Manifestation: the elevation of wealth envy to an acceptable notion for those who suffer from "poor me syndrome". Bedwetters.

From Chairman Mao's 21st proclamation, "Self-Reliance and Arduou Struggle":

"The comrades must be helped to remain modest, prudent, and free from arrogance and rashness in their style of work. The comrades must be helped to preserve the style of plain living and hard struggle."

There you have it, a solution for your malaise, call the government to "help preserve your style of plain living and hard struggle".

In Liberty, JD - the Blinder-Removing Federalist


There is another issue always overlooked in objective #6 of Marx's Manifesto (The establishment of a communist order with communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society).

The "communist order" is the 'ruling class'. The proletariats overlooked that one now, didn't they? Gee, I wonder who are the property owners?

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Jd,

Can you find me a job, so that I can have an uplifting philosophy, and even pay taxes like yourself? I may be wise like an owl, but smarts does not bring in money by itself, I need some get up & go.

Hoot. Hoot.


Hooter,

It's JD's question, but may I suggest you start by suspending critical thinking and read the Federalist Papers as serious philosophy rather than as propaganda for more centralized governmental control, especially via a new Constitution, which is what they really were.

Then you will have made a first step to getting the kind of work the true believers do.


Hoot,

Finding a job is your job, however you could travel to China, the 'workers paradise', and if you are still looking to others to blame for your jobless plight, Chairman Mao's successor will not only guarantee you work, he will make sure that you are "helped to remain modest, prudent, and free from arrogance and rashness in [your] style of work [and you will] be helped to preserve the style of plain living and hard struggle".

Bit of a Catch-22 mate, surrender your sovereignty at the border.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Critical Thinking Federalist


Ahhh, some peace and quiet again, maybe the agitators of ACORN don't like looking at their reflection in the mirror that Marx built. Let's get back to it, shall we?

Further examination of the tool that the Marxists are using in their quest to nullify the rule of law and the sovereignty of these United States, man-made emissions of CO2 as the cause of the alleged Warming, oops, I mean Cooling Crisis.

The IPCC likes to issue their Summaries for Policy Makers prior to the release of their scientific reports as noted by John Mclean:

"But did anybody actually read the report in detail and check the evidence on which the claim [of man-made CO2 causing warming] was made? At the time this would have been extremely difficult because the Summary was released well in advance of the detailed document on which it was based, but prudence would have dictated waiting for that evidence before accepting the pivotal claim.......When the Working Group I report was finally released in May 2007, anyone who reviewed the principal finding, that mankind was responsible for the increase in temperature, should have been appalled by the absence of concrete evidence."

A professor Delgado Domingos found in one of IPCC's scientific report, "that in Antarctica the temperature rise preceded the rise in CO2 emissions, but that it was omitted in the Summary for Policy Makers. Like I stated earlier, "the socialists/environmentalists are retreating from science the farther we get from Al Gore's initial cry of crisis.

The obfuscations of the new IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, are even more revealing despite the willingness of the major media outlets to ignore this man's 'exaggerations'.

One example: When confronted with the list of, now 700 or so scientists, that contradict the findings of IPCC's Summary and his dismissal of the "half a dozen skeptical scientists", this was his response:

"About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a half dozen members."

Not only did this man compare Bjorn Lomborg with Adolf Hitler, he also said that "disinformation was being spread" by Ian Castles of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and the chair of the Economic and Statistics Branch of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, David Henderson, because they dared to report on the deficiencies of the Summary.

Despite the evidence presented for the economic harm that will result from the Cap & Trade scheme, he insists that, "there is absolutely no reason to believe that, in the longer term, lower economic development would, all other things being equal, result in lower CO2 emissions." 'Doublespeak' or what?

This bureaucrat gets some backup from fellow bureaucrats such as, Yvo de Boer and Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, as they cry from the rooftops that "ignoring warming is criminally irresponsible and that it completely immoral to question the UN's claim of crisis and scientific 'consensus'". All this doom & gloom in spite of the scientific evidence in their own Fourth Assessment Synthesis that contradicts.

Yep, it realy is about the environment, stupid.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Heh, heh......the socialists/environmentalists aren't going to like this.......I'm Back!

We need to review Justice Roberts' findings in SCOTUS', Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the majority found CO2 as the man-made pollutant causing Global Warming with no scientific evidence from plaintiffs' to back up their claim:

"Thus, aside from a single conclusory statement, there is nothing in petitioners' 43 standing declarations and accompanying exhibits to support an inference of actual loss of Massachusetts' coastal land from 20th century global sea-level increases. It is pure conjecture."

Before us now, is Congress' fast track attack on this alleged evil pollutant, CO2, with their Cap & Trade scheme. And what 'science' will they rely on for this sovereignty trashing, free market killing socialist pipe-dream? None, well unless of course you want to falsely call the Summary for Policymakers a scientific document.

As to the alleged sea-level rise in Massachusetts v. EPA, Mr. Nils Axel-Morner, had never heard of the so-called "world's leading experts" that the IPCC used for their Summary of sea-level rise and he went to say, "the IPCC might have doctored data to show a sea-level rise from 1992-2002 (more cherry pickens?) [because] suddenly it changed [in 2003]. The change showed a very strong line of lift, 2.3 millimeters per year, which happens to be the same increase measured by one of the Hong Kong tide gauges. [This particular] gauge is the only record which you should not use [because] every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area..............(Take note here, this blatant usage of data in a subsiding area, is the same deficient evidence put forth by the plaintiffs' in Mass. v. EPA, that Justice Roberts found as "pure conjecture".)..................Morner continues, "Its the compaction of sediment (subsidation), not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that (using this gauge). This is a falsification of the data set.".....End Quote

It's like I said in an earlier posting, "the further we get from the initial alarms of "cooling", then "warming", and now the schizophrenic klaxon call of "climate change"; the farther that the socialists/environmentalists get from science".

Let's review one more time what the 20-plus climate models, with which the IPCC bases their socialist scheme of Cap & Trade, do not include or ignore:

The PDO

Sunspot Activity and the Sun's Role in Climate Changes

Volcanic Activity

The ADO

Water Vapor (95% of greenhouse gases)

Clouds

Satellite and Weather Balloon data

Orbital Decay and Drifts

I ask you, are you willing to surrender your sovereignty and thousands of dollars more of your yearly earnings for this socialist Cap & Trade scheme to solve the alleged problem of "Man-Induced Climate Change" that has been created out out thin air by the political hacks at the IPCC?

Stay Tuned......

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Welcome back flat-earther.

Must bug you to know real scientists are advising Obama on the natural sciences and medicine and not the usual aw shucks religious nuts, lawyers, and high school science club rejects.


Mr./Ms. Denier,

An excellent example of "hide behind the skirts of the yard teacher" name calling. Would you care to share with us the names and fields of research for these alleged scientists and doctors or hide behind the skirts of anonymity?

Try that Google button again, maybe this time it'll work.

In Liberty, JD - the "Tough"-in-you-up Federalist


President's Science Advisor, members of the Science Advisory Committee, head of NOAA. Wow, is it driving the whacko demagogues crazy to know these people are in the administration and have his ear. It is so sweet seeing some of the religiously and politically driven domination of scientific matters, to say nothing of the rantings of the doggedly uninformed and unable to learn, beginning to dissolve in the clearer light of the best information available. No one expects a government full of lawyers and lobbyist insiders to actually become good on scientific matters, but at least we are beginning to see some light through the clouds.


How about Steve Chu?

Besides being a Nobel Prize winning physicist he also ran one of the DOE's largest national labs before being chose as Secretary of Energy.

His understanding of climate change is firmly grounded in science, not in political doublespeak. You might try listening to him.


By Jove! I do believe we have found the "final solution" to the NP problem. Just like the mongoose killing the cobra, we have JD forcing the infamous NP to struggle and retreat or be devoured. Ah, peace... JP; drive him into the sea. Once you have made him a prisoner we won't bother with water boarding, we can just go to sentencing since we all know the travesties against society he advocates.


How could I have left out Chu? Absolutely, he should be included among the top few scientists appointed so far. More scientists are being appointed to lower, less publicized positions as the administration is filled out, so the improvement continues.


Not so fast Weemoan,

There are 2 new agitators posting here whose prose reflects the socialist glee of the Duo (King & NP). They are quite ecstatic in their tandem proclamations of certitude.

Mr. Chu is suspect for this alone. The last time the 'green socialists' were this enthusiastic about an Energy Secretarty, we got Hazel O'Leary, the woman who downgraded the color coded securtiy measures at our nuclear labs because she said they were "discriminatory". She also opened these sensitive areas to Chinese 'scientists'. Simply put, she took 15 years off the Chinese's research & development for their rocket & nuclear capabilities. Yessirreee, she "leveled the playing field".

But "let us not get bogged down in the past", as our new chief executive espoused while he was kow towing to the likes of Ortega and Chavez.

Let's examine this Dr. Chu abit more with the help of our newest defenders of socialism. Maybe y'all could point out the scientific data Dr. Chu will use when he proclaims that we are in a "man-induced climate change" period. Or, maybe y'all could point out why he will ignore the deficiencies of the climate models that the IPCC rely on for their proclamations of man-made doom.

Maybe y'all could ask him:

Does the increase of CO2 concentrations follow the rises in temperature, or does the rise in temperatures follow the increased levels of CO2?

Why do all the proponents of anthropogenic global warming reject the Sun's role in changes of climate?

Why do all the proponents of anthropogenic global warming reject the PDO & ADO for their role of the Artic's cyclical ice formations?

So, there you be, some simple scientific queries for y'all and Dr. Chu. So, what'll it be? More puerile name calling or some substantitive scientific data?

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Mr. Chu is light years beyond the superficial questins of Mr. JD. Learn what science is and what scientists do, then make your questions realistic.


Ahhh, here we go, the Duo (or fellow travelers, Get It?) with another fine presentation of their argument, reticence and refusal.

The old, "hide behind the skirts of the yard teacher" name calling routine..........My, oh my, must not like the "scientific results" to the the queries posed.

We're waiting............but don't wait too long to answer........who knows what will befall us next after 'global cooling', 'global warming', and now 'climate change'...........looks like a trip to the thesaurus is in order for the next proclamation of man-induced climate calamities............

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


JD asks "Does the increase of CO2 concentrations follow the rises in temperature, or does the rise in temperatures follow the increased levels of CO2?"

Both. This in studies of, for example, ice cores going back several hundred thousand years. It is worth noting that the peak levels of atmospheric CO2 observed in these samples were significantly lower than what is observed today. It should also be noted that those studies indicate a clear, and undisputable, correlation between temperature and atmospheric levels of CO2 (here is a nice plot: Web Link).

JD also asks "Why do all the proponents of anthropogenic global warming reject the Sun's role in changes of climate?"

Because proposed models of the sun's role have never held up under close scrutiny.

Finally, JD asks again: "Why do all the proponents of anthropogenic global warming reject the PDO & ADO for their role of the Artic's (sic) cyclical ice formations?"

See above. Also, wasn't this addressed many many posts ago?

For readers of TalkAbout interested in educating themselves on the topic of climate change, the National Academy of Scientists has put out a nice brochure written for layperson that can be easily downloaded at Web Link.

If you would like a nice easy to read FAQ type of resource, check out this Web Link

Finally, one should be careful to not mistake honest scientific debate for outright rejection of our current level of understanding. For example, "everyone" believed in the 1960's that protons and neutrons were fundamental particles and many very complicated theories existed to explain interactions between them and other particles in the "zoo". Experiments in the late 1960's at SLAC showed protons and neutrons to be composite in nature with the quark model offering the clear explanation of their behavior. Still, there was tremendous debate, which led to a number of experiments ever more precise in nature and ultimately leading to the discovery of the "charm" quark, simultaneously at SLAC and Brookhaven, in the early 1970's - which finally relegated all other models to the theoretical dustbin of history.

There are parallels with climate science now where we are probably at the pre-charm discovery stage. Further study will continue to improve our understanding of climate science, but this does not mean that we don't already have a firm understanding of the basic principles. And, since we have but one planet to live on, we have a responsibility to act on this, else it may well not matter how much debt the Federal Government leaves our grandchildren.


JD is much like the creationists who want religious ideas on the origin and development of natural phenomena, including life on Earth, to be covered in science classes, even though they have nothing to do with science. This effort leads to a scrambling of terms and their meanings, the better to try challenges and offer criticism with nothing to go on.


Sometimes I wonder how people form their core beliefs, or if they simply evolve to ideas through genetics and experiences. If, say, we happened to be borne in Finland, or Somalia, or India what would we believe today? Well, here we are in the USA, what are our core beliefs, religiously, economically, culturally, and what forms or types of government do we trust and believe in? Are the Bill of Rights passe? What do you believe? I hear we are in a transformational period, but without a "ruler", or foundation to build on, we are in for terrifically tumultuous times. As all the Presidents say at the end of every major speech--- God bless America. We will need some blessings, that is for certain.


Leaving it up to beliefs and blessings will only require more to be left up to beliefs and blessings in the future.

The only alternative that works is to try to conduct human society objectively according to the best information available. Still no guarantees, but way better results than approaches suggested through glassy-eyed, doctrinaire preaching of blindly accepted beliefs (which only plays into the hands of those in power who selectively manage any "system" for their own narrow benefit).


"Happily, as was made clear by two policy announcements by President Barack Obama on 9 March 2009, the break [ed.: referring to recent years] in the traditionally harmonious relationship between science and government is now ending. The first announcement, which dealt decisively with a single important and politically volatile issue, the funding of stem cell research, received the most attention. But the second, on scientific integrity, has greater breadth and at least equal significance. For as the president put it, 'promoting science isn't just about providing resources--it is also about protecting free and open inquiry...free from manipulation and coercion, and listening to what [scientists] tell us, even when inconvenient--especially when it's inconvenient'"

From an article by Harold Varmus, co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (and a Nobel laureate), and Kurt Gottfried, physicist and co-founder of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Science (AAAS), March 20, 2009.


Millie,

Welcome back, I guess you are not a quitter after all. I want to address a falsehood put forth by a friend of yours, Mr./Ms. Denier, prior to addressing the faults in your argument because Denier has unwittingly supplied us with the means to rebut your waffling statement, "Further study will continue to improve our understanding of climate science, but this does not mean that we don't already have a firm understanding of the basic principles." From this statement I will show the jurors of Federalism that your alleged love of the environment takes a back seat to your love of despotic government control when your "side" has the reins of power.

Denier quotes a Mr. Varmus on the presidents' behalf as to, "scientific integrity..........[and] 'promoting science isn't just about providing resources--it is also about protecting free and open inquiry...free from manipulation and coercion, and listening to what [scientists] tell us, even when inconvenient--especially when it's inconvenient'".

It would seem that Denier would welcome the "inconvenient" independent scientific studies that dispute the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers claim that man-made emissions of CO2 are the driving force for global warming (or was it cooling, I get so confused reading the proclamations of doom coming from our media and government) from such respected scientists and organizations as: Lindzen, Soon, Baliunas, Balling, Singer, Seitz, Christy, Monckton, Heartland Institute, OISM, and the Science & Environmental Policy Project.

I suspect that my assumption of Denier's thinking is wrong, because as I have shown in posts above, the IPCC quashes all who dissent from their "political" consensus and you two are the loudest cheerleaders for the propaganda that the IPCC proclaims as "established fact and consensus". The major media outlets have never stopped in their incessant proclamations of man-made doom for 2 decades (I'm being conservative here because alarmist propaganda began with "the Ice Age Cometh") and now y'all have a chief executive poised to sign into law an act of Congress on par with the Patriot Act, Cap & Trade, for its sovereignty destroying and unmanly attempt to nullify our US Constitution.

Not on my watch.

The ugliness and despotic nature of your socialistic philosophy will not hold its ground. Y'all are just like the bully on the playground who just got his comeuppance and then runs behind the principal (Obama) claiming he is the victim. So, be my guest with your love of this over-reaching executive on his "fast track" to "Cap & Trade" because this scheme of Cap & Trade is nothing more than an attempt to control the behavior of the lower/middle class and is a tax scam under the guise of a "free market solution" as I will show below.

The computer models of this Cap & Trade scheme that will be used to establish allowable emission standards are already in place at the EPA and the base factors have already been supplied by those bastions of "scientific integrity", the IPCC, NAS, and DOE.

The EPA will then use the determinations from these models for your particular industry/activity's allowable emissions. If you go over your allowable output, you are fined (coercive tax).....ooops, you purchase a Carbon Credit Offset (another fancy sounding title for taxation).

It gets worse. The EPA will calculate you a per unit Emission number, you will then pass this on to any sub assembler or industry using your output as an input including electricity from fossil fuels. Then they will calculate their per unit number and add in yours, and so on until the packager adds the EPA Total Emissions Regulated to the labeling showing the total emissions generated for GHG's in question for the product.

Products without this EPA label will be subject to tariffs and extra taxes.

Why do the politicians insist on this tax scheme if on one hand of Millie's argument, "further study will continue to improve our understanding of climate science", and on Millies' other hand, we "already have a firm understanding of the basic principles"?

I'll tell you why, because the "science was settled" by the politicians who wrote the Summary for Policymakers back there in 2001.

As I have said in previous posts, the closer we get to enacting this onerous tax scheme, the further we get from "scientific integrity".

And no, I am not sidestepping that pathetic graph in your web link......we'll get to that tomorrow.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Are you saying I should discard the consensus opinion of the scientists elected to the National Academy of Science? I was under the impression, mistaken I'm betting you'll tell me, that election to this group is based on one's career, not on one's politics. I would not have thought that an additional requirement was that one had to be a card carrying socialist.

Indeed, I can name several quite conservative members of the NAS. The difference between them and a federalist, it appears, is that they are willing to put down their politics when faced with the truth.

So, no, I don't believe the "science was settled by the politicians". I doubt you are going to convince me otherwise.


But it is okay to have a little sport with JD, isn't it? The associations he makes between anyone who questions his goggle-eyed rhetoric and the targets of his rants let us know he hasn't a clue of how to make an objective critique. And not even a whiff of what science is, what scientists do, and what their information means.

So don't hammer the flailing Federalist Preacher with reality as he waves his sheaf of denier propaganda over his head. Dueling soapboxes is what he is about, not understanding. In the meantime, fundamentalists are giving way to scientists in some of the branches of the federal government where science provides the best current information on which to base further studies, decisions, and actions. With Varmus, Holdren, and other scientists who have earned their credibility in the administration's top science posts, the deniers will be left out unless they can come up with questions and challenges that deal with the real, measurable, physical world.


Millie,

Two items of contention here:

One: The context of my posts towards you has never been one of swaying your thinking, look again. My correspondence with you serves me well in that it highlights your lack of scientific skepticism because, after all, your belief that "we must do something, even if it's wrong" (abit of a paraphrase), shows us that your mind was made up prior to the falsehoods propagated by the IPCC. Mankind must be punished, especially those of us born in these United States.

For an example: how does your belief measure up to the science that shows that Methane and CO2 has minimal greenhouse effect because its spectral lines are either swamped by H2O (water) or are at shorter wavelengths thus no thermal flux? Will your belief allow you to admit the science here or is it the fact that this science is not to be allowed by the hallowed Obama NAS or the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology?

Two: Would you be so kind as to share this "Truth" that you are so enamored of from the "conservative" and liberal scientists (hmmmm, I thought scientists were to be "skeptical") of the NAS? Please be forthcoming, tell us how much man-made CO2 will be disastrous for the climate and while your at it, please identify the specific studies for said claims because if you and the NAS are relying upon the 20 or so climate models of the IPCC, all your claims are bogus, as I have shown above.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist - and like it!


JD finally does say something right: water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas. But he neglects to also point out that 1) the primary source of water vapor in our atmosphere is due to evaporation from the oceans and 2) water vapor has a mean lifetime in the atmosphere of a few days (remember something called rain?). Human activity still pales in comparison to the vastness of the oceans, making the effects of water vapor a "follower" rather than a "leader" in terms of changes in climate.

When most of us were in grade school we did simple experiments in science class which demonstrated how small effects on closed systems can have catastrophic effects. These lessons can be extended to a common home example: think about how much "outside" effort is required to keep the fish alive in a home aquarium - one small mistake, like unplugging the aerator for a few days, and all the fish go belly up.

We live in such a closed system, it only takes man making what may seem like small changes to disturb the equilibrium. Denying that man dumping tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmoshpere has no effect on the pre-industrial era CO2 balance is really beyond belief.

I am willing to accept an argument that might say we should embrace climate change because it might lead to a better life for us here on the Coast - these things can't, yet, be predicted accurately. However, I can't accept an absolute denial of what every indicator we have found tells us is happening - our climate IS changing. If I may, this denial is the manifestation of the ostrich mentality that represents the current failure of the political right of this country - "maintain the status quo at all costs!"

As to your second comment, throughout this thread you continually twist the words of posters to suit your argument. In my last post I was responding to your assertion that anyone promoting climate change from man-made sources is a socialist bent on subverting our freedoms. I am merely pointing out that the members of the National Academy of Sciences represent the political spectrum but are people who let the science determine their thinking on issues like climate change, not their politics.

You don't seem to believe this! Here is a simple question for you: do you believe the members of the National Academy of Science are all socialists bent on fomenting a socialist agenda?


The Millster,

There you go again, admitting to your liberty-hating, despotic government loving philosophy with your "embrace[ry] [of] climate change because it might lead to a better life for us here on the Coast". It's all about context Millster and yours bleeds through in all your posts. And your attempts of having it both ways, a disclaimer if you will, "these things can't, yet, be predicted accurately", are truly, to borrow an adjective from the title of this Topic, sophomoric. We ain't playin' Twister (Get It?) here.

You cannot even be honest about what type of "climate change" you are so alarmed about (pick one and stick to it - Cooling or Warming?). Climate changes have come about all by themselves, or are we to believe that the 10 or so Ice Ages and the Warming Periods between them are another creation of the "Flat Earthers"?

So please, Sir, come to the defense of the biased science of Mann's hockey stick graph, the fraudulent climate models of the IPCC, and the unlawful decision of SCOTUS in Massachusetts v. EPA for which you ground your argument and your hatred of these United States.

The denial comes from your side of the street as established by your bias to dismiss the following: the effects of the PDO and AMO on the climate, the effects of sunspot activity on the climate, and the effects of changes in the Earth's orbit and changes to to its axis tilt.

I will ground my argument on the research of Willie Soon & Co. (Lindzen, Baliunas, Balling, Singer, Seitz, Christy, Monckton, Heartland Institute, OISM, and the Science & Environmental Policy Project - the tip of 'skeptical scientist' iceberg) for the millenia. Politics have no place in science, contrary to Obama's proclamation to put "science in its rightful place".

Therefore, yes, I will deny that man-made CO2 is the driving force for what occurs naturally on this planet, "climate change" and no, I will not allow you and your fellow travelers (Get It?) to destroy the sovereignty of this great Republic with your Cap & Trade tax scheme.

Once again I ask, "Would you be so kind as to share this "Truth" that you are so enamored of from the "conservative" and "liberal" scientists of the NAS"?

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist - and like it!


Millster,

The context of your argument may be found in the words of:

Christine Stewart, formerly Canada's Environmental Minister:

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits to Global Warming Policies......Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Can't "twist" that one now can we?

In Liberty, JD - the 'Skeptical Environmentalist' of a Federalist


I'll take your diatribe, including misquoting phrases of some of my sentences, as a "yes" to my question. That makes perfect sense to me... I can see from this thread that the world conveniently breaks down into two kinds of people: "Federalists" (white males only) and "Socialists" (PC for commie-pinko-b@st@rds who need to be nuked).

As an arm chair scientist, JD clearly doesn't understand the difference between data and models. Data is something you see, like melting ice sheets, higher temperatures, higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, etc. Models describe the mechanism for how these things happen and, to be valid, a model must first describe all the available data and then, after that, make predictions that can be further tested. JD likes to believe that the models used by, for example, the IPCC, have been discredited and cites a list of names to support that. But, just as with my comments throughout this thread, JD, and the maintain-the-status-quo-at-all-costs organizations that spoon feed him, cherry picks sentences, or, worse, phrases that agree with his political beliefs and trumpets these as discrediting the models that don't give the answer he likes.

This is the perfect example of why its best to leave the actual work of science to the professionals.

So, here I am a simple layperson reading TalkAbout and wonder who should I believe when it comes to sorting out the issues of climate change?

1) The consensus opinion of the scientists elected to the National Academy of Science - the organization chartered to provide scientific guidance to the Federal Government? Whose members are elected based on their scientific achievements, rather than their political beliefs?

-or-

2) A self described "Federalist" posting on an anonymous forum in a small town on the coast of California? Who espouses the philosophy that political belief is supreme and science must bend to accept it - or be rejected. Just like the Catholic Church and Galileo?

Well, personally, easy decision for me.

As for sharing the truth, I guess JD missed the Web Link to the nice document the NAS put out on climate change - aimed at the layman but with references to documents with more detail, which in turn have references to yet more detail, etc. You can follow the thread and get as much detail as you like, including all the discussion about how the counter proposals championed by the arm chair scientists just don't hold up to true scientific hypothesis testing.

But in case he did miss that link, here it is again: Web Link

Well past time to let this thread die.


Then let it die, perhaps?

"'Federalists' (white males only)" - where is gender mentioned here?


Multiple condescending references to females in various posts above.


which ones? Watching this thread closely, are ya?


(waving tricorder over the area)

**Warning**

High levels of methane detected in this thread.

Atmosphere currently insupportable for maintaining life.

Prepare for immediate transport...


Why all the drama. JD is right. Methane and commentary notwithstanding. Brutish blather is just that, revisionist historians are suspect on this thread. JD Rules.


I would like to thank Mr. Ginna for his assistance with my undertaking to help the Millster understand his own context. Also a big welcome and atta-girl for Muriel.

What pray (watchword for Marxists) tell us is "true scientific hypothesis testing"? Maybe that is the process that the politicians used to choose the wordsmithing supplied at the weblinks of the NAS "aimed at the layman but with references to documents with more detail, which in turn have references to yet more detail, etc."

Puzzling ain't it? This "climate change" just can't seem to be identified, is the NAS promoting "Cooling" or "Warming"?. The Millster's context is telling once again with his refusal to identify which "climate change" we going to experience.

You are going to have to try again Millster, the propaganda found at the NAS website seems to have plagairized the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers. Tssk, tssk.

Oh, one other thing on context and Millster's wrongful allegation of my "multiple condescending references to females". The closing line of your post, "Well past time to let this thread die", is another example of your "schoolgirl behavior" or if you will, the anonymous "hide behind the skirts of the yard teacher" (the yard teacher being Clay the Editor). The condescension here is not aimed at the girls or women, the condescension here is aimed at men acting like girls. We don't cotton too well to that behavior down here on the Southcoast.

Stay tuned folks.........I have some more "inconvenient" data that we need to "listen to".........."especially [because] it is 'inconvenient'".............How's that for a game of Twister? (Get It?)

In Liberty, JD - the


As Ronald Reagan used to say, "There they go again". The New York Times has let the Millster & Co.'s cat outta the bag, another name change for Man-made Global Warming.

First there was the klaxon call of global cooling as late as 1992 when Mr. Gregg Easterbrook of Newsweek magazine proclaimed, "The advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed. The devastation will be astonishing", in a piece titled: "Return of the Glaciers". Well looky there, "the scientists say", I wonder if they work for the Millster's NAS.

Then sometime in the 1990's Al Gore proclaimed that "man-made Global Warming would melt the polar ice caps with a coastal devastating 20 foot rise in sea-level". The IPCC waded in (Get It?) in 2005 or so, with another version of catastrophy, "Climate Change", and Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland's statement, "ignoring warming is criminally irresponsible and that it completely immoral to question the UN's claim of crisis and scientific consensus". They really bandy about this claim of "consensus", don't they? Unless of course the "consensus", is "inconvenient" contrary science that Mr. Harold Varmus would dismiss as "inconvenient".

Which brings us to the New York Times calling out all their fellow travelers (Get It?) to drop the term, "Global Warming" and "reframe the issue" as our "Deteriating Atmosphere" so that we can "move away from the complicated CO2 issue and focus on the 'Dirty Fuels of the Past'". Hmmmm, where was this practice of changing the names of "inconvenient truths" perfected? Oh, that's right, the USSR.

Of course the NY Times just couldn't leave it at that, they are also for changing the name of Obama's latest tax scam, Cap & Trade, (as predicted in my posts to the Millster) to "Cap & Cash Back" or to the benign sounding "Pollution Reduction Refund". Watch the major media and their lackeys (ACORN, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, WWF, Nature Conservancy, Audibon Society, PBS, and Congress) run with this one, all the way to the coffers of General Electric.

Let review again for our readership, the lack of scientific integrity that the IPCC, Congress, Obama and his NAS have demonstrated these past few months.

They (Obama & Co.) want to ignore the other 11 or so the "climate changes" called Ice Ages and the subsequent Warming Periods between. They (Obama & Co.) refuse to input the cyclical data of sunspots, the PDO, the AMO, and orbital variants into their climate models. They (Obama & Co.) dismiss the respected and peer-reviewed research of Willie Soon, Lindzen, Baliunas, Balling, Singer, Seitz, Christy, Monckton, Heartland Institute, OISM, and the Science & Environmental Policy Project as "Flat Earth" heresy.

Alrighty then, I guess they (Obama & Co.) really believe that their power to correct the behavior of the hoi-polloi (the lower/middle classes) is omniscient..............Bit of a problem, I'm not in the market for despotism today............or tomorrow.........or the next day........ad infinitum

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Sorry, can't resist prolonging the torture of this thread - its too much fun!

JD bloviated thusly:

"First there was the klaxon call of global cooling as late as 1992 when Mr. Gregg Easterbrook of Newsweek magazine proclaimed, "The advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed. The devastation will be astonishing", in a piece titled: "Return of the Glaciers". Well looky there, "the scientists say", I wonder if they work for the Millster's NAS."

JD will no doubt be surprised to learn that popular news magazines such as Newsweek are NOT where real scientists publish their results, rather you will find their work in peer reviewed journals put out by organizations like the American Physical Society, American Geophysical Union, etc. For some reason you don't find these journals readily available at the local grocery store, or magazine shop (do those exist anymore?). Of course, there is a conundrum... after all NONE of us have ever seen something published in Newsweek which wasn't 100% accurate, have we? ;-)

I have to say, this "we're heading to an ice age" stuff is just pure bunk and its been discredited time and time again. It is possible to look back through the scientific literature to determine whether there was universal belief that an ice age cometh... maybe JD would care to give us an idea of how many papers were published (in peer reviewed journals) in the late 60's and 70's which predicted a coming ice age? Probably not, but a study of this was done and it turns out there were 7 papers predicting the eventual coming of an ice age as part of the natural cycle the earth goes through (ie, we've had them before and at relatively regular intervals, therefore one might go out on a limb to predict another one). Interestingly, during this same period (back when Al Gore was busy watching his wife take on rock music lyrics and long before he was on the Global Warming bandwagon) there were over 40 publications which were already alerting us to the effects of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere - yes, predicting, gulp, Global Warming! In the 1970's! Read for yourself at this Web Link

Poor Al Gore... first we find that he didn't invent the internet, he couldn't get appointed President, now we find that he didn't invent Global Warming. What's next?

JD will also be interested know that scientists don't "work for" the NAS, rather, as an honor society, they are elected to membership based on the merits of their scientific careers. It might also be interesting to JD to learn that the NAS predates Obama's birth by a few years... in fact it was brought into existence by none other than Abraham Lincoln! So, if anything, its not "Obama's NAS" (or even mine), its "Lincoln's NAS". Gawd! That means it was brought into existence by the Party of NO!

Just my opinion, but with so many mis-characterizations of reality it does begin to make you wonder just how expert JD The Federalist is on the subject of Federalism.

Speaking of credibility, just because a newspaper publishes something does that make them "for it"? I don't believe so, but why take JD's word for it when you can read the New York Times article yourself at this Web Link


"Sorry, can't resist prolonging the torture of this thread - its too much fun!"

Translation - "My ego is too big to let it die and prove my point, but I lack the strength of conviction to shed the anonymity."

We understand completely.


Oh Brian, always trying to be witty, but just comming off smug.


Millster,

Self flagellation is not a behavior to bandy about on a public forum, but seeing as I have a "big tent" for my fans, a big hearty welcome!

With that said, I must, in "fairness" of the equal results that you and your fellow travelers (Get It?) demand, or is that equal opportunity, no, that can't be it because that would demand some personal responsibility on your part; rebut the latest nonsense and in my compassion for your plight, help you better understand your context. Yep, another game of Twister (Get It?).

So, what's it to be? Warming or Cooling? Is CO2 the causation for whichever calamity you choose? If this "honor society, NAS, that is elected to membership based on the merits of their scientific career" is so competent, why have they plagairized the political nonsense of IPCC's Summary for Policymakers? If the NY Times are the leaders in objectivity, why are they a penny stock?

Millster, cop to some integrity and be done with this "denial", publicly join hands with Christine Stewart, instead of beating around the environmentalist/socialist/fascist bush. At least she gets the my respect for her integrity, however flawed, when she publicly declared:

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits to Global Warming Policies......Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

I mean after all, isn't your context of one in which these United States are brought down to the "level playing field" of the third world?

In Liberty, JD - the "Credible" Federalist


Gonna be a long eight years for JD. Just imagine how disturbed he would get if we had a government not bent by politics and operating according to the best scientific information available. Would he seek refuge in a theocracy like Utah?


Nipper,

As I have pointed out somewhere's else on Talkabout, your religious bigotry will not be allowed on my watch. Your comfortablility with your bigotry has its roots in the last bastion of "PC" bigotry, the "collectivist" bashing of religion by followers of Marxian thought.

Is your Google button broken? Is that why this resort to name calling and insults? Tearing down the opponent when your rebuttal lacks substance may work in your university debate class, not workin' so well here.

Man up and identify the governing principles for the government that you desire.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


It's OK JD, your confusion of everything with your dizzy take on history and the philosophical and political affiliations of others only serves to make you more amusing to those who know anything. How can a person demonstrate religious bigotry when that person has no religious beliefs, no faith in myths? All religions are equal in my eyes, so no bias is possible.

Check out Jefferson's thoughts on religion some time. He couldn't have been a Marxist because Marx wasn't around yet, but he whacks religious involvement in government up one side and down the other. You know, when you are reading real history (and not blind superpatriot quasi-religious pap) in order to discover Jefferson was anything but a Federalist and rallied Jeffersonians to his points of view concerning, among other things, what he believed were weaknesses in the Constitution. Without the support of dissenters, he could never have been elected President. At no time in the 18th and early 19th centuries were Americans united in favor of the power-concentrating Federalist approach.

But 100 years later, would Jefferson have been a Marxist? Of course not. Jefferson was not a shallow or stupid man and would never have insisted a lack of religion indicates a Marxian stance. Nor would he have been led into Marxism simply because he did not associate himself with any formal religion.

It's going to be such a long eight years for you and for others who flog narrow doctrinaire blather over the empirical wisdom of scientific information. I suggest Utah not lightly. You could find a high degree of true-believer brotherhood there.


Nipper: "at no time in the 18th and 19th centuries were Americans united in favor a a power concentrating...approach".

And now, in the 21st century, you think we are in support of your Marxist approach to everything? Power concentrating...what was more power concentrating that the regimes of Stalin and Mao? That, however, is something you would like for us.


Learn what Marxism is (hint: just because you and JD toss it around however you wish, it isn't a throwaway label administered by uneducated right-wingers against those who don't buy into their obtuse simple-mindedness) and try again with something to say.


"By their fruits you will know them" - Nipper, the only "fruits" we see from you are your writings and they are right in line with your old uncle Karl (wow, even the same name). Does that not say anything to you, or do you not understand English?


Not surprised that you readily confirm it, wemoan: you know nothing about the nature of Marxism and therefore are nothing but over-reaching and foolish when you toss the term and things you associate with the term around in your empty slurs.


Good evening fans & foes alike,

Prior to getting this thread back on Topic, federalism vs. socialism, let us address some more shortcomings in the argument of Talkabout's intellectual, the Nipper.

First we'll have him consult the dictionary and then have him aknowledge that his "non-belief" is the source of his "bigotry" for those who practice a religion. We also suspect that this "non-belief" stems from his belief in Marxism which is why we must insist that he rid us of our ignorance because we "know nothing about the nature of Marxism" and as such, demand an edification.

One more item of contention Nipper, please visit my Topic, "Jefferson and Marx: An Examination" so that I can demonstrate that Jefferson's "Republicanism" is the common law understanding of today's "Federalism", hence, a constitutionally limited federal government. That should clear up your misconceptions of my nom de plume, "the Federalist".

Let's get back to it, shall we?

Of late, it seems that there is a lack of understanding the context of my posts from the foes of Liberty, the socialists hiding behind the "Green Curtain" of environmentalism. To clear up this mis-understanding, ask yourselves which side in this argument is advocating "Tyranny & Despotism"?

As a sidebar: what is it with the socialists always denying who they are and pretending otherwise?

I have found another "inconvenient truth" that the "honor society of the NAS" will find most "inconvenient" (thank you Mr. Varmus) and go to great lengths to dismiss.

Let's have a look at a study of the The National Weather Services 1,121 climate-monitoring stations by Anthony Watts.

The following quotes are from the Executive Summary of this study:

"In fact, we found that 89% of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 - fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.......In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited."

Hmmmmm, go figure, biased government data to justify a bogus government claim of "Global Warming caused by man-made CO2 emissions". How's the "honor society of the NAS" getting around this one, huh, Millster?

Watts continues: "It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another governmental agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher."

So, who are the "deniers and Flat Earthers", we Sons of Liberty or the lovers of despots, the environmentalists?..............Stay Tuned

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


I wonder why the Arctic ice cap and the ice sheets and glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica aren't behaving according to JD? Don't they know they should behave according to his back-whacking, anti-science take based on faith that makes the world so much easier to "understand"? In sum, why not a world according to Hee Haw?


The Nipper is showing some short-term memory loss. Earlier in this Topic, I wrote:

"Shall we try on the shenanigans of the scientists of the "Arctic Climate Impact Assessment" for a scientific fit of bias when they increased the surface area of the Arctic by redelineating the Arctic from 66 degrees - 33 minutes N. Latitude to 60 degrees N. Latitude? (An increase of area by 50 percent) In politics they call this gerrymandering."

Maybe Millster's "honor society of the NAS" will show some "honor" and dispute this "convenient" bit of gerrymandering. Maybe the Millster's "arm chair scientists" could enlighten (watchword for Marxists) us as to why the Arctic's (properly or improperly delineated) ice melts are not cyclical.

Maybe the Nipper can offer his own "true scientific hypothesis testing" of Dr. Willie Soon's research on "CO2 & Arctic Temperature" and "Solar Activity and Arctic Temperature". Maybe the Nipper can show us that the cyclical warming/cooling of the Atlantic and Pacific is not due to solar activity.

One more thing Nipper, where's our edification for "knowing the nature of Marxism"?.....not to mention that your Google button is stuck on the research & development department of Yahoo News-bytes.

In the word of IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, whose the "[denier] of Flat Earth" now?........ Little Twister (Get It?) there to get the Millster riled..............

In Liberty, JD - the "Environmental" Federalist


I believe JD needs to go back and reread this thread too... he seems to forget how often he has been countered.

Here is some new reading material for JD, barely a month old, describing arctic sea ice loss without caring what parallel anyone decides to choose as the start of the arctic: Web Link

Then maybe JD can tell us why NASA, under the Bush Administration, mothballed DSCOVR - a satellite designed to sit at the point between the Earth and Sun where the pull of gravity from both is equal and which could have have ended the debate about the cause of warming.


"The Nipper is showing some short-term memory loss. Earlier in this Topic, I wrote:

'Shall we try on the shenanigans of the scientists of the "Arctic Climate Impact Assessment" for a scientific fit of bias when they increased the surface area of the Arctic by redelineating the Arctic from 66 degrees - 33 minutes N. Latitude to 60 degrees N. Latitude? (An increase of area by 50 percent) In politics they call this gerrymandering.'"

JD,

If you had the least awareness of the kind and scope of the science involved, you would die of self-loathing over the ignorance and irrelevance of remarks you blindly believe mean something and proceed to slather all over the place over your initials.

Where the line for the Arctic is drawn is irrelevant to what is happening physically to the world's ice. What is happening to the world's ice is, on the other hand, highly relevant to increased understanding of global climate change and the possible further consequences of the phenomena involved. Just a few other globally important factors being watched and measured include melting of permafrost, changes to the oceanic conveyor, desertification, amounts of surface freshwater, atmospheric and ground reflectivity, and volcanic eruptions. Habitat changes already under way and affecting populations of organisms bring climatic changes closer to home for us because we, as animals, rely on suitable conditions to support our kind of life.

Oh, and please reconsider the implied stance of most deniers that *all* of global climate change must clearly and simply be caused *entirely* by human activity before human contributions can be taken seriously. That kind of ignorance of what is involved is right up there with the most dearly held oafish misconceptions of true believers.

If you understood John Holdren's standing as a physical scientist and realized his understanding of climate change factors so far as they are known, it would kill your quasi-religious little spirit to think of him there in the White House at the President's ear. I know, it's ugly of me to take small pleasure in that thought; but please understand it is nothing personal as I don't know you and think of you generically among the flailing uninformed.


Dear Duo,

The "spout on", "spout off" Millster is back with a "Bush" conspiracy theory that "COULD have ended the debate about Global Warming". Nice one. Once again, I ask, is it Cooling, Warming, Climate Change, or Our Deteriorating Atmosphere?

Tell us again Millster, why the Sun, has no effect on climate or the PDO, and then please explain to the participants of Talkabout that the Arctic ice conditions have always been static until the internal combustion engine was mass produced by Henry Ford.

Another fine choice of weblinks, too bad Dr. Soon beat you to that punch, those satellites are the exact tools Soon used.............You may want to get a new "counter" top for the kitchen of your mind. Now that's a Twister (Get It?).

Yep, the Duo's "google button research" has failed them again. What no little Ice Age? What Greenland has never experienced warming? What no reference to the cooling of the Arctic between 1938 and early '70's?

Are we to ignore Dr. George Taylor like y'all want to dismiss Mr. Watts? Arbitrarily expanding the Arctic Circle 450 miles in all directions does not contribute to the increase of measurable melting ice? Sorry lads, I'm not the one using the biased political conclusions of the IPCC to further the hoax of Man-made Global Warming in order to bring these United States down to the "level playing field" of the third world.

And for the record, the Duo has never, nor will they admit to the Sun's role in "climate change" because then their argument fails miserably.

More queries for the Duo's "true scientific hypothesis testing" research lab @ Google:

Why don't the weather balloon and satellite data conform to the land temperature/CO2 causal theory? Why are the effects of volcanoes not input in the IPCC's climate models? Start googlin'.

While your googlin' Nipper, ponder this; If you want "human contributions [to] be taken seriously", then get off your self-loathing, America-hating, Marxist horse and honor the sound scientific skepticism that is growing almost daily. Then we can talk of reasonable and realistic goals to achieve what y'all want, eliminating the internal combustion engine............till then, all your attacks on my Liberty will be repelled..........you see, I'm not the one coming after you with the hammer of government, 'tis the other way 'round mate.

In Liberty, JD - the "Counters Counter" of a Federalist


And of course we have already discussed the sun, the Pacific (and Atlantic) Decadal Oscillation, the phase of the earth's orbit, volcanic activity, historical levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, blah blah blah - everyone of your attempts at playing arm-chair scientist proposing an "alternate" explanation - as if the people with real brains who work full time studying this are somehow not smart enough to see the obvious - have all been debunked as voodooism. Scroll back and read (again) the details - the quick summary, as we all recall, is that each of these does affect climate but cannot, either by themselves or even collectively, explain what is observed today. Even your demigod Dr. Soon's conjecture of the level of sun activity does not explain what is observed. The ONLY explanation which is CONSISTENT with ALL of the observed data is that excess levels of CO2, from man-made sources, are acting to globally change the climate, with global WARMING the driving effect. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the loud deniers of this conclusion are those who, for unknown reasons, reject real science in favor of the pseudo-science jibberish put out by "scientific" organizations created by special interest groups... those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

If you want to rail against Cap and Trade (or whatever you want to call it), do so on economic, social, political or religious grounds where maybe you might actually have some valid points. Arguing against Cap and Trade by denying the science is, at best, hypocritical in today's high tech society.


Hey Millster,

Let's clarify something here with your attempt to have it both ways and these conclusatory statements of yours, kinda like that "Bush conspiracy theory".

You and your fellow travelers (Get It?) have never admitted to the sun's role, have blatant disregard (some would call that bias, or better known as preconceived notions, like perhaps the IPCC publishing the results of scientific studies prior to completion of said studies) for the likes of Watts (your reticence is telling again), and y'alls' denial of Dr. Soon's research is on par with the IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri's labeling Bjorn Lomborg the "Hitler [of science]". I'm not the one "hiding" behind the political conclusions of the IPCC (or one of its subsidiaries, the "honor society of the NAS"), nor am I the one dismissing all the "inconvenient" (where's Varmus now?) contrarian research.

If the "ONLY explanation which is CONSISTENT with ALL of the observed data is that excess levels of CO2, from man-made sources, are acting to globally change the climate, with global WARMING the driving effect", (may want to clean up that grammar, no Twister there) (Get It?) why don't we take another gander at Soon's discovery so's that you can 'splain to our fellow Talkabouts why you have never answered this question:

If solar activity does not drive the Earth's temperature, nor the rise in water temperatures of which releases CO2 into the atmosphere, what then can we describe as the driving force for the 30 year or so cooling period that began in 1938, in the midst of our Industrial Revolution? While your on a roll, maybe you could 'splain to the Talkabouters what happens to the CO2 when it reaches saturation? After all, I'm just askin', seein' as how your stakin' the ranch on Man-made CO2.

And if the "status quo" is Liberty, I'm for it, if it be Tyranny from "arm chair" Despots like yourself, you're on surrounded ground and best beat a hasty march to the rear.

In Liberty, JD - the "scientific ground holdin'" Federalist


JD unplugged as usual. He quite obviously can only respout the doctrine of his quasi-religious and non-scientific church in answer to any challenge. He thinks it is all about semantics (a pretty tough approach when he doesn't know the meaning of terms he tries to deal with) and boosting the status of fringe deniers rather than the data-based studies of the actual material world produced by scientists working to support or countermand clearly-phrased theories.

This is the usual trend of arguments by people who understand nothing about the science they try to deny. They are forced to resort to a social game based on groundless belief. Well-stated challenges to prevailing scientific understanding are exciting and often stimulate new thinking and studies. But one never sees anything so insightful from the faith-based.


Yo Nipper,

Sophistry aside, where's your argument?

Or, where is our edification of "the true nature of Marxism"? I mean after all, you were so confident that our knowledge of Marxism was soooo negligible.

Or, why don't you confidently proclaim the "prevailing scientific understanding" of these apparitional "data-based studies of the actual material world produced by scientists working to support or countermand clearly-phrased theories".

Wow, is that a Nipper description of "peer-reviewed" (support or countermand clearly-phrased theories)? Or, is that a schoolyard-girl-like dig at a question (clearly-phrased) you would care not to explore for its obvious conclusion?

Or, as is your want, like your fellow travelers (Get It?), dismiss the "data-based studies" (is this where I add the prolific qualifier of sophistry, "of the actual material world") of Soon, Lomborg, Lindzen, Baliunas, Watts, George Taylor, Balling, Singer, Seitz, Christy, Akasofu, Storch, Monckton, Mitch Taylor, Zwally, Heartland Institute, OISM, and the Science & Environmental Policy Project?

In Liberty, JD - the "Well-Stated" Federalist


JD,

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,

To the last syllable of recorded time;

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing."

Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28

Get it?


JD:

The Nipper's condition was undoubtedly brought on by some horrendous trauma inflicted upon him as a small child; perhaps all his wetland juice popcicles melted when the refrigerator broke down; maybe his snowman of Karl Marx disappeared when the sun came out unexpectedly. This fixation on "Global Warming" (a.k.a. "climate change") can only be explained in some like manner; only his therapist knows for sure. No doubt many other Neanderthals went through the same thing when the last Ice Age ended.


Wemoan,

Putting aside the difficulties of his alleged, yet demonstrable psychosis.......we may have him...........his training at ACORN and his university studies of Charles Beard...........will not allow a break-through of his despotical "nature of Marxism"...........I am afraid he is lost to the collective, forever anonymous and inconsequencial.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist


JD - I read somewhere that he attended the prestigious South Hampton Institute of Technology and even got a Ph.D.! Well, despite his erudition, he is still a zero on the left.....much ado about nothing.


Wemoan,

Let's give credit where due. He does use big words and his sentence construction ain't (my English teacher loves that one) bad..........His emulation of Al Gore's prose in, "Earth in Balance", is near perfect..........lotta words sayin' nothin'..............heh, heh

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Yeah, that's why "much ado about nothing" - we're on the same page. Wow, anybody who emulates Fat Albert is really off the beam.


Poor sots. Too big to hang out at the middle school and no bars for addled reprobates left downtown. At least they have each other.


Wemoan,

Appears as if the Nipper does not like us having fun at his expense.

Maybe the brain from MIT, oops, didn't pass muster there, could 'splain to our fellow Talkabouts why the following scientific government agencies have not adjusted the temperature data they are using for their proclamations of man-made climate crisis. Hmmmm, maybe it's because the government is always right and Mr. Watts is one of those "Flat Earthers" of Pachauri's that would like the government to adhere to the scientific standards that they established for Temperature Stations.

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies - Dr. Hansen

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge Laboratory

Hadley Climate Research Unit of UK - Dr. Jones

National Climatic Data Center - Thomas Karl (? - not an offspring is he?)

IPCC

Then again, asking for sound scientific data is too much for these political entities.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist


JD: The Nipper didn't go to Massachusetts Institute of Technology; he went to South Hampton Institute of Technology. That is NOT "M".I.T.! It is something a little more odoriferous; this gives us some idea of why his commentaries are so....pungent, shall we say. Yes, Nipper, ya ol' sod, we got your number.


As long as you lightweights are reduced to throwing your wiffle ball back and forth on TalkAbout, normal people can feel safe in knowing your off-the-wall beliefs are not having the slightest effect on the ongoing climate change discussion, no matter where it is carried out by people with something to offer that moves the issue forward.


C'mon, Nipper. What "discussion"? You don't discuss, you try to inundate people with voluminous amounts of your pedantic propaganda with a singular objective: to promote your particular agenda, most of which is desructive to the U.S. and its people. Its owerwhelming verbosity is so daunting that few would take the time to extract anything of value, were there, in fact, anything to glean.


Really, weboy?

You're buddy buddy with JD.

You could say the exact same thing about him,

Do you fail to see the irony in your own hypocrisy?


Nipper-boy: No hypocrisy, at all - I am not the Speaker of the House nor am I a Democrat; I am a loyal American who loves his country and has shed blood in its service. I am proud to say that. JD's entries are quite large, at times, but his are to SUPPORT our nation, not to tear it down in favor of the ideas and systems of our most entrenched enemies. You espouse these ideas and systems and expend every effort to advance them and to foist them on the American people. We are better than that.


"Do you fail to see the irony in your own hypocrisy?"

You know nothing about the nature of hypocracy and therefore are nothing but over-reaching and foolish when you toss the term and things you associate with the term around in your empty slurs.


Miracle! A genuine, documented miracle! Call the Vatican! The Nipper has actually been silenced and hasn't launched any verbose diatribes, on this thread, for almost two entire days! Could it be that the Lord has called him to his eternal reward...or punishment?

Memento, homo, quia pulvis est...


My God, JD, where did he go? Here Nipper, Nipper; here Nipper, Nipper...Alas and alak, he has gone on to greener wetlands. Gone but not forgotten.


Wemoan,

There are two possible reasons for Nipper's disapearance and reticence. His back up team of school-girl name callers with their non-sequitorial arguments seem to be carrying his torch of Marxism.

The research & development department @ Google is fresh out of propaganda or his psychosis battling his conscience..........I'd have to go with the former.......heh, heh

Stay tuned for a review of the "inconvenient" science that the "school-girls" would dismiss.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist


The person who started this thread was way too generous. You clods will only attain the sophomore level in your most ambitious dreams.


Nipper,

Please submit your "true scientific hypothesis testing" (a Millsterism)(Get It?) of your Google research that "support[s] or countermand[s] [the] clearly-phrased theories" (a Nipperism)(Get It?) of Man-made CO2 causing Global Cooling, Global Warming, and Climate Change.

Please submit your understanding of the "true nature of Marxism" (another Nipperism) and its applicable context in Obama's tax scam, "Cap & Trade".

Otherwise, feel free to resort to your university/ACORN training of tearing down your opponent when your rebuttal lacks substance.

In Liberty, JD - the "Senior" Federalist


Wemoan,

Thank you for your service, I'm in your debt. Semper Fi.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Looks like JD got smacked on the forehead a bit too hard during the healing session at his last tent meeting. One can only wonder if stem cell research will come up with neuron-regenerating techniques in time to help the poor shadow of a thinking person with the uncontrolled verbiage drooling problem he has acquired.


Nipper,

Are multiple queries too much? Let's recycle (Get It?) this one, again:

Please submit your understanding of the "true nature of Marxism" (a Nipperism) to our fellow Talkabouts.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


JD: The infamous Nipper only coins phrases contrived to create the illusion of his immense wisdom and towering intellect; he is incapable of truly defining them in any way intelligible to people not afflicted with at least one type of psychosis. He is in his own little world and he likes it there. Probably sits in front of the computer with a big wad of KAT in his cheek and drools all over the keyboard.


Mr. Nipster, YOU are referring to JD as having a "verbiage drooling problem"? Wow, if that isn't a case of the "frying pan calling the kettle black" I don't know what else we could say about it. Nipper, you are one of the most long-winded people on Talkabout and always growling and clamping down like a rabid pit bull on the same tired issues and passe ideologies with an unswerving inability, or refusal, to open your eyes to anybody else's opinion. Of course, they can't grasp your point of view because of their "inferior intellectual abilities". Ho hum.


Don't worry wee wemoan, JD will help you to get it--"it" being the number on the radio dial where the ranting true believers spout off.


Finally, a feeble attempt at defense of the indefensible by the infamous "Nip" (not a WWII racial epithet). Nipper, you probably listen to all the conservative radio commentators to try to grasp some true illumination but, seeing that they mostly support truth, loyalty and devotion to God and country, that goes against your ideological base. You are one of those Socialistic/Communistic "one worlders" that are part of the "new world order" espoused but the Messiah and his already shrinking legions. Ya see, Nipper, the American people aren't as stupid as you like to think. Move to Sweden; maybe you will be happy there although they are, themselves, seeing the error of their ways and are turning toward "change WE can believe in".


Ahhh, feels good to back where my fan & foe base got its taste for no-nonsense Red-Baiting.

More news from the Nipper & Co's leader of Marx's world (Obama, Get It?) who will "put science in its rightful place". Sheesh, I wonder if the US's rightful place is on the "level playing field" of the third world.

I'm not too far off base when we listen to Obama's Transportation Secretary proclaim that, "we will coerce Americans out of their cars if we have to", which dovetails nicely with Obama's goal of $5.00 gallon gas does not "alarm him at how fast it got there" (campaign statement).

Then we have the Millster & Nipper's hero at the "honor society of the NAS", Mr. Chu, deduce that "if we paint all our roofs and roads white, we will stave off man's contribution to global cooling, or is it warming?" Bit of a paraphrase or if you will a Twister (Get It?) to rile the Millster.

In Liberty, JD - the "Is the US Temperature Record Reliable" Federalist


JD, being swept along with all the other rubble in the uncaring tsunami, powerless to impose his non-standard definitions or non-scientific beliefs on those who give him no credence.

If you are ready for one of your self-flagellation sessions, JD, have a look at the proposed federal budget for scientific research in 2010. It's enough to make a eccentric geocentric (get it?) cry, especially when you see the potential expenditures for acquiring more information on climate change. Enjoy your frustrated angst.


I just love big words. Anyone got a dictionary?

Imm pressive


Just stick to Half Moon Bay and some of the dialog will always be low enough that you won't need a dictionary or an education.


The Nipper at his best obfuscative and evasive sophist self. Shall we ask him again to try his Google Research on this one again?

"Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?", a study by Anthony Watts

Web address of: surfacestations.org

Then we'll have him ask his hero, Dr. Chu (of the paint roofs white science crowd), and the "honor society of the NAS", when will they will correct their "convenient" proclamations of man-made gloom?

In Liberty, JD - the "Credible" Federalist


With a flat earther one must always wonder if their failure to quote and review in context comes because that would prevent the twist of information to suit them or because they truly lack context and the basic background it requires.


Yo Nipper,

Please enlighten our fellow Talkabouters with the proper context of Dr. Chu's, "paint all our roofs white". Or would that require more than your Google Research button allows?

In Liberty, JD - the "Contextual" Federalist


Let us hail back to a paragragh in my original essay that sparked the outcry of the resident Marxists which led to this topic on Talkabout:

"Socialism is not about the individual. Your welfare (sovereignty) ranks lower than that of the state or the collective. The government of this system (socialism) determines your wages, occupation, and housing. The elitists of this government know better than you what is best for you and pick the winners and losers of the marketplace. Sometimes described as coerced humanitarianism."

What sparked the interest for reviewing this truth? President Obama has just created another executive Czar, the Wage Czar. Obama has now created 17 or so Czar positions in his administration. An interesting sidebar, the major media outlets, after declaring with glee all the "Czars" created by Obama, they are strangely silent of late.

This leads me to asking those of you with Marxian tendencies, will you continue to support the ever growing Stalinistic characteristics of Obama's policies and governing philosophy?

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


JD - of course they will support and applaud what is happening; it is part of their latest Five Year Plan. Watch what the infamous Nipper has to say; he is the commissar of a local cell. Once the City goes broke, he can set up the Half Moon Bay Workers and Farmers Soviet. First they will have to disarm us and that is also one of their goals; isn't that what they have always done wherever they took over?


Wemoan,

Spot on mate. Let's have a look see at the results of "socialist utopia", shall we?

USSR: 20 million dead

China: 65 million dead

Vietnam: 1 million dead

North Korea: 2 million dead

Cambodia: 2 million dead

Eastern Europe: 1 million dead

Latin America: 150,000 dead

Africa: 1.7 million dead

Afghanistan: 1.5 million dead

International Communist movement and Communists not in power: 10,000 dead

These figures are good thru 1999 only. These are not "enemy combatants", this is good ol' fashioned genocide by totalitarians. Nice system, this government..........back at ya' Wemoan.

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist


You kiddies must be so tired from trying to redefine the meanings of all those big bogeyman words like "Marxism," and "socialism," and "humanitarianism." Isms can be tough nuts for true believers.

Hope you are routinely checking under your beds for evil-doers before you turn in. A lot of work, I realize, but the common educations and critical thinking you lack would take even more effort if you wanted to catch up to the real world. Also, at least once a week, check your closets.


Very impressive, JD. Now, can you recite the dead caused by imperialism? You know, the kind like Belgian Congo, India, not to mention the American West...

Would make an interesting comparison.

As for homework, I'll let you compile the religious wars, starting with the Huguenots, the 100 year war, etc.


Nipster,

No need to check the closets or under the beds, just look to the White House and Congress...........and your house........let's get back to the meat of the matter (Red Meat - Get It?), shall we?

Where is your learned and backwards "lettered" edification on the "true nature of Marxism" that you say we are so ignorant?

Or is this your "recycled Nipper garbage" (Get It?) theorism on "isms"?

In Liberty, JD - the "Critical Thinking" Federalist


Ms. Arby-Q,

Please enlighten us with your statistical dead of the imperialists.........of the 20th Century..........homework's on you as it's your rebutal........show us the depth of your sophistry.

In Liberty, JD - the "Impressive" Federalist


Don't want to help you out too much, JD. Discovering basic knowledge has the potential to bring you joy. Well, it will take away from the mental masturbation the warped dogma of right-wing demagogues probably provides you, but heading out into the best-supported and most objective information available has its own charge to provide. Beyond the joy, you won't look so silly because you won't bite on wemoan's bait as she/he encourages you to give free rein to your crazed fears.

A further side benefit will be a savings of wasted effort, such as your hugely inaccurate list of dead, when you learn what some elementary terms like "socialism" mean. Like your application of "federalism" to things you like even though they are outside, and even contrary to, Federalist philosophy, your application of "socialism" and other isms to things you don't like doesn't change their nature. You aren't even effectively wild. But keep trying; until you "get it," you will continue to be a great foil.


Nipster,

The only "Foil" seems to the in the hat you're wearing. Why the reticence on the "true nature of Marxism"? All we have before us is 2 paragraghs of conclusatory and inflammatory prose..............Please, Sir, show us the depths of your wisdom..........what are ye 'fraid of..........the Truth?

To deny the genocide listed, notify the authors (Courtois, Werth, Panne, Paczkowski, Bartosek, and Margolin) of:

"The Black Book of Communism - Crimes, Terror, Repression", Harvard University Press, 1999, 858 pgs.

and show them the "Nipper" statistics. The authors admit on page 4, that the totals are "unofficial estimates", but then again, what's a few million deaths either way amongst totalitarian despots?

In Liberty, JD - the "Accurate" Federalist


As seen in the AIBS Public Policy Report, more bad news for JD from the evil "socialists":

"NEW RECOVERY ACT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

"The federal government has announced three new stimulus funding opportunities. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will fund the construction of research facilities, and measurement science research grants under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) will fund coastal habitat restoration.

"The Recovery Act NIST Construction Grant Program will fund $120 million in grants for construction of research buildings. Grant proposals related to oceans and atmosphere, measurement, and telecommunications will be considered. NIST anticipates funding 8-12 projects with federal shares in the $10-$15 million range. Although cost sharing is not required, it is encouraged for a proposal to be selected for funding. For more information, go to www.grants.gov and search for opportunity number 2009-NIST-ARRA-CONSTRUCTION-01.

"The Recovery Act Measurement Science and Engineering Research Grants Program will fund appropriately 20-60 proposals of $500,000 to $1,500,000. Proposals in six areas will be considered: energy, environment and climate change, information technology/cybersecurity, biosciences/healthcare, manufacturing, and physical infrastructure. In the environment and climate change subcategory, priority research includes measurement and modeling of aerosols and other greenhouse gases, development of buoy sensor technology to measure ocean color and chemistry, and research on the environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanomaterials. In the biosciences/healthcare subcategory, priority research includes development of measurement tools and standards for disease signatures, human cells, and nucleic acids, proteins and non-peptide hormones in blood. For more information, go to www.grants.gov and search for opportunity number 2009-NIST-ARRA-MSE-RESEARCH-01.

"The FWS also announced a new stimulus funding opportunity. Grants are available for habitat restoration projects that address high priority wetland, upland, or riparian habitats in selected geographic areas. Projects must provide direct benefits to Federal Trust species (i.e., migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, inter-jurisdictional fish, certain marine mammals, and species of international concern). Twenty awards ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 will be made. Go to www.grants.gov and search for opportunity number ARRA-COASTAL-2009."


Oh my, what is this? This is just so bad for the little band known as "JD and the Whackos."

"On 3 June 2009, the House Science and Technology Committee passed HR 2407, the "National Climate Service Act of 2009" by a vote of 24 to 12. Introduced on 14 May 2009 by Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN), the legislation would establish a Climate Service Program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The legislation emphasizes the role of stakeholders in the development of a climate service, requiring agencies to consult with users of climate products and information in order to allow Congress to be more responsive to community needs.

....

"Two other successful amendments would expand the scientific outreach and education components of the legislation. The first, offered by Research and Science Education Subcommittee Vice Chairwoman Marcia Fudge (D-OH) would establish a clearinghouse and web portal to be managed by NOAA that would streamline communication between agencies and the scientific community. The second, offered by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), calls for the establishment of a climate science summer institute program for middle school, high school, and undergraduate students that would be conducted cooperatively between Regional Climate Centers and the university community."


Yo Nipper,

Nice cut & paste job there. No context, but very well done.

Now, are these new political entities going to correct the gross errors as found by Anthony Watts?

"Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable"

Or will it be more of the same IPCC "settled science"?

In Liberty, JD - the "Corrective Countermeasure" of a Federalist


It must be painful, JD, to know the national scientific enterprise is being revived slightly by the current Congress and the Obama Administration. Really bad news for true believers who found sympathy for winging it during the reign of Bush. As for those like you who don't know what science is or how it is conducted, the feeling must be like standing behind an overfed elephant.

Been keeping up with all the Obama reversals of Bush/Cheney policies and last-minute actions? It's a sorry period for no-bid industry, the religious right, and science deniers. Don't get too depressed, though, Obama is partially owned as well and will stop short of objectivity if he believes it will cost him support.


Again......

Are these new political entities going to correct the gross errors as found by Anthony Watts?

"Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable"

Or will it be more of the same IPCC "settled science"?

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Trying to direct others to join in your oddball, whimsical approach to nothing in particular with references to things not even in the ballpark won't make up for your lack of real-world knowledge, especially simple principles in the natural and physical sciences. Only you, JD, can do the necessary learning needed to get in on a meaningful conversation.


"Meaningful conversation". Good one. Your context is never one of having a "meaningful conversation". You won't even defend your philosophy. All over Talkabout, all we see is the same old obfuscatory sophism. Get over that, and maybe I'll consider treating you with some respect..........show us who you are

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


The subject isn't my philosophy, although you don't have a clue what that is, either. All you seem to have in your world is babble, about people, about history, about isms. That means you are trying to run on fumes because you are too intellectually cheap to take on fuel.

Give fundamentals a try sometime.


Broadside after broadside; I take a little break and the Nipper and that D'Arbanville person sieze the opportunity to gang up on JD. Normal; it takes many coyotes to even attempt to attack one lion but serves them little. Nipper, once again you go off with a bunch of quotations that relate little to the topic of discussion. Your tactic is to inundate people with verbosity hoping they will be somehow impressed with your "sophistocation" and buy that snake oil you are trying to sell. Better stick to howling at the moon with those of like mind; yours is still a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Even with the Anointed One in power, the darling of the enviro-nazis and the extreme left, the American public is beginning to see that they have bought a pig in a poke..and without lipstick.


Wemoan,

One of these days, I'm buyin' you a beer with a JD backer (Get It?), 'til then, I'd like to revisit my original essay again, shall we?

"The elitists of this government know better than you what is best for you and pick the winners and losers of the marketplace." Very apropos considering President Obama's saturation of Czars in the executive branch. He has a car Czar, now a Wage Czar, finance Czar, climate Czar, and on and on, 17 or so at last count.

That should be bothersome to most Americans except, of course, those firmly in Marx's camp. Well, it has come to my attention that it is bothersome to even the most loyal of party-line Democrats, West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd. He has finally uttered something I can agree with.

Why do these Czars bother me & Byrd? Obama does not like the delegation of power he bestows upon Cabinet officials once they are appointed and confirmed, he loses some of his control over these appointees, hence, his imperialistic need to bypass the authority that the Cabinet positions possess. These Czars are de-facto cabinet positions in the White House itself, of which he and Emanuel have direct control of his most important issues. Like for instance, where he is set to fleece the American taxpayer (health care, Cap & Trade, energy, urban affairs, and climate change), rich & poor. Not a bad scheme if we were all asleep, alas, people are waking up.

Senator Byrd is bothered by the fact that, "White House staffers (Czars) are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to Cabinet officials, [or] to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the informaton and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive priviledge. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."

A fairly damning indictment, wouldn't you say?.........We'll explore Obama's governing philosophy, if he has one, in the near future.........stay tuned

Yours in Liberty, JD - the Federalist


The ever growing number of White House Czars would seem to be one prime example that Obama's governing philosophy is tilted heavily towards a Marxist state, his nationalization of the banks and car companies would also lead one to believe he is a Marxist (how 'bout statist if the Marx thingy-bob offends). Obama's want to nationalize health care (put another way, nationalizing your physical body) and the energy industry, really starts to put the icing on this Marxist cake.

However, the more I hear and see him, I believe he has no governing philosophy other than the hubris of self-aggrandizement. A power seeker, like FDR only worse. And like FDR, he is not after economic recovery, only reformative policies that increase the power of the federal government, with special prejudice towards the executive branch.

I'm going quote a couple of paragraphs from my original essay that sparked this entire topic. President Obama's actions and words mirror the forewarning embedded in their context.

"As these examples demonstrate, to stray from the principles of federalism leads to the negation of property rights and the abandonment of laissez-faire economics which negatively affects your local body politic."

"That, my fellow humans, is my point. When your local and state governments wrongly hide behind federal mandates that negate an individuals inalienable Rights, they have surrendered everyone's sovereignty to the almighty federal government. This is where socialism is born and the individual dies."

Obama's nationalized health care takes control over my body and his nationalization of the energy industry (Cap & Trade) takes control of my Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Shameful that so many Americans do not have a clue.

We need a nationwide "Rage Against the Machine" "Wake Up!" call (minus the proletarian nonsense).

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


JD: Look what you did now! The Nipper read the first paragraph about all that Marxist collectivization and domination and he slipped into such an ecstasy that he had to go home and change his panties. You are SO cruel...


Ronald Reagan had a Drug Czar, so I guess he was a commie pinko too by your reasoning.


Mr./Ms. Whatever,

Reason.....logic.....critical thinking......are these the causal qualities for your deducement that Reagan was a pinko?........are these the causal qualities for your deducement that Obama's elaborate creation of Czars is not the sign of a budding tyrant?

Elaborate further, please do.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Term Czar has been used since the 70's. Means nothing, unless you want it to mean somthing, then in your twisted mind you can make it mean anything.

You really are just a joke, though.


Miss Whatever,

Nice rebuttal that one, what, emulating the USSR is a good thing?

And please carry on with your ACORN debate tactic, the puerile name calling, it goes well with your socialist suit.

In Liberty, JD - the "Twister" (Get It?) of a Federalist


Keep on keeping on.

You and weboy are the only ones who care.


Miss Whatevs,

Now you got it, good for you. Persistence, for a follow-up on this fine attribute, read Ben Franklins':

"The Way to Wealth"

It'll help cure the unseemly disposition you demonstrate, however, if that is not your cup of tea, I could regale you with some Chairman Mao Tse-Tung........keep me posted...

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Sorry, too busy mourning the loss of MJ.


Miss Whatevs,

No class, none.

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Lube up the machine gun, momma, just in case the Marxists come marching up the street before we can move to northern Idaho.


Tally ho! Talkabouters:

How 'bout another factoid on the nationalization of your body (hmmmm, isn't this the fuss over Roe v. Wade?) and the centralization of your medical records, Obama's Health Care For All:

Despite his rhetoric otherwise, Obama's insistence that you may opt out of the government's control of your body carries a price, yessirree, a $1,000 fine for first offenders. Boy howdy, how generous of him and Pelosi...........haven't found the fine for my doctor's opting out of participation, it's there somewhere in the bill that will NOT be available for public viewing.

The price tag for this violation of my Liberty.......on the low end, $2.5 Trillion Dollars............must be nice spending other people's money so benevolently...........dinner and a play in Paris anyone?

In Liberty, JD - the Federalist


Greetings,

After 2 years of President Obama's "not socialism" policies we see the results. The Tea Party has done kicked him in the teeth but good. Looks like my alleged "sophomoric essay" is not so sophomorice, heh?

After a 16 month abstention from Talkabout I see there are still no takers for the defense of Karl Marx and his abhorent philosophy.

Me and the Sergeant Major renew the challenge.........defenders of Marx show yourselves!

Yours in Liberty, JD the ReBourne (Get It?) Federalist


JD:

How nice to see you back. What timing, I just saw the Nipper back in the system yesterday. I just read back through some of the entries from a year and a half ago on this thread. Fascinating how the predictions of the American people waking up to evil of the programs of our Fearless Leader, the Anointed One, are coming true. The People are now ready to anoint him with something somewhat more stinky than oil and the power of his comrades is being broken and his programs dismantled. It appears that you and wemoan, with your common sense arguments and right-on predictions, have made the "sophistocated" NP look stupid or, at least, exposed him as the extreme left-wing idealogue that he is. Power to the people; now we are seeing "change WE can believe in"...may God be praised.


Moses,

Off the Mount and into the fire, eh? Thanks for the welcome back Kotter and to think that the "free range Nipper" is still roaming the prarie of Talkabout, be nice if there were more like him so that we cab have some more fun exposing their failed philosophy, Marxism.

Better yet, we'll expose the camps of the Progressive and Realist, where they like to hide, for what they are, Marxists.

Not looking forward to this lame duck Congress.....lots of nastiness to come. The "change" of the guard cannot get here too soon.

Yours in Liberty,

JD - the Federalist


So much bluster. -- Web Link

"Better yet, we'll expose the camps of the Progressive and Realist, where they like to hide, for what they are, Marxists."

Then what? Black list them? Deport them? Re-educate them?


SugarPop,

Silly goose, those are the tactics of despots. Exposure can be as exhilarating as "Throw the bums out".......not a bad start in the House......Senate will take abit longer.

Your Messiah, Obama, is not Clinton and hoping for the character of a Reagan is just that, Hope.

In Liberty,

JD - the Federalist


SugarPop,

Silly goose, those are the tactics of despots. Exposure can be as exhilarating as "Throw the bums out".......not a bad start in the House......Senate will take abit longer.

Your Messiah, Obama, is not Clinton and hoping for the character of a Reagan is just that, Hope.

In Liberty,

JD - the Federalist


Well JD. I don't believe in Messiahs. We have to fix it our selves.

As for President Reagan's character, the man rewarded Saddam Hussein with Naval protection after Saddam had launched an Exocet into the USS Stark and murdered 37 US sailors.

Your Messiah did this after helping Saddam use chemical munitions against the Iranians while at the same time selling weapons to the Iranians in order to fund the Contras.

Meanwhile, even though he campaigned on the promise of a balanced budget, he ended up being a borrow and spend Republican just like President Bush the W was.

Lets hope that President Obama is no President Reagan.


I'm grabbing myself a bowl of old fashioned non-microwaved (and probably non-organic) popcorn slathered in non rBGH butter (that's where I draw the line...) and sitting back for the show.


SugarPop,

If you would like to discuss the mistakes of Reagan, his determination to fight the Commies, and put him up against the other presidents of the 20th century; start a topic of your own and I will join you there for a gentlemanly discussion.

If not, while your here, I would ask you to defend your beloved philosophy, socialism. How 'bout it, eh?

In Liberty,

JD - the Federalist


OK JD,

Even though you like to characterize all that disagree with you as being a Marxist and to make fun of the handles of folks you disagree with, I will, in a gentlemanly fashion, defend Socialism.

Communism is too extreme. It ignores the base motivations of humans. It can't work for very long.

Laissez-Faire Capitalism is too extreme. It ignores the base motivations of humans. It can't work for very long.

Socialism attempts to balance the two. Democratic Socialism attempts to do it by consensus.

Medicare is Socialism.

The common defense is Socialism.

The justice system is Socialism.

Public education is Socialism.

Fire protections is Socialism.

Social Security is Socialism.

Agriculture subsides and policy are Socialism.

Tax free status for religious and charitable organizations are Socialism.

Broadcasting is Socialism. Try doing it with out the FCC.

The very means that we a debating with was created by Socialism.

The SEC, FDA, CIA, FCC, FBI, NSA, NASA, NOAA, and every other Government agency is Socialism.

I am a Socialist. If you are OK with anything on my list, you are a Socialist. I look forward to the response of a gentleman.


SugarPop,

And how is all this Socialism working out for us? The federal government inserting itself into every aspect of our life and trashing the sovereignty of our States. Dependents as far as the eye can see, family and friends alike. The eradication of our Rights of Property. All this police power being transferred from the States to an omniscient central government. Not for me lad.

All those ABC's of the federal government are far beyond their constitutional limits, indeed, we may also question the constitutional validity of a substantial number of them. The Constitution is a limiter, not a grantor of power. Either live by it, or change it as outlined.

Therein lies the rub. The proper process for amendment would mean an honest airing of these socialist notions that you want me to live by. The internet, cable TV, and AM radio are the last bastions in the public domain to honestly air the folly of your philosophical belief. Ask yourself, who is leading the charge against the Rights of these entities and associated personalities? Look into the pending 'Net Neutrality' legislation and its sponsors for your answer. It gets better if you love a despotic executive who will allow the FCC to issue rulings that that the lame duck Congress may or may not have the stones to pass.

There are enough of us Americans left who are not willing to be enslaved by others who think they know what is best for us. Socialism is the (palatable, in some circles) baby brother of Marxism, either one creates a political ruling class who knows best. Not for me lad.

I sincerly laud your declaration, you are the first to do so in all my various topics with this theme. If you will, please demonstrate why your socialist policies and their resultant offspring, the ABC's, will lead to Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness.

Yours in Liberty,

JD - the Federalist


Good afternoon,

We have a lame duck Congress hell-bent on destroying lassiez-faire and the sovereignty of the individual and his State yet out here in Talkabout land we cannot get a proper defense of socialism.......As you were Sergeant Major.

In Liberty,

JD the Federalist


Add a comment

Please login to comment on this topic.

Login Here

Create a Login

Powered by Podium