From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #344 Dead-Flames Digest #344, Volume #48 Tue, 20 Sep 05 14:00:02 PDT Contents: Re: Mickey Hart in Beantown (Steve Lenier) Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! ("Ray") Re: Clinton interviews.. ("Roxanne McDaniel") Re: The Bush clan are a bunch of criminals! (wyeknot) Re: Living with the dead. (some dead content) (Sherry) Re: hyperbole contest (leftie) Brave New World (greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com) Re: Living with the dead. (some dead content) ("Ed Chapin") issues (ndc) ("Roxanne McDaniel") Re: issues (ndc) (leftie) Re: Clinton interviews.. ("Roxanne McDaniel") Re: Mickey Hart in Beantown ("pookietooth") Re: (NDC) Bush taps Townsend to lead Katrina inquiry (DB) Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! ("pbleers@hotmail.com") Re: hyperbole contest ("Ed Chapin") Re: ndc-Projected Rita course... (DB) Re: ndc-Projected Rita course... (leftie) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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?!?! ------------------------------ From: wyeknot Subject: Re: The Bush clan are a bunch of criminals! Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:13:07 -0400 Joe wrote: > Yeah. Let's send them to Abu Ghraib Online at alt.rwndhs.suck What does "rwndhs" old dude? Posting stoned again probably. Oh wait, I got it: Reclusive Whining Narcissists Diggin' Heiney Sex NTTAWWT I suppose. Matt ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Living with the dead. (some dead content) From: Sherry Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:06:36 GMT > I just dont know what to say. > Is this the same thing as me keeping my bird in the freezer? I have to > let it go. I say, bury it. :) We've had various animals die (parakeets, kittens) and kept them in the freezer til spring, when the ground is soft enough to bury them. Sherry in Vermont ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: hyperbole contest Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:14:01 -0700 Gary & Ellie wrote: > 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. That statement's over the top! ------------------------------ From: greek_philosophizer@hotmail.com Subject: Brave New World Date: 20 Sep 2005 13:06:58 -0700 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=3D/news/2005/09/18/nrit18.xm= l&sSheet=3D/news/2005/09/18/ixnewstop.html Alarm as prescriptions of Ritalin to children reach a record high By Roya Nikkhah (Filed: 18/09/2005) The number of children being prescribed drugs for so-called behavioural disorders has soared to a record high, causing alarm that children are being unnecessarily "drugged into submission". Prescriptions of Methylphenidate - most commonly sold as Ritalin - rose to 359,100 last year, a rise of 344,400 since 1995. Figures from the Prescriptions Pricing Authority reveal that there has been a 180-fold increase in prescriptions since 1991 when only 2,000 were issued in England. The growing use of Ritalin - an amphetamine-based stimulant which improves concentration and is nicknamed the "chemical cosh" because of its calming effects - has alarmed critics. It is almost entirely prescribed to children under 16 in this country. Controversially, it has been estimated that one in 20 children suffers behavioural disorders such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or ADHD, for which Ritalin is prescribed. But critics of the drug say that doctors give it to children who are merely displaying normal emotional changes experienced during childhood. Campaigners believe that the increasing use of Ritalin follows the trend in America where it has been prescribed to children as young as 15 months. Last night, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, an organisation that campaigns against psychiatric violations of human rights, condemned the increasing prescription of drugs for children. "Too many psychiatrists are being irresponsible in prescribing mood-altering drugs which are pharmacologically similar to cocaine, and then claiming they have 'cured' children of their 'condition'," said a spokesman. "Some children may be a little boisterous but psychiatry's fixation on labelling such difficulties and prescribing medication is nothing more than pseudo science. Children are being drugged into submission." There are currently no medical tests for ADHD and children are diagnosed on the basis of their behaviour and questionnaires that ask if a child displays symptoms including restlessness, inattentiveness and fidgeting. Sami Timimi, a consultant child expert and adolescent psychiatrist based in Lincolnshire, described the soaring use of Ritalin as "a scandal" and insisted that the drug should be used only as a last resort. "It is ludicrous that the normal spectrum of behaviour that all kids will demonstrate at some time in their childhood is now interpreted as a disorder which requires medication," he said. "Various methods of behaviour management therapy and a change in diet are often all a child needs but adults are increasingly turning over the role of parenting to professionals who feel more "doctory" if they can make a diagnosis and prescribe medication." Dr Timimi said that not enough parents were aware of the potential health risks and side-effects associated with Ritalin, which include loss of appetite, insomnia and unresponsiveness. A recent survey that compared international prescription rates for children of antidepressants and mood-altering drugs including Ritalin showed that Britain has the highest rate in the world. Research in the United States found that Ritalin may cause lasting changes to the brain. In a study carried out by the Harvard Medical School, healthy rats given the drug in their infancy were found to have a reduced sense of pleasure and were more prone to signs of despair during adulthood. Prof Sir Alan Craft, the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said that the growing use of Ritalin was "concerning". Prof Peter Hill, an ADHD specialist and honorary consultant in child psychiatry at the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, believes that the concept of ADHD has become popular, "partly because it offers an alternative explanation for antisocial behaviour, other than imperfect parenting". "While Methylphenidate undoubtedly works for some children, clinicians are under increasing pressure from vast waiting lists to see people as quickly as possible, resulting in some medicating where it is perhaps not necessary," he said. "I have children coming to me who have been prescribed all sorts of medication without much preparatory work-up." Janice Hill, the founder of the Overload Network, a charity that campaigns against the prescription of drugs to children, said that parents were not being given enough information on alternative treatment. "Doctors are far too quick to medicate drugs as a quick-fix answer, instead of recommending therapy or properly analysing the root causes of a child's anxiety," she said. Sam James, an eight-year-old schoolboy from Reading, was diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed Ritalin when he was just two years old, after showing symptoms including fidgeting and constant screaming. However, his mother was so shocked by the effects of the drug that she took him off the medication after four weeks. "The results were unbelievably horrific," said Mrs James, 34. "Within a matter of weeks Sam went from being a lively boy to a zombie who sat on a chair in the corner rocking. "He became completely withdrawn and uncommunicative and I could hardly recognise him as my son." After taking him off Ritalin, which costs around =A36 for one month's supply, Sam's psychiatrist, who has since been struck off the medical register, prescribed yet another sedative over the telephone, which Mrs James did not give to her son. "We found that using cognitive behaviour therapy and just talking to our son has been much more helpful than medication," she said. "Having seen the effects of Ritalin on Sam, I would advise parents to try any other avenue before resorting to drugs."=20 .. ------------------------------ From: "Ed Chapin" Subject: Re: Living with the dead. (some dead content) Date: 20 Sep 2005 13:02:59 -0700 scarletbgonias@hotmail.com wrote: > Well, Booie, you're not keeping your dead bird just to collect hir > pension. > > Theresa That's right, and you never know when it might come in handy. One of Carl Hiassen's characters subdued a burglar with a frozen iguana he had stashed in his freezer (opening notes claim it was based on a real incident :-) Ed ------------------------------ From: "Roxanne McDaniel" Subject: issues (ndc) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:14:29 GMT This week, I got a Democratic questionnaire. These political surveys really are designed to get YOU to fall in line behind "the team." It's such bullshit! "Rate from 1-10 which issues are most important to you." Issues such as reproductive rights is on there. But is it in my top 5? No, because I feel it's been decided, MOVE ON. But am I afraid that 20 years down the road, the religious right will take it away, saying that a woman no longer has the right to decide what happens in her body? Yeah. I'd rather see America have a discussion on how to lower the abortion rate, then who's right is it, when a woman needs an abortion. And I could say the same about the other issues, the environment, social security, education, etc. The whole survey got me thinking. What issues AM I concerned about, and how can we get the political agenda to change from the same ole? What do you want to see the candidates focusing on in '08? Here's a quick list off the top of my head. Feel free to add your own. 1. Corporate accountability 2. Immigration 3. protecting the environment and repairing the ozone 4. poverty 5. healthcare 6. Homeland security ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: issues (ndc) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:19:07 -0700 Roxanne McDaniel wrote: > 1. Corporate accountability Eliot Spitzer for President! ------------------------------ From: "Roxanne McDaniel" Subject: Re: Clinton interviews.. Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:18:08 GMT "wyeknot" > wrote in message ... Roxanne McDaniel wrote: > "wyeknot" wrote in message > > > ...did someone say DRUGS?!?! Yeah. Now don't take that single word for instance and expand it into a massive litany of assumptions about me and my beliefs, taking paragraphs to assemble, yet having not a shred of foundation. Mmmm'kay :-) Matt ***************** Oh.... you mean like you do to Joe? ------------------------------ From: "pookietooth" Subject: Re: Mickey Hart in Beantown Date: 20 Sep 2005 13:19:28 -0700 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... He heard there was a sink somewhere in Mexico dripping in 6/8 time. He has to run down to tape it before they turn it off. True story! ------------------------------ From: DB Subject: Re: (NDC) Bush taps Townsend to lead Katrina inquiry Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:18:01 -0400 tim_ratdog wrote: > Just saw on yahoo news, > "Bush taps Townsend to lead Katrina inquiry". > What is with that? Will this administration > never learn - put someone who is qualified in > charge. For crying out loud the guy plays > great guitar but that does *not* qualify him > for this in the slightest! > > -tim > Yeah, Michael Jackson is probably looking for someone (I mean something) to do about now. db ------------------------------ From: "pbleers@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: Global Warming!...President fails to act! Date: 20 Sep 2005 13:22:12 -0700 Getting back to the Chicago heat wave...................that summer, I was living in Old Town (an old, small neighborhood just north of downtown Chicago) in a townhouse with 3 other buddies. In the winter, we never had to turn the heat on because the heat was always on-we just opened and closed windows to regulate temperature. Anyway, the heatwave hits, we have no air conditioning and cant turn the heat off.............the only recourse was to hang out in the parking lot at night, because the cops wouldnt let anyone stay by the lakefront (where it was a little bit cooler) after 11pm.....and drink a little cocktail I made up called the Summer Cooler (vodka and etc) until passing out. Lemme tell ya something, jesus christ, was it hot. I dont think I got more that 4 hours of sleep a night and couldnt wait to get to work because it was air conditioned. Driving down the highway after work, in a car with no air conditioning, I remember sticking my arm out the window and thinking that it felt like I was putting my arm in an oven. Then there were the blackouts....no power at all, couldnt even use a fan to blow hot air around. One night I rented a hotel room, which had air, in a bad part of town just to get a decent nights sleep. I'd take hour long baths with the fan blowing and a cocktail in hand, just to get some relief. I dont know man. It was freaking hot, hot like I've never experienced. Couldnt touch my girl, people were dying all over town, no sleep......it totally sucked. Just thought I'd share. Now back to the partisan bickering (which I'm enjoying, by the way). ------------------------------ From: "Ed Chapin" Subject: Re: hyperbole contest Date: 20 Sep 2005 13:24:18 -0700 Gary & Ellie wrote: > 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. Yes. Yes, it was. Ed Lest I seem to be fishing for sympathy, let me say right now that Eliza and I in those days were about as emotionally vulnerable as the Great Stone Face in New Hampshire (Kurt Vonnegut, 1976) ------------------------------ From: DB Subject: Re: ndc-Projected Rita course... Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:15:08 -0400 Stephen St. wrote: > 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. > > > Can't we start some of the finger pointing and personal attacks now? What's the sense of waiting? db ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: ndc-Projected Rita course... Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:40:52 -0700 DB wrote: > Stephen St. wrote: > >> 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. > > Can't we start some of the finger pointing and personal attacks now? > What's the sense of waiting? This one's looking like it will hit Texas. The federal response will be immediate and overwhelming. The fact that said federal response will take resources away from Louisiana and the Gulf Coast forevermore, well that will be overlooked by the media as they praise Bush's response. ------------------------------ ** 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 ****************************** .