February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27



« Stimulus recipient under investigation for insider trading - CBS News Investigates - CBS News | Main | Networks Silent As Obama Avoids Major Environmental Conference; ABC Attacked Bush 10 Years Earlier »

March 23, 2012


casino online

“The plaintiffs are asking the Court, or more specifically a jury, to determine without the benefit of legislative or administrative regulation, whether the defendants’ emissions are `reasonable,’” he said.

rushessay.com review

That just isn't their way of doing things. They decide how eveyone will act, then strong-arm the recalcitrant or just walk away and quit as they did in Kyoto.


They are the ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph



muscle mass maximizer make sure they and exclusive with your over curious development Healthier snooze, rest, foods and will plan to keep in mind, is excellent for get of be at liberty - for the reason that from a excess fat gainer. These 3 very simple methods ensure that anyone to know structured to repair service and rebuild exhaustion it lowest the necessitates eliminating and branch chain amino acids.

source for article


, 'If you smoke, you're gonna get cancer.' You sdulohn't be surprised. Scientists of all kinds have been saying for years that global warming will cause all sorts of environmental damage. So, as severe drought turns the western states into a wildfire waiting to happen, as hurricanes form quicker and with much greater intensity, as floods innundate the east coast, I'm ammused that people call these events acts of God. To paraphrase Mrs. Campbell, Surprised? It says right here that if you heat up the air all over the world, then you're gonna get droughts, floods, and hurricanes. You sdulohn't be surprised. Perhaps there hasn't been enough death and destruction for certain people to take responsibility for their actions.


my username and pwrasosd are incorrect, but then I'm kinda dumb when it comes to technical stuff on the computer. I really wanted that french looking yellow and white background. Oh well. I'll check out the tutorial.


Beautiful blog. Keep up the good work sir. Thanks for sharing this information.

Law Offices of Craig Penrod

such a great blog, keep the posts coming! thank you!

online casino gamble

It is more intense now than it was in Nixon's era, and they are still battling against doing anything. The automatic companies have taken the same distracted mind-set towards gas usage, lesser vehicles, fatigue management, and protection.


Well global wiamrng is not a process which could not be totaly stopeed but reduced. thhere are to strategies to cope with global wiamrng, reducing GHG emission and second is adaptation.Countries are seeking alternative energy sources to reduce GHG emission, shifting in crop patterns, making strategies to cop with specie extinction and the population who are in danger.


I am really ftcnisaaed at your confusion on Social Security. Other than having a politician destroy it, why should it collapse? It is a strong system and probably will not face the alleged problems in 2041. The fact is, no honest person with an understanding of the system seriously accepts your statement "no one, and I mean NO ONE denies that the system will one day collapse, there's just quibbling over the date when it will happen." Brian, you have been hoodwinked. Just go look at Robert Ball's proposal ( (pdf)). While you are at it, remember that Bob Ball is probably the most knowledgeable man alive today about the Social Security System. The assumptions of American productivity in the projections are too low, and the assumptions of immigration are equally too low. Higher values on either would produce projections that do not include a shortfall in payments with respect to revenue. But let's assume that the conservative assumptions do pan out. Robert Ball has offered a plan (pdf) that accepts those assumptions and easily corrects for them, while placing Social Security onto a sustainable path into the infinite future. His are minor tweaks in what is a well-operating system. The plan offered by the renegade Democratic Congressman [RDC] the other day also totally solves the problem. It isn't as good as Bob Balls' solution either politically or tax-wise, but it is massively better than private accounts with a $3 to $14 addition to the federal debt to finance the changeover. Both plans (B Ball's and the RDC) involve minor changes, a great deal less then the ones in 1983, and set the program up for long-term sustainablity at the future programmed benefit levels (based on replacing a percentage of lost earnings)Or, assume that the worst assumptions in the projections (not predictions, by the way) come true. Then what? By law, the Social Security benefits in 2041 are reduced automatically to match the revenue from takes. That means approximately a 25% reduction (worst case) across the board in all benefits. This is the same as the plan Bush just offered, except that he cuts benefits even more and esepecially on high and middle income wage-earners. He also starts the cuts immediately while the program still has a surplus of revenue coming in rather then waiting until a real shortage of revenue occurs. But Bush still demands that America borrow many trillions and switch to private accounts that do nothing to help the system and nothing to help America. In other words, if approached reasonably there is a strong probability that there is no difficulty with the Social Security. If some difficulty does occur, it will be small and easily dealt with. Just always remember, any projection is totally swamped by reality after about ten years. The 75 year projections are designed to do nothing more than line up the possible future scenarios. Except by actuaries and theoreticians, they are not to be taken seriously. Anyone else considering those projections and predicting doom and gloom is doing a "Chicken Little" impersonation, usually as a prelude to sell you some form of overpriced insurance that you will never need. He will probably also sell you a broken used car while he is at it. So. Back to Global Warming as a man-made phenomenon. There is [1.]a lot of evidence to suggest that global warming may not be at all caused by man, and [2.] it hasn't been explored sufficiently. For [1.] there is also a lot of evidence that indicates strongly that the recent changes in climate are related or associated with outputs from industrial society. [2.] Is completely correct. By the time we know for sure whether man-made industrial products are strongly contributing to climate change, there is a good chance that irreversible changes will have occurred. The argument for taking actions to reduce likely by-products has a certain urgency that this administration is ignoring. "we should avoid severely restrictive measures like the Kyoto protocols that will impoverish us with no definite benefit." Yeah, right. If we do nothing we can surely depend on our private industry to do research that lowers the contaminates. That is Bush's action, of course. In 1994 when Bush became Governor in Texas he got the next legislature to extend the grandfather provisions in the Texas Clean Air act. All standards became voluntary and the industries involved all agreed that they would clean up their acts as they performed normal maintenance. By 2002 none of those companies had spend a dime or reduced emmission a bit. Exactly as they had not done after the initial federal clean air act and the initial Texas-granted grandfather provisions (for the same reason - too expensive to install scrubbers, etc.) were passed in the Nixon era. Until forced, the auto industry in America did not improve gas mileage, safety engineering (like seat belts, air bags, etc.) or emissions improvements. Yet when required by the governbment, the American auto industry developed the current computer-controlled combustion system that is used around the world to reduce emissions. Bush's withdrawal from Kyoto was exactly like his extension of the grandfather provisions in 1994 of the clean air act, and has done nothing to either improve the air or to improve the competitiveness of American industry. The whine "we should avoid severely restrictive measures like the Kyoto protocols that will impoverish us with no definite benefit." is a severe overstatement of the policies that should be put into place immediately based on the admittedly incomplete information that currently exists. Some things should be put into place just to try to make measurable changes in the climate. One reason most studies at the moment don't give any solid date is that they are almost all associative studies. We need to initiate some changes and measure the results just to add some real causal studies that will greatly add to the understanding of the huma effects on climate. But the idea that anyone wants to "impoverish" business to "effect no known benefit" is merely political rhetoric by the businesses like our local untility, TXU, which has made the same whine for over 30 years at the local cement plant in Waxahachie. They have also promised to improve the air they put out all that time. It is worse now than it was in Nixon's era, and they are still fighting against doing anything. The auto manufacturers have taken the same blinded attitude towards gas mileage, smaller cars, exhaust control, and safety. These businesses are failing, as is seen by the current junk bond status of GM and Ford. This is a failure of management. All they can do is manage cost control, and they can't build decent vehicles to compte with the ones built by the Japanese and soon the South Koreans. The Bush administration could have worked with the Kyoto participants to obtain reasonable requirements. Instead they acted as normal, threw up their hands at the difficulty of actually working with and compromising with other. That just isn't their way of doing things. They decide how eveyone will act, then strong-arm the recalcitrant or just walk away and quit as they did in Kyoto. "there is a difference between [1] taking steps to reduce pollution and [2.] radically restricting business in a wild attempt to live up to unproven science..."No one seriously suggests [2.]. The alternative for the Bush administration is to [3.] walk away and do frigging nothing. Any rhetoric alleging [2.] is just that - baseless right-wing political rhetoric intended to lead to [3.]. That rhetoric is exactly like the silly rhetoric that tries to make anyone believe that Ward Churchill is somehow a spokesturkey for Democrats or Progressives.==========By the way, OT, I have figured out how to add an "e-mail me" function to my blog. It is quite easy. For [1.] a small consulting fee - or [2.] a public admission that I am completely totally and unequivocally correct on Social Security above, I'll be glad to help you put one in. I'd guess [2.] is too high a price, right??


hi te best http://laptops.law-lemons.com//cool-special-effects-how-to-stage-your-very-own-show-cool-performances.html - Cool Special Effects: How to Stage Your Very Own Show (Cool Performances)


The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo