July 02, 2006

US beats Europe over CO2 control

The United States has frozen its carbon dioxide emissions at a time when signatories of the Kyoto Protocol are conceding that they cannot meet their own targets, according to official figures released last week.

While the American economy grew by 3.5% last year, more than twice the European average, its fossil fuel emissions were up by only 0.1% — with no growth in road pollution and a drop in aircraft emissions.

&heellip;

Since 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was first signed, the US has now made more progress in reducing its per capita fossil fuel emissions than the UK, France, Spain, Finland, Sweden and Japan — even before its economic growth is considered.

http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2006/07/day-late-and-short.html
…

“No Jew ever blew himself up in a German restaurant.” – Wafa Sultan, Arab American psychologist, secular, free woman.
…

“To answer Mr. Jihad (the Palestinian from Jordan) and his advice for Iraqis: Iraqis are singing outside the Arab flock for one reason which is that they distinguish the truth from the Arab illusions. Only 13 years ago Iraqis used to speak like the rest of Arabs; equipped with the illusions of the “Zionist conspiracy” created by Islamists and pan-nationalists. But Iraqis now have discovered the bitter truth. Who is murdering Iraqis on daily basis?? Who is prolonging the stay of foreign troops? That’s the terrorists coming from Arab and Islamic countries!!
Israel doesn’t want to become the “Great Israel” because Israelis are only several millions in this world…
We are people with long history that we are proud of and we possess enough education and awareness, so long live the new Iraq and let Israel live as our neighbor. I’d love to say that I wish Israel could rule the entire region; better than any Arab government except for the Iraqi”
An Iraqi in exile: Asia.
…

“Please Israel, do not listen to the daughters of Achelous as they sing their songs of restraint, affix the beeswax and destroy these savages. These same Sirens who sing of peace do so only to draw you to your death.
Why is the measure of this (or any) war now tallied by the number of dead in a single clash, as recorded from day to day? When did we lose the concept of waging war until one side admitted to defeat? Did we lose WW2 because at the battle of Anzio we suffered 30,000 dead? Should we have stopped our efforts in that war because of the civilian casualties at Dresden? Or at the first bombing of Japan? When did up become down? Destroy your enemies before they destroy you, all the rest is merely songs of the Sirens.”
http://lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=285165
…

“Despite the headlines yesterday, violent crime in the US remains below levels in the 70′s 80′s and 90′s and below that of Europe, Canada and Australia.” – http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/no-surprise-media-distorts-violent.html
…

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” – Sir Winston Churchill
…

/ reliable sources.

It’s also true that terror alerts “benefit” the administration(as well as our citizens) because they are based on the truth. This administration is strong on terrorism, while the Dems are very weak on terrorism. The Dems can’t benefit because they are on the wrong side of the issue. The fact that the Dems believe the war on terror isn’t real is a tremendous benefit to the administration, as well. It makes the issue very clear.

Seven Pine,

Allow me to call your attention to the difference between correlation and causation.

Correlation abounds – in fact, given enough potential data points, the probability of correlation nears 100% and therefore renders any argument, so based, moot.

For example: You aver that “terror alerts only appeared when they serve a strategic purpose for the administration.” Given that the present administration is, well, the present administration, under what circumstances would you acknowledge that terror alerts would be issued for other than “strategic purpose”?

Yep. I know. None.

Establishing a causal relationship requires far more rigor, though, and you (and your tired old babyboomer leftist ilk) have yet to do so in even a plausibly “laughable” manner.

The real question has been answered. Your false question has not, because it is based on your entirely subjective and logically erroneous premises.

Pitiable. Truly.

None of you have actually answered the question. Why have terror alerts only appeared when they serve a strategic purpose for the administration? The world is full of meaningless coincidences but we’re talking about an inexplicable pattern over several years. In the last five years, polls have consistently shown that national security is a primary concern for Republican and moderate voters. These voters have far more confidence in their Republican party leaders to make the right foreign policy and national security decisions than in Democrats. To many citizens, terror alerts have a clarifying effect on what the dangers are and who can protect them. The greater the threat, the more focused the support.

To pretend that it wouldn’t benefit the Bush administration politically to issue terror alerts at key decision milestones for the general poplulation is laughable.

Laughable.

I would like to state for the record that

1) The terror alerts DO benefit the administration … by helping them communicate the situation without giving out critical information ie: it refrains from being nytesque

2) I defy any liberal to PROVE that they are being used as a political tool using something other than assumption, and “pattern recognition”. It’s “innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of providing evidence lies with the prosecution (which almost always seems to be the left).

3) I’m FOR eating puppies. Nuff said.

“Is that really so diffult to glean from Marshall’s article?”

Not if you have a really good imagination.

Why stop at kicking the puppies? Using Marshall’s own “logic” there is every reason to accuse him of cooking and eating the little critters.

Of course, Time just hired the guy (Marshall) who collaborated on the Dan Rather ‘memo’ story and who spun that Bush (not Clinton/Carter) was to blame for North Korea getting nukes (while Bush was governor), so pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theories are a walk in the park in comparison.

I think they feel like if they question the timing enough the alerts will stop being issued. Then after any attack, no matter how minor and they can claim Bush was negligent for not issuing an alert.

And I said this exact thing would be done when all this terror alert shit started. It actually gets old, being correct all the time.

BTW – The straw argument that the left doesn’t believe in the terrorist threat is weak and embarrassing. Any American with eyes, ears, and a realistic sense of self-preservation understands that it is. That’s why it’s so difficult to witness the incompetence and arrogance of the Bush Administration as they use this war to score short-term political points instead of doing the good faith hard work of planning and executing this fight properly.

It’s about dealing with real threats with seriousness and honesty. Is that really so diffult to glean from Marshall’s article?

Seven Pine: In order to have any credibility at all, you and Marshall would have to give examples of what you would consider “genuine” terror alerts, that is, when they “should” have happened, according to you. Otherwise, what you say is bunk.

Since when does the left know what it’s talking about?

- Concedes alert timing gives admin political gain

Steve,

Given your dismal level of intellectual competence, it doesn’t much surprise me that you would come to this conclusion. But for the record, I have conceded no such thing.

Since neither you nor Marshall has offered any evidence to support your shared contention, it would be difficult for any rational person to make any such conclusion.