jazzoLOG: Global Warming Gets Hot    
 Global Warming Gets Hot25 comments
picture4 Mar 2007 @ 12:17, by Richard Carlson

If you never want to see the face of hell, when you come home from work every night, dance with your kitchen towel, and if you're worried about waking up your family, take off your shoes.

---Rabbi Nahman of Bratslav

After a public reading Bernie Glassman gave, a woman in the audience stood up and asked: "What does it take to live in the Now?"
The master answered: "Would anyone who is NOT living in the Now please stand up?"

---Zen mondo

Now there is time and Time is young.
O, in this single hour I live
All of myself and do not move
I, the pursued, who madly ran,
Stand still, stand still, and stop the Sun!

---May Sarton

Hurrican Andrew hitting the US in 1992. The United Nations predicts the intensity of hurricanes and other storms will increase as a result of global warming.

Not so long ago every schoolchild in America got taught a major failing in a democratic republic is how long it takes to get anything done. (I'm not sure what they get taught today.) This was part of a section in your Social Studies called How A Bill Becomes A Law. Committees, both houses of Congress, President's desk, maybe the Supreme Court, on and on. To get a stop sign put quickly onto your street corner, 3 kids have to get run over first.

Many bills depend upon scientific research to prove damage is being done in the status quo. Competing sides pay different scientists to do this experiment but not that one. And all that takes time. For scientists to complete all their experiments to prove grasshoppers have ears in their hind legs may take generations. Then the results must be published, read and applied to our lives by you and me.

Lately friends and relatives have been sharing concerns with me about whether global warming might be farther along the road to disaster than even science is telling us yet. Science takes so long to be sure of stuff. Friday Spiegel Online obtained the draft of the second part of the UN Report that, along with Al Gore's documentary, is finally getting everybody's attention over here. The first part came out last month [link] and now this second part, I guess, is going to scare us even more.

I don't really need to be scared more to become a believer. Common sense is good enough for me. What I do need, in discussing with doubting colleagues and friends, is a concise picture of the damage that is happening and what comes next. Friday's article does that, and its setup (with pictures) is the main reason I'm referring to it. They even have a link to blogs that are discussing the article. (Wonder if jazzoLOG will show up.)

SPIEGEL ONLINE - March 2, 2007, 05:01 PM
URL: [link]

UN REPORT EXCLUSIVE
Climate Change Impact More Extensive than Thought
By Volker Mrasek

Global climate change is happening faster than previously believed and its impact is worse than expected, information from an as-yet unpublished draft of the long-awaited second part of a United Nations report obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE reveals. No region of the planet will be spared and some will be hit especially hard.

Is the world's weather already out of control? Is the pollution of the past decades having an impact on the present? That's exactly what the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fears: Human influences over the last 30 years "have had a recognizable effect on many physical and biological systems," write the authors of the as yet unreleased second part of the 2007 global climate change report.

According to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is convinced global warming is already making the world sweat. At least that's the gist of the "Summary for Policymakers" from the group made up of hundreds of scientists.

The second part of the report is to be presented in April in Brussels after final discussions with government representatives from around the globe. The meta-study is certain to have a major political impact on the ongoing debate about climate change.

Mounting evidence: Climate change is happening now

The main conclusion of the report is that climate change is already having a profound effect on all the continents and on many of the Earth's ecosystems. The draft presents a long list of evidence:

Glacial lakes are increasing in both size and number, potentially leading to deadly floods
Permafrost in mountainous regions and at high latitudes is warming increasing the danger of land slides.
As the temperature of rivers and lakes rises, their thermal stratification and water quality is changing.
River currents, affected by melting glaciers and ice, are speeding up during the spring.
Springtime is starting earlier, causing plants to bloom earlier and changing the migrations of birds.
Many plants and animals are expanding their habitats into mountainous regions and higher latitudes that are becoming milder.

The authors of the report have sifted through some 30,000 data sets from more than 70 international studies documenting changes to water circulation, to cryospheres (ice zones), as well as to flora and fauna over a period of at least 20 years.

According to the IPCC, "more than 85 percent" of the data show "changes in a direction that would be expected as a reaction to warming." In other words: Researchers found evidence of environmental changes due to the greenhouse effect caused by mankind in nearly 9 out of 10 cases surveyed.

The researchers consider it "very unlikely" that the changes observed could be naturally occurring phenomena. They argue that the patterns of regional climate warming and environmental changes match up well with each other. And a similar consistency exists between the scientists' observations and what climate models have predicted would happen as temperatures rise.

Nature under threat

The UN experts go beyond the current situation. They also explore how populated regions and ecosystems will develop in the future as the world becomes warmer.

Many natural resources are likely to fall victim to climate change according to the IPCC draft report:

Some 20 to 30 percent of all species face a "high risk of extinction" should average global temperatures rise another 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius from their 1990 levels. That could happen by 2050, the report warns.
Coral reefs are "likely to undergo strong declines."
Salt marshes and mangrove forests could disappear as sea levels rise.
Tropical rainforests will be replaced by savanna in those regions where groundwater decreases.
Migratory birds and mammals will suffer as vegetation zones in the Artic shift.

The IPCC expects the following world regions to suffer the most due to climate change:

The Arctic due to the greatest relative warming
Small island states in the Pacific as sea levels rise
Africa south of the Sahel zone due to drought
Densely populated river deltas in Asia amid flooding

This list alone makes abundantly clear that mankind will not escape these changes unscathed.

Heat-related deaths, floods, drought, storms

The UN climate panel expects "increasing deaths, injuries and illness from heat waves, floods, storms, forest fires and droughts." The draft summary for policymakers details "heat-related mortality" especially in Europe and Asia.

Several hundred million people in densely populated coastal regions -- particularly river deltas in Asia -- are threatened by rising sea levels and the increasing risk of flooding. More than one-sixth of the world's population lives in areas affected by water sources from glaciers and snow pack that will "very likely" disappear, according to the report.

The climate experts detail the potential consequences for most of the world including Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, polar regions and small Pacific islands. For the most part, global warming will have negative effects for both humans and the environment across much of the planet. The positive aspects -- such as better agricultural and forestry yields in northern Europe -- will be more than outweighed by the threats presented by rising temperatures and the perils that accompany them.

The draft also makes clear just how strongly the authors stand behind their forecasts. Most of their conclusions belong to category two, which means the researchers back them with "strong certainty." Some are even designated "very strong certainty," including the example that North America will be hit by stronger forest fires and heat waves in large cities, as well as the assumption that climate change poses the biggest risk to small island states.

More food in the north and a possibly greener Earth

The report also lists specific positive developments due to global warming -- but they are expected to be of an ephemeral nature.

The experts apparently do not have concerns about the planet's food production capabilities. Conditions for agriculture are likely to improve in higher latitudes, leading to greater global yields overall. However, numerous developing countries are likely to be hit by greater periods of drought at the same time -- thus threatening their populations with hunger. The climate panel expects yields in the north and deep south only to begin to sink once temperatures rise by more than three degrees Celsius. Overall, they put "average trust" in their predictions about food production.

Rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere will at first help the plant world. Vegetation growth will be stronger and the planet will become greener. The absorption of CO2 by plant life will to a certain extent work against climate change, but not forever. "In the second half of the century terrestrial ecosystems will become a source of carbon which will then accelerate climate change," the IPCC report warns.

The ability of the world's oceans to absorb CO2 is also expected to be depleted by the end of the 21st century. By then they could begin to release greenhouse gases instead of absorbing them.

Rich nations also at risk

Although the inhabitants of poorer, developing nations are likely to suffer the most from climate change, the IPCC report makes clear that richer industrial nations such as the United States are also at risk. North America, the report cautions, is hardly prepared for the "growing risks and economic losses caused by rising seas, storms and floods." The IPCC report also explicitly details the threat posed by tropical storms. Climate change is expected to increase the number of strong hurricanes leading to the concern that insurance companies might refuse to cover damages in regions threatened by such storms like New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf of Mexico.

Just as they did in the first part of the IPCC report released in February, the climate experts warn that air pollution and greenhouse gases are likely to have long-lasting effects since the planet's climate reacts slowly to changes. It's already a "fait accompli" that average temperatures near ground level will rise a further 0.6 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to the report. Humanity will have no choice but to adapt to the global changes.

According to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE at the end of February, the climate panel will demand radical changes and massive investment against global warming in the third part of the IPCC report expected to be released in May in Bangkok. Some $16 billion (€12.1 billion) will be required by 2030 and humanity only has until 2020 to turn back the trend.

Whether the summary for policymakers will be released in its current form is unclear. Delegates from several countries wrestled with the wording of the first part of the report up until the last minute before its publication. Because, of course, for both scientists and politicians it can make a big difference whether the consequences of climate change are "likely," "very likely," or "practically certain."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2007

The link to the blogs is here
[link]


[< Back] [jazzoLOG]

Category:  

25 comments

4 Mar 2007 @ 18:37 by bushman : Combo's,
with no real solutions, as long as the experts don't look bad. It dosn't really matter, sea levels would rise and fall like they have for billions of years, regaurdless of man speeding it up a little now and then. All this jibberjabber is just to confuse the laymen, so as to keep iminent blame from raining down on the experts and the governments, the ones who knew and did nothing way back when. Still our planet and solar system arn't as stable as science would like to believe, and those that know, would never allow the masses to know the truth, because if the masses knew there isnt a damn thing we can do about it, but head for high ground.
Gee, CO2 can heat sea water faster than a few 1000 sqkm of exposed mantel in the Atlantic ocean?
{http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6405667.stm}
If they think the world will starve and trillions in property damage, then they are lagging, my solution is, start farming and producing foods that will grow at a higher altitude, Im sure people will eat whatever is available. Let science ignor the anciant stories, like don't build your house apon the sand. And that in the end times according to the bible, the end will be forced to come sooner than later, to save enough biomass. Man self regulating to gain time, rather than the truth our activities are tenitive anyway. Just move to high ground, get out of the way, start setting up stuff to acomadate that day. God gave the land and he does take it away. So while they try to come up with a comfy idea as to what to do about all this global warming, there nothing they can do, it will happen anyway. Its the knowledge of what happens, its what tech we save and bring into the next epoch, the end of the way we used to do things, not so much the end of the world, but the end of our interpitation of the present world. One day our books will become some sort of anciant myth or ledgend. They will find the ruins, and postulate on the cause of thier destruction. Or like the Anasazi we just move on to better hunting grounds.
My only solution is to just get out of the way and be one with the planet, this dosn't mean to trash the tech, or anything else like that. If we are to one day travel the stars, we will need to work with the planet we got, so the focus in the global warming debate should be action of farming and housing for the displaced people along the coastlines, companies should be out there right now building new cities up on higher ground, setting up huge water resivors inland. Its really that simple, if people with all the big bucks accually cared about thier future, they would be out there doing this stuff for no profit. Gee, lets debate if the experts will debate about profit loss rather than debateing that they been living in a golden age all this time, and squandering that time due to greed and prestige, boasting how great they are, all the while they are failing to do anything at all but place blame.  



5 Mar 2007 @ 10:49 by jazzolog : Al Gore To The Electric Chair
By now I suppose you heard that one day after Al Gore picked up his Oscar for An Inconvient Truth, a group grandly called the Tennessee Center For Policy Research grabbed huge press by declaring him a total hypocrite. In fact a rightwing friend of mine couldn't contain his glee as he broke the news with an email citing Gore's household electricity use, based on TCPR's figures. However, it turns out, according to the Associated Press, Nashville Electric Service "spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never provided them with any information." http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/02/gore-v-think-tank-power-consumption-dig.html Well, well, well. But let's hear Zepp tell it his way~~~

Chilling out Gore
© Bryan Zepp Jamieson 3/4/07

Hours after Gore received his Academy Award for the documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” the ambush attack was launched. Kristin Hall, uncritical news hen for the AP, breathlessly reported that “A conservative group” calling itself the “Tennessee Center for Policy Research” reported that Gore’s home energy use was ten times that of a “typical Nashville household.” The story goes on to claim that Gore used 221,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, and that the group knew this because they obtained his energy use documents from the utility, Nashville Electric Service. You have to go near the bottom to find it, but the story states, “But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.” AP claimed to have reviewed the bills and came up with an energy use figure some 15% lower, but it’s evident that unlike the “Center,” AP remembered to factor in the surcharge that the utility charges for energy use above about a thousand kilowatts a month.

It’s pretty unlikely that the “Tennessee Center for Policy Research” was interested in any niceties like finding out how much energy Gore actually used, or where the energy came from, or–and this was the main thing they were clucking indignantly about–if he had a large carbon footprint or not.

The “Center” appears to be one of those “two-right-wing-assholes-with-a-website” kind of things that the well-funded far right likes to use to pepper the public discourse with falsely authoritative sources. According to an unnamed Usenet source, “Tennessee Center for Policy Research is run by a 27 year old Bush Cheerleader who loves Bush's Wars, Jason Drew Johnson. The Center lists a post office box number as its address which makes sense since occupancy costs were $450 for the year. The IRS requires 501(c)(3)s to disclose the names of board members and officers which the Center fails to do. The 990 is signed by Jason A. Johnson who presumably is related to Drew Johnson, listed as the Center's president on the website. Total salary expense for 2005 is $52,213. Despite a tight budget, the Center's managed to spend $8,155 on meals and travel. Marketing expense is $5,934 but no money was spent on research.” Including, apparently, looking up utility bills, which are public records. The site itself is devoted to debunking global warming, and offering “free market solutions,” presumably to free market problems. I looked over the list of “scholars” they had, presumably in the hope people would think they had something to do with the site, and none of them were in the fields of climatology or energy use.

So the whole news story came from a false-front “think tank” that couldn’t even be bothered with getting its information first-hand, or capable of giving it a fair review if they had.

Every day, the AP dismisses such “news flashes” from nobody crackpots as a waste of their time. But this one was about Gore, and would sell newspapers. So they went with it.

Gore’s home energy use (which has grown to twenty times the average household in the right wing echo chamber of Faux News, Drudge and Free Republic) somehow escaped the keen scrutiny of the media. If they had bothered checking, as I did, they would have learned a few things that demonstrate that not only is Gore’s energy use reasonable for his needs, but that his carbon footprint–that thing the right wingers are supposedly upset about–is very much less.

First, there’s his “household”. It consists of four structures, not one, and has a cumulative square footage that is 15 times that of a regular single family home. (The average Nashville household has a pretty good chance of living in an apartment, which is smaller and more energy efficient than a stand-alone house, too). One of those structures is for Gore’s secret service detail, who are on duty 24 hours a day. Another is for his non-profit foundation. Most average households don’t have the energy demands of the secret service or a foundation to deal with.

Despite all this, Gore spent less per square foot on his “household” than the average Nashvillian did.

But it doesn’t stop there. A lot of Gore’s energy bill went toward premium pricing on green energy sources or offsets. A premium that worked out to 4 times the rate per kilowatt the utility normally charged. According to Gore’s office, this accounted for roughly half his energy usage. So, in fact, his actual energy consumption in terms of CO2 releases may have been three times that of the average household in Nashville, despite the fact that it was four buildings with fifteen times the area.

There were a couple of other factors. First, there was the fact that Gore bought a large, wasteful spread and had been making it more and more energy efficient as construction began the year before to remodel the place into a more energy efficient place. Gore intends for it to be a model to show what can be done with existing structures. Even as the “high electric bill” ambush attack was launched, Gore was having solar panels installed.

A lot of right wingers were demanding that Gore move into a small house. A generous size might be 1,000 square feet, in their estimation. But they quickly dried up and blew away when I asked if they wanted to make it a government policy that everyone must live in a small house. Apparently it’s the old Republican situation in which they like to demand that others live up to rules that they themselves have no intention of observing. Energy conservation, like morals, like taxes and jail time, are for the little people – and traitors to their class.

Speaking of which the Wall Street Journal online weighed in on all this. They spent some time sputtering about the inequity of “energy offsets,” oblivious to the fact that they insisted on such offsets as a compromise in order to cut back on their own waste and pollution. They had more money than will to conserve, and didn’t mind paying to sustain their lifestyle. But now the Wall Street Journal decided the best way to discredit Gore way was by waging class warfare against the rich. For those who want a good laugh, the article is here. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB117271689203622916-lMyQjAxMDE3NzAyMTcwMTE2Wj.html

The rich white trash were appalled at the fact that Gore spent $500 a month to heat his pool. Nobody is quite sure where the rich white trash got this particular “fact.” Maybe, living up in New York and Connecticut and Rhode Island, they asked one another, “Well, how much do you spend to heat your pool?” and came up with a consensus answer.

There’s just one problem. Gore doesn’t live in Connecticut or Rhode Island. He lives in Tennessee. And, as with most of the American south, his energy bills are modest in the winter – often as low was $300 a month – and soar during the summer. Not surprising, since the south enjoys mild winters and is unfit for human life the rest of the year. It costs a lot more to stay cool in the summer than it does to get warm in the winter. And nobody spends $500 a month to warm a pool in Tennessee. Nobody. Not even Al Gore. The whole story was nothing more than another right wing lie by the Wall Street Journal editorial board.

So, once again, the right wing tries to get its way with lies and smears.

But this isn’t 1998. People know they are liars and smear artists these days, and there are a lot of us prepared to show their lies and smears for what they are.

And, like the “Kerry-hates-soldiers” smear last fall, or the “Pelosi-and-the-757" a few weeks ago, this smear blew up in the right wing’s lying faces.

In the meantime, they have to ignore the fact that their hero, Ann Coulter, just called John Edwards a “faggot” and pretend they hardly even know who Coulter is.

The morality of the right is a rare and amazing creature, isn’t it?
http://mytown.ca/zepp/  



6 Mar 2007 @ 10:42 by vaxen : jazzolog:
get prepared for the end as you knew it: invader force at your door: we are heating up the grid and you will experience core meltdown: prepare to meet the makers you set into motion long ago when you called us to put end -eof- to the false dream and give you a little boost of real power: remember that prayer? we will talk in your dreams tonight: infinitely more exciting to know: that every stone in lincolns head will fall upon the ones who think that they/not we/controll dream sequencing on this planet that goes by a multiplicity of names and none of them english...

would you like to know exactly just what is coming down upon your heads? that which you desire more than anything illusionary life can offer: forgetting the past of your mistakes on the problem of: what is real and what has is notted. well, here is a little sek ret:

Hodcho: "Gurmush, are you still beating your wife?"
Gurmush: "MU"

rebbe de breshlaveriim/hasidiim:
mincha de bokara:
"rebbe de breshlav, are you dunkin de hooda de vocelita?"
chakratanya:
breshlavayera/yivana:
"NU"

hita do boritch:
da: trangitagerd:"WU"

chin mu da: "MU"

bona dia: "VO"

MU: "JAKA TATA INOUE"

HUNG SUN VATARA AYANA  



6 Mar 2007 @ 17:06 by jazzolog : Hey MU!
Just so you guys don't let Libby off!!!  


6 Mar 2007 @ 18:13 by jmarc : yeah
How much time did Clinton get for lying to a grand jury anyway? And of course, Fitgerald says that his job is finished. Hmm, why is that? What happened to the whole revealing the I.D. of a covert agent thing. Guess there wasn't much to that eh?

You should check into Scooters career as a novelist, if you really want to see something slimey. I guess we should be waiting for the sudden heart attack now...  



6 Mar 2007 @ 20:19 by Quinty @72.195.137.102 : There was a time
when unveiling the bedroom antics of a president was seen as beneath the dignity of the presidency. Even when the bedroom was brought into the Oval Office. And the world respected that.

The difference between Clinton's perjury and Libby's is that one was forgivable: Clinton attempted to avoid a form of personal embarrassment which didn't have an immediate effect on the affairs of state whereas Libby's perjury was definitely job related. And most of the American people (thank god) have been able to understand this.

As a matter of fact, it could be argued that the focus on Clinton's peccadillo was harmful to the country: that it distracted from genuine issues of state, and crippled Clinton's presidency when he had to act. What that impeachment proved is that there are those who are incapable of seeing the difference between lies which matter and those which don't. And the sanctimony of those Republicans in Congress who went after Clinton was often in direct proportion to their lack of moral compass on other more serious matters.

Nor am I a fan of the Clintons. (I’m hoping Hillary’s embarrassing behavior will eventually sink her.) Nixon deserved his impeachment. LBJ should have been impeached and convicted. And Bush is a genuine candidate too. But not Clinton over lying under oath about a blow job. Come on!  



6 Mar 2007 @ 20:31 by jmarc : well
One could also argue that everyone else told the same story in the Whitehouse, and other than Libby lying, there was no crime, it appears, much like the whole whitewater fiasco, which of course was what that ivestigation was all about, not about blowjobs. Not defending Libby here, really, read the apprentice and you'll see a whole other world inside that mind of his. But anyway, there are alot of parallels to draw, the witch hunt followed by the admission that well, there really was no crime except the guy, (clinton, libby,) lying. Initial interviews with jurors in this case point to a jury that really felt bad about convicting the guy.

And of course, Clinton lying had everything to do with his job. He wasn't getting serviced in his bedroom. It was in the oval office, with a government employee, one who he had direct supervision over.  



7 Mar 2007 @ 00:22 by quinty : Did Clinton’s
peccadillo reflect back on his character?

Certainly it did, and it wasn't nice. Would Monica have been attracted to him if he were the local garbage collector? Or the pizza delivery boy? Probably not.

Yes, Bill's behavior reflected upon the arrogance of power. No doubt about it. And he disgraced his office and betrayed his wife.

Many a woman (and man) has wondered how Hillary felt about all this? And her humiliation took place in the public eye. (Did Bill promise to help her with her run for the presidency? Or did she truly forgive and forget? Do we yet know?) At least when FDR betrayed Eleanor the final time, at the moment he died, it took quite a while for all this to enter the history books. Not with Bill and Hillary. What’s more, in FDR’s case a distinction has been made between his policies and amorous life. Clinton may never become so lucky.

The jury felt bad about convicting Libby? Ah, how truly touching. But his lies actually did reflect back upon his boss, the VP, and others in the administration. For the Libby scandal backfired on the Bush White House casting a light on the kind of people they are. And we have it from other former employees, too: Paul O’Neill, Richard Clark, and Larry Wilkerson, that the Bush inner circle is extremely vindictive. Bush himself said it: “you’re either with us or against us.” People like that go after dissenters. What's more, this kind of behavior expresses a certain shallowness and the cunning of amoral people.

You see Bush started hiring former liars and felons almost as soon as he took office: John Poindexter and Elliot Abrams, to name two off the bat. He didn't wait one moment to start bringing like minded people into his administration: John Negroponte (ambassador, if you recall, to Honduras: remember the death squads?) and Michael Brown and Paul Bremer. As well as maintaining a close knit circle of intimates who have understood the importance of keeping it all in the family (Condee is quite good at that), even if a certain amount of “sunshine” is required to keep any democratic society healthy. For the president shouldn’t entirely disregard the confidence of the American people. (Excepting, of course, that thirty percent which will believe anything.) There should be, at least, a certain minimum of decency, even if politics is rough. Nixon ("the dark reaching out for the dark") never understood that. But at least he had brains. And he did bring some good to the world.

Libby is only the first: there will be more. Someday Cheney and Bush themselves may be called to account.

I hope we are that lucky. For the good of the American dream. And the world.  



7 Mar 2007 @ 04:45 by vaxen : Al Clintoni:
Clintons' little bizzarro bizzarro was nothing to what the coverup cleared up for the bona fide thief: Ha! Forgivable? Los Americanos, fried beans stupidos, gonna get a dose of turistas!!! Sheeeeeyit!

Wake up! Go back to 1913: that ought to suffice, probably won't, but yata hei! Comin down on you not on me. I'd rather be a king in hell than a fascisti in heaven sucking liars and sending them back to hoodwink the purple egg.

Can you kill a beast that is already dead? They will all get theirs in the end, what you worried about? Yo Alfred E Neumann where fore art thou? Donde vas Rey Alfonsito?

El Sombrero De Los Tres Picos... cones: Strac on back: Enjoy it all: You made it: It made you: Quite a little club: We love to smash heads against walls: cf: ;)

SMERSH  



7 Mar 2007 @ 16:42 by jmarc : how the heck
did a former washington post reporter who knew most of these people get on the jury? That seems like a good enough ground for appeal right there. And why was he in such a hurry to rush out and speak to the press? I suppose there's a book deal in the works for him, eh?And if there was no underlying crime ( there will be no more charges) what the heck was all of this, just a fishing exibition? And how's Sandy (pants) Burger doing in jail? Oh that's right, he isn't in jail, is he? Why is that?  


7 Mar 2007 @ 21:09 by vaxen : TRY:
Playing the "super spy" game sometime: wheels, within wheels, within wheels: takes code hackers to understand the code: purple people eaters: we know who you are and where comin after you: look within then from core expand out ward up the down super train! grid is being heated at core: be prepared for the magnificats to chant you in to the cauldrons of hel: She's the burgher in charge: know what charge is? static? static dis-charge?

your illusions are only memories of a time very long ago, when earth core was heated up... and the mandingos blown away, far away, deep into where there is no place, no time, no grid base: focus: you will remember:

in the meanwhile, be well: everything you see is a coverup: and you said you wanted the truth? truth? ok: you are running from the very truths that you yourselves expounded, made, brought in to your our time fraimed exe:

over and out,

blue feather plume  



7 Mar 2007 @ 21:59 by Quinty @72.195.137.102 : Sandy Burger

If Sandy Burger broke the law then let his case go to trial.

Why assume those of us who believe Libby belongs in jail are biased? Because politics is merely a "contact sport?" Like the Rams vs. the Colts?

After all, many of us believe the law applies to both Repubs and Dems. If there has been a miscarriage by allowing Burger to walk free you may actually find a sympathetic audience here. It would be naive, after all, to believe that merely because a guy is on your team he is a good guy. No shortage of scoundrels in the left. Tell me about it!

If that juror broke the rules then, yes, there has been a miscarriage. Once again, this is a nonpartisan issue. And as a nonpartisan issue don't you see a possibility Libby broke the law? In all objectivity?

Yo Vax. Wake up!  



8 Mar 2007 @ 11:38 by vaxen : TARG .OBJ:
Of course I do Mon Ami:WU!
Sifu: CHAN CHOU JING
--------------------------TORG:

In the sacred halls of the nanno king i await thee...
Ten thousand years hence we meet in remembrance
of timeless chasms blessed unknowing...

Salivating sacred pompousness at the hands of idle truthfullness...
The drunk bums' sad dreaming, endless, shifting, dreaming...
Tall tales of mired Vornia, and the Vorlons cast spells, all whole...
Musing, besoughted knight, changing dung heaps' human rhyme...

First Earth Battalian
C/O SOGORYU
YUSOHAN
BUTAI KANBU
SOKA GAKKAI
KANO/TOKYO

DAIRAKU TEN NO MAO  



8 Mar 2007 @ 21:58 by vaxen : Theta Iota Beta MaX
"If we assume the Iranians have a role in his disappearance -- and this is an unproven assumption -- then Asgari has something to say about this," Igra said. "But if it's wrong, then Asgari will not say more than the Hezbollah leader tells us via the media, which is that Iran had nothing to do with it."

xxx

'Friend of Greece'
With thousands of police closing off many central Athens streets, Clinton was likely to see nothing of the protests just a few blocks away from where he was to attend a state dinner after leaving the airport.

Greeted at the airport by a small crowd waving American and Greek flags, the U.S. president declared himself a "friend of Greece."

"We look to ancient Greece for inspiration, but we look to modern Greece for leadership and partnership," he said. "Through this visit, I want the American people to see the changing face of Greece."

"I have come here as a 'philhellene' -- a friend of Greece, and I look forward to experiencing that wonderful quality of Greek hospitality known to all the world," Clinton said shortly after his arrival.

Anti-Clinton protests erupt into riots in GreeceATHENS, Greece (CNN) -- Riot police fired tear gas, and anti-American protesters responded with gasoline bombs Friday as central Athens became a ...

http://www.bulgaria-italia.com/fry/antiClinton.htm

4

portland imc - 2007.02.27 - Greece - heavy riots in AthensGreece - heavy riots in Athens. Greece - since a few months more than half of all universities are occupied and on strike. Also demonstrations are hold ...
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/354772.shtml

Greece - heavy riots in Athens
author: kendra
Greece - since a few months more than half of all universities are occupied and on strike. Also demonstrations are hold across the country in opposition to the government's plan to amend Greece's constitution in order to allow private companies to open universities. Currently all institutions of higher learning are state funded and don't charge tuition.

http://portland.indymedia.org/icon/2007/02/354730.jpg  



8 Mar 2007 @ 23:51 by Quinty @72.195.137.102 : Sounds like Bush:
ergo wherever he goes riots break out.

Meanwhile our media discusses SA like it was our pond. Our protectorate. Without any reference to history.

And Chavez has become Latin America's "strong man" now. And he does seem at times like a wildman who is trying to commit suicide by US. Like a tough kid on a fence constantly taunting the tougher gang of kids down below to come get him.

If the CIA finally gets Chavez (on - at the very least - their second attempt) the American people will have been softened up by the constant references to Chavez as a "dictator." (Uh, didn't he get more than 60 percent of the vote in the last election? One certified by the OAS, the UN, and Jimmy Carter too? Oh, I forget, Carter has been delegitimized because he's an "anti semite." And it may have only been the earlier elections he certified too.)

Yes, I hope Chavez avoids the route Castro took. And doesn't succumb to the temptations of power. He's loved by a great majority of the people in Venezuela. That should tell us something. And perhaps we (respecting the democratic will of the people) should try to be his friend. Pushing him against a wall may only create a self fulfilling prophecy. But if Bush/Cheney/Rice still live in the time of William McKinley they may not even care.

I think some of us may have wandered off the path here. Sorry........  



9 Mar 2007 @ 01:51 by vaxen : But we:
Are the ones behind the show running the cloaking device. Note the interesting texture of the ground where the Combatants in that game are plying their sport...

Maybe they are wheat checks but... I never saw black and white wheat checks. WU?

Note the color of the masked "freedom fighters (Mwuhaha!) flags?" Ever see that flag before? SMERSH is operating that interesting conflict of wills (interests)

And... guess who is being herded to the beef market on hoof... MU?

La Donna is mobile?  



13 Mar 2007 @ 10:07 by jazzolog : AP On The New Climate Report
New climate report: More bad news
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Sat Mar 10, 2:23 PM ET

The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.

But some scientists said the overall message is not likely to change when it's issued in early April in Brussels, the same city where European Union leaders agreed this past week to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Their plan will be presented to President Bush and other world leaders at a summit in June.

The report offers some hope if nations slow and then reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but it notes that what's happening now isn't encouraging.

"Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent," the report says, in marked contrast to a 2001 report by the same international group that said the effects of global warming were coming. But that report only mentioned scattered regional effects.

"Things are happening and happening faster than we expected," said Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., one of the many co-authors of the new report.

The draft document says scientists are highly confident that many current problems — change in species' habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in allergy-inducing pollen — can be blamed on global warming.

For example, the report says North America "has already experienced substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes," such as hurricanes and wildfires.

But the present is nothing compared to the future.

Global warming soon will "affect everyone's life ... it's the poor sectors that will be most affected," Romero Lankao said.

And co-author Terry Root of Stanford University said: "We truly are standing at the edge of mass extinction" of species.

The report included these likely results of global warming:

_Hundreds of millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than 1 billion people in Asia could face water shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.

_Death rates for the world's poor from global warming-related illnesses, such as malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. Malaria and dengue fever, as well as illnesses from eating contaminated shellfish, are likely to grow.

_Europe's small glaciers will disappear with many of the continent's large glaciers shrinking dramatically by 2050. And half of Europe's plant species could be vulnerable, endangered or extinct by 2100.

_By 2080, between 200 million and 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming's effects.

_About 100 million people each year could be flooded by 2080 by rising seas.

_Smog in U.S. cities will worsen and "ozone-related deaths from climate (will) increase by approximately 4.5 percent for the mid-2050s, compared with 1990s levels," turning a small health risk into a substantial one.

_Polar bears in the wild and other animals will be pushed to extinction.

_At first, more food will be grown. For example, soybean and rice yields in Latin America will increase starting in a couple of years. Areas outside the tropics, especially the northern latitudes, will see longer growing seasons and healthier forests.

Looking at different impacts on ecosystems, industry and regions, the report sees the most positive benefits in forestry and some improved agriculture and transportation in polar regions. The biggest damage is likely to come in ocean and coastal ecosystems, water resources and coastal settlements.

The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America, Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects.

"In most parts of the world and most segments of populations, lifestyles are likely to change as a result of climate change," the draft report said. "Net valuations of benefits vs. costs will vary, but they are more likely to be negative if climate change is substantial and rapid, rather than if it is moderate and gradual."

This report — considered by some scientists the "emotional heart" of climate change research — focuses on how global warming alters the planet and life here, as opposed to the more science-focused report by the same group last month.

"This is the story. This is the whole play. This is how it's going to affect people. The science is one thing. This is how it affects me, you and the person next door," said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver.

Many — not all — of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that's the case, the report says "most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely to occur."
___

On the Net:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070310/ap_on_re_us/climate_report  



14 Mar 2007 @ 20:40 by quinty : Al Gore

I balk at rightwing claims because so often they are founded upon fantasy. And they can be ugly. Ann Coulter's recent gratuitous "faggot" jibe at John Edwards: the Madrassa smear on Barack Obama: the attempts to blame Joseph Wilson for Scooter Libby's downfall, to name some of the more recent.

And then there's the recent revelation that Al Gore has an enormous monthly energy bill, one which is more than half the annual salary of many an American.

I don't know if this is true or not or if Gore is a hypocrite, as these rightwing critics gleefully claim. It would be unfortunate if he is. He was eloquent in his opposition to the war, as those of us who have always opposed it remember. (There weren’t that many prominent politicians who were way back then.)

But what is truly appalling about this attack is not that it is an attack on Gore, but on environmentalism through Gore. As if Gore's hypocrisy (That is if he is one?) reflects back on the entire movement as a means to ridicule and dismiss all its claims. And it turns out to be a way of silencing the environmentalist' message.

But they can’t see a distinction between Gore and the movement, nor do they wish to. Why can’t they see that environmentalism’s concerns affect us all? That they are no laughing matter but that cold science, regardless of the failings of some movement leaders, will have to finally decide the matter? For the attack on Gore is merely a distraction. And in that, creating senseless distractions, the far right is truly expert. And always has been.  



21 Mar 2007 @ 02:15 by Dove @65.64.12.114 : Forget About Global Warming: Extinction
It's not just climate change.

I thought you might find this interesting. We have more to worry about than global warming. I just read a very interesting article about The Sixth extinction. I think you will find it worth the read.

From the article:

With the idea that there is a Cometary Bombardment Cycle, we have naturally been alert to the fact that the last few years have brought increasing evidence that this theory is the correct one. This evidence includes the fantastic increase in the number of "moons" attached to Jupiter that have so recently been "discovered", as well as the increase in frequency of comets over the past few years, along with the astonishing increase in meteorites and fireballs entering Earth's atmosphere and falling to earth. In some cases, these events have resulted in damage to human beings and property, and one recent case even resulted in deaths as we will see further on...

Anyway, to get back to our conversation about humanity being past its "extinct by" date, I mused that anybody with eyes and ears and a bit of scientific knowledge can look around and see that something is going on "out there".

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/128992-Forget+About+Global+Warming%3A+We%27re+One+Step+From+Extinction%21  



21 Mar 2007 @ 08:05 by jazzolog : Dove Comes In For A Landing
I don't know whether Dove is a friend of mine, whose computer number I just don't happen to know, or someone new. (S)he scares me though. Maybe we're just seeing more out there since Hubble went up. I'm not much on Earth-as-a-target from forces unknown. I do fear however that, as a species, we're too stupid to survive.  


21 Mar 2007 @ 22:13 by Dove @65.64.12.71 : Dove Comes In For A Landing
I'm new --but not scary. Just a theory I thought you might find interesting. I'm not sure if it's that we are to stupid as a species, although we may be, but we as a society have been ponerized by the pathocrates that run this world. Really, I was just pointing out that global warming is a huge problem that may be even bigger than we suspected.  


22 Mar 2007 @ 09:52 by jazzolog : Don't Worry Dove, Glad To Meetcha!
In fact, I also like it when folks drop by with just a nickname and few other clues. Hope you join NCN if you haven't yet. But what does "ponerized" mean? Do you mean polarized? "Pathocrat" I get. Great term!  


24 Mar 2007 @ 16:24 by Quinty @72.195.137.102 : Al Gore at the Senate

I was hoping to be able to watch Al Gore's Senate testimony this week on CSPAN. But they don't appear to have given it much coverage.

So Googling about I at least found an snip on the web replaying part of Senator Inhoff's confrontation with Gore.... http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/21/gore-boxer-inhofe/

As for covering Gore, who made the mistake of being a "premature opponent of the war," here's an interesting piece by Bob Parry on Gore and the press. (Some of the "mockery" Parry eludes to was certainly present on CNN and MSNBC cabal TV.)

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/032107.html

U.S. News Media's 'War on Gore'

By Robert Parry (A Special Report)
March 22, 2007

When historians sort out what happened to the United States at the start of the 21st Century, one of the mysteries may be why the national press corps ganged up like school-yard bullies against a well-qualified Democratic presidential candidate while giving his dimwitted Republican opponent virtually a free pass.

How could major news organizations, like The New York Times and The Washington Post, have behaved so irresponsibly as to spread falsehoods and exaggerations to tear down then-Vice President Al Gore – ironically while the newspapers were berating him for supposedly lying and exaggerating?

In a modern information age, these historians might ask, how could an apocryphal quote like Gore claiming to have “invented the Internet” been allowed to define a leading political figure much as the made-up quote “let them eat cake” was exploited by French propagandists to undermine Marie Antoinette two centuries earlier?

Why did the U.S. news media continue ridiculing Gore in 2002 when he was one of the most prominent Americans to warn that George W. Bush’s radical policy of preemptive war was leading the nation into a disaster in Iraq?

Arguably, those violations of journalistic principles at leading U.S. news organizations, in applying double standards to Gore and Bush, altered the course of American history and put the nation on a very dangerous road.

Now, Gore has reemerged in Washington appealing to his former colleagues in the House and Senate to act urgently on the threat from global warming.

In the initial press coverage of Gore’s return to Capitol Hill, there remains a touch of the old mocking tone, such as The New York Times’ front-page article describing Gore as “a heartbreak loser turned Oscar boasting Nobel hopeful globe-trotting multimillionaire pop culture eminence,” but not nearly the level of open disdain shown in Campaign 2000.

In early 2000, we published a story about that hostility and how it changed the dynamic of that crucial presidential race. We noted that “to read the major newspapers and to watch the TV pundit shows, one can’t avoid the impression that many in the national press have decided that Vice President Al Gore is unfit to be elected the next President of the United States.”

The article, entitled “Al Gore v. the Media,” went on to say:
Across the board – from The Washington Post to The Washington Times, from The New York Times to the New York Post, from NBC's cable networks to the traveling campaign press corps – journalists don't even bother to disguise their contempt for Gore anymore.

At one early Democratic debate, a gathering of about 300 reporters in a nearby press room hissed and hooted at Gore's answers. Meanwhile, every perceived Gore misstep, including his choice of clothing, is treated as a new excuse to put him on a psychiatrist's couch and find him wanting.

‘Delusional’

Journalists freely call him "delusional," "a liar" and "Zelig." Yet, to back up these sweeping denunciations, the media has relied on a series of distorted quotes and tendentious interpretations of his words, at times following scripts written by the national Republican leadership.

In December 1999, for instance, the news media generated dozens of stories about Gore's supposed claim that he discovered the Love Canal toxic waste dump. "I was the one that started it all," he was quoted as saying. This "gaffe" then was used to recycle other situations in which Gore allegedly exaggerated his role or, as some writers put it, told "bold-faced lies."

But behind these examples of Gore's "lies" was some very sloppy journalism. The Love Canal flap started when The Washington Post and The New York Times misquoted Gore on a key point and cropped out the context of another sentence to give readers a false impression of what he meant.

The error was then exploited by national Republicans and amplified endlessly by the rest of the news media, even after the Post and Times grudgingly filed corrections.

Almost as remarkable, though, is how the two newspapers finally agreed to run corrections. They were effectively shamed into doing so by high school students in New Hampshire and by an Internet site called The Daily Howler, edited by a stand-up comic named Bob Somerby.

The Love Canal quote controversy began on Nov. 30, 1999, when Gore was speaking to a group of high school students in Concord, N.H. He was exhorting the students to reject cynicism and to recognize that individual citizens can effect important changes.

As an example, he cited a high school girl from Toone, Tenn., a town that had experienced problems with toxic waste. She brought the issue to the attention of Gore's congressional office in the late 1970s.

"I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing," Gore told the students. "I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue, and Toone, Tennessee – that was the one that you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all."

After the hearings, Gore said, "we passed a major national law to clean up hazardous dump sites. And we had new efforts to stop the practices that ended up poisoning water around the country. We've still got work to do. But we made a huge difference. And it all happened because one high school student got involved."

Clear Context

The context of Gore's comment was clear. What sparked his interest in the toxic-waste issue was the situation in Toone – "that was the one that you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all."

After learning about the Toone situation, Gore looked for other examples and "found" a similar case at Love Canal. He was not claiming to have been the first one to discover Love Canal, which already had been evacuated. He simply needed other case studies for the hearings.

The next day, The Washington Post stripped Gore's comments of their context and gave them a negative twist.

"Gore boasted about his efforts in Congress 20 years ago to publicize the dangers of toxic waste," the Post reported. "'I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal,' he said, referring to the Niagara homes evacuated in August 1978 because of chemical contamination. 'I had the first hearing on this issue.' … Gore said his efforts made a lasting impact. 'I was the one that started it all,' he said." [Washington Post, Dec. 1, 1999]

The New York Times ran a slightly less contentious story with the same false quote: "I was the one that started it all."

The Republican National Committee spotted Gore's alleged boast and was quick to fax around its own take. "Al Gore is simply unbelievable – in the most literal sense of that term," declared Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson. "It's a pattern of phoniness – and it would be funny if it weren't also a little scary."

The GOP release then doctored Gore's quote a bit more. After all, it would be grammatically incorrect to have said, "I was the one that started it all." So, the Republican handout fixed Gore's grammar to say, "I was the one who started it all."

In just one day, the key quote had transformed from "that was the one that started it all" to "I was the one that started it all" to "I was the one who started it all."

Instead of taking the offensive against these misquotes, Gore tried to head off the controversy by clarifying his meaning and apologizing if anyone got the wrong impression. But the fun was just beginning.

‘Love Factor’

The national pundit shows quickly picked up the story of Gore's new “exaggeration.”

"Let's talk about the 'love' factor here," chortled Chris Matthews of CNBC's Hardball. "Here's the guy who said he was the character Ryan O'Neal was based on in ‘Love Story.’ … It seems to me … he's now the guy who created the Love Canal [case]. I mean, isn't this getting ridiculous? … Isn't it getting to be delusionary?"

Matthews turned to his baffled guest, Lois Gibbs, the Love Canal resident who is widely credited with bringing the issue to public attention. She sounded confused about why Gore would claim credit for discovering Love Canal, but defended Gore's hard work on the issue.

"I actually think he's done a great job," Gibbs said. "I mean, he really did work, when nobody else was working, on trying to define what the hazards were in this country and how to clean it up and helping with the Superfund and other legislation." [CNBC's Hardball, Dec. 1, 1999]

The next morning, Post political writer Ceci Connolly highlighted Gore's boast and placed it in his alleged pattern of falsehoods. "Add Love Canal to the list of verbal missteps by Vice President Gore," she wrote. "The man who mistakenly claimed to have inspired the movie 'Love Story' and to have invented the Internet says he didn't quite mean to say he discovered a toxic waste site." [Washington Post, Dec. 2, 1999]

That night, CNBC's Hardball returned to Gore's Love Canal quote by playing the actual clip but altering the context by starting Gore's comments with the words, "I found a little town…"

"It reminds me of Snoopy thinking he's the Red Baron," laughed Chris Matthews. "I mean how did he get this idea? Now you've seen Al Gore in action. I know you didn't know that he was the prototype for Ryan O'Neal's character in ‘Love Story’ or that he invented the Internet. He now is the guy who discovered Love Canal."

Matthews compared the Vice President to "Zelig," the Woody Allen character whose face appeared at an unlikely procession of historic events. "What is it, the Zelig guy who keeps saying, 'I was the main character in ‘Love Story.’ I invented the Internet. I invented Love Canal."

The following day, Rupert Murdoch's New York Post elaborated on Gore's pathology of deception. "Again, Al Gore has told a whopper," the Post wrote. "Again, he's been caught red-handed and again, he has been left sputtering and apologizing. This time, he falsely took credit for breaking the Love Canal story. … Yep, another Al Gore bold-faced lie."

The editorial continued: "Al Gore appears to have as much difficulty telling the truth as his boss, Bill Clinton. But Gore's lies are not just false, they're outrageously, stupidly false. It's so easy to determine that he's lying, you have to wonder if he wants to be found out.

"Does he enjoy the embarrassment? Is he hell-bent on destroying his own campaign? … Of course, if Al Gore is determined to turn himself into a national laughingstock, who are we to stand in his way?"

Fantasyland

The Love Canal controversy soon moved beyond the Washington-New York power axis.

On Dec. 6, The Buffalo News ran an editorial entitled, "Al Gore in Fantasyland," that echoed the words of RNC chief Nicholson. It stated, "Never mind that he didn't invent the Internet, serve as the model for 'Love Story' or blow the whistle on Love Canal. All of this would be funny if it weren't so disturbing."

The next day, the right-wing Washington Times judged Gore crazy. "The real question is how to react to Mr. Gore's increasingly bizarre utterings," the Times wrote. "Webster's New World Dictionary defines 'delusional' thusly: 'The apparent perception, in a nervous or mental disorder, of some thing external that is actually not present … a belief in something that is contrary to fact or reality, resulting from deception, misconception, or a mental disorder.'"

The editorial denounced Gore as "a politician who not only manufactures gross, obvious lies about himself and his achievements but appears to actually believe these confabulations."

Yet, while the national media was excoriating Gore, the Concord students were learning more than they had expected about how media and politics work in modern America.

For days, the students pressed for a correction from The Washington Post and The New York Times. But the prestige papers balked, insisting that the error was insignificant.

"The part that bugs me is the way they nit pick," said Tara Baker, a Concord High junior. "[But] they should at least get it right." [AP, Dec. 14, 1999]

When the David Letterman show made Love Canal the jumping off point for a joke list: "Top 10 Achievements Claimed by Al Gore," the students responded with a press release entitled "Top 10 Reasons Why Many Concord High Students Feel Betrayed by Some of the Media Coverage of Al Gore's Visit to Their School." [Boston Globe, Dec. 26, 1999]

he Web site, The Daily Howler, also was hectoring what it termed a "grumbling editor" at the Post to correct the error.

Incorrect Correction

Finally, on Dec. 7, a week after Gore's comment, the Post published a partial correction, tucked away as the last item in a corrections box. But the Post still misled readers about what Gore actually said.

The Post correction read: "In fact, Gore said, 'That was the one that started it all,' referring to the congressional hearings on the subject that he called."

The revision fit with the Post's insistence that the two quotes meant pretty much the same thing, but again, the newspaper was distorting Gore's clear intent by attaching "that" to the wrong antecedent. From the full quote, it's obvious the "that" refers to the Toone toxic waste case, not to Gore's hearings.

Three days later, The New York Times followed suit with a correction of its own, but again without fully explaining Gore's position. "They fixed how they misquoted him, but they didn't tell the whole story," commented Lindsey Roy, another Concord High junior.

While the students voiced disillusionment, the two reporters involved showed no remorse for their mistake. "I really do think that the whole thing has been blown out of proportion," said Katharine Seelye of the Times. "It was one word."

The Post's Ceci Connolly even defended her inaccurate rendition of Gore's quote as something of a journalistic duty. "We have an obligation to our readers to alert them [that] this [Gore's false boasting] continues to be something of a habit," she said. [AP, Dec. 14, 1999]

The half-hearted corrections also did not stop newspapers around the country from continuing to use the bogus quote.

A Dec. 9 editorial in the Lancaster [Pa.] New Era even published the polished misquote that the Republican National Committee had stuck in a press release: "I was the one who started it all."

The New Era then went on to psychoanalyze Gore. "Maybe the lying is a symptom of a more deeply-rooted problem: Al Gore doesn't know who he is," the editorial stated. "The Vice President is a serial prevaricator."

In the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, writer Michael Ruby concluded that "the Gore of '99" was full of lies. He "suddenly discovers elastic properties in the truth," Ruby declared. "He invents the Internet, inspires the fictional hero of 'Love Story,' blows the whistle on Love Canal. Except he didn't really do any of those things." [Dec. 12, 1999]

On Dec. 19, GOP chairman Nicholson was back on the offensive. Far from apologizing for the RNC's misquotes, Nicholson was reprising the allegations of Gore's falsehoods that had been repeated so often that they had taken on the color of truth: "Remember, too, that this is the same guy who says he invented the Internet, inspired Love Story and discovered Love Canal."

Ripple Effect

More than two weeks after the Post correction, the bogus quote was still spreading. The Providence Journal lashed out at Gore in an editorial that reminded readers that Gore had said about Love Canal, "I was the one that started it all." The editorial then turned to the bigger picture:

"This is the third time in the last few months that Mr. Gore has made a categorical assertion that is – well, untrue. … There is an audacity about Mr. Gore's howlers that is stunning. … Perhaps it is time to wonder what it is that impels Vice President Gore to make such preposterous claims, time and again." [Providence Journal, Dec. 23, 1999]

On New Year's Eve, a column in The Washington Times returned again to the theme of Gore's pathological lies.

Entitled "Liar, Liar; Gore's Pants on Fire," the column by Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder concluded that "when Al Gore lies, it's without any apparent reason. Mr. Gore had already established his credits on environmental issues, for better or worse, and had even been anointed 'Mr. Ozone.' So why did he have to tell students in Concord, New Hampshire, ‘I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. I had the first hearing on the issue. I was the one that started it all.'" [Washington Times, Dec. 31, 1999]

The characterization of Gore as a clumsy liar continued into the New Year. Again in The Washington Times, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. put Gore's falsehoods in the context of a sinister strategy:

"Deposit so many deceits and falsehoods on the public record that the public and the press simply lose interest in the truth. This, the Democrats thought, was the method behind Mr. Gore's many brilliantly conceived little lies. Except that Mr. Gore's lies are not brilliantly conceived. In fact, they are stupid. He gets caught every time … Just last month, Mr. Gore got caught claiming … to have been the whistle-blower for 'discovering Love Canal.'" [Washington Times, Jan. 7, 2000]

It was unclear where Tyrrell got the quote, "discovering Love Canal," since not even the false quotes had put those words in Gore's mouth. But Tyrrell's description of what he perceived as Gore's strategy of flooding the public debate with "deceits and falsehoods" might fit better with what the news media and the Republicans had been doing to Gore.

Beyond Love Canal, the other prime examples of Gore's "lies" – inspiring the male lead in Love Story and working to create the Internet – also stemmed from a quarrelsome reading of his words, followed by exaggeration and ridicule rather than a fair assessment of how his comments and the truth matched up.
The earliest of these Gore "lies," dating back to 1997, was Gore mentioning a press report that indicated that he and his wife Tipper had served as models for the lead characters in the sentimental bestseller and movie, Love Story.

When the author, Erich Segal, was asked about this, he stated that the preppy hockey-playing male lead, Oliver Barrett IV, indeed was modeled after Gore as well as after Gore's Harvard roommate, actor Tommy Lee Jones. But Segal said the female lead, Jenny, was not modeled after Tipper Gore. [NYT, Dec. 14, 1997]

Indictment

Rather than treating this distinction as a minor point of legitimate confusion, the news media concluded that Gore had willfully lied. The media made the case an indictment against Gore’s honesty.

In doing so, however, the media repeatedly misstated the facts, insisting that Segal had denied that Gore was the model for the lead male character. In reality, Segal had confirmed that Gore was, at least partly, the inspiration for the character, Barrett, played by Ryan O'Neal in the movie.

Some journalists seemed to understand the nuance but still could not resist disparaging Gore's honesty.

For instance, in its attack on Gore over the Love Canal quote, the Boston Herald conceded that Gore "did provide material" for Segal's book, but the newspaper added that it was "for a minor character." [Boston Herald, Dec. 5, 1999] That, of course, was untrue, since the Barrett character was one of Love Story's two principal characters.

The media's treatment of the Internet comment followed a similar course. Gore's statement may have been poorly phrased, but its intent was clear: he was trying to say that he worked in Congress to help develop the modern Internet. Gore wasn’t claiming to have "invented" the Internet, which carried the notion of a hands-on computer engineer.

Gore's actual comment, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that aired on March 9, 1999, was as follows: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Republicans quickly went to work on Gore's statement. In press releases, they noted that the precursor of the Internet, called ARPANET, existed in 1971, a half dozen years before Gore entered Congress. But ARPANET was a tiny networking of about 30 universities, a far cry from today's "information superhighway," a phrase widely credited to Gore.

As the media clamor arose about Gore's supposed claim that he had invented the Internet, Gore's spokesman Chris Lehane tried to explain. He noted that Gore "was the leader in Congress on the connections between data transmission and computing power, what we call information technology. And those efforts helped to create the Internet that we know today." [AP, March 11, 1999]

There was no disputing Lehane's description of Gore's lead congressional role in developing today's Internet. But the media was off and running.

Whatever imprecision may have existed in Gore's original comment, it paled beside the distortions of what Gore clearly meant. While excoriating Gore's phrasing as an exaggeration, the media engaged in its own exaggeration.
Yet, faced with the national media putting a hostile cast on his Internet statement – that he was willfully lying – Gore chose again to express his regret at his choice of words.

Hostility

Now, with the Love Canal controversy, this media pattern of distortion has returned with a vengeance. The national news media has put a false quote into Gore's mouth and then extrapolated from it to the point of questioning his sanity. Even after the quote was acknowledged to be wrong, the words continued to be repeated, again becoming part of Gore's “record.”

At times, the media jettisoned any pretext of objectivity. According to various accounts of the first Democratic debate in Hanover, N.H., reporters openly mocked Gore as they sat in a nearby press room and watched the debate on television.

Several journalists later described the incident, but without overt criticism of their colleagues. As The Daily Howler observed, Time's Eric Pooley cited the reporters' reaction only to underscore how Gore was failing in his "frenzied attempt to connect."

"The ache was unmistakable – and even touching – but the 300 media types watching in the press room at Dartmouth were, to use the appropriate technical term, totally grossed out by it," Pooley wrote. "Whenever Gore came on too strong, the room erupted in a collective jeer, like a gang of 15-year-old Heathers cutting down some hapless nerd."

Hotline's Howard Mortman described the same behavior as the reporters "groaned, laughed and howled" at Gore's comments.

Later, during an appearance on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Salon's Jake Tapper cited the Hanover incident, too. "I can tell you that the only media bias I have detected in terms of a group media bias was, at the first debate between Bill Bradley and Al Gore, there was hissing for Gore in the media room up at Dartmouth College. The reporters were hissing Gore, and that's the only time I've ever heard the press room boo or hiss any candidate of any party at any event." [See The Daily Howler, , Dec. 14, 1999]

Traditionally, journalists pride themselves in maintaining deadpan expressions in such public settings, at most chuckling at a comment or raising an eyebrow, but never displaying overt contempt. The anti-Gore bias of the major news media continued on through Campaign 2000.

Preemptive War

In 2001, after Bush claimed the White House with the help of five Republican allies on the U.S. Supreme Court, Gore withdrew from the public spotlight. After the 9/11 attacks, he offered support to President Bush, but Gore grew uneasy as Bush promulgated a global strategy of preemptive war, reserving the right to attack any country that might somehow threaten the United States sometime in the future.

On Sept. 23, 2002, Gore delivered a comprehensive critique of Bush’s radical departure from decades of American support for international law. In his speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Gore laid out a series of concerns and differences that he had with Bush’s preemption policy and specifically Bush’s decision to refashion the “war on terror” into an immediate war with Iraq.

Gore, who had supported the Persian Gulf War in 1990-91, criticized Bush’s failure to enlist the international community as his father did. Gore also warned about the negative impact that alienating other nations was having on the broader war against terrorists.

“I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century,” Gore said. “To put first things first, I believe that we ought to be focusing our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on Sept. 11. … Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We should remain focused on the war against terrorism.”

Instead of keeping after al-Qaeda and stabilizing Afghanistan, Bush had chosen to jump to a new war against Iraq as the first example of his policy of preemption, Gore said.

“He is telling us that our most urgent task right now is to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein,” Gore said. “And the President is proclaiming a new uniquely American right to preemptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.”

Gore also objected to the timing of the vote on war with Iraq. “President Bush is demanding, in this high political season, that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq and, for that matter, under the language of his resolution, against any other nation in the region regardless of subsequent developments or emerging circumstances,” Gore said.

The former Vice President staked out a position with subtle but important differences from Bush’s broad assertion that the United States has the right to override international law on the President’s command. Gore argued that U.S. unilateral power should be used sparingly, only in extreme situations.

“There’s no international law that can prevent the United States from taking action to protect our vital interests when it is manifestly clear that there’s a choice to be made between law and our survival,” Gore said. “Indeed, international law itself recognizes that such choices stay within the purview of all nations. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq.”

Loss of Goodwill

Gore bemoaned, too, that Bush’s actions have dissipated the international good will that surrounded the United States after the 9/11 attacks.

“That has been squandered in a year’s time and replaced with great anxiety all around the world, not primarily about what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we’re going to do,” Gore said. “Now, my point is not that they’re right to feel that way, but that they do feel that way.”

Gore also took aim at Bush’s unilateral assertion of his right to imprison American citizens without trial or legal representation simply by labeling them “enemy combatants.”

“The very idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedy, and that this can be done on the sole say-so of the President of the United States or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale and un-American, and ought to be stopped,” Gore said.

Gore raised, too, practical concerns about the dangers that might follow the overthrow of Hussein, if chaos in Iraq followed. Gore cited the deteriorating political condition in Afghanistan where the new central government exerted real control only in parts of Kabul while ceding effective power to warlords in the countryside.

“What if, in the aftermath of a war against Iraq, we faced a situation like that, because we’ve washed our hands of it?” Gore asked. “What if the al-Qaeda members infiltrated across the borders of Iraq the way they are in Afghanistan? … Now, I just think that if we end the war in Iraq the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could very well be much worse off than we are today.”

While it may have been understandable why Bush’s supporters would be upset over Gore’s address – radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said he was unable to get to sleep after listening to it – their subsequent reaction was more attuned to obscuring Gore’s arguments than addressing what he actually said.
Rather than welcome a vigorous debate on the merits and shortcomings of the so-called “Bush Doctrine,” right-wing and mainstream commentators treated Gore as dishonest, unpatriotic and even unhinged.

Slapped Around

Gore was slapped around by Beltway political analysts, hit from all angles, variously portrayed as seeking cheap political gain and committing political suicide.

Helped by the fact that Gore’s speech received spotty television coverage – MSNBC carried excerpts live and C-SPAN replayed the speech later that night – pro-Bush commentators were free to distort Gore’s words and then dismiss his arguments as “lies” largely because few Americans actually heard what he had said.

Some epithets came directly from Bush partisans. Republican National Committee spokesman Jim Dyke called Gore a “political hack.” An administration source told The Washington Post that Gore was simply “irrelevant,” a theme that would be repeated often in the days after Gore’s speech. [Washington Post, Sept. 24, 2002]

Other barrages were fired off by artillery battalions of right-wing opinion-makers from the strategic high ground of leading editorial pages, on talk radio and on television chat shows.

“Gore’s speech was one no decent politician could have delivered,” wrote Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly. “It was dishonest, cheap, low. It was hollow. It was bereft of policy, of solutions, of constructive ideas, very nearly of facts – bereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies. It was breathtakingly hypocritical, a naked political assault delivered in tones of moral condescension from a man pretending to be superior to mere politics. It was wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible.” [Washington Post, Sept. 25, 2002]

“A pudding with no theme but much poison,” declared another Post columnist, Charles Krauthammer. “It was a disgrace – a series of cheap shots strung together without logic or coherence.” [Washington Post, Sept. 27, 2002]

At Salon.com, Andrew Sullivan entitled his piece about Gore’s speech “The Opportunist” and characterized Gore as “bitter.”

While some depicted Gore’s motivation as political “opportunism,” columnist William Bennett mocked Gore for sealing his political doom and banishing himself “from the mainstream of public opinion.”

In an Op-Ed piece for The Wall Street Journal, entitled “Al Gore’s Political Suicide,” Bennett said Gore had “made himself irrelevant by his inconsistency” and had engaged in “an act of self-immolation” by daring to criticize Bush’s policy. “Now we have reason to be grateful once again that Al Gore is not the man in the White House, and never will be,” Bennett wrote. [Wall Street Journal, Sept. 26, 2002]

When the conservative pundits addressed Gore’s actual speech, his words were bizarrely parsed or selectively edited to allow reprising of the news media’s favorite “Lyin’ Al” canard from the presidential campaign.

Kelly, for instance, resumed his editorial harangue with the argument that Gore was lying when the former Vice President said “the vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized.”

To Kelly, this comment was “reprehensible” and “a lie.” Kelly continued, “The men who ‘implemented’ the ‘cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans’ are dead; they died in the act of murder on Sept. 11. Gore can look this up.” Kelly added that most of the rest were in prison or on the run.

Yet, Kelly’s remarks were obtuse even by his standards. Gore clearly was talking about the likes of Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, who indeed had not been located. [Kelly later died in a vehicle accident in Iraq.]

Still, the underlying theme running through the attacks against Gore and other critics of Bush’s “preemptive war” policy was that a thorough debate would not be tolerated. Rather than confront arguments on their merits, Bush’s supporters simply drummed Gore and fellow skeptics out of Washington’s respectable political society.

More than four years later, with more than 3,200 U.S. soldiers dead and possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead too, the consequence of the news media’s hostility toward Gore is more apparent.

The question remains, however, whether the major U.S. news media has learned its lesson about the importance of journalistic professionalism and about the harm that can befall even a great nation if the public acts on “facts” that are not facts.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'  



13 Apr 2007 @ 16:20 by Dove @63.147.9.123 : Don't Worry Dove, Glad To Meetcha!
22 Mar 2007 @ 09:52 by jazzolog : Don't Worry Dove, Glad To Meetcha!
In fact, I also like it when folks drop by with just a nickname and few other clues. Hope you join NCN if you haven't yet. But what does "ponerized" mean? Do you mean polarized? "Pathocrat" I get. Great term!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Nice to meet you!
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your question I've been way too busy. This should answer your question and it's a very useful word.

What does it mean to be "ponerized"?
When something or someone has become "Ponerized" in its strictest sense, it means that the person or group can no longer make the distinction between healthy and pathological thought processes and logic. One is no longer able to draw a line between correct thinking and deviate thinking.

from: http://ponerology.blogspot.com/  



14 Apr 2007 @ 00:57 by Dove @63.147.9.123 : NCN
Hi again,

I've been looking over the NCN information. What a nice surprise:) I don't have any questions as I'm still looking it over. I didn't know what you were talking about because I was searching global warming when I came across this page.  



Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
Subject:       
Comment:
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:


Other entries in
18 Nov 2008 @ 23:51: The Day John Kennedy Was Shot
27 Jun 2008 @ 12:06: The Poor In The US Are Sick And Dying: Happy?
27 Mar 2008 @ 11:26: Green Energy Development
24 Jan 2008 @ 09:58: Getting Drunk For Dr. King
12 Nov 2007 @ 11:23: Re: happy veteran's day & Pakistan?
16 Jul 2007 @ 09:28: Constitutional Crisis
25 Apr 2007 @ 09:53: Reeling In Rove
23 Mar 2007 @ 11:39: The Phil Mattson Message Board
17 Dec 2006 @ 12:40: Distracted On Sunday
15 Sep 2006 @ 09:09: Why Have Liberals Been Afraid?



[< Back] [jazzoLOG] [PermaLink]?