State of the Union

Please... There is only one other person of relevance regarding sheehan argument we've been having, and that's Bush, we both know it.

As for your accusation of me being reactionary, I find it interesting you'd care what others might label you simply because of my posts...

 

This I don't agree with this 100%. Bush has a the right to free speech, but nowhere the part "without interruption" a right... and nowhere does it say that you have the right to violate other people's rights to shut them up if they're the "interruptors"

sometimes stunts are integral in free speech... Look at the civil rights protests from the 60s... some of them wer MAJOR stunts that helped bring the greatest reform in our culture.

 

oh yes you can, particularly when it comes to the POTUS making a speech. cindy got dragged off and arrested, appropriately so.

 

Ok, then Bush can send 1,000 thugs to interrupt any of her speeches, anywhere she goes, thereby obfuscating anything that comes out of her mouth.

:lol:

 

Because of her shirt violated capitol rules, not because of her speech. And it probably was appropriate that she was taken out...

I'm having trouble understanding your position on this... so wherever Sheehan goes, she should simply be arrested before she does anything wrong? Won't even give her the benefit of the doubt? And this is legal?

 

That's fine, and there are counter-protesters to a lot of her protests. I see nothing wrong, and in fact I feel a sense of pride that it happens

Bush could send 1000 thugs if he wants... but for PR reasons he won't.

 

"Cindy Sheehan is also a nut job who has proven she isn't beyond pulling "stunts" for attention."

So is Bush a nutjob for his attention-grabbing stunts like a landing on a carrier to announce "Mission Accomplished"?

 

The Capitol Chief of Police and a Deputy House Sargeant of Arms seem to disagree with you. Does that mean they're both Bush-bashing idiots?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/01/...D8FGK73O9.shtml

 

Let's not leave loose ends hanging and get back to this for a moment...

Given your quote, as I've posted previously which you seemed to have ignored, it is then totally feasable to interrupt someone giving a speech, even if it means interuppting so much such that the speech is effectively censored.

Doesn't really sound like a good idea, does it?

 

BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

er, you don't get it do you?

she was removed first, wasn't she?

...then the apology followed...


oh so naive....

 

566 verbal component of the SAT. About the 70th percentile for all High Schoolers.

 

This was never about "good idea" or "bad idea." I never said i thought what sheehan did was a good idea, did I?

If you want to know, i think it was in poor taste, it was a bad idea...

But it is fully within her rights as an American citizen, and on those grounds, I am defending her to the death, ala Voltaire.

 

Well ladies and gents, it's been SPECTACULAR! Another awesome, heated, political thread on PC!

A thank you to all involved, regardless of your viewpoints!

 

Actually, the Japanese committed horrible atrocities against Chinese citizens just before and during WW II. The most infamous being Unit 731, located near Pingfan.

Some good documentaries have been produced about Unit 731, the best quality – IMHO – being the “Science at War†series. They didn’t voiceover but used subtitles, so a native-speaking person could validate the comments.

When WW II ended, the scientists involved at Unit 731 walked away scot-free. The large volume of human experimentation was taken by the U.S. government, the data used to help start what became known as USAMRIID, located at Ft. Detrick, Maryland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

 

You know precisely what is meant, I'm not going to play semantics with you.

 

I think we need to use humor to deal with the shameful doings of oour government. Otherwise we would become too depressed or to desperate.

The death toll is not the only issue here. I know many folks who work with in the medical fields of Balboa and other Veterans Hospital/Health Services. There are lots of folks coming home without all the parts they left with. Our government is not even dealing with these folks....that sounds a bit too much like Vietnam as well.

 

Some words, like "war", "death", "patriotism", "gay rights", "abortion", and "embryonic stem cell" are loaded with meaning. It's darn near impossible to have a rational conversation around them. So I'd like to talk about Bush's plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The issue is numbers driven and therefore relatively sane.

Husband Dan is in the energy business. He builds power plants in Mexico, Texas, Chicago, NJ, Maine (hydro), and Arizona. He decides whether to use natural gas, coal, gasified coal, diesel, gasoline, garbage, jet fuel, or a combination of sources. He knows what he can charge the public for BTUs fro each energy source, the cost and land and supply requirements for power plants using each power source, and the profit margin he must meet to keep share holders happy. Dan plugs in the numbers, which narrows the choices down to, say, three sources. Usually it's natural gas, coal, and jet fuel. He looks at supplies and emissions standards in the area and recommends one of the three.

It's a mistake to think that coal gasification is the answer to our problems. The current technology for gasified coal requires lots of energy input. That requirement reduces the ~8.5% return that will keep the stock holders happy. e.g., gasification is an engineering crock, like black energy. I wish the environmentalists (I am one) would do the math and admit they're wrong to embrace gasification.

If a plant is not profitable enough then the energy companies backs out of deals with the state and no new power plants are built. This leaves states in a lurch 5-10 years in the future.

Yo hoo, folks that live in New England: MA and CT are set up to screw themselves as not enough new power plants are being built to meet projected demands. They'll be in the same situation as CA was a couple of years ago, forced to purchase energy from other states at premium prices. This can bankrupt a state. If you live in CT, MA, or other New England states, you should plan on moving south or west in the next four years. Or invest in solar panels, water and wind generators, heat pumps, home insulation, sweaters. Your family should join the Polar Bear Club.

Dan's current project in Boston requires natural gas. If Boston insists on gasified coal, the company will have no choice but to cut their loses and back out of the deal. They (Dan's company) will lose a ton of money but that beats not being able to make a profit over the decades the plant runs. Maybe they'll sue the state for being foolish enough to reneg on the deal.

The EPA was right to clarify the situation and insist on playing by the set rules. The state just doesn't realize it's shooting itself in the foot. All they can hear is that gasification seems to be more environmentally friendly (it's not.)

***

Then there's Bush's plan to cut gasoline with ethanol. By the way, does anyone know if ethanol will hurt a Prius engine?

I'm a microbiologist. The best source of ethanol, meaning most energy efficient, is sugar. From beets and sugar cane. We do grow sugar beets and cane in this country but not nearly enough to supply us with enough ethanol. If we want to use sugar, we'd have to import it from Brazil or other sugar producing nations but we have sugar tarrifs and limits. Plus, purchasing sugar from abroad is hardly self sufficient.

Drooling corn farmers are waiting in the wings. If sugar is not avaiable then corn can be used as a secondary ethanol feedstock. Corn is notorious for fertilizer requirements. Chemical plants make fertilizer. US environmental requirements and rising energy costs have driven more and more of our chemical plants overseas. Again, this undermines self sufficiency.

Ethanol production from corn demands lots of energy input. Once you figure in energy consumption during production, ethanol becomes a poor substitute for oil.

Surprise: the recent federal energy legislation contained a subsidy for corn farming and using corn for ethanol production. You and I get to pay corn farmers to grow and fertilize corn to make the ethanol we put in our gas tanks.

Smells like a stinky pork deal to me.

Why didn't our President talk conservation? Perhaps because the "C" word is not popular on Capital Hill but "subsidy" is.

I guess it'll take market forces (e.g., gasoline at $5+ a gallon) before conservation becomes the norm.

Our (Dan's and mine) budget can easily absorb a gasoline price of $5/gallon. Poor folk will take a major hit as gas prices rise beyond their income's ability to cope. They'll have to give up their cars and take inferior jobs withing walking or bus distance.

Hydrogen will never make it to commercial market. There are too many problems associated with the technology and it will never be cost or energy effective. Hydrogen is a red herring.

I'm saying Bush is blowing bubbles out of his nice person. Like all pols, on the energy issue, he's in the pockets of the lobbyists.

It's conservation, stupid. But the American people don't want to hear that.

 

"Bush declared the moon a new part of the axis of evil. I understand we're working on invasion plans currently, but fears of an adverse reaction from Mars are throwing a monkey wrench into the works."

:lol: :lol: :lol: