[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Current Events' LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Friday, April 30th, 2010|
¿Puede usted decir búsqueda y asimiento desrazonables?
Well, I am not sure I can either.
By now everyone should have heard about the new laws in Arizona. I am not sure how anyone could not be outraged. This is one of the worst decisions ever signed into law that I have ever heard of. It's unenforceable, illegal, and flies in the face of some of the most valued of our social and cultural standards. Even those on the far right will not be able to make a valid argument for the intelligence of this bit of tripe. All those half baked complaints about the destruction of the Constitution and not a peep about this travesty.
It's not about harboring illegal aliens. It's about the rights of the average citizen to be protected from search and seizure. Yes, that's right - the average Joe. See, since it is often impossible for the law to determine who is illegal and who is not they will have to infringe on the rights of many Americans who happen to “look” like they could be illegal; but are guilty of nothing at all. And if you refuse, you can be charged with obstruction and several other additional charges – and even worse – if the police are deemed by some annoying busy body (who wants to harass the most likely perfectly legal family of Hispanics next door who throw loud parties) as not enforcing this crazy law, they run the risk of being sued; thus forcing to the police into a no win situation where they will get sued for enforcing the law or not.
And so what if I have no reason to fear being stopped myself? That isn't the point. Everyone in this country is assumed to be innocent and protected from unreasonable search and seizure. SO what if I get stopped once, or twice, or a dozen times - I guess it isn't unreasonable if you are a middle aged white person in a Lexus.
Makes me want to dress the part and go to Arizona just be able to get arrested and file a suit myself. This is the sort of thing I have been expecting since the days of Junior. Current Mood: awake
|Tuesday, April 6th, 2010|
More pointless things for people to complain about
Ahhhh the census.
All the rancor surrounding it are simply amusing and astounding. There is nothing wrong with census taking. There is nothing wrong with the questions being asked. As for the craziness regarding the encouragement that the US Census Bureau is giving to gay and lesbian couples to indicate that they are married; who really cares? Truth is that this information is not available to the public. The public moral fiber is not threatened in anyway and the data has little effect society’s acceptance or lace of acceptance of such issues. Truth is that the people that don’t support gay marriage still won’t support it just because the gay couple next door privately checked a box on a private form that will be counted and handled far from the public eye (at least for 72 years).
Maybe there will be some statistical release that indicates that the number of gay couples living in a self proclaimed state of matrimony is a larger percentage of the population than we had previously - again, so what? If you are a parent, parent your children as you see fit. These folk, the ones going off on this subject, these people will simply never accept same sex couples.
As for the government, if they want to gather marital status for statistical purposes and the determination of proper representation, I could care less. Issues like this will hardly matter to the purpose of the census. Most of the data is used for simple unrelated statics and demographics. It’s also Constitutionally required. Anyone claiming to be a Constitutionalist has to support the taking of the census.
As for accusations of people being “liars” if they are half of a same sex couple and they indicate they are “married” on the census; oh please! It is not as if this lends any credibility or credence to the status. Government has not place, no place at all, in defining the interpersonal relations of anyone. Marital questions and all marital supports, recognition and etc should be removed from government. Count the people in the residence. The selection of “married” on some form is only validating to the person checking it - and I am certain they can validate this in their deeds without some form.
So what? Why should anyone give a crap about a gay couple checking married on a form that will not effect any sort of real change as a result of the mark?
Why should government even have any official recognition of the marital status of a couple?
|Wednesday, October 21st, 2009|
Tyranny or Fairness
So tell me this... Why should the Insurance Industry in the US be exempt from Federal Anti-Trust Laws?
Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) seems to think that removing this protection constitutes vindictiveness on the part of the WH and is an unfair treatment of the industry. It very well may be; but the insurance industry has made several threats of its own; and why should they receive this special treatment in the first place?
This all stems from the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act which "provides that federal anti-trust laws will not apply to the "business of insurance" as long as the state regulates in that area, but federal anti-trust laws will apply in cases of boycott, coercion, and intimidation". One of the things that the "right" has called for is interstate portability of insurance. Wouldn't this invalidate McCarran-Ferguson and put the insurance industries under interstate commerce oversight? Haven't these industries already abused this exemption?
While we're at it, why not review all the malfeasances of the insurance industry?
If we were able to clean up the bad behavior of the insurance industry, maybe people would not feel the need to do a massive overhaul of the health care industry, and a public option would be less appealing an option.
If I feel any oppression on this issue it is clearly from the direction of the convoluted and deceitful practices of the several health insurance and billing offices I have dealt with. Any other business in the US would never be allowed to operate in the manner that many of these do. Other industries with similar problems have been regulated as a result. Maybe it is time the insurance companies got a turn to stand and deliver on their poor behavior. Current Mood: amused
|Friday, October 3rd, 2008|
Are You blogger? Learn How to get into space for free:))
Most of us will never go to space - at least, not for a decade or so. But while we may not be able to go on a space walk or bounce around in zero-G, the prospect of being able to send something into the Great Beyond sounds like a decent consolation.
IntoSpace.org is hoping to make that happen for a mere $2.
The site is offering a deal that is reminiscent of the Million Dollar Homepage. You pay $2 for the rights to a 0.4×0.4 inch block on a piece of paper, on which you can include a photograph, piece of text, or logo. If you purchase more than 20 blocks at once, you’re eligible for a small discount. There are around 250,000 blocks available, which means IntoSpace could potentially earn around $500,000.original article on techcrunchThere’s a special offer for bloggers: you tell your readers about the project and go with us into space for free. Bloggers are going into space for FREE in a separate rocket (1000 seats)!
Project's website - http://intospace.org
|Tuesday, September 30th, 2008|
|Saturday, September 27th, 2008|
What will happen?
I am quite taken back by the vast difference in opinion over the state of the economy between mainstream sources and alternative. Is this Bill going to pass and we'll just continue to see decline in the markets, as the mainstream tells it? Or is there any real credit to the massive amounts of "THE SECOND DEPRESSION IS HERE" headlines that front many 'news' sites?
I have a pretty basic distrust for the government. Not a lot, but enough that I won't push aside even the craziest of ideas posposed by the craziest of people. In todays day and age, no one is immune from greed, and greed makes people do some stupid shit. So when I heard about the 9/11 conspiracy years ago I did not push it aside. Though, for different reasons, I also did not push aside the idea that we didn't land on the moon. I even wrote an English paper in highschool (one of the FEW I wrote) outlining both sides of the arguement.
So, with that said, I don't often find myself too wound up in the 'what lies beneath' part of the news. However this current crisis we're facing has some very serious events tied to it. Now the media, in doing what the media does best, does not, and WILL not connect these dots for you. So like a loyal flock the people say "well i didn't see that on fox, so it couldn't possibly be true, you're crazy'.
I guess I'm am seeking a bit of clarification... and that is: Do the alternative news websites blow up any news item they feel fits into the plan for a 'new world order'? I just want to be sure that I am not wasting my time going back and forth, doing my best to fact check some of these articles. So if anyone reads this, and knows much about the subject I would really appreciate some input.
|Friday, September 26th, 2008|
So... how do you think it'll go tonight?
By the way, dunno if any of you guys remember who the Emergency Broadcast Network
were, but they were this sort of political leaning art group... and now they're called Eclectic-method
anyway, they did this video remix of InnerPartySystem
's "Don't Stop" video that is very very very
timely for tonight's debate.
And then you can do your own remix:
|Sunday, June 1st, 2008|
Immigration raid spurs calls for action against employers( full text under cutCollapse )
I agree, if you are going to penalize the workers the employers need to be penalized as well. It's ridiculous that these employers continue to hire the illegal immigrants and only the immigrants are punished. If the USA is serious about this then they would certainly penalize the employers as well. In fact, many stats that I have read say that prosecution of employers and penalties and dropped significantly since 1999.
|Friday, May 23rd, 2008|
quick heads up.
Libertarians are currently in first and third
place on the LJ advisory board elections.cambler gunslnger
The idea of either of them having any kind of say on what happens on LJ is frightening at best.
Why the hell isn't tcpip
on this list.
|Saturday, March 1st, 2008|
Americans are asking for Political Asylum...Why don't we hear about it?
There is no country in the world that understands propaganda more than the United States. Billions are spent at the Pentagon on what you hear and repeat. The mainstream news is a psychotronic parade as the democrats bumble and the reporters comment as though they are on the Bush administration payroll.
The truth is not reported. The public responds as a story of importance makes breaking news only to see it squashed in the next 72 hours. Americans are asking for political asylum and you are not hearing about it.
The government is torturing American citizens who are Whistleblowers- myspace Darren Gelbard, youtube Monarch Katherine Moore, and DIA Topoff to see electronic warfare torturing a U.S. citizen in 2007. Or, for those of you who think these victims are conspiracy theorists, there are the ADS military tests on youtube, 60 Minutes, and CNN. People being hit out of thin air by a ray beam. For real!
Weapons that can harm or kill you from a distance, without leaving marks if the operator so desires, are being used on people in their homes. There are interviews with U.S. citizens who are victims and with a Baghdad surgeon in which he states there are bodies in Iraq he and his team of ten Doctors have seen that are being killed by..."No bullets, no shots..arms cut straight off...we don't know what kind of weapon it is." A Baghdad Orchestra player also stated he saw bodies where..."Only the face was burned, no eyes..and the teeth. The rest of the body was untouched.
The Washington Post released an article called Mind Games in which the victims of psychotronics and V2K described what it was like to have someone mentally and physically torture you using communications and electronic warfare from a distance. And Russia is trying to ban Space weapons after Congress changed the bill that would have banned psychotronics years ago. This is the most dangerous game. Weapons that no individual can defend themselves against. Weapons that manipulate people and that torture and can kill you in your home with no warning from a distance.
Tags: 60 minutes
, darren gelbard
, human rights
, space weapons
, washington post
, white house
|Friday, January 18th, 2008|
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law (For full story go here - http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2008/index.htm
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which was quietly signed by Bush on October 17, 2006, the very same day that he signed the Military Commissions Act, allows the president to station military troops anywhere in the United States and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to “suppress public disorder.” By revising the two-century-old Insurrection Act, the law in effect repeals the Posse Comitatus Act, which placed strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. As the only US criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people, it has been our best protection against tyranny enforced by martial law—the harsh system of rules that takes effect when the military takes control of the normal administration of justice. Historically martial law has been imposed by various governments during times of war or occupation to intensify control of populations in spite of heightened unrest. In modern times it is most commonly used by authoritarian governments to enforce unpopular rule. Author Frank Morales notes that despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress.
Source: “Bush Moves Toward Martial Law”, Frank Morales, TowardFreedom.com, October 25, 2006. (Go here for article - http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911
Other Laws you should be concerned about:
Read about the MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACThttp://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/commissions.htmlhttp://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&Mytoken=37D9AC56-8887-468F-8C751E291CAA0A6270829075
Read about - HR 1955: Violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism billhttp://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20071103120044679http://blog.myspace.com/antidotepiihttp://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=46779509&blogID=333608760&Mytoken=D9B98CDC-D9A4-4382-B3E20DC901F0104F72602629
|Thursday, January 17th, 2008|
Who Is ’Any Person’ in Tribunal Law?
Who Is ’Any Person’ in Tribunal Law?
Category: News and Politics
This law is something we all should concerned about.
This article was found online at: http://consortiumnews.com/2006/101906.html
..> ..> Who Is 'Any Person' in Tribunal Law?
By Robert Parry
October 19, 2006
The New York Times lead editorial gives false comfort to American citizens by assuring them that they will not be victims of George W. Bush's new draconian system for prosecuting enemies of the U.S. government in military tribunals outside constitutional protections.
"This law does not apply to American citizens," the Times editorial stated, "but it does apply to other legal United States residents. And it chips away at the foundations of the judicial system in ways that all Americans should find threatening." [NYT, Oct. 19, 2006]
However, the Times analysis appears to be far too gentle. While it's true that some parts of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 target non-citizens, other sections clearly apply to U.S. citizens as well, putting citizens inside the same tribunal system with resident aliens and foreigners.
"Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission," according to the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in September and signed by Bush on Oct. 17.
"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States ... shall be punished as a military commission … may direct. …
If the Times is correct that "this law does not apply to American citizens," why does it contain language referring to "any person" and then adding in an adjacent context a reference to people acting "in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States"?
Who has "an allegiance or duty to the United States" if not an American citizen? That provision would not presumably apply to Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda, nor would it apply generally to foreign citizens. This section of the law appears to be singling out American citizens.
Though the new law specifically strips non-U.S. citizens of habeas corpus – the right to a fair trial – American citizens caught up in Bush's legal system also would be denied the right to challenge their incarceration.
Besides allowing for "any person" to go into Bush's system, the law prohibits detainees once inside the system from appealing to the traditional American courts until a defendant is fully prosecuted and sentenced, which could translate into an indefinite imprisonment since there are no timetables for Bush's tribunal process to play out.
The law states that once a person is detained, "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever … relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions."
That court-stripping provision – barring "any claim or cause of action whatsoever" – would seem to deny American citizens habeas corpus rights just as it does for non-citizens. If a person can't file a motion with a court, he can't assert any constitutional rights, including habeas corpus.
Other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights – such as a speedy trial, the right to reasonable bail and the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" – would seem to be beyond an American detainee's reach as well.
Though the New York Times suggests that the new law "chips away at the foundations of the judicial system," the law actually seems to obliterate the old judicial system.
By putting detainees, apparently including American citizens outside the U.S. constitutional process, Bush's system makes a mockery of the Sixth Amendment in particular. It reads:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; [and] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses."
By contrast, in Bush's system, there are no guarantees of either a speedy or a public trial. Secrecy dominates in a process run by U.S. military officers whose careers depend on the favor of the Commander in Chief.
Under the new law, the military judge "may close to the public all or a portion of the proceedings" if he deems that the evidence must be kept secret for national security reasons. Those concerns can be conveyed to the judge through ex parte – or one-sided – communications from the prosecutor or a government representative.
The judge also can exclude the accused from the trial if there are safety concerns or if the defendant is disruptive. Plus, the judge can admit evidence obtained through coercion if he determines it "possesses sufficient probative value" and "the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence."
The law permits, too, the introduction of secret evidence "while protecting from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence if the military judge finds that ... the evidence is reliable."
During trial, the prosecutor would have the additional right to assert a "national security privilege" that could stop "the examination of any witness," presumably by the defense if the questioning touched on any sensitive matter.
In effect, what the new law appears to do is to create a parallel "star chamber" system for the prosecution, imprisonment and elimination of enemies of the state, whether those enemies are foreign or domestic.
The Times editorial writers might also take into account the circumstances under which Bush is likely to execute his new powers. Imagine, for example, a terrorist incident or a threat of one somewhere in the United States. Amid public anger and fear, Bush or some future President could begin rounding up citizens and non-citizens alike.
Once these detainees are locked up at Guantanamo Bay or some other prison facility, they could be held incommunicado and denied access to civilian courts under the law's court-stripping provision.
It could take years before the U.S. Supreme Court even addresses these detentions and – given the increasingly right-wing make-up of the Court – there would be no assurance that the justices wouldn't endorse the President's extraordinary powers.
The Times also might want to take note of the curious provision in the law that would jail "any person" who "collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such information to an enemy of the United States."
Since the Bush administration and its political allies often have accused the New York Times of collecting and publishing information, from confidential sources, that is helpful to U.S. enemies – for instance, the stories about Bush's secret wiretapping program – this provision arguably could apply to Times reporters and editors.
This "spying" provision not only puts alleged offenders into Bush's special legal system but it could result in the offenders being sentenced to death.
So, before assuring American citizens that they're safe from Bush's draconian system, the Times editors might check on why these "any person" provisions were put into the law. For more than two centuries, the civilian U.S. legal system has handled similar crimes, including allegations of spying and charges of Americans aiding foreign enemies.
Yet now, under the cloak of setting up military tribunals to try al-Qaeda suspects and other so-called "unlawful enemy combatants," Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have effectively created a parallel legal system for "any person" – American citizen or otherwise – who crosses some line and becomes an enemy of the state.
The Times editors may believe that to raise these concerns is alarmist. But over the past six years, Bush and his administration have routinely stretched legal language to aggrandize their power, not the other way around.
There are a multitude of reasons to think that Bush will now interpret every legal ambiguity in the new law in his favor, as granting him the broadest possible powers over people he perceives as his enemies.
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.'
MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT = an unconstitutional law
MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT = an unconstitutional law
Category: News and Politics
What kind of a country are we living in? How much are you willing to give up in the name of "safety against terrorists"?
I think we should all be very concerned over the laws our government has been making while we "sleep".
This article found online at: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/commissions.html
MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT
In the final hours before adjourning last year, Congress passed and the president signed the Military Commissions Act (MCA). In doing so, they cast aside the Constitution and the principle of habeas corpus, which protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. They also gave the president absolute power to designate enemy combatants, and to set his own definitions for torture.
Habeas corpus isn't a fancy legal term. It's the freedom from being thrown in prison illegally, with no help and no end in sight. No president should ever be given the power to call someone an enemy, wave his hand, and lock them away indefinitely. The Founders made the president subject to the rule of law. They rejected dungeons and chose due process.
We all know the difference between fairness and persecution. If we do not act immediately to fix the Military Commissions Act and restore our constitutional rights, basic protections like habeas corpus could be lost forever, and our country would become unrecognizable.
..> ..> What's wrong with the Military Commissions Act:
UNDERMINES THE CONSTITUTION AND
THE RULE OF LAW
MAKES THE PRESIDENT BOTH JUDGE AND JURY
REJECTS CORE AMERICAN VALUES
What you can do:
GET THE FACTS ON HABEAS CORPUS AND THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT
LEARN HOW CONGRESS CAN FIX THE MCA
HELP FIND HABEAS
The MCA eliminates the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. It allows our government to continue to hold hundreds of prisoners for more than five years without charges.
It also gives any president the power to declare — on his or her own — who is an enemy combatant, decide who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and define what is — and what is not — torture and abuse.
Two bills have been introduced in Congress that would restore habeas corpus rights to detainees and reaffirm that no president can make up his or her own rules regarding torture and abuse: The Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 and The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act.
Our Constitution is what distinguishes America from other countries. It's what makes us Americans. To do away with its protections makes us more like those we are fighting against.
Congress made a mistake when they supported the MCA in 2006. But the ultimate responsibility lies with us, the people. We know what America stands for, at home and abroad. We have the power and the obligation to call on Congress to correct its mistake and restore habeas corpus and all the constitutional and due process rights they took away.
|Tuesday, January 15th, 2008|
I've posted an entry here
about the announcement of government backing for nuclear power plants in the UK.
|Sunday, January 6th, 2008|
I have recently created an online journal, column_inches
to write about current affairs and news topics from around the world. It is a weekly column, and I encourage discussion about the topics.
Please feel free to add this journal as a friend, to leave any comments or suggestions, and to reply to the entries.
|Wednesday, December 19th, 2007|
Excerpt: Why Isn't Mom a Millionaire?
Women are launching businesses at twice the pace of their male counterparts, making female-owned businesses the fastest growing segment of the U.S. economy. Yet only a paltry 3 percent of these businesses have annual sales of over a million dollars. Why?
I have permission from AMACOM, the publishing arm of the American Management Association, to distribute an excerpt from the new book, "The Girls' Guide to Building a Million-Dollar Business," by Susan Wilson Solovic, CEO of Small Business Television (SBTV.com). Disturbed by the relative weakness of women-owned businesses, Solovic set out to uncover the strategic secrets and distinctive qualities of women entrepreneurs who have taken their businesses to the million-dollar level.
In her new book, Solovic looks at the barriers to business growth for women and finds many of them self-imposed, including the inability to delegate, hiring family and friends, and a lack of faith in the enterprise. Solovic shares proven tactics and inspiring triumphs for every woman who wants to grow her business into a million-dollar performer.
The excerpt I'm distributing is called "Four Keys to the Millionaire's Club" and briefly covers the factors in business success Solovic focuses on in her book. The excerpt is available at the following URL or I can send a text version to you upon request:http://www.authorviews.com/authors/solovic/excerpt.php
|Thursday, December 13th, 2007|
|Wednesday, November 7th, 2007|
Excerpt: Steve LeVine on Caspian Oil Deals
I have permission from Random House to distribute an excerpt from journalist Steve LeVine's mammoth new book, The Oil and The Glory: The Pursuit of Empire and Fortune on the Caspian Sea
The excerpt is called "Azeri Oil" and follows the final negotiations for development of Azerbaijan's massive offshore oil fields. After three years and six changes of government, a deal is finally struck between private and state-owned oil companies as diplomats from Russia and the United States spar in the background. Overnight, $230 million in cash put up by the oil companies disappears into private bank accounts, apparently benefiting Azeri leader Heydar Aliyev and his associates. It's just one of the stunning, billion-dollar deals documented in this book.
"This is the new way wars are fought," says journalist LeVine, who covered the region for a string of global media companies including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Newsweek. Serving 11 years in the Caspian, LeVine was flown home on a stretcher when a Chechen rocket grenade shattered his leg.
The excerpt from The Oil and The Glory
is available at the following URL:http://www.authorviews.com/authors/levine/excerpt.php
Bush beats Nixon’s disapproval ratings.
Sixty-four percent of Americans disapprove of the job President Bush is doing, and for “the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they ’strongly disapprove’ of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.”Source
|Friday, June 1st, 2007|
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin
The reaction from the scientific community to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's lack of concern over climate change is blunt. Here are some examples. First, from Jim Hansen, who works for Griffin: "I almost fell off my chair. It's remarkably uninformed."
Next we have Berrien Moore, director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University of New Hampshire: "I don't understand it. I'm really stunned that he could say something like that. I mean, I really find it shocking."
And then there's Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences at Princeton University: "It's astounding that the head of a major US science agency could hold such attitudes, basically ignorance about the global warming problem. In fact, it's so astounding that I think he should resign."
Those three comments were broadcast this morning on NPR, the same outlet that broadcast Griffin's thoughts on the subject yesterday. USA Today, meanwhile, quotes Jerry Mahlman, a former top scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and now a member of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, saying Griffin's remarks suggest Griffin is either "totally clueless" or "a deep anti-global warming ideologue."
Elsewhere at ScienceBlogs, the focus is on Griffin's suggestion that it's "arrogant" to take a side on the issue. We have Janet, who asks "Is it arrogant to want to use our scientific knowledge?" and Steinn points out that "whaterver we do, we are making a choice, and it is an arrogant choice no matter what."
SciBlogger Chris Mooney, writing at the Huffington Post, asks: "How can anyone think this is not a tremendous societal risk, even if there might be some people--in, say, Buffalo, New York--who may actually have more pleasant weather under global warming?"
So far, that's it for scienceBlogs. Frankly, I was expecting more. Perhaps I am being a little impatient.
All this about a man who oversees the lion's share of American government research on climate change. A man with six graduate degrees in physics and engineering, as well as an MBA. Maybe that last degree, from Loyola College, is the source of the problem. MBAs make me nervous.