From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #343 Dead-Flames Digest #343, Volume #48 Tue, 20 Sep 05 13:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: thank me later ("The Iron Muffin") Re: The Bush clan are a bunch of criminals! (bigamps) Re: Living with the dead. (some dead content) ("scarletbgonias@hotmail.com") ndc-Projected Rita course... ("Stephen St.") Re: hyperbole contest (Gary & Ellie) Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! ("Carlisle") Re: Mickey Hart in Beantown (Steve Lenier) Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! ("Ray") Re: Clinton interviews.. ("Roxanne McDaniel") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: "The Iron Muffin" From: "The Iron Muffin" Subject: Re: thank me later Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:06:44 -0400 wyeknot wrote: > Carlisle wrote: (To wyeknot) > > According to Joe, you are supposed to be paying me attention. > > Yeah I know, I'm not spicy and interesting like Joe. But it's all > > you got now, dude. I paid $10.00 > > Joe's been following me around the newsgroup for well over a year > now. It's like I stepped in another dog's shit and Joe just can't get > enough of sniffing at my shoes, the sick bastard :-) > > But I'm betting you're spicy and interesting. Yeah, up until you suggest a rendezvous between her and several perverted RMGDers at a seedy motel. Carrie, honey, it's perfectly natural to be a little scared at first... -- The Iron Muffin DEAD FREAKS UNITE Who are you? Where are you? How are you? ------------------------------ From: bigamps Subject: Re: The Bush clan are a bunch of criminals! Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:01:20 GMT wyeknot wrote: .... > > Geez, you're tired, No, I had a good night's rest, feelin' pretty good, actually. > elementary school, "scathing commentary" is really > pathetic. You should try elementary school again, it's 'your,' not 'you're.' > Says a lot about the author, that's for sure. See my comment above. > At this point, to sum things up: you're obviously kind of dimwitted and > really not worth responding to - far, far, far below even Joe's > typically lame level of discourse - so you're effectively killfiled. Quite the response to someone 'really not worth responding to,' methinks the lady doth protest too much. Wassamatter, the repartee a little too far above your ('re) capabilities? ------------------------------ From: "scarletbgonias@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: Living with the dead. (some dead content) Date: 20 Sep 2005 12:08:03 -0700 Well, Booie, you're not keeping your dead bird just to collect hir pension. Theresa ------------------------------ From: "Stephen St." Subject: ndc-Projected Rita course... Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:14:28 GMT Reguardless of where on the US Gulf Coast she hits..... Noon Thursday......Landfall 2PM Thrusday......Finger pointing 4PM Thursday......Personal attacks 6PM Thursday.....Begin 3 weeks arguing until next massive hurricane hits. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:17:59 -0400 From: Gary & Ellie Reply-To: gary.and.ellie@gmail.com Subject: Re: hyperbole contest kpnnews@yahoo.com wrote: > I'd like to think I have a quick mind, but I simply > marvel at some of the over-the-top posts here. As > much as you may not like him, Joe is a master at the > 5 line whirlwind diatribe. I love it. So hear my plea > for some soapbox ranting. I am ready. Let's here it. > Tell me about GWB, Clinton, Phish, Kenny G, and how > much they suck. Hell, tell me how lame this post is. > > Kurt > Hyperbole was better in the 70s. ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! Date: 20 Sep 2005 12:25:16 -0700 Ray wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > Why are only republicans/dissenters trolls?? > > That's not the case - there are a few leftist trolls here as well. ;) > > That said PV is most definitely a troll, and/or an extreme partisan to > the point that his brain is warped to the point that he's lost contact > with reality. How else to account for PV's statements like this one: > > "Your spastic knee-jerk everything's W's fault blinds you to this..." Well... > > directed at me in a recent post in this thread? I've stated repeatedly > in this thread that re- the Katrina response govt at ALL levels are at > fault. Statements like that from PV are nothing more than pathetic > mudslinging, whether PV has a enough of a grasp on reality to realise > this or not. > > Then there's this exchange: > ______________________________ > > > >* Do you acknowledge that the Bush Adminstration's response during the > > >first several days of the Katrina disaster was inexcusably poor? > > > > What part of: > > >Poor??? How 'bout less than ideal...'Bout as far as I'm gonna go being > > >there was NO FUCKING RESPONSE from the local potato heads other than > > >sittin' round shittin' their pants and pointing fingers... > > Did you not understand? I agreed with pv34 here. > > ______________________________ > > This isn't a game or a scorecard where the feds' piss-poor response > gets radically upgraded to "less than ideal" because of anything that > the local govt did or didn't do - the feds are responsible for their > own response (and lack thereof). True, but still the local NO officials in this case were/are pathetic and were totally unprepared and failed to rally the people. Face it, corrupt feel-good New Orleans pols dropped the ball. Still, FEMA chief gets fired and the Prez accepts "responsibility". > > And the fact that PV refuse to acknowledge this obvious fact > demonstrates that he's a troll, an extreme partisan idiot, or some > combination of the two - no doubt about it. "Extreme partisan" is all in the eyes of the beholder. > > Ray > > ___________________ > > "In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other > large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume > primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that emergency > response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail > providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any > large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort." > > > - Per the Dept. of Homeland Security -- a massive, multi-billion dollar > federal bureaucracy created by the Bush Adminstration Here we agree, Ray. DHS is a "massive multi-billion dollar federal bureaucracy created by the Bush Administration". It's called Big Government. And it's only gonna get bigger under the "compassionate conservatives"-- 9/11 could have been handled by- 1)proper back ground checks 2)cockpit security 3)better information sharing between FBI-CIA 4)INS enforcement 5)profiling (Israel does it best) Given the "Marshall Plan" needed for the Gulf Coast, Afganistan, Iraq and the unlimited new spending that Bush/Congress have created to buy off different constituencies, I really don't see how we can keep from raising taxes at some point, much less continuing to cut them. I'm not very optimistic today. In fact, I'm down right pissy. And I apologize forthwith. Have a nice day- Carrie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:22:43 -0700 Subject: Re: Mickey Hart in Beantown From: Steve Lenier in article 3paqatF9g61qU2@individual.net, wyeknot at wyeknot108@oohay.com wrote on 9/20/05 9:05 AM: > The Lord of Eltingville wrote: >> The Lord of Eltingville wrote: >> >>> Mickey will be in town on 10/16 for a drum clinic/performance at The >>> Berklee Performance Center. It's a benefit fundraiser for a non-profit >>> organization I work with. >>> >>> It's shaping up to be a good time... >>> >>> Info at http://www.right-turn.biz/events2005-10-16.htm >> >> I just got an email stating that Mickey's pulled out of the show. No >> reason was given... > > Parents' weekend - the kids come first??? > > Matt attending Bobby's b'day party? Steve ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! Date: 20 Sep 2005 12:29:53 -0700 Ray wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > It seems there are > > many things the US can do(to have a cleaner/cooler environment) before > > accepting those unilateral sacrifices that Kyoto implementation would > > call for. You seem knowledgeable enough Ray, what do you propose we do? > > Well, first of all we need to come to a consensus - or at least come to > a committed democratic majority - that we need to actually DO something > about this. Many ideologues -- most of whom have no scientific > understanding of what they are talking about -- continue to assert that > we need still more studying to resolve the 'global warming controversy' > before we act (that is, if they even go so far as to recogonize that > its a serious issue as opposed to knee-jerk rejection of it as a 'hoax' > or a 'myth'). Sure we need plenty more research here, but as most > climate scientists -- and moreover the 2003 Pentagon global warming > report -- agree, the evidence is in enough so that its now time to act. > This first step is huge - as long as we as a society are still > spinning our wheels in the "we don't know enough to act" mode > (remember: we may *never* know what's up with 100% certainty here) > we're dead in the water (no pun originally intended). > > Once - and if - we get past that first road block, then we need to take > a hard look at addressing the practical things that we can do to > significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is a BIG area, and > it would take weeks if nt months to properly cover it all. In brief, > however, this includes but is not limited to: increasing CAFE (gas > mileage) standards for cars and trucks (including, notably, closing the > 'SUV loophole'), modernizing our electricity system (away from coal and > towards renewable energy), increasing energy efficiency in homes and > businesses (way more energy gets wasted via poor weatherization and the > like than most people realize), and vastly ramping up government > funding for alternative energy and fuel research (e.g. hydrogen fuel > cells and nuclear fusion). > > Much more info can be found, for example, at the Union of Concerned > Scientists' website, here: > > http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/ > > That all said, you keep bringing up the Kyoto Accord, which you have > repeatedly characterized as being "too radical," "too expensive," > "unilateral," and the like. While I too have some problems with the > Accord, in general I disagree with your sentiments there. But that's a > long topic, and I've written enough on this for today. I'll try to > address that issue tomorrow (and if not then some time soon). Common points/criticisms/issues re- Kyoto: ====================================== *** Economics **** ====================================== There are all sorts of ecomonic forecasts out there re- significantly limiting greenhouse gas emissions, and their conclusions range from prohibitively expensive to implement to prohibitively expensive to NOT implement. The fact is, there are way too many variables to consider to come up with any robust estimate on the economic impact, not the least of which is because we don't know with any degree of certainty what the economic impact of NOT acting will be. Which is to say, repeated declarations from some that the sky will fall if we significantly limiting greenhouse gas emissions are not based on firm data, but instead guesswork and speculation. (And, ironically, the same people who cite these forecasts as if they were fact are often the same people who declare that we don't know enough about global warming to act - what they fail to see is that if we really don't know enough about global warming to act then we also don't know enough to assert that it is prohibitively expensive to stop it.) That said, there are some things to keep in mind when assessing economic impact studies re- limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Per the Pew Center for Climate Change: _______________________________________ Any effort to significantly limit greenhouse gas emissions will require changes in behavior and investments in technology - in short, changes in economic activity that could impose costs on society. The costs of climate change mitigation reflect the magnitude of the emissions reduction, the timing of these reductions, and the means of implementation. Of course, left unaddressed, climate change will impose costs on society as well - and so, the benefits of undertaking climate change mitigation must also be considered. The Pew Center's economics program has analyzed several commonly used models to determine how they work, what inputs and assumptions influence their results, and what important elements are missing. Differences among economic modeling results can often be explained by the way the following factors are represented in each model: * the economy's and environment's assumed baselines (i.e., how the economy will perform in the absence of climate policies); * the precise climate policies employed (e.g., emissions trading, inclusion of non-CO2 gases, etc.); * whether estimates of damage resulting from climate change are included; * the economy's flexibility when subject to sudden price shocks or government regulation; and * how technological change is characterized. If models adequately address all five of these 'drivers' - and few currently do - the projected costs of climate policies would likely be lower than they are now. _______________________________________ http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/economics/ So what's the answer here about the true economic impacts of the U.S. implementing the Kyoto Accord? The answer is at this time that there is no clear answer, and anyone who declares otherwise is dissembling, intentionally or otherwise. ====================================== *** So-Called 'Unilateral' U.S. Reductions *** ====================================== Kyoto doesn't call for 'unilateral' U.S. greenhouse gas emission reductions, but instead for significant greenhouse gas emission reductions by all developed nations. Why only developed nations, and not developing nations as well? The great majority of the man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today got there as a result of the activities of the advanced countries. This is why the developing countries argue that the rich countries ought to take the first steps to control emissions. From a "global fairness" perspective, developing countries like China and India have a point. The data argues clearly that the industrialized countries have placed the world in its current ecological position. Developed nations have emitted, and continue to emit, far more greenhouse gases than developing countries, despite having much smaller populations. Per capita emissions are even more uneven. There can be no arguments on these points. Moreover given the tremendous poverty in many developing nations, particular China and India and their comparatively low per capita emissions, one must acknowledge the legitimacy of developing country claims that they cannot be expected to sacrifice much needed economic growth solely to achieve the same level of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions as developed countries. On the other hand, the yearly emission of greenhouse gases by the developing countries is expected to catch up to that of the advanced countries around 2030. By about the year 2100, the cumulative contribution of the developing countries is expected to reach 50 percent of the total. So the developing countries will have to control their emissions eventually; unrestrained greenhouse gas growth in these countries could result in ecological disaster. From this perspective, their arguments for significant delays in implementing binding controls appear less compelling. This is not a scientific issue, but one of ethics and equity. >From my perspective the pattern achieved in the Montreal Protocol appears appropriate. As agreed in Kyoto, the industrialized countries should take the first, significant cuts. These efforts are then followed, after a appropriate grace period of 10 years, by similar steps on the part of developing countries. A system of emissions trading combined with some aid could be established to assist the transition in developing countries and promote appropriate technology transfer. [ These are my sentiments, but to save time I lifted the wording from: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/december97/protocol4.html ] ====================================== *** The Kyoto Protocol Not Strong Enough *** ====================================== This is one of my main issues with Kyoto. However IMO that while the initial greenhouse gas reductions would likely not be strong enough, they set the political precedent for bigger and more effective cuts in the future. ====================================== *** The Kyoto Protocol Enforcement *** ====================================== Possibly correct, but we won't know unless we try. That said there is one precident that we can look to for comparison the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. Despite what the multitude of naysayers who opposed the Montreal Protocol predicted (on enforcement, economic, and purportedly scientific grounds), the 183 nations that are signatories to the Montreal Protocol are by-and-large enforcing the Protocol, which has now demonstrably has had the effect that the scientific consensus predicted with regards healing the ozone layer. Yes reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a considerably more ambitious enterprise, but the Montreal Protocol is an encouraging precident. ======================================= *** Bush's Failure To Act **** ======================================= When he became president one of Bush's first major acts was to reject Kyoto. He did so on allegedly - scientific ("Before we react I think it's best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what's taking place"); - economic ("Kyoto... would cause serious harm to the economy" - of what is far and away the wealthiest the nation on the planet); and - fairness ("I'm not going to let the US carry the burden for cleaning up the world's air" - despite the fact that *all developed countries* would carry the burden here, and despite the fact that the U.S. is the largest greenhouse gases contributor by far, and by every metric: current, historical, absolute, and per capita - for exmample the US is responsible for 25% of the world's CO2 emissions with less 5% of the world's population.) grounds. At that time he ditched Kyoto he also promised, however, that he would produce a climate change policy of his own: "I am today committing the United States of America to work within the United Nations framework and elsewhere to develop, with our friends and allies and nations throughout the world, an effective and science-based response to the issue of global warming." - George W. Bush, June 10, 2001 However #surprise#: - Bush never followed through on his 'committment.' Ray ------------------------------ From: "Roxanne McDaniel" Subject: Re: Clinton interviews.. Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:47:48 GMT "wyeknot" wrote in message ....did someone say DRUGS?!?! ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .