Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Diplomatic anxiety about the Copenhagen climate summit is reaching fever pitch. UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon has issued an urgent warning that the talks are stalled; UN development chief Helen Clark is already engaged in damage control and lowering expectations. Ed Miliband, the British climate change minister, is shuttling around the world to try and oil the wheels ahead of next week's New York meeting. What's at the root of the problem? There's the long standing tension between rich and poor countries: the rich don't want to take responsibility for their expensive life styles, the poor don't want the ladder pulled up while they're still on the ground. There's China and its coal plants. And then there's You Know Who.
The front page of this morning's Guardian trumpets an exclusive: news of a fracas between European and US negotiators about the shape of the treaty to be negotiated. Man Bites Dog, perhaps; but it's still worth paying attention. According to unnamed officials, the Obama team plans to scrap most of the Kyoto framework for reducing carbon emissions and replace it with a new system of its own devising. Eighty-one days before Copenhagen, we don't yet know what that system's going to be--except that it seems to give the US a neat way out of any international agreement by making emission reductions subordinate to domestic laws. Think about it: would you negotiate an arms control treaty that could be scuppered by some pork-barrel filibuster?
Meanwhile Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, has confidently announced that the Waxman-Markey climate bill has no chance of passing the Senate (where, due to health-care wrangling, its introduction has been indefinitely postponed). He's working hard to make sure he's proved right: the API is a key organizer of Energy Citizens, a network of oil, coal, trucking and chemical companies attacking the bill with the tactics of the anti-health care lobby.
How much does all this matter? Waxman-Markey is a watered-down compromise which would reduce America's emissions by a pathetic 1% by 2020--far short of the 25-40% reduction on 1990 levels called for by climate scientists or the 20% reduction agreed by the European Union. The best deal on the table at Copenhagen is widely acknowledged to be less than what's needed to prevent catastrophic climate change, with only a 50-50 chance of keeping temperature increases below the critical 2 degrees. There are some in the British climate movement who would boycott the whole thing, preferring to expose the pretzel logic of the carbon markets on which any deal will depend and the inflated profits of the firms that trade in them.
And yet it matters--a lot. It matters because climate change is already devastating lives in the global south, and because time is running out for the rest of us as well. It matters because the coincidence of a US president who takes science seriously and a leadership in Beijing alert for the first time to the dangers of warming and flooding is too good a chance to waste. It matters because the recession is a once-in-a-generation chance to push for a sustainable economy and fairer distribution. Climate change is not an environmental issue. It's about resources and global justice, about the future direction of capitalism, about where the next wars will be.
Copenhagen, on its own, is not going to save the planet. (The planet will make it anyway; it has survived more than one mass extinction in the past.) But as a moment for mobilization, as a lever for shifting the culture, as a global wake-up call, it is unprecedented. Check out some of the organizing that's going on--on 350.org and climatenetwork.org and the Labor Network for Sustainability and the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, to name only a few. Don't leave the argument to the Astroturfers.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
MM: .....it matters a lot. It matters....because time is running out for the rest of us as well.
Funny, your scare-mongering has absolutely no effect on me! Better keep up my prescription of them API-branded anti-scaremongering pills!
What an `industry', or is that a religion, you folks run!!
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 11:18am
"the API is a key organizer of Energy Citizens, a network of oil, coal, trucking and chemical companies attacking the bill with the tactics of the anti-health care lobby. "
"Energy CITIZENS"....doncha just love it with multi-billion dollar corporations are "just folks"?
LOL
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:26am
You have to give the scare mongers on the left credit.
They threw "manmade global" warming at us for over a decade. When the facts became so overwhelmingly in contradiction of their claims, they merely changed the name and the focus.
Now it's "climate change" and "global environmental justice". I mean, who wouldn't support justice?
But it's laughable now that all the changes in our climate are due to mankind. The only logical solution would be a dramatic reduction in the world's population.
I see a link and a pattern here..
We have come full circle with the 70's crowd who said we would all be starving by the 1990's due to overpopulation.
This is their latest ruse to promote massive forced abortions and euthenasia of the elderly in order to bring world's population down to what they will term "acceptable numbers".
These charlatans are exposed for who they really are and I'm glad to see that at least to this moment, Obama is unwilling to embrace their global totalitarian death programs.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 11:34am
We have come full circle with the 70's crowd who said we would all be starving by the 1990's due to overpopulation. ----Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 11:34am
Kind of like Hal Lindsey and "The Late Great Planet Earth" (also from that time period) saying the Anti-Christ and Rapture would have come by now?????
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:46am
We have come full circle with the 70's crowd who said we would all be starving by the 1990's due to overpopulation. ----Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 11:34am Kind of like Hal Lindsey and "The Late Great Planet Earth" (also from that time period) saying the Anti-Christ and Rapture would have come by now????? heheh Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:46am | ignore this person |
--when's the last president we had that DIDN'T believe in a Christian religion? that must make atheists "politically irrelevant" right mask? heheh!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 11:55am
saying the Anti-Christ and Rapture would have come by now?????
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:46am | ignore this person | warn this person
well mask, come the rapture, we'll have the place to ourselves...
which sounds fine to me. we'll be able to get a lot more and better done, and there will be more jobs - labor shortage, you know?
we can build some nice, high fences, and get about the task of building the spaceships and all that crap while the luddites and all the rest of homo inferior shuffle about waiting for another rapture...
problem is, they'll end up with us up there in space regardless...oh well, what can u do, eh?
"rapture" what a useless concept...sheesh...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 11:58am
China may use coal. But they are also investing more heavily in clean energy than probably any other country including the US. Maybe they know something we don't.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:14pm
fiddle-dee-dee,
fiddle-dee-daw....
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 12:15pm
HUMANITY
RIP
CAUSE OF DEMISE: RAPTURED TO DEATH!!!!!
while the years flew by, humanity grew more clever and whiled away its precious time, energy, and resources on silly fantasy and petty grasping, all the while judgement day approached.
and they knew this well. unfortunately some few confused their ancient mythology with verifiable science, and smugly convinced themselves that as a result of their supposed moral and cosmological superiority, they would be rescued at the last minute, ascending into heaven with tongues extended in an eternal "i told you so" raspberry directed at all their once so haughty intellectual tormenters...
but despite the fact that some understood the prophecies of doom to reflect a very real scientifically verifiable reality, that sometime between tomorrow and some thousands of years hence something horrible will indeed wipe out most, if not all of this shaved ape species...
and that we will one day dearly wish we had put aside childish things like too many weapons and too little common sense...
we failed miserably, partly as a result of the self affirming fantasies, spite, and fiercely vainglorious ignorance of those who most wanted the world to end...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 12:15pm
"They threw "manmade global" warming at us for over a decade. When the facts became so overwhelmingly in contradiction of their claims, they merely changed the name and the focus. "
Which "facts" are you talking about?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:15pm
This is their latest ruse to promote massive forced abortions and euthenasia of the elderly in order to bring world's population down to what they will term "acceptable numbers".
These charlatans are exposed for who they really are and I'm glad to see that at least to this moment, Obama is unwilling to embrace their global totalitarian death programs.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 11:34am
Uhhhh. Are you nuts? This is just as bad as liberals screaming that Republicans want to shoot the poor.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:16pm
"This is their latest ruse to promote massive forced abortions and euthenasia of the elderly in order to bring world's population down to what they will term "acceptable numbers"."
You are supposed to be better than this BS propaganda anti. Come on now. Lets stick to logical thought let's not go into the realm of insane conspiracy theories.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:18pm
global totalitarian death programs.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 11:34am
so they are saying,
"you will all die unless we kill you"?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 12:44pm
This is their latest ruse to promote massive forced abortions and euthenasia of the elderly in order to bring world's population down to what they will term "acceptable numbers".
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 11:34am
Uhhhh. Are you nuts? This is just as bad as liberals screaming that Republicans want to shoot the poor.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:16pm
Let me educate you.
CANBERRA, April 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A population control pressure group has issued a call for the Australian government to institute a one-child policy to ensure the continent's environmental and economic "sustainability." Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) said this week that Australia's 22 million people must be reduced to 7 million and that restricting each couple to one baby, as China does, is "one way of assisting to reduce the population" and avoiding "environmental suicide."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042404.html
"As China does" would mean forced abortions.
<Enviro Mentalists Call For Culling Of Human Population
Push for Malthusian social control policies in name of curbing carbon emissions
Steve Watson Prison Planet
Monday, May 7, 2007
A disturbing move is afoot by several "green" groups to associate climate change with over population and suggest that the solution is to implement depopulation policies and punishments for those who flout them.
Malthusian scientists such as Dr. Eric R. Pianka who gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science who last year gave a speech in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus.
more to follow
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 1:24pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 11:58am
Things like that are the reason poor Larry just couldn't take it anymore and had to put me on Ignore.
Fortunately have a "pet" that does an "end-run" around Ignores for me now.
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 1:44pm
That does not even come CLOSE to meaning that everyone who supports fighting global warming wants to commit euthanasia and forced abortions both of those articles do not prove you right. The group you showed in the first article only explicitly expressed support for a one child policy which does not show support for euthanasia OR forced abortions it means that you have one child and then get your tubes tied or use protection.
On top of that Malthusians are vast minority they do not represent even 5% of the people who believe in global warming. You are doing what racists do. Where you take a small group to be representative of the whole. You are saying that because a small number of people who believe in global warming that believe we should implement population control methods that is indicative of the entire movement which is an absolute crock of shit. You have bought into the same BS that the people who are saying that Obama wants to kill old people. Give me a break Anti. This is ridiculous.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 1:49pm
CCC,
continued on the move by enviromental extremists depopulation goals
<Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period.
Kissinger also prepared a depopulation manifesto for President Jimmy Carter called 'Global 2000' which detailed using food as a weapon to depopulate the third world.
The United Nations Population Fund directly supports policies such as that of the "one child policy" in Communist China which encapsulates coercive and enforced abortion.>
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/070507depopulation.htm
And this bit.
<There is no unlimited right to have children, according to a study published today (Friday July 11, World Population Day) by the Optimum Population Trust.
Is there a "right" to have children? is written by Carter Dillard, an American legal academic specialising in reproductive rights law and a former US Government adviser, and is based on a paper that originally appeared in the Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal. It describes the notion of a limitless procreative right, a "privacy right free of limiting duties", as "self-contradictory and illogical".
"Given that law guides our behaviour, a policy that treats procreation as private is regressive, environmentally damaging and peculiarly anti-social: it teaches us to disregard others and their interests. Until we have policies that reflect the truly public nature of having children, we will encourage irresponsible procreation, and all the harm it causes," Dillard concludes.>
http://tinyurl.com/ppwljl
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 1:51pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 1:51pm
Remember CCC....Larry is a STRICT Constructionalist on the US Constitution. ONLY what is clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights is a "right"...
so ask him...
IS procreation guarenteed by the Constitution and cite his substantiation?
((and be sure and save it for the next abortion debate!))
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 1:53pm
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 1:53pm
I don't need to resort to tricks on this one. He is claiming that a few people determine the beliefs of a whole. Basically what he is doing is what he constantly complains about. We hear how he hates when liberals claim that all conservatives are racists because a few of them happen to be. He is then basing his claims on an entire worldwide movement based on the assertions of an incredible minority in that group. This is unfettered hypocrisy and will be shown for such.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:18pm
You are doing what racists do. Where you take a small group to be representative of the whole. You are saying that because a small number of people who believe in global warming that believe we should implement population control methods that is indicative of the entire movement which is an absolute crock of shit. You have bought into the same BS that the people who are saying that Obama wants to kill old people. Give me a break Anti. This is ridiculous.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 1:49pm
Reading my posts I can see where it's possible for someone to make the leap of logic that I was stating ALL environmentalists, but only if one is truly bent on arguing.
Here's what I said and see if you can see the context. I will cap the critical words for you.
<We have come full circle WITH THE 70's CROWD WHO SAID WE WOULD ALL BE STARVING BY THE 1990's DUE TO OVERPOPULATION.
This is their latest ruse to promote massive forced abortions and euthenasia of the elderly in order to bring world's population down to what they will term "acceptable numbers".
These charlatans are exposed for who they really are and I'm glad to see that at least to this moment, Obama is unwilling to embrace their global totalitarian death programs.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 11:34am
In other words, while most on the environmental left advocate population control, they are not the same as the Eugenics wackos and others I have listed who are calling for drastic measures.
And BTW your comment <it means that you have one child and then get your tubes tied or use protection.>
Really, is that what China does? If you are forced to limit your children, what steps can the govt take to enforce that requirement? What if you disagree?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:18pm
http://tinyurl.com/m95bry
Look Anti. I provided a link to a Christian minister commanding people to kill gays. Does that mean you also believe we should go out and murder gays?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:24pm
Mask: "Remember CCC....Larry is a STRICT Constructionalist on the US Constitution. ONLY what is clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights is a "right"..."
--so only the first ten amendments to the constitution contain the rights the people have, huh? 11th amendment forward is irrelevant to Mask!
Mask: "so ask him... IS procreation guarenteed by the Constitution and cite his substantiation? ((and be sure and save it for the next abortion debate!))"
--someone seems a little obsessed with antisocialist!
--and it's an easy answer, anyway. The 9th Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constiutition, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." BOOM!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:24pm
--and it's an easy answer, anyway. The 9th Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constiutition, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." BOOM!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:24pm
That's interesting. Because then it asks which rights are innate? Do we have the right to health? If so then does that mean we have the right to healthcare? Hmm. Do we have the right to happiness? Does that mean we should get free government handouts?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:34pm
http://tinyurl.com/m95bry
Look Anti. I provided a link to a Christian minister commanding people to kill gays. Does that mean you also believe we should go out and murder gays?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:24pm
I condemn any Christian and especially any pastor like this one who is teaching against NT doctrine. Contrary to what his church's website declares, he appears to be living under the Law of Moses rather than the age of grace in Christ.
There is no teaching in the NT to go out and murder homosexuals.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:38pm
--and it's an easy answer, anyway. The 9th Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constiutition, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." BOOM!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:24pm
That's interesting. Because then it asks which rights are innate? Do we have the right to health? If so then does that mean we have the right to healthcare? Hmm. Do we have the right to happiness? Does that mean we should get free government handouts?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--what "its" asks which rights are innate?
--right to health? -- do we have the right to mental health too? giving birth is an act; there's your difference.
--right to happiness? -- again, do we have the right to mental health? you have to differentiate between acts and state of being....HELLO!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:38pm
What's the difference between "greed" and "rational self-interest"?
Answer: "rational self-interest" is what I do and "greed" is what others do.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 2:39pm
There is no teaching in the NT to go out and murder homosexuals. Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--your line in the sand isn't that impressive...given you're willing to kick gay people out of church
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:40pm
These charlatans are exposed for who they really are and I'm glad to see that at least to this moment, Obama is unwilling to embrace their global totalitarian death programs.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 11:34am | ignore this person | warn this person
I think that someone has finally translated the handwriting on the oval office wall for him is more likely and the prospect of eating grass has stifled his foolhardy idealogy!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/16/2009 @ 2:47pm
I condemn any Christian and especially any pastor like this one who is teaching against NT doctrine. Contrary to what his church's website declares, he appears to be living under the Law of Moses rather than the age of grace in Christ.
There is no teaching in the NT to go out and murder homosexuals.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:38pm
Then how can you claim that because some people in the movement to end climate change are pre-population control then it means all of them must be?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:50pm
Hmmm.....let's see, The Declaration of Independence:
"...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Funny, nowhere did it say pursuing societal Life, Liberty or Happiness! Ah, must be the individual pursuits, duh?!
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 2:52pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:18pm
Naturally, Larry is a hypocrite.
Take these obvious examples (perfectly synched-up)-
"however leftist bigots tend to stereotype Republicans by those kind of images so as to reinforce their own bigotry"----Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 09:41am
"Since most liberals are mealy mouthed, they think that is a good trait. they resent strong authority figures. Pyschologists would say it's because they had no strong father figure when they were growing up."----Posted by antisocialist at 05/11/2009 @ 09:09am
"So, it appears that a consistent hallmark of leftist thought is the denigration of everyone that holds an opposing view."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/05/2009 @ 2:50pm
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 2:53pm
Sit, urmy, sit.
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 2:54pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:38pm
Then how can you claim that because some people in the movement to end climate change are pre-population control then it means all of them must be?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:50pm
Even after I capitalized the key words, you still misread what I said.
Let me try again. I DID NOT SAY THAT ALL ENVIRONMENTALISTS WANT TO IMPOSE FORCED DEPOPULATION.
I noted a certain element of the movement. Try harder CCC.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:57pm
Sit, urmy, sit. Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person |
mask, get your nose out of there! bad mask!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:58pm
There is no teaching in the NT to go out and murder homosexuals. Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--your line in the sand isn't that impressive...given you're willing to kick gay people out of church
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:40pm
Couple of points in response
1. You are equating not allowing someone membership in a church with murder?
2. Every church has a set of qualifications for membership. Membership is voluntary. If you disagree with the stance of a church on doctrine, why would you even attempt to join?
Within this issue, every church retains the right to ask someone to leave if they are unwilling to change behavior that the church believes is inconsistent with the moral standards that G-d requires. I would do the same with an unrepentant adulterer.
By not accepting someone's behavior within the confines of membership in voluntary organization, I have done nothing to limit their freedom in this country.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 3:02pm
Even after I capitalized the key words, you still misread what I said.
Let me try again. I DID NOT SAY THAT ALL ENVIRONMENTALISTS WANT TO IMPOSE FORCED DEPOPULATION.
I noted a certain element of the movement. Try harder CCC.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:57pm
Actually I reread your post where you are claiming that you said some. You never actually said some. You never qualified your statement. You left it open ended to the point that it could or could not include everyone in involved in the movement to stop global warming.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:03pm
antisocialist: "1. You are equating not allowing someone membership in a church with murder?"
--I'm saying, you think gays are going to burn in hell...so what's the difference?
antisocialist: "2. Every church has a set of qualifications for membership. Membership is voluntary. If you disagree with the stance of a church on doctrine, why would you even attempt to join? Within this issue, every church retains the right to ask someone to leave if they are unwilling to change behavior that the church believes is inconsistent with the moral standards that G-d requires. I would do the same with an unrepentant adulterer. By not accepting someone's behavior within the confines of membership in voluntary organization, I have done nothing to limit their freedom in this country."
--I'm not really concerned with religion limiting people's freedom (if someone wants to believe in God, something of which there's no proof of, more power to 'em)...what I'm saying is, don't pretend you're tolerant of gay people. You're not.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:07pm
In other words, while most on the environmental left advocate population control, they are not the same as the Eugenics wackos and others I have listed who are calling for drastic measures.
And BTW your comment <it means that you have one child and then get your tubes tied or use protection.>
Really, is that what China does? If you are forced to limit your children, what steps can the govt take to enforce that requirement? What if you disagree?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:18pm
Sorry I missed this post so I will actually resend my last post. Why even bother bring up a minority when we are talking about majority movement? What is the motive? The movement is not governed by these few people. The name climate change was given because global warming is not actually and accurate terminology. It wasn't the 70's crowd as you claim but scientists who gave it this term.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:08pm
Let's turn this "Crisis" thread officially to an Open Thread.....
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The 'Racism' Canard [Victor Davis Hanson]
In the wake of Joe Wilson's crude outburst, many network commentators (and Jimmy Carter, of course) are weighing in on the new racism that supposedly explains 1) rising opposition to Obamacare and 2) the president's sinking polls. I think this is a disastrous political move....I suspect it will result in another 5-point poll slide.
To prove their charge, those who allege racism would have to show empirically that the present angry rhetoric eclipses what was said about and done to Bush. It does not yet....
A better explanation...for the Left's exasperation is that in the Bush wilderness years, the Left...adopted an ends-justify-the-means strategy of street rhetoric against Bush, then found themselves unexpectedly as the establishment, and now are appalled that anyone might emulate their own past emotional outbursts.
As a political tactic, the accusation of racism makes no sense...
The voter that Obama needs to keep will look at these incidents far differently...and will wonder what might have happened had a Bush White House czar claimed blacks were racial polluters or prone to kill, or had a white-male country-music singer stolen the mike from a small young black woman to praise another white country singer. So there will be a class distinction in how these incidents are seen, and it will result in the media elite's alleging white racism at exactly the same time that the blue-collar voter draws the exact opposite lesson....
=================
A lot of policy/ideology stuff is high-browed and the middle/Indies won't grasp, but repeated see the `Racism' card played wantonly, is kinda simple to grasp.
My thanks!
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 3:15pm
Why does Happy always insist on taking the threads wherever he wants instead of staying on the topic. Did someone just get reprimanded for this kind of childish behavior?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:24pm
osted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 3:15pm | ignore this person |
--I'm white; and more liberal than the President.
must mean I'm a racist red-neck (from Connecticut)!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:25pm
Why does Happy always insist on taking the threads wherever he wants instead of staying on the topic. Did someone just get reprimanded for this kind of childish behavior? Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--oh, right--Mask and co. ALWAYS stay on topic!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:26pm
--oh, right--Mask and co. ALWAYS stay on topic!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:26pm
Mask may go on random rants but he doesn't intentionally high jack threads. He may go on random tangential rants but that isn't the same as blatantly saying I don't want to talk about this topic so now we are going to talk about this news story I read.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:28pm
--oh, right--Mask and co. ALWAYS stay on topic! Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:26pm Mask may go on random rants but he doesn't intentionally high jack threads. He may go on random tangential rants but that isn't the same as blatantly saying I don't want to talk about this topic so now we are going to talk about this news story I read. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--may go on random tangential rants?...understatement of the year.
--and Happy is MAKING you talk about a news story he read?
--and aren't your own complaints off topic?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:32pm
antisocialist: "1. You are equating not allowing someone membership in a church with murder?" --I'm saying, you think gays are going to burn in hell...so what's the difference?
antisocialist: "2. Every church has a set of qualifications for membership. Membership is voluntary. If you disagree with the stance of a church on doctrine, why would you even attempt to join? Within this issue, every church retains the right to ask someone to leave if they are unwilling to change behavior that the church believes is inconsistent with the moral standards that G-d requires. I would do the same with an unrepentant adulterer. By not accepting someone's behavior within the confines of membership in voluntary organization, I have done nothing to limit their freedom in this country."
--I'm not really concerned with religion limiting people's freedom (if someone wants to believe in God, something of which there's no proof of, more power to 'em)...what I'm saying is, don't pretend you're tolerant of gay people.
You're not.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:07pm
1.I have nothing to do with that. I can neither affect it being carried out or stopped. If G-d carries out that judgment, that is between Him and the individual.
2.Church membership requirements on behavior cannot be compared with attempting to limit someone's constitutional rights. I have no problem with homosexuals enjoying the same constitutional rights as anyone else. I don't even think about it. Just as I don't think about whether adulterers are fulling enjoying their constitutional rights. Many moral issues are not part of law and should not be.
Let me ask you Urmy, is there any behavior that you don't want to be associated with that is legal yet morally suspect to you?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 3:33pm
antisocialist: religion gives people cover for being grossed out by gay sex.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:34pm
"Let's turn this "Crisis" thread officially to an Open Thread..... "
You can't make anyone do anything but you can act with knowledge of the results of your actions. If you have been online posting in any type of forum you would know this. The second someone posts something sufficiently "controversal" on another persons thread the thread topic is diverted. On other forums attempting to highjack threads is enough to get you banned. They force you to stay on topic.
My posts are considered on topic because now one of the topics is Happy's post. I am responding not attempting to start my own thread of thought.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:35pm
Cccomfo1--way to steer the conversation back by still talking about what you apparently don't want to talk about...
in the spirit of emiledubois...who died and made you board moderator?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:39pm
Sorry I missed this post so I will actually resend my last post. Why even bother bring up a minority when we are talking about majority movement? What is the motive? The movement is not governed by these few people. The name climate change was given because global warming is not actually and accurate terminology. It wasn't the 70's crowd as you claim but scientists who gave it this term.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:08pm
Because in this case, they are a significant minority in terms of their influence and also in some cases, ability to act legally.
You have in one case I cited, a high ranking British Govt official. You have the history of Kissinger putting forth some of this for Carter while Carter was president.
In 1984 we a had a Dem Gov in Colorado-Gov Lamm saying that the elderly should just die and get out of the way.
You have two members of Obama's healthcare staff who were members of the Hastings Center, founded by the American Eugenics Society which fostered forced depopulation as a desired goal
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 3:55pm
so now we are going to talk about this news story I read. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--may go on random tangential rants?...understatement of the year.
--and Happy is MAKING you talk about a news story he read?
--and aren't your own complaints off topic?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:32pm
Why is it that I don't think TN will do TIMELY commentaries on ACORN or get real about the rapid ramp-up of the printing of the Racism `card'?
Maybe because they get their own original source from the Legacy Media that's now, reliably behind the News....with their heads stuck in the sands, but tails held high and proud.....LMAO!
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 4:19pm
Cccomfo1--way to steer the conversation back by still talking about what you apparently don't want to talk about...
in the spirit of emiledubois...who died and made you board moderator?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:39pm |
Once again I didn't say I was moderating I said I was asking the moderators to moderate. Maybe you should reread my post. Keep stretching.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 4:38pm
Because in this case, they are a significant minority in terms of their influence and also in some cases, ability to act legally.
You have in one case I cited, a high ranking British Govt official. You have the history of Kissinger putting forth some of this for Carter while Carter was president.
In 1984 we a had a Dem Gov in Colorado-Gov Lamm saying that the elderly should just die and get out of the way.
You have two members of Obama's healthcare staff who were members of the Hastings Center, founded by the American Eugenics Society which fostered forced depopulation as a desired goal
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 3:55pm
And Strom Thurmond supported racial segregation. And prominent Republicans have also given speeches to racist groups. What's your point? I would consider them influential.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 4:43pm
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 1:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i agree with larry that its a threat - barbarian luddite muslims fecundly benighting fair europe sucks - stupid too good for their own good europeans - but there's still way too many stupid shaved apes already and god knows the stupid breed with the desperation of the stupid...
but what the hell have civilized nations struggled for these thousands of years of history? so that women continue splatting out shaved apes until we're eating each other?
this is why i'm a big fan of skynet type robots like the REAPER and the EATR. how hard can it be to find young recruits willing to play video games all day?
good fences make good neighbors, and i'll be damned if i want my nation forced into some kind of insane outbreeding contest...
when we got insane robots that even the odds against the fecund barbarians until little by little, as much of the world as can be saved develops to the point where shitloads of unwanted, unneeded babies are not such a viable or valued option (development and women's rights = lower birth rates)
until then...bring on the killer robots...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 4:46pm
Because in this case, they are a significant minority in terms of their influence and also in some cases, ability to act legally.
You have in one case I cited, a high ranking British Govt official. You have the history of Kissinger putting forth some of this for Carter while Carter was president.
In 1984 we a had a Dem Gov in Colorado-Gov Lamm saying that the elderly should just die and get out of the way.
You have two members of Obama's healthcare staff who were members of the Hastings Center, founded by the American Eugenics Society which fostered forced depopulation as a desired goal
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 3:55pm
And Strom Thurmond supported racial segregation. And prominent Republicans have also given speeches to racist groups. What's your point? I would consider them influential.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 4:43pm
Let's try another approach.
Racism is against the law. No one will be successful in implementing racism because it violates the constitution. Nor I doubt you can cite any Republicans of any influence who promote racism today. BTW, though reprehensible, Thurmond was suporting the law of the land at the time. Recall, secarate but equal?
However, it is certainly clear and worrisome that arguments have been made for over 30 years by elements of the environmental movement to support the forced abortions of China here and elsewhere; and the seniors and senior organizations (including the liberal AARP) are worried about those who support depopulation control by targeting the elderly.
Bottom line, there is a significant element of the environmental movement that supports forced depopulation control. Those elements are already in the White House and Congress. And they are in support of Democrats-
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 5:16pm
"... so that women continue splatting out shaved apes until we're eating each other?"
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 4:46pm
deep fried FRANKGRITS.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
"Before you can grill it, ya gotta kill it." Ted Nugent
Posted by Benchrest at 09/16/2009 @ 5:16pm
Bottom line, there is a significant element of the environmental movement that supports forced depopulation control. Those elements are already in the White House and Congress. And they are in support of Democrats-
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 5:16pm
While I agree with you that these people are reprehensible at the same time a movement must be at least semi mainstream in order to effect any change. Which is why the focus on these groups is something I consider to be unneccesary. I don't think any of these people would ever even get closed to any of these programs just like the fringe conservatives who also happen to be racists may be calling for the wide spread deportation of blacks but unless those people were actually in the majority I just consider them fringe wackos who need to be ignored until they go away.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 5:54pm
"Before you can grill it, ya gotta kill it." Ted Nugent
Posted by Benchrest at 09/16/2009 @ 5:16pm
Wonder if Abortion-on-Demanders prefer 1st trimester `kill' or late-term `kill' that can arrive at the grill still warm and maybe wiggly?
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 6:45pm
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 6:45pm
NOT where I was going with that HAP.
My apologies if it seemed that way.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/16/2009 @ 7:11pm
It seems Liberty gives the unthinking true believers too much credit in the thinking department.
It should be obvious to a primary school student that if a reasonable standard of living is to be had for all then the use of cheap efficient energy producing fuels such as coal (we have about 400 years supply at current usage) is the only way that standard can be presently achieved and extended to the world's energy poor It then is not easy to see why even the arithmetically incompetent, semi-religious cannot see why a projected population growth of about 35% over the next few decades, given the demise of cheap energy, will not make the worst possible Armageddon scenario look like a Sunday school picnic.
That reality has already dawned on China and India and is the reason they are buying up access to all the cheap energy producing fuels as well as the nuclear equivalents. ( Australia has just sold future supplies of natural gas for $50 billion to China, Japan and India adding to $30 billion of it sold to China already. That apart from the long term purchase of vast quantities of coal from Australia , for future use, by those nations).
However it is the semi-religious cargo cultists who live affluent lives because of cheap energy that are suggesting the only solution to their psuedo scientific induced dilemma is population control. The "solution" that Liberty refers to is widely touted, by them, around the developed world. But then many Americans live in ignorance of that big wide world out there.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/16/2009 @ 7:20pm
"And yet it matters a lot. It matters because climate change is already devastating lives in the global south, and because time is running out for the rest of us as well."
Incidentally I live in "the global south" in the state of Victoria which is experiencing its most prolonged drought on record. But this country has always lived with periodic droughts and still managed to help feed its own 21 million plus about another 60 million in other countries. I notice the current drought has not affected that ability significantly because of the adaption of scientific agricultural methods as well as the use of drought resistant species. Now that is where real science, which is the means by which humans will be enabled to adapt to climate change , natural or anthropogenic, without a hitch comes into the picture.
Here is a Primary Industries report for Aug 2009:
http://tinyurl.com/nyc8t6
Thus in other affected places like parts of Africa the solution lies in the application of science and most certainly not in denying the poor the use of cheap energy.
(Maria tells us what most skeptics have already suspected. The left's interest is not about the environment or CC, except as a means to an end. viz to change the economic and social fabric of society).
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/16/2009 @ 9:33pm
that's some whacked out shit there, larry.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 10:01pm
My apologies if it seemed that way.
Posted by Benchrest at 09/16/2009 @ 7:11pm
ibble tossed a line, baited with "shaved apes".....you just never know what gets snagged.....hehehe!
Glad to know you don't like to eat shaved apes of any -mester!
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 11:04pm
We watch the signs in numbness and regret./ Midwinter summer, chaos in the year,/ And still our money's on the outside bet.
Why this unease? We know that some upset/ Will switch our fortunes, now at full career./ We watch the signs in numbness and regret:
The hurricanes, the polar ice in sweat,/ The rising heat, the changing atmosphere,/ And still our money's on the outside bet….
Oh, if our stumbling nag would only get/ A move on…. But it won't. Let's have a beer/ And watch the signs, in numbness and regret.
It isn't over till the end, and yet / It's over long before. Hopes disappear,/ And still our money's on the outside bet.
By now they've reached the final straight, and yet We look away, while at the edges, clear, We note the signs in numbness and regret. And still our money's on the outside bet.
Posted by mikecope at 09/17/2009 @ 02:37am
HUMANITY
RIP
CAUSE OF DEMISE: RAPTURED TO DEATH!!!!! Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 12:15pm
That was really good. I wish I had written that!
Posted by raaustin at 09/17/2009 @ 07:18am
"--I'm white; and more liberal than the President."-------Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:25pm
Pretty sure of the FIRST part of that....but check out urmy's "liberal" comments on Melissa Harris-Lacewell....see if they sound like Frosty or Happy.
Posted by Mask at 09/17/2009 @ 07:26am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 11:34am
We don't need death camps, but we do need to curb population growth. Look at the numbers; the population for 2010 is obviously a slight projection for where we will be in three months (http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop).
Year Population Delta (Jan 1) (billions) (billions) 1970 3.91 --- 1980 4.52 0.61 1990 5.22 0.70 2000 6.03 0.81 2010 6.97 0.94
Not only is population increasing (duh!), but the rate of population increase is itself increasing. That is exponential growth. If virus is grew like this in your body, you would call it a disease, and you would go to the doctor. We need to deal with this problem now, before we are forced to make a choice between taking inhumane measures or sitting idly by as millions are pushed over the brink and die through war and famine. I don't care how optimistic you are, we are not going to ship billions of people to a terraformed Mars this century. The Earth is a finite resource, and we are stuck with it, so we had better not squander it, or before we know it, it will be used up.
Posted by raaustin at 09/17/2009 @ 07:43am
Posted by raaustin at 09/17/2009 @ 07:43am
Sorry, my table formatting was lost. I'll put the increase in population over the preceding decade in parenthesis. All numbers are in billions.
1970 : 3.91 (---), 1980 : 4.52(0.61), 1990 : 5.22 (0.70), 2000 : 6.03 (0.81), 2010 : 6.97 (0.94)
Posted by raaustin at 09/17/2009 @ 07:48am
Maybe they know something we don't.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:14pm
Ever been to China? You can't see the sun most days due to the smog. The sky has kind of a yellowish brown tint to it. Ya, I'd say they have a vested interest in going green if they can....it's either that, or invade another so they can move there.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2009 @ 10:59am
.....it's either that, or invade another so they can move there.
Whoops, should be invade another country.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2009 @ 11:00am
This is just as bad as liberals screaming that Republicans want to shoot the poor.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:16pm
They don't?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2009 @ 11:01am
see if they sound like Frosty or Happy.
Posted by Mask at 09/17/2009 @ 07:26am
I stand corrected, he's not a Liv lite, he's a happy lite or lite happy whichever way you prefer.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2009 @ 11:10am
"--I'm white; and more liberal than the President."-------Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:25pm Pretty sure of the FIRST part of that....but check out urmy's "liberal" comments on Melissa Harris-Lacewell....see if they sound like Frosty or Happy. Posted by Mask at 09/17/2009 @ 07:26am | ignore this person |
--what "right-wing" comments did I make? please, point them out. even just the time of the post where the "right-wing" comments supposedly were written.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 12:36pm
I stand corrected, he's not a Liv lite, he's a happy lite or lite happy whichever way you prefer. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2009 @ 11:10am | ignore this person | warn this person
--which comments of mine are "right-wing"? please, just point out one. That's all I want you or Mask to do. Just one comment of mine that is "right-wing." think you can do it?
;)
Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 12:37pm
"global totalitarian death programs. "posted by radicalantiamericanpreacherman
Boy, I thought I had a good imagination! Nothing compared to Larrys delusions.
Totalitarian death programs.
What a bizarre individual Larry has turned out to be. He supports the death of hundreds of thousands of people, illegal spying by the federal government, the opening of gulags in Cuba...but now, and only now, when we have a centrist/corporate supported President.... suddenly he has concern about totalitarian death programs that are coming from climate scientists.
Truly the rantings of a delusional unbalanced person.
Seek help. Seriously.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/17/2009 @ 12:39pm
Posted by raaustin at 09/17/2009 @ 07:18am | ignore this person | warn this person
:)
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2009 @ 09:39am
Church membership requirements on behavior cannot be compared with attempting to limit someone's constitutional rights.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 3:33pm
Yes, you can always drop out and be burned at the stake.
Posted by OneVote at 09/18/2009 @ 11:30am
The Earth is a finite resource, and we are stuck with it, so we had better not squander it, or before we know it, it will be used up.
Posted by raaustin at 09/17/2009 @ 07:43am | ignore this person | warn this person
What Antisocialist ignores as well is that "chemical" food production to feed the masses has polluted our world to the point where the oceans are dying out, and our fresh water resources have been contaminated with compounds that we don't have a clue about as to future effects such hormones, antibiotics, drugs, fertilizers, pesticides.
"Organic farming" will not support our present population levels.
Posted by OneVote at 09/18/2009 @ 11:49am
'I notice the current drought has not affected that ability significantly because of the adaption of scientific agricultural methods as well as the use of drought resistant species. Now that is where real science, which is the means by which humans will be enabled to adapt to climate change , natural or anthropogenic, without a hitch comes into the picture.'
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/16/2009 @ 9:33pm
Really? What are you growing?
So lets see - take the land mass of Austrialia 7,686,850[sq. km and divide by 21 million..............
Posted by OneVote at 09/18/2009 @ 12:08pm
Really? What are you growing?
So lets see - take the land mass of Austrialia 7,686,850[sq. km and divide by 21 million..............
Posted by OneVote at 09/18/2009 @ 12:08pm
I'm not growing anything at present OV. I'm a great believer in specialisation so I let the experts do the "growing" for me.
I'm an urban dwelling engineer these days but I once was a a "hobby" farmer, when our kids were younger (free slave labour), who bred pedigree Angus cattle (once got top price for an unled bull at the national show and sale and still have a few bulls (sold to other breeders) that are trait leaders for EMA (eye muscle area), and weaning and 600 day weights in our national Breedplan scheme- If you like to check on the Australian Angus page our stud was called Newham Park) so I'm hoping that makes me an armchair expert on all things agricultural.
Think we grow most things here OV for though Australia is the driest continent on earth, the coastal fringe has all sorts of agricultural land from marginal to as mineral/nutrient rich as any.
We even sell a bit of beef and some dairy products to the US under our FTA which of course is no FTA at all for while we have no tariffs on your stuff you are still so uncompetetive that there are restrictions on Aussie beef imports etc. From memory those US import restrictions will be phased out in time. So as usual the US, as does Europe, screws the rest of the word with their varieties of "free trade".
Wheat and grass fed beef (naturally with all that space and drought resistant grasses) are our major export items.
My thrust was really a jibe at journos and UN control freaks who wouldn't have a clue about agricultural production but still imagine they are experts on the effect of climate change on its present and future status.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/18/2009 @ 6:26pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/18/2009 @ 6:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ah....thought you Aussies had found an agricultural alchemy.
Saw the movie Ned Kelly a while back.
Aussie Bushranger = US Cowboy.
Very similar to our Wild West.
Love to try some Aussie beef. We get some from Argentina, which is very good.
Is kangaroo meat good eating?
Posted by OneVote at 09/18/2009 @ 7:31pm
Is kangaroo meat good eating?
Posted by OneVote at 09/18/2009 @ 7:31pm
Never tried it but checked with my son who fortuitously just popped in for a "loan" of a few dollars. He said it tastes like beef and is very tender. That probably depends on the chef. My wife likes well cooked meat (which are really burnt offerings) which probably is the reason I'm not a great meat eater.
Greenies want us to eat our national symbol, aka skippy (the bush kangaroo) and phase out our beef herds. Better for the environment. So they tell us.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/18/2009 @ 8:00pm
OV, Ned Kelly was a Victorian who was hung at Melbourne gaol in 1880. He was about 25 years old and his famous last words from the gallows were "such is life."
He of course was Irish, (Irish jokes OK over there?) which probably was the reason he forgot to protect his legs, when in his homemade iron suit he took on the "British" police (Australia was then a colony) at Glenrowan, about 100 miles north of Melbourne. This was his attempt to right a long list of real and imagined wrongs, which included the arrest of his mother, which list he from time to time sent to "letters to the editor" of the then main Melbourne Newspaper.
The police shot him in the legs which along with the weight of his iron suit slowed him down a bit and that led to the capture and ultimately end of poor Ned.
I remember, as a boy, listening to stories told by a distant relative , he was about 100 at the time. Ned was a small time thief in the district (Benalla-Glenrowan) where this relative's family farmed, and they knew Ned had stolen some of their stuff including a horse. So this man's uncle went to Ned and told him what had happened but never giving on that he knew Ned was the culprit. Ned was very sympathetic and said he would try to find the thief. Next day everything was returned but Ned didn't show up to claim the credit for getting their goods back.
He murdered three policemen and that's what earned him the noose.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/18/2009 @ 8:57pm
Never tried it but checked with my son who fortuitously just popped in for a "loan" of a few dollars. He said it tastes like beef and is very tender. That probably depends on the chef. My wife likes well cooked meat (which are really burnt offerings) which probably is the reason I'm not a great meat eater.
Greenies want us to eat our national symbol, aka skippy (the bush kangaroo) and phase out our beef herds. Better for the environment. So they tell us.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/18/2009 @ 8:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Hope your wife isn't a reader of The Nation....lol..............
I'll bet Mick Dundee ate a 'skippy' or two.
Reading about Rodney Ansell (inspiration for Crocodile Dundee) - folk hero shot dead by the police. Fascinating history.
"To Fight the Wild".....love it.....'no worries Mate, but I did miss the company of women.'
The Ned Kelly story is fascinating. The movie portrayed it "enough blame to go around."
Posted by OneVote at 09/19/2009 @ 10:01am