January 16, 2004

Flat-Earth Radio

from - smijer

The irony overwhelmes. In today's Nuze page (today...tomorrow), the guy who regularly refers to the Mrs. clinton as "Hitlery", and who suggests you visit a website comparing Al Gore to the Unabomber, whimpers and cries over the guys who submitted ads to the MoveOn.org contest comparing Bush to Hitler.

Neal rehashes his desperate battle against scientific reality today, and offers three pages from the political web-site nationalcenter.org for back up. Here's the real science from a private and notoriously conservative university that knows a thing or two about science.

Tax exempt savings accounts top the Nuze today. Neal expects democrats to object that this another tax shelter for those who need it least, and that is a valid objection. But, what with the whole "tax cuts stimulate the economy" tunnel vision, wouldn't you expect him to notice that these savings account tax breaks are a powerful incentive for people to take more money out of the economy?

Last thing. Neal spins on the reported finding of uranium oxide that may have originated in Iraq. Points:

1) May have. Big maybe.
2) So what? When Bush made the SOU address including the uranium claims, he didn't state that "We think there may be uranium in Iraq" - he said that Iraq was actively trying to acquire it from Africa, knowing that this was based on bad evidence. It doesn't matter if Iraq had a 20 pounds of uranium or 20 tons of it. The evidence was wrong. The administration knew it. They had no business presenting it to the American people as fact.
3) 20 pounds of yellowcake is not enough to make a toy pistol.
4) By the way, remember the WMD claims Boortz made a day or two based on the blister agent found on long-buried mortar shells? Wrong again. It's funny in a sad way to see Bush apologists getting so desperate.

::

Posted by smijer at January 16, 2004 09:47 AM
Comments

Personally, the Unabomber is much more interesting to me than Gore, but we all have our opinions...

univar.jpg Posted by CJG on January 16, 2004 02:06 PM
Link to comment

Another oldie but a goodie on a sign at the protest is this traditional bed-wetting slogan: "War is not the answer." It isn't? I don't imagine the United States would have ever achieved independence without the American Revolution. How about World War II? Was war not the answer then? Sometimes war damned sure is the answer.

It sounds to me like this idiot is saying that Germany was justified in starting WWII.

univar.jpg Posted by Robert McClelland on January 16, 2004 03:43 PM
Link to comment

Yea, I have to admit that Boortz can't really complain about the hitler-bush ads. He uses Hitlary on a regular basis. Of course a snide remark, is many degrees less significant then a submitted Advertisement.

I am really getting tired of that issue however... I wish the talking-heads would drop it already.

Fact about Global Warming is... There isn't completely conclusive evidence of the degree of severity we affect our environment, and our climate. I say this, because thinking we have no effect is idiotic, since simply breathing removes oxygen and introduces CO2 into the air. So the debatable issue is how severe our effect is.

We don't completely understand how our climate and weather systems work. And the period of time we have been observing is so extremely miniscule compared to the bigger picture. We're talking about tens and hundreds of thousands of years here, focusing on the past 100 is like looking at one square of a chessboard and declaring the entire thing white.

Now I believe we should be cautious about our effect on the environment. But People who think we can live like bunch of Indians in a teepee are very naive. The line on the issue needs to be drawn near where common sense resides.

One thing that irks me about Enviromentalists is there hatred of Fission reactors. If the entire world used light water Nuclear power-plants the amount of emmisions of greenhouse gasses would be drastically reduced.

I mean crap, we should be mass-producing Fission reactors so we have enough remaining electricity to stop fossil fuel consumption completely. Switch to hydrogen fuel-cell powered cars. Yea there'd be a lot of radioactive waste, but this would be contained in a tiny area of the world that effects no one. Its still better then the large amount of coal plants we have nationwide that spew tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Course all the environmentalists want to use solar-power, which an entire roof full of can barely heat a pool with an entire days worth of sunlight.

Ok I'm done with my rant

univar.jpg Posted by Tim on January 16, 2004 04:00 PM
Link to comment

War is by no means always the answer. - WackJob R
War is sometimes the answer. - Common sense
War is by no means never the answer. - WackJob D


univar.jpg Posted by Tim on January 16, 2004 04:04 PM
Link to comment

Doh Phrased that wrong...

War is always the answer. - WackJob Republican
War is sometimes the answer. - Common sense
War is never the answer. - WackJob Democrat

univar.jpg Posted by Tim on January 16, 2004 04:05 PM
Link to comment

Tim;

"Fact about Global Warming is... There isn't completely conclusive evidence of the degree of severity we affect our environment, and our climate. I say this, because thinking we have no effect is idiotic, since simply breathing removes oxygen and introduces CO2 into the air. So the debatable issue is how severe our effect is."

The interesting thing about this is that biological processes have very little effect on the amount of atmospheric Carbon. You can trace all of the Carbon in your body back to a plant, which took it predominately out of the atmosphere (no net gain or loss).

I am working on a more in depth posting for my blog, which will have references.

"One thing that irks me about Enviromentalists is there hatred of Fission reactors. If the entire world used light water Nuclear power-plants the amount of emmisions of greenhouse gasses would be drastically reduced."

I agree completely. Nuclear waste is a drop in the bucket compared with industrial waste, which is produced by good-old fashioned chemistry.

Moreover, all of these things are economically and thermodynamically more efficent than fossil fuel powered stuff.

"Course all the environmentalists want to use solar-power, which an entire roof full of can barely heat a pool with an entire days worth of sunlight."

A solar power cell results in a net loss in energy. That is, it requires more energy to produce than you can extract in it's mean lifetime.

It is possible that with R&D that this will change. It should certainly be looked into.

univar.jpg Posted by CJG on January 16, 2004 04:55 PM
Link to comment

Investing money into a long term savings vehicle such as IRA, Roth IRA, 401k, etc. is not "taking money out of the economy". Money invested in these places is then taken and reinvested into things that help the economy grow: bank loans, venture capital, IPO's, etc. Access to low cost money with is a huge deal in making an economy work.

The benefit of it being tax free is that I (assuming I invested my money) would get to keep more of my money and the government would have less to spend in many of the frivolous ways it deems reasonable.

univar.jpg Posted by Mike on January 16, 2004 07:05 PM
Link to comment

So what you mean is, no biological respiration causes increased CO2? I find it hard to believe that a field of grass will suck enough CO2 out of the air to counteract all of the CO2 Produced by those cows, and by the people who eat the burgers from those cows. If plants were really that efficient I'de think global warming wouldn't be an issue.

univar.jpg Posted by Tim on January 16, 2004 07:34 PM
Link to comment

Oh and by the way... about that nuclear issue. I watched a special on the History channel about how nuclear waste is transported... They have these practically indestructible plastic containers they ship them in. To give you an idea of how strong these are, they've hit them with full speed trains, and left them in 4000 degree fires for hours at a time... no containers were breached.

univar.jpg Posted by Tim on January 16, 2004 07:37 PM
Link to comment

Smijer,
Concerning Boortz comparing Gore with the Unibomber and the so called whimpering and crying. I have NEVER heard Boortz whimper or cry, but that is another post. You say he compared Gore to the Unibomber. For those who missed the program, what Boortz did was read excerpts from the Unibomber's manifesto and from Gore's book. He then let his audience try and guess who said what. Truthfully, I could NOT figure out which came for the Unibomber and which were Gore quotes. If there was a comparison drawn, it was because of the similarities. Now see my next post for why Hitler should not be compared to any American president, especially Bush.

univar.jpg Posted by Concerned on January 16, 2004 08:29 PM
Link to comment

While I do not believe that those on the left really think there is a comparison, I decided to research a little before making a judgement. Here is what I found. Hitler was a dictator while Bush is an elected official. Hitler tortured and killed the minority group (Jews) who had no criminal record. Bush has honored minority groups with high level positions in his cabinet and with his immigration policy. Hitler promised a German Empire. Bush promises a free democracy to the citizens of Iraq. By 1933, Hitler's regime had outlawed freedom of the press, all labor unions, and all political parties except the Nazi's. Bush takes criticism daily from a very active opposing political party. Hitler could reverse any decision the courts made that he did not like. BUsh has no power other than what we have always had in our constitution to reverse a court decision. Hitler took territory by military force. Our country has added no new territories for over a century. German youth were required to attend military schools and do military service. Bush has never asked for a draft and supports private and home schools by supporting vouchers. This is only a small part of the differences, but I hope all who see this realize the absurdity of Move-on.org.

univar.jpg Posted by Concerned on January 16, 2004 08:38 PM
Link to comment

Tim;

Carbon atoms are conserved. Sure, you exhale C02, but where does the "C" come from? It comes from food (sugars, proteins, etc.) that you take into your body. You can trace this back to plants, eventually. Plants, for the most part, take CO2 out of the air, and bind it into sugars and proteins.

If anything biological entities sequester carbon in the form of rotting biological matter (although this is extremely so)?

`SOkay. You are still contributing to the heat death of the Universe.

univar.jpg Posted by CJG on January 16, 2004 08:42 PM
Link to comment
Comments for this entry are closed. Please leave your notes on a more recent comment thread.