Re: Why they hate us, was (Re: funny things to do on a bike)



Mark Hickey wrote:

> Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:

>
>>> You mean, like admit maybe O'Neill never actually said he wrote the
>>> book, even though somehow 70% (or more) of the US population somehow
>>> believe he did?

>>
>>I take it you pulled this 70% from your ****. Your biggest straw man
>>yet, I'd say, and that's some pretty hot competition you've got going.

>
> Heh. So you are saying that if I claim a large number of people
> believe something that's not true for no other reason than they
> believe it, and there's no evidence that the person in question ever
> said anything to create that belief - it's only a straw man.


No. I'm saying you invented the whole O'Neill thing to cover up your own
ignorance. You then proceeded to make some kind of argument based on the
made up figure.

It's becoming exceedingly clear that you have no concept of the logical
argument.

> I rest my case.


Your standards are getting lower by the day.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Fair and Balanced -
http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote >...
> >> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

>
> >> You
> >> seem to have a habit of assuming people said things that never left
> >> their lips or keyboards...

> >
> >Strawman.
> >
> >> Would it be rude of me to point
> >> out that there seems to be a kind of consistent problem with your
> >> reading comprehension.

> >
> >Strawman. It's a nice try to avoid the question, but I see through
> >it.

>
> Heh heh heh.
>
> Look up "stawman" and get back to me.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

"Description of Straw Man

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of
X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

"This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted
version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the
position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing
of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man

1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by
$10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching
assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry
like that, Jones."

2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine
program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave
us defenseless like that."

By arguing that I have somehow not comprehended your writings, you are
then setting up the false argument that I somehow "don't understand",
and you will then attempt to discredit my entire argument on that
basis.

You may refute this conclusion with logic, but I doubt seriously that
you have a logical construct that can stand much scrutiny.
--
Jonesy

3. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit
messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we
have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day.
You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just
ridiculous."
 
Mark Hickey wrote:

> The issue (that you seem to be constantly missing) is that no one in
> the administration has suggested that (and I'll use your words to
> prevent any further confusion) "Saddam was involved in 9/11".


I'm not the person Mark had been responding to, but--

Bush chose wordings that would plant the idea, while avoiding
making an explicit connection. He was crafty about it. Examples:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that
Saddam Hussein could be contained." 01-28-03
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

"He's [i.e. Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing
with al Qaeda." 11-07-02
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20021107-7.html

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and
to support terror." 01-29-02
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html

for more, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm


The Christian Science Monitor reported:

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans
were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks,
only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this
year [2003], attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder
poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some"
of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

A question for you, Mark: do you think Bush's statements
helped cause that shift in Americans' beliefs?


Tom Ace
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote...
> >> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

>
> >> If you were to write a book about someone who fired you, why would I
> >> believe it would be balanced?

> >
> >See, here's what is a classic case of ad hominem commentary. By
> >questioning the character and honesty of a person, rather than the
> >actual content of his writings.

>
> Bringing up the fact that he's writing about someone who fired him
> (and by all accounts, a firing he's still quite upset about)


Cite?

> is hardly
> an "ad hominem" commentary. That should be obvious.


How is it obvious? Ad hominem commentary is where the *person* is
attacked, rather than the person's *position.* Since you have no
facts to refute his commentary, all you can do is impugn his
character. The very definition of ad hominem commentary.

> >Resorting to ad hominem commentary is a sure sign that you have lost.
> >Someone said that - I can't remember who...

>
> How about resorting to claiming an ad hominem when there isn't one?


Just because you claim it isn't doen't prove that it isn't. Go ahead
and use the definition of the term "argumentum ad hominem" to show how
what you said isn't ad hominem. (Not a proof - proving a negative is
a logical impossiblity.)

> O'Neill's book has been thoroughly discredited by those who were
> there.


You mean those who have something at stake? After all, that's what
you are claiming for Mr. O'Neill, so it comes down to a "he said, she
said" sort of thing. I think we could dig up a paper from Cheney,
Perle and Wolfowitz that calls into question the veracity of some of
the folks who call O'Neill a liar.

> >> >> It's well known there was a contingency plan for Iraq
> >> >
> >> >There's a difference between some plan on a shelf (invasion of Mexico,
> >> >for instance) and the private foreign policy focus of "we need to take
> >> >that ******* down." (A paraphrase of Bush's quote "**** Saddam.")

> >
> >[ad hominem snipped]

>
> Heh. This is your day for accusing me of ad hominem (this accusation
> must be VERY weak if you can't even leave the original quote).


LOL. You may repost it if you desire. You could also show why it's
not a reiteration of a previous ad hominem, but I doubt you could.

> >I notice you don't actually address my point.

>
> O'Neill's account of that era doesn't coincide with any other member
> of the cabinet.


If any of those folks were remotely objective, or had the reputation
for honesty that O'Neill does, then you might have a point. Now,
here's a question:

*If* what O'Neill says is true, does anyone in the current
administration stand to lose anything?

> >> >Explicitly, no (I've said as much) Implicitly, well, you'd have to be
> >> >a total idiot, or have you head firmly up your ass not to see ANY
> >> >implication.
> >>
> >> Heh heh heh. So point one out.

> >
> >Already have. If you have a problem with the logic presented, you may
> >wish to bring up which part is not logical.
> >
> >> Show me the quote that forces people
> >> to believe there is a direct connection.

> >
> >Look up the definition of "implication," Mr. Strawman.

>
> Heh heh heh. So you can't point out anything that Bush said that led
> anyone to the conclusion


Sure I have - it's called an "implication." People soemtimes reach
conclusions because of implied actions or statements - in fact, we do
it all the time. Non-verbal communication, at it's basis, is
implication. Here's a definition of "imply" for you:

"Main Entry: im·ply
Pronunciation: im-'plI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): im·plied; im·ply·ing
Etymology: Middle English emplien, from Middle French emplier, from
Latin implicare
1 obsolete : ENFOLD, ENTWINE
2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary
consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
3 : to contain potentially
4 : to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>
synonym see SUGGEST
usage see INFER"



> but remain firmly convinced that somehow he
> managed to do it - with words that don't support the conclusion.


And yet, nearly 70% of the public at one time reached such a
conclusion. You have yet to explain how that might be possible if
Bush didn't explicitly say anything to that effect (he didn't) or he
and his minions didn't imply it. You can feel free to explain it
without the misdirection, but watching you squirm is funny.

> So which is he, a dupe or an evil genius who can say things and yet
> convince the majority of those listening (or even those not listening
> since more than 30% don't even bother to listen) that Iraq was
> directly connected to 9/11?


False choice. Somehow, those folks got that idea. So, if he didn't
say it directly, how did they reach that conclusion?


> >> >While you being an asshole is my opinion, you being pedantic is quite
> >> >obvious. Hingeing your whole case on what was or was not implied
> >> >means that you really don't have much of a case. And real world data
> >> >suggest that you are in a small minority in your belief.
> >>
> >> I have no case ? - and you can't provide a single quote to prove your
> >> point. Heh.

> >
> >I have already proved my point logically. Maybe you just don't
> >understand what the conversation is about.

>
> Let's look at your logic...
>
> 1) Bush never actually said anything to support the conclusion that
> Iraq and 9/11 are directly connected.
> 2) 70% of the US population believe there is a direct connection
> 3) Therefore Bush is responsible for the belief


I am at a loss to understand how you cannot use computer tools
effectively. That's not the argument I made, so why are you making up
a different one?

> I don't consider that "logic".


Of course you don't. Misstating my position makes a lovely strawman,
doesn't it:

"Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of
X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted
version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the
position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing
of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man

1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by
$10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching
assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry
like that, Jones."

2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine
program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave
us defenseless like that."

3. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit
messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we
have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day.
You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just
ridiculous."

> But you remain convinced so I think we
> are wasting our time discussing it - don't you agree?


The argument I actually made is the logical one. The one you invented
isn't.

> <snip>
> >The fact that near 70% of Americans at one time thought as
> >much proves this point.

>
> I rest my case.


If you had actually made some case, you might have a point. I am
asking you how they got that idea. You seem to think that it's
something other than by Administration implication. Something
undefined, or unprovable. I, on the other hand, beleive some
implication was made, in order to make a *subtle* connection, and let
peoples' imaginations do the rest. Propaganda isn't always about
whacking people with a big stick, "If you don't support this war, you
are commiting treason!" It's sometimes about making a suggestion.
"Kerry's intern was shuffled off to Africa, where she'd be 'out of the
way'."

> >> >[snip Liebermann quote]
> >> >
> >> >If two people, one from the Republican party, the other from the
> >> >Democratic party, say that the moon is made of green cheese, does that
> >> >make it true? Is it a fact then?
> >>
> >> You really like strawmen.

> >
> >This is called an "analogy." Look it up. Just because Bush and some
> >Democrat(s) think something doesn't make it true. Plenty of folks
> >used to think the world was the center of the universe, for example.

>
> Your definition of a strawman doesn't seem to agree with the textbook.


I am not claiming that you or any other real person believes any
particular thing. It is, in general, an analogy bent to the
ridiculous to illustrate a point. Let me recast it, so you won't try
and make it something more than it was ever meant to be:

If a Republican and a Democrat believe something that is not true, the
fact that both a Democrat and a Republican believe it does not make it
true. The "something" in this case is that "the moon is made of green
cheese."

> That is, a hypothetical situation that is concocted in such a way to
> be easy to destroy (like your "green cheese" example).


Bzzzt. I'm not claiming anyone actually believes it. This is a
really weak red herring.

I don't care if 10 or 100 or 1000 people believe something that's not
true. It doesn't become true by virtue of common thought, or whether
or not some authority believes it. Did you know, that at the turn of
the 20th century, most physicists believed that there was some
substance between stars and planets called "ether?" They were wrong,
and the fact that educated, professional and expert men believed it
didn't make it true.

> >> Do you really think that there's only one
> >> Democrat who believes there was a connection between Iraq and Al
> >> Qaeda?

> >
> >This is the perfect example of a strawman. Oh, I get it, you think I
> >like them, so you keep constructing them. Not the sharpest knife in
> >the drawer, are you?

>
> Asking whether you believe
> only one Democrat believes there's a connection between Iraq and AQ
> consitutes a strawman in your mind?


This is an example of "poisoning the well." From:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html


"Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person
might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or
false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is
presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (JP) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...


> >Did you show me anything to convince me that any legislation or
> >rulemaking by the Bush administration will do anything positive for
> >the environment?
> >http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...17302e197330932585256df200686549?OpenDocument


Did you show me anything to convince me that any legislation or
rulemaking by the Bush administration will do anything positive for
the environment?

The Sierra Club sued the EPA in February of 2003 for failing to update
its Clean Air standards as required by the Clean Air Act. After being
forced into a consent decree, the EPA released these rules. Gosh, did
you not know this? Very impressive.

> >Wrong. A treaty is signed and then sent to the Senate for ratification
> >for it to become binding. It can be signed by the President or his
> >representative, usually the Secretary of State.
> >
> >In fact my recollection turns out to be exactly right. Clinton never
> >submitted Kyoto to the Senate for ratification. The vote you are
> >talking about was a Senate resolution expressing its dissatisfaction
> >with the treaty. It was NOT, however, a ratification vote. President
> >Clinton negotiated and signed Kyoto and was actually accused by some
> >of trying to implement its provisions by Executive Order. To say that
> >he rejected it is purely and simply about as far from reality as you
> >can get. Fact: Clinton supported Kyoto, and Bush rejected it and
> >essentially rescinded the US signature to it.

>
> Mea culpa - you're right... I had forgotten that Clinton signed the
> thing. In any event, it was a symbolic action since he knew it would
> never clear the Senate - and in fact he did absolutely nothing to try
> to get it through the Senate.


Not true, but he didn't have the votes and he knew that once it was
rejected it was all over.

> Rightfully so, IMHO. So seldom can you
> get a unanimous decision out of the Senate that there should be no
> doubt that Kyoto is a really, really bad idea.


The EU, Russia and Japan don't agree with you.

Everyone knows that Kyoto is flawed, but as an alternative to the Bush
plan, pretending that global warming doesn't exist and therefore doing
NOTHING, it's got a lot to recommend it.

> >Then I'm left wondering why you didn't get hired. Or maybe the job was
> >not in Iraq, maybe it could only theoretically have taken you there
> >briefly.

>
> I'm sure there are people out there even more qualified than me, and I
> am sure one (actually more than one) of them got the job(s). I'm well
> aware of the work locations, and it would involve a lot of time in
> Iraq (literally living in "military" style for periods of time
> supporting the communications equipment used by the folks in the
> field).


Could be that the security situation has deteriorated so badly that
the project has been put on hold. This has happened to reconstruction
projects all over Iraq, according to the news. But at least you were
willing to do it, over-the-top gesture or not.

> I agree that was part of the equation (mortgage recasting).


The economy is not roaring.

> Investment can't be ignored as one of the elements of getting the
> economy roaring again.


What type of investment are you talking about? There has been very
little capital investement over the last three years; much of what
there was, was related to downsizing, outsourcing and off-shoring. Let
me repeat it: low interest rates and available capital (available
capital is what you get more of when you give taxcuts to people who
will not spend the proceeds on consumer goods) is going to be of very
limited effectiveness in stimultating the economy if there is already
considerable excess capacity, as there has been.

> At any rate, it's all working, and the economy
> is in a LOT better shape than it was before the tax cuts.


Only if you are willing to disregard the half trillion dollar annual
federal deficit and net two million jobs lost.

> In some ways - but you're right in others. Most of the spending
> increases are in social programs (which probably sounds like heresy to
> the information sheltered). For example, Department of Education
> outlays are up by 60%, Health and Human services by 21.6%, HUD by 6%.


Those percentages and where they are targeted are pratically of no
value in stimulating the economy when the actual dollar value is
compared to the size of the US economy. My favorite, though, is
Education, whose increase reflects the No Child Left Behind Act. It is
severely underfunded and does not offer even enough money to the
states to implement the program itself, let along provide improvements
to education, all this at a time when the states are themselves
squeezed by revenue shortfalls.

> If I have to be a "True Believer" to think that massive tax cuts
> stimulate the economy, then I'll be one (the alternative being in
> permanent denial).


You really don't seem to have much capacity for the subtleties of an
issue, do you? Despite everything I've said, all you can get out of it
is that "massive taxcuts stimulate the economy". Nothing about how
much, what kind or for who, just "massive taxcuts stimulate the
economy". It's a pretty interesting form of self delusion (or you are
trying to delude us?), really, because what you said is, of course,
true, but it skips any analysis of whether *Bush's* taxcuts themselves
have been particularly effective at stimulating the economy or
creating jobs. And that's the really important issue.

> As for Paul O'Neill's opinion... oh well.


Amazing to what degree the Bush administration depends on character
assisnation to defend its policies.

> >Everyone agrees that you stimulate the economy out of a recession with
> >taxcuts, but they have to go to people that will spend the money.

>
> Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
> are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all. A single parent of
> two making $20,000 a year is $750 ahead,


Only if they were already paying $750 in taxes, which they probably
weren't. Those 4 million people you're talking about are still paying
taxes- Medicare and Social Security, and their taxes are going to pay
for payments to current retirees and they're going to cover the
federal deficit so that Bush can give out his big taxcuts to the
ultrawealthy and still pretend that the deficit is *only* half a
trillion.

> >I NEVER said he wasn't. What I said was show me the specifics and
> >we'll talk about it. As I predicted, it turned out to be a business
> >taxcut targeted to help the American worker, in this case by trying to
> >stem the flow of jobs out of the US, something that Bush has refused
> >to address, despite the pleas of even GOP Congressmen. Note that
> >Kerry's proposed "taxcut" also removes present tax incentives for
> >moving jobs overseas.

>
> Heh. So when Bush gives businesses a tax cut, he's cozying up to his
> cronies. But when your guy does the same thing, he's a patriot trying
> to protect the American worker.


Exactly. Otherwise Kerry would be a Republican.

> The "flow of jobs" out of the US has remained relatively constant for
> many, many years.


And it's been a problem for many, many years. It has caused
fundamental, negative changes in US society.

> It's just gotten a lot of added interest during the
> political silly season


The reason it's gotten a lot of interest is that it's now happening to
white collar jobs. When an accountant's job is off-shored, what should
they be retrained for? Perhaps as a "food service worker"?

> (much as a 5.7% unemployment rate was a shining
> indicator example of Clinton's economy in 1996 but an indicator of a
> total disaster for the American worker in 2004).


There is no comparison between the economic conditions in 1996 and
now. At that time employment was improving- it had been adding jobs
for most of the last three years, the economy had been growing for
three years and the deficit was trending toward a surplus in the near
future. Those were the days.

Please don't try to tell us that things are as good now as they were
in '96. We know better, and it makes you look like a liar.

JP
 
JP wrote:
>
> Everyone knows that Kyoto is flawed, but as an alternative to the Bush
> plan, pretending that global warming doesn't exist and therefore doing
> NOTHING, it's got a lot to recommend it.


http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/s33p36.htm


> > It's just gotten a lot of added interest during the
> > political silly season

>
> The reason it's gotten a lot of interest is that it's now happening to
> white collar jobs.


Nonsense. It has always gotten a lot of attention.

> When an accountant's job is off-shored, what should
> they be retrained for?


For wherever the new jobs are.

http://tinyurl.com/29j32
http://tinyurl.com/yseny


> Perhaps as a "food service worker"?


I suppose, if that's all they can find, or want to do.

http://slate.msn.com/id/1916/
 
Mark Hickey wrote:

> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>...
>>>Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
>>>are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all....

>>
>>Really? So these people pay no sales, payroll, property (directly or
>>indirectly through rent payments), excise and other taxes? News to me.

>
>
> You KNOW I meant "federal income taxes".


I know nothing of the sort. I have observed that it is often not wise to
try to guess what was in the mind of Usenet posters.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area
 
Tom Ace <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> The issue (that you seem to be constantly missing) is that no one in
>> the administration has suggested that (and I'll use your words to
>> prevent any further confusion) "Saddam was involved in 9/11".

>
>I'm not the person Mark had been responding to, but--
>
>Bush chose wordings that would plant the idea, while avoiding
>making an explicit connection. He was crafty about it. Examples:
>
>"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that
>Saddam Hussein could be contained." 01-28-03
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html


When you look at the context (at the end of a long list of largely UN
weapons inspection report information about Iraq's WMD programs), and
the context directly after that statement - I think it's clear that a
reasonable person would not make a connection between 9-11 and Iraq.
In fact, his last sentence below makes it clear that Saddam directly
involved with US terrorism would be a *change* from the 9/11 attack.

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam
Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and
shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those
19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed
by Saddam Hussein."

>"He's [i.e. Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing
>with al Qaeda." 11-07-02
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20021107-7.html


There was a considerable amount of info available to suggest that at
that time - though much of it has proven to be false. Still, dealing
with Al Qaeda and directly participating in 9/11 are two different
things.

>"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and
>to support terror." 01-29-02
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html


This was absolutely true.

>for more, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm


This is the "cream of the crop" of quotes (spanning many in the Bush
cabinet), and there's not a single quote there that would lead a
reasonable person to believe there is a connection between Iraq and
9/11, beyond references to the altered reality of the post-9/11 world.

>The Christian Science Monitor reported:
>
> Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans
> were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks,
> only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this
> year [2003], attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder
> poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some"
> of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
>
>A question for you, Mark: do you think Bush's statements
>helped cause that shift in Americans' beliefs?


I've seen no Bush quotes that would lead a reasonable person to
believe that Iraq was directly involved with the 9/11 attacks. In the
total absence of any quotes, I have to conclude that a) Americans
aren't all that up on Middle/Near East geography, and b) they don't
make distinctions between different terrorist groups. As we all
learned more about the hijackers, we learned that they were from
several different countries - I assume that a number of people made
the connection not because of what Bush said (or didn't say), but on
the premise that (if guessing), the terrorists were more likely to
come from countries that were most anti-US.

I suspect you could ask the rank and file American questions about
Iran, Libya, Israel, Palestine, and the accuracy of the replies
wouldn't be any better - or worse - than that ascribed to the Iraq /
9/11 connection.

And it doesn't take any real stretch of the imagination for someone to
reach the independent conclusion that Saddam wouldn't have balked at
helping any enemy of the US. Conspiracy theories are one of the
favorite hobbies in the US after all... ;-)

>Tom Ace


Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
[email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:

A really long post my reader didn't download (I have a limit of 300
lines - any post longer than that is wasting bandwidth).

It's obvious you want to argue just to get in typing practice.

Carry on, but without me, please.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Mark Hickey wrote:

> ... I have to conclude that a) Americans
> aren't all that up on Middle/Near East geography, and b) they don't
> make distinctions between different terrorist groups.


I think that the administration concluded that long ago (it's a fairly
easy conclusion) and used it skillfully to gain approval for this little
adventure.

> As we all
> learned more about the hijackers, we learned that they were from
> several different countries


Do you have that list of countries? And how many hijackers were from
each of them? Can you post it?

Please?


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
Mark Hickey wrote:

> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> A really long post my reader didn't download (I have a limit of 300
> lines - any post longer than that is wasting bandwidth).
>
> It's obvious you want to argue just to get in typing practice.
>
> Carry on, but without me, please.


You know, Mark, I was thinking that Jonesy gave some very instructive
information in there. Although I know most of what's in
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
I think it's an excellent source, and I think he used it effectively to
illustrate where your thinking has gone wrong in several ways.

Perhaps you should go to Google groups, or some other source, to
overcome your newsreader's limitations, so you can learn from that post.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
[email protected] (JP) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> [email protected] (JP) wrote:
>>
>> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>
>> >Did you show me anything to convince me that any legislation or
>> >rulemaking by the Bush administration will do anything positive for
>> >the environment?
>> >http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...17302e197330932585256df200686549?OpenDocument

>
>Did you show me anything to convince me that any legislation or
>rulemaking by the Bush administration will do anything positive for
>the environment?
>
>The Sierra Club sued the EPA in February of 2003 for failing to update
>its Clean Air standards as required by the Clean Air Act. After being
>forced into a consent decree, the EPA released these rules. Gosh, did
>you not know this? Very impressive.


Gosh, did you not know they sued Clinton first (and will probably sue
every other president eventually)?

But it's interesting you don't find the biggest air pollution
reduction act in over a decade significant. Go figure.

>> Mea culpa - you're right... I had forgotten that Clinton signed the
>> thing. In any event, it was a symbolic action since he knew it would
>> never clear the Senate - and in fact he did absolutely nothing to try
>> to get it through the Senate.

>
>Not true, but he didn't have the votes and he knew that once it was
>rejected it was all over.


I think you just said exactly the same thing I did. If you can show
me proof he made any real effort to push the thing through the Senate,
I'll be surprised (I didn't find any evidence).

>> Rightfully so, IMHO. So seldom can you
>> get a unanimous decision out of the Senate that there should be no
>> doubt that Kyoto is a really, really bad idea.

>
>The EU, Russia and Japan don't agree with you.


What's your point?

>Everyone knows that Kyoto is flawed, but as an alternative to the Bush
>plan, pretending that global warming doesn't exist and therefore doing
>NOTHING, it's got a lot to recommend it.


Here's a clue... global warming doesn't exist. There's been a net
cooling trend for decades, and the effect of the Kyoto accord would be
at best a small fraction of 1 degree centigrade over the next century
(at a truly horrendous cost to the US economy). But let's not go over
that well-plowed land again.

>> I'm sure there are people out there even more qualified than me, and I
>> am sure one (actually more than one) of them got the job(s). I'm well
>> aware of the work locations, and it would involve a lot of time in
>> Iraq (literally living in "military" style for periods of time
>> supporting the communications equipment used by the folks in the
>> field).

>
>Could be that the security situation has deteriorated so badly that
>the project has been put on hold. This has happened to reconstruction
>projects all over Iraq, according to the news. But at least you were
>willing to do it, over-the-top gesture or not.


It wasn't a reconstruction effort, but one supporting the military (I
don't think THAT one's been put on hold). ;-)

>> I agree that was part of the equation (mortgage recasting).

>
>The economy is not roaring.


I'd disagree - and from the looks of the leading indicators, it's
going to do nothing but continue to improve.

>> Investment can't be ignored as one of the elements of getting the
>> economy roaring again.

>
>What type of investment are you talking about? There has been very
>little capital investement over the last three years; much of what
>there was, was related to downsizing, outsourcing and off-shoring. Let
>me repeat it: low interest rates and available capital (available
>capital is what you get more of when you give taxcuts to people who
>will not spend the proceeds on consumer goods) is going to be of very
>limited effectiveness in stimultating the economy if there is already
>considerable excess capacity, as there has been.


I posted figures - investment increased dramatically following the tax
cuts.

>> At any rate, it's all working, and the economy
>> is in a LOT better shape than it was before the tax cuts.

>
>Only if you are willing to disregard the half trillion dollar annual
>federal deficit and net two million jobs lost.


You gotta start updating that "jobs lost" number downward. ;-)

>> In some ways - but you're right in others. Most of the spending
>> increases are in social programs (which probably sounds like heresy to
>> the information sheltered). For example, Department of Education
>> outlays are up by 60%, Health and Human services by 21.6%, HUD by 6%.

>
>Those percentages and where they are targeted are pratically of no
>value in stimulating the economy when the actual dollar value is
>compared to the size of the US economy. My favorite, though, is
>Education, whose increase reflects the No Child Left Behind Act. It is
>severely underfunded and does not offer even enough money to the
>states to implement the program itself, let along provide improvements
>to education, all this at a time when the states are themselves
>squeezed by revenue shortfalls.


Funny thing - the alternative Democrat budget didn't have any more
funding for NCLB. But it's still the most expensive education act in
history (and not "severely underfunded" IMHO - just not funded to the
limits set up, as is the case with most bills). The NCLB, like most
other things in this country - has become a politicized issue meaning
that you're going to get mass hysteria from both sides. In the end,
it's the only thing I've seen that's likely to actually improve the
horrendously bad performance of our public schools.

>> If I have to be a "True Believer" to think that massive tax cuts
>> stimulate the economy, then I'll be one (the alternative being in
>> permanent denial).

>
>You really don't seem to have much capacity for the subtleties of an
>issue, do you? Despite everything I've said, all you can get out of it
>is that "massive taxcuts stimulate the economy". Nothing about how
>much, what kind or for who, just "massive taxcuts stimulate the
>economy". It's a pretty interesting form of self delusion (or you are
>trying to delude us?), really, because what you said is, of course,
>true, but it skips any analysis of whether *Bush's* taxcuts themselves
>have been particularly effective at stimulating the economy or
>creating jobs. And that's the really important issue.


I think we covered that pretty well. It was a broad based tax cut -
top to bottom... what portion of the US taxpayers did it miss (other
than - obviously - the large number who already didn't pay US federal
income tax).

>> As for Paul O'Neill's opinion... oh well.

>
>Amazing to what degree the Bush administration depends on character
>assisnation to defend its policies.


Right... exposing the fallacies presented in O'Neill's and Clarke's
books is "character assassination". Both of these guys were demoted
of fired under the Bush presidency. Both made a lot of money writing
a Bush-bashing book.

>> >Everyone agrees that you stimulate the economy out of a recession with
>> >taxcuts, but they have to go to people that will spend the money.

>>
>> Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
>> are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all. A single parent of
>> two making $20,000 a year is $750 ahead,

>
>Only if they were already paying $750 in taxes, which they probably
>weren't.


How else are they going to get $750 ahead via the tax cut?

>Those 4 million people you're talking about are still paying
>taxes- Medicare and Social Security, and their taxes are going to pay
>for payments to current retirees and they're going to cover the
>federal deficit so that Bush can give out his big taxcuts to the
>ultrawealthy and still pretend that the deficit is *only* half a
>trillion.


What's your point? The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay only around 4% of
the total US federal income taxes. How much less can they pay?

>> Heh. So when Bush gives businesses a tax cut, he's cozying up to his
>> cronies. But when your guy does the same thing, he's a patriot trying
>> to protect the American worker.

>
>Exactly. Otherwise Kerry would be a Republican.


Heh.

>> The "flow of jobs" out of the US has remained relatively constant for
>> many, many years.

>
>And it's been a problem for many, many years. It has caused
>fundamental, negative changes in US society.


I'm not so convinced that's it's quite the crisis it's "grown into"
during the current political silly season.

>> It's just gotten a lot of added interest during the
>> political silly season

>
>The reason it's gotten a lot of interest is that it's now happening to
>white collar jobs. When an accountant's job is off-shored, what should
>they be retrained for? Perhaps as a "food service worker"?


I'm a bit more global in my outlook than most I suppose (having lived
overseas in several countries). Ultimately creating opportunity in
other countries isn't a bad thing.

>> (much as a 5.7% unemployment rate was a shining
>> indicator example of Clinton's economy in 1996 but an indicator of a
>> total disaster for the American worker in 2004).

>
>There is no comparison between the economic conditions in 1996 and
>now. At that time employment was improving- it had been adding jobs
>for most of the last three years, the economy had been growing for
>three years and the deficit was trending toward a surplus in the near
>future. Those were the days.
>
>Please don't try to tell us that things are as good now as they were
>in '96. We know better, and it makes you look like a liar.


Those were the days all right - but they were being artificially
bolstered by the dot-com bubble. The market was priced beyond all
reason, and it had to come to an end because there was simply nothing
to back up the capitalization. The bubble popped and we were in a
full-blown recession by the third month of the GWB presidency (which
is really just a continuation of the trend from the previous year).

The bottom line is - 5.7% unemployment is NOT a historically high
figure. If you buy into the media frenzy - that's your choice. It's
just that a dispassionate examination of the reality shows that it's
lower than the average of the past several decades (and it's
decreasing from that level).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
"Kyle.B.H" wrote:

> True, but standardization of a protocol, for example, is preceded and
> followed by companies beating the **** out of eachother in terms of price
> and performance. Ultimately the consumer benefits from standardization in
> the form of interoperability and he vendor perhaps economies of scale in
> component manufacture, but the price/performance curve is driven purely by
> competition.



Unfortunately, guy's like Tim, Greg, and all the usual suspects rounded
up in this thread aren't going to get what you just clearly stated.
They never have and they never will. I'm faced with what you speak of
on a daily basis. I live it and breathe it.

Competitors cooperate on standards only because the risk of getting
caught out (dumping huge amounts of capital into an eventual proprietary
sink hole) is simply too high. There are no altruistic motives: pure
self-interest drives the little cooperation there is and nothing else.
Tim lives in a fantasy land. What else is new.
 
Mark Hickey wrote:

> ...
> Here's a clue... global warming doesn't exist. There's been a net
> cooling trend for decades, and the effect of the Kyoto accord would be
> at best a small fraction of 1 degree centigrade over the next century
> (at a truly horrendous cost to the US economy). But let's not go over
> that well-plowed land again....


No climatologists believe the above except those on the payrolls (or
funded by) the hydrocarbon extraction industry. The consensus is that
global warming is taking place, but the US corporate media pays undue
attention to the few climatoligists that disagree. Even that hotbed of
left-wing radicals, the US Department of Defense now believes that
global warming is a significant threat to US security.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Here's a clue... global warming doesn't exist. There's been a net
> > cooling trend for decades, and the effect of the Kyoto accord would be
> > at best a small fraction of 1 degree centigrade over the next century
> > (at a truly horrendous cost to the US economy). But let's not go over
> > that well-plowed land again....

>
> No climatologists believe the above except those on the payrolls (or
> funded by) the hydrocarbon extraction industry. The consensus is that
> global warming is taking place, but the US corporate media pays undue
> attention to the few climatoligists that disagree. Even that hotbed of
> left-wing radicals, the US Department of Defense now believes that
> global warming is a significant threat to US security.


ROTFL!


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Here's a clue... global warming doesn't exist. There's been a net
>> cooling trend for decades, and the effect of the Kyoto accord would be
>> at best a small fraction of 1 degree centigrade over the next century
>> (at a truly horrendous cost to the US economy). But let's not go over
>> that well-plowed land again....

>
>No climatologists believe the above except those on the payrolls (or
>funded by) the hydrocarbon extraction industry. The consensus is that
>global warming is taking place, but the US corporate media pays undue
>attention to the few climatoligists that disagree. Even that hotbed of
>left-wing radicals, the US Department of Defense now believes that
>global warming is a significant threat to US security.


You need to do some more reading on the subject. The best data on the
subject shows that there has been a net cooling trend - not a warming
trend. If you are as old as I am, you should remember the hysteria
that we were entering another ice age from a couple decades ago.

Those pushing the global warming agenda tend to be those who are
raking in lots of research dollars doing it. There are petitions
signed by tens of thousands of scientists who believe the science and
methods used to come to the conclusion that global warming is
happening are flawed.

But don't take my word for it - look up the NOAA data on temperature
trends.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >The Sierra Club sued the EPA in February of 2003 for failing to update
> >its Clean Air standards as required by the Clean Air Act. After being
> >forced into a consent decree, the EPA released these rules. Gosh, did
> >you not know this? Very impressive.

>
> Gosh, did you not know they sued Clinton first (and will probably sue
> every other president eventually)?
>
> But it's interesting you don't find the biggest air pollution
> reduction act in over a decade significant. Go figure.


What act are you talking about? The rules you referenced were released
as required under the existing Clean Air Act. Nothing new there,
except for the rules that the Sierra Club forced the Bush
administration to revise.

> I think you just said exactly the same thing I did. If you can show
> me proof he made any real effort to push the thing through the Senate,
> I'll be surprised (I didn't find any evidence).


Probably not worth the effort- it would involve trying to pull news
articles out of archives. My memory is that I read some things in the
Washington Post (I'm a print subscriber) about the congressional
politics of Clinton trying to string together the votes, but maybe
Clinton just signed it for show, right? Bush *must* just be a more
environmentally friendly president than Clinton.

> >> Rightfully so, IMHO. So seldom can you
> >> get a unanimous decision out of the Senate that there should be no
> >> doubt that Kyoto is a really, really bad idea.

> >
> >The EU, Russia and Japan don't agree with you.

>
> What's your point?


For God's sake, that maybe the US Senate is not the last word on
whether Kyoto "is a really, really bad idea".

> Here's a clue... global warming doesn't exist. There's been a net
> cooling trend for decades, and the effect of the Kyoto accord would be
> at best a small fraction of 1 degree centigrade over the next century
> (at a truly horrendous cost to the US economy). But let's not go over
> that well-plowed land again.


Oh, brother.

The only thing more costly than taking steps to slow global warming is
not taking steps to slow global warming.

> >The economy is not roaring.

>
> I'd disagree - and from the looks of the leading indicators, it's
> going to do nothing but continue to improve.


See Paul Krugman ins today's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25KRUG.html

> I posted figures - investment increased dramatically following the tax
> cuts.


What figures? From where?

> You gotta start updating that "jobs lost" number downward. ;-)


I already did. It takes into account the 900k gained since last
August. Again, see Krugman.

> Funny thing - the alternative Democrat budget didn't have any more
> funding for NCLB. But it's still the most expensive education act in
> history (and not "severely underfunded" IMHO - just not funded to the
> limits set up, as is the case with most bills). The NCLB, like most
> other things in this country - has become a politicized issue meaning
> that you're going to get mass hysteria from both sides. In the end,
> it's the only thing I've seen that's likely to actually improve the
> horrendously bad performance of our public schools.


It's a farce. It is severely underfunded because it does not do the
fundamental thing that is needed to improve our public schools:
provide money for teaching, as opposed to providing some (but not
enough, even) money for testing students. You want the students to
pass the tests, you gotta pay for the facilities and teachers they
need to learn. (Or you could just cheat, like they do in Texas.)

> I think we covered that pretty well. It was a broad based tax cut -
> top to bottom... what portion of the US taxpayers did it miss (other
> than - obviously - the large number who already didn't pay US federal
> income tax).


The large number who don't pay federal income tax nevertheless pay
Medicare and Social Security payroll tax. Their tax revenues are being
used to cover part of the deficit created by the Bush taxcuts. In
other words, those payroll taxes are being used as general tax revenue
by the government. Why shouldn't they be entitled to a taxcut as well?

> >Amazing to what degree the Bush administration depends on character
> >assisnation to defend its policies.

>
> Right... exposing the fallacies presented in O'Neill's and Clarke's
> books is "character assassination". Both of these guys were demoted
> of fired under the Bush presidency. Both made a lot of money writing
> a Bush-bashing book.


O'Neill did not write a book, he gave extensive interview; and he was
already incredibly wealthy. It strains credulity to suggest that he
criticized the policy-making process in the Bush White House for the
money.

Clarke, well, yes you're right. In reality, Bush, after being informed
by his national security advisors that an attack on the US by
terrorists was imminent, cancelled the remainder of his month-long
vacation at Crawford and rushed back to Washington, where he brow beat
the members of his cabinet into piecing together the intelligence they
had that would anticipate the the 9/11 hijackings. Thanks to Bush's
strong leadership, the terrible tragedy that would have taken place on
9/11 was avoided. Clarke is just a liar, out for a quick buck.

> >> Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
> >> are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all. A single parent of
> >> two making $20,000 a year is $750 ahead,

> >
> >Only if they were already paying $750 in taxes, which they probably
> >weren't.

>
> How else are they going to get $750 ahead via the tax cut?


Give them a refund on their Social Security Tax.

> >Those 4 million people you're talking about are still paying
> >taxes- Medicare and Social Security, and their taxes are going to pay
> >for payments to current retirees and they're going to cover the
> >federal deficit so that Bush can give out his big taxcuts to the
> >ultrawealthy and still pretend that the deficit is *only* half a
> >trillion.

>
> What's your point? The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay only around 4% of
> the total US federal income taxes. How much less can they pay?


They pay a lot more than 4% federal income taxes. Just because you
refuse to admit that Social Security and Medicare taxes are income
taxes does not mean that they are not. Social Security and Medicare
taxes ARE federal income taxes.

But I'm not even saying that they should pay less; I'm saying that the
top 2% should pay more. Those people making a quarter of a million a
year under the old tax rates were actually living pretty comfortably.
I think they'll survive. Probably won't even have to cut back on their
maid service.

> >> The "flow of jobs" out of the US has remained relatively constant for
> >> many, many years.

> >
> >And it's been a problem for many, many years. It has caused
> >fundamental, negative changes in US society.

>
> I'm not so convinced that's it's quite the crisis it's "grown into"
> during the current political silly season.


It has been a crisis for at least three decades. It gets attention
every election. Remember Perot?

> >The reason it's gotten a lot of interest is that it's now happening to
> >white collar jobs. When an accountant's job is off-shored, what should
> >they be retrained for? Perhaps as a "food service worker"?

>
> I'm a bit more global in my outlook than most I suppose (having lived
> overseas in several countries). Ultimately creating opportunity in
> other countries isn't a bad thing.


I have lived overseas in a couple of countries, and have a pretty
global outlook myself. But let's be clear: the opportunity that is
being created is at the expense of American workers. If I extrapolate
this trend to its limit, I see an averaging of income and standards of
living between US workers and the Third World. I would prefer to see
opportunity created in Third World countries as a function of their
improving standards of living, rather than as a function of the
deterioration of ours.

> >> (much as a 5.7% unemployment rate was a shining
> >> indicator example of Clinton's economy in 1996 but an indicator of a
> >> total disaster for the American worker in 2004).

> >
> >There is no comparison between the economic conditions in 1996 and
> >now. At that time employment was improving- it had been adding jobs
> >for most of the last three years, the economy had been growing for
> >three years and the deficit was trending toward a surplus in the near
> >future. Those were the days.
> >
> >Please don't try to tell us that things are as good now as they were
> >in '96. We know better, and it makes you look like a liar.

>
> Those were the days all right - but they were being artificially
> bolstered by the dot-com bubble.


There was not a significant bubble in 96.

> The market was priced beyond all
> reason, and it had to come to an end because there was simply nothing
> to back up the capitalization. The bubble popped and we were in a
> full-blown recession by the third month of the GWB presidency (which
> is really just a continuation of the trend from the previous year).
>
> The bottom line is - 5.7% unemployment is NOT a historically high
> figure. If you buy into the media frenzy - that's your choice.


This is not a media frenzy. It is people knowing what their wage
growth is, and what their job mobility is, and how hard it would be to
find another equivalent paying job if they lost the one they have. You
can sit there and try to tell us different until hell freezes over,
but it ain't gonna change what we know.

> It's
> just that a dispassionate examination of the reality shows that it's
> lower than the average of the past several decades (and it's
> decreasing from that level).


Oh, I guess if you insist hard enough that everything is all right,
then it must be. I mean, you apply for a job in a place as miserable
as Iraq is right now, and, even though you are very well qualified,
you can't get hired. Yep, the job market's pretty tight, alright.

JP
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> A really long post my reader didn't download (I have a limit of 300
> lines - any post longer than that is wasting bandwidth).


Arguing with you is wasting bandwidth, on that we *both* agree. You
have more logical fallacies than our dear, demented Doctor over on
alt.mountain-bike.

> It's obvious you want to argue just to get in typing practice.


That's called "poisoning the well." I am amazed that you cannot make
a four-line post without resorting to some sort of logical fallacy to
try and make a point.

> Carry on, but without me, please.


IOW, you know when you're beaten. That's a good thing, but let's just
get to where I should have gone in the beginning. You and your other
right-wingnuts have the look of the Three Monkeys when you are
worshipping our very own Curious George. Any of you parents out there
know all about Curious George - a chimpanzee who often gets in over
his head, but somehow always manages to come out smelling like a rose.
In no small part because of the behind the scenes work of Karl Rove,
errr, the Man in the Yellow Hat. The Three Monkeys do something like
this:

See No Evil (nothing that Dumbya and his crowd do is wrong, ever, at
all)

Hear No Evil (the only voices that matter are the ones who echo Dumbya
and Co.)

Speak No Evil (criticizing Dumbya and Co. is "treason".)

It's really terrible that otherwise intelligent folks are reduced to
apes when it comes to politics. If Dumbya were at all to moderate his
message, John Kerry wouldn't stand a chance. An ultraliberal from
Taxachusetts? No way a sitting war president should have to worry at
all. It should be like Pat Robertson running against Bill Clinton.
Landslide.

No, GWB is a lightweight - intellect, morals, vision, and even
politically. The younger folks would call him a punk.

Heck, what do you care? You're male, white and rich, living in the
U.S. You got yours, screw everyone else. Time'll come, somebody's
gonna want payback, and you're going to be in the group targetted. I
trust you'll look back on these days with fondness - "those were the
good ol' days!"

See you at the next argument, Mark. I'll bring my logic quotes, and
you can pretend to not see them again. :)

ObBike: Hey, when are we all gonna talk about disk brake and wheel
ejection again?
--
Jonesy
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
> You need to do some more reading on the subject. The best data on the
> subject shows that there has been a net cooling trend - not a warming
> trend. If you are as old as I am, you should remember the hysteria
> that we were entering another ice age from a couple decades ago.


I probably am at least as old as you are. Here's what I remember from
that time period.

The worry was about "Nuclear Winter." Carl Sagan was one of the
scientists prominently discussing this. At the time, between the US and
the USSR, there were enough nuclear warheads to thoroughly destroy world
civilization several times over. But Sagan and others pointed out that
a similar effect could happen without literally exploding civilization away.

They pointed out that nuclear explosions loft dust and soot into the
upper atmosphere, and that the effect of a moderately large number of
such explosions would be shading the earth from the sun's rays.
Depending on the volume of dust and soot, this could cause anything from
some disastrous harvests to severe climate changes to an ice age.

For reference, something like this is now widely thought to have
triggered a worldwide economic crash at the beginning of the Dark Ages.
At that time, it was an earlier explosion of the volcano later known
as Krakatoa that is thought to have been responsible. (Krakatoa erupted
with much less force in the 1800s, but still caused significant turmoil.)

People took the Nuclear Winter issue seriously, including people at the
top of the relevant governments. The number of nuclear warheads has
diminished greatly - although we probably still retain enough to trigger
that sort of catastrophe.

Massive nuclear war and the attendant nuclear winter never happened.
But that's hardly jusification for saying that global warming isn't
occurring.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]