“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
But this is hardly surprising. Long before Climategate broke, there was the sworn testimony of Dr. David Deming of the University of Oklahoma before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on 6 DEC 2006 where he said:
"...I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me...
"...I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period...
"...The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages... now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be 'gotten rid of.'"
Unfortunately for the cabal, they forgot that every email and Wikipedia edit sits on somebody's hard drive somewhere. Which reminds me of a joke.
Q. How many climate change proponents does it take to change a light bulb?
A. None. There never was a light bulb.
Hockey-stick chart (omitting Medieval Warm Period) as it appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 report
In 2009 our first female President took office, injecting a shot of much-needed œstrogen into the political discourse after eight muscular years of Bush-Cheney. Maureen Dowd praised the President's "soft-power sewing circle approach" which involves "less towel-snapping and more towel color coordinating, less steroids and more sensitivity."
Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il, Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad give kudos to Obama for his more nurturing and inclusive style. After eight years of failed policies confronting these misunderstood dictators and thugs with the projection of US military power, Barack Obama changed course. Now a kinder and gentler America engages in dialogue and tries to find common ground as the basis for moving forward. How can Li'l Kim rattle his nuclear sword with Obama's song ringing in his head: Have you never been mellow? Have you never tried to find a comfort from inside you. Have you never been happy just to hear your song? Have you never let someone else be strong?”
The only problem Obama has is remembering to bow to kings and emperors and not curtsey.
2009 was also the year the Elephant Bar grew a pair...of hips. Most of the conversation was focused on a disagreement over how to spell a certain nation on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea and it looked like a transcript from audio taken from a Junior High School girl's bathroom.
This year the Elephant Bar elevated yours truly to the status of proprietor, which entails the duty of posting new topics to be ignored when the old topic reaches nearly two hundred comments. Oh yes I am wise, but it’s wisdom born of pain, Yes, I’ve paid the price, but look how much I gained, If I have to I can face anything, I am strong (strong), I am invincible (invincible), I am woman!
Lady MLD emerged from lurkerhood and became a full-time regular of the Bar, and our curmudgeonly wheat and alfalfa farmer from Idaho, Bob, aka Bobal, aka Bobalharb fell deeply and eternally in lust for her. I was moved to give her the nickname MeLoDy and it stuck. When the normal rough-and-tumble of this place resulted in Melody being insulted, Bob protested by closing his purse and walking off with the sound of his stiletto heels echoing from the Elephant Bar walls.
desert rat:Only the women of the Bar get to resign, multiple times, they having the prerogatives due their fairer gender.
Our resident Peak Oil believer, ever ready with a forecast, identified new ways that technology can serve females of any species:
Rufus:If a Dairy Farmer can afford a robot that can identify a cow, then identify the teats, then position the tubes on the teats, and milk the cow, there's not a job on an assembly line anywhere in the world that can't be done cheaper, and more efficiently by a robot.
(Apologies to WiO for losing his two comments, there was a customer complaint with this thread the first time it was posted)
Asian carp have been found in the Illinois River, which connects the Mississippi River to Lake Michigan. Due to their large size and rapid rate of reproduction, these fish could pose a significant risk to the Great Lakes Ecosystem.
To prevent the carp from entering the Great Lakes, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. EPA, the State of Illinois, the International Joint Commission, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are working together to install and maintain a permanent electric barrier between the fish and Lake Michigan.
How did Asian carp get so close to the Great Lakes?
Two species of Asian carp -- the bighead and silver -- were imported by catfish farmers in the 1970's to remove algae and suspended matter out of their ponds. During large floods in the early 1990s, many of the catfish farm ponds overflowed their banks, and the Asian carp were released into local waterways in the Mississippi River basin.
The carp have steadily made their way northward up the Mississippi, becoming the most abundant species in some areas of the River.
What effects might Asian carp have on the Great Lakes?
Asian Carp are a significant threat to the Great Lakes because they are large, extremely prolific, and consume vast amounts of food. They can weigh up to 100 pounds, and can grow to a length of more than four feet. They are well-suited to the climate of the Great Lakes region, which is similar to their native Asian habitats.
Researchers expect that Asian carp would disrupt the food chain that supports the native fish of the Great Lakes. Due to their large size, ravenous appetites, and rapid rate of reproduction, these fish could pose a significant risk to the Great Lakes Ecosystem.
__________________________________
Fight to keep Asian carp out of Great Lakes reaches Supreme Court Michigan's attorney general files a lawsuit that seeks to close two shipping locks near Chicago, sealing off the fish's most direct route to the Great Lakes.
By Joel Hood and James Janega LA Times December 22, 2009
Reporting from Chicago - The fight to keep invasive Asian carp out of the Great Lakes reached the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, as Michigan's attorney general filed a lawsuit seeking closure of two shipping locks near Chicago.
Claiming Illinois officials have been lax, Michigan Atty. Gen. Mike Cox asked justices for immediate action to seal off the most direct route for fish entering Lake Michigan, in hopes of protecting the region's $7-billion fishing industry.
"We don't want to have to look back years later . . . and say, 'What was the matter with us? We should have done something,' " Cox said. Closing the locks, he said, was "the easiest, the most reliable and the most effective" short-term step officials could take.
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn declined to say whether he favored closing the locks, but added: "We have to protect the ecology of the Great Lakes; we also have many, many jobs that depend on shipping, so there has to be a proper balance.
"There are ways of preventing the carp from getting into the Great Lakes without strangling our economy."
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which operates the locks and is a codefendant in the lawsuit, declined to comment.
In addition to closing the locks, the lawsuit seeks creation of barriers to prevent carp from escaping the Des Plaines River or neighboring waterways during flooding. Cox also called for a study of Chicago's water system to understand the size and scope of the Asian carp population.
The lawsuit comes during a period of heightened anxiety over recent DNA research that hinted the voracious fish may have bypassed an underwater electric barrier system -- and could now be within six miles of Lake Michigan. In August, Quinn signed into law a $3-million program giving universities and researchers authority to fish as many varieties of Asian carp as they could find. Last week, Illinois was awarded $13 million in federal funds to deal with the carp problem.
In filing the lawsuit, Michigan was asking that the high court reopen a 100-year-old case sparked by Chicago's reversing the flow of the Chicago River to send its sewage and human waste away from Lake Michigan and toward the Mississippi River. A number of states around the Great Lakes complained that Chicago's manipulation of the waterways was harming the lakes. The courts responded by limiting the amount of water Chicago could divert each day.
Hundreds of millions of dollars in commercial barge traffic pass through the area each year, with much of it proceeding to harbors in Lake Michigan, said the American Waterways Operators, a trade group for the barge industry. Thousands of recreational boaters also use the locks.
The Alliance for the Great Lakes, which recently studied permanently closing Chicago's shipping canals over fear of invasive species, said there was too much at risk to dismiss closing locks entirely.
"That canal is becoming a liability because it's putting the future of the Great Lakes at risk," said Joel Brammeier, chief executive officer of the alliance. "Right now, it's every tool in the toolbox, whatever it takes to keep the carp from getting into the Great Lakes."
Police say they are looking into reports that the plain-clothed police officer stepped out of his own vehicle and drew his weapon after his car had been hit by snowballs.
Not cool. Never brandish a piece to intimidate anyone. That weapon clears your holster only when you are ready to use it.
NOAA climate statistics in the U.S. for October 2009: The third coolest October on record. Unusually cold and wet conditions led to several snowfall records. The downward trend in temperatures continues despite the failure of the IPCC and climate scientists to predict any decline.
There was no agreement at the climate summit in Copenhagen on how to save the planet but five of over 190 nations agreed to keep talking, which led Barack Obama to declare a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough." I presume this means he will raise the grade he gave himself for this year from a B+ to at least an A-.
Like it or not and once again, a massive transfer of wealth is going to take place from the productive and responsible part of society to those perpetually at the government's tit.
Why will socialized health care disproportionately help one out of ten whites, two out of ten blacks and three out of ten Latinos? Mostly because of illegitimacy rates and existing government welfare that subsidizes bad behavior, but let's not be judgmental. You pay, don't judge.
Who will pay the freight for this expanded welfare program? Not the recipients.
Who will pay as the programs inevitably expand? You will.
Who will continue to vote for those who support the expansion of the welfare state? The non-payers of course. Rob from Peter to pay Pablo and you will always get Pablo's vote.
Are whites and Asians responsible for black illegitimacy rates close to 70 percent? Less than 40 percent of black children live in two-parent families. Of course they cannot afford health care, or education, or housing or food. That is why society invented the family structure. Who wrecked the family structure with financial rewards?
Who is responsible for that? Has government created that problem and will more government make the problem worse?
Yes and yes, but let's not discuss it less we offend.
__________________________________
Health reform's true colors
The real racial issue in this debate is not about Obama. It's about inequality. While all 46 million uninsured Americans would benefit from health-care legislation promoting high-quality, affordable health care, twice the share of the African American population and three times the proportion of Latinos would benefit. For people of color, health-care reform is not just important; it's urgent.
The "tea party" protests that started last spring sparked a debate over whether racism was motivating the opposition to President Obama's health-care reform proposals. The issue was revived by a recent Internet advertisement depicting regular folks who oppose health-care reform saying facetiously, "I guess I'm racist."
While this offers another opportunity to have a national conversation about race and health care, I fear that we are once again going to fail to discuss the most important racial aspect of health care.
Rather than focusing on whether health-care reform opponents are somehow motivated by racism, we should be focusing on the fact that African Americans and Latinos have the most to gain from health-care reform - and the most to lose from its failure.
After the election of the first African American president, we shouldn't be surprised that race enters our national debates more easily. The "guess I'm racist" ad reflects frustration over the fact that criticisms of presidential initiatives are caught in that web. Sometimes legitimate policy criticism can be carelessly linked with the racist motivations of a small minority - such as those who forwarded e-mails depicting the president as an African witch doctor.
But race is part of the health-care debate in a more important way. Health care reveals our racial divide. Almost all of our institutions - including those involved in the delivery and financing of health care today - were built on a legacy that treated people of color as second-class citizens. While we have made great strides to move past this legacy, people of color are still paying the accumulated costs of past discrimination today.
Forty-six million Americans do not have health insurance, according to the most recent census estimates. About one in 10 whites is in that group, compared with two in 10 African Americans and three in 10 Latinos. And these disparities start early in life: While children are covered at higher rates than the U.S. population as a whole, racial inequality occurs in all age groups.
Thus, while all 46 million uninsured Americans would benefit from health-care legislation promoting high-quality, affordable health care, twice the share of the African American population and three times the proportion of Latinos would benefit. For people of color, health-care reform is not just important; it's urgent.
While the nation fretted about the total unemployment rate passing 10 percent last month, African Americans had passed that point more than a year earlier, with current rates reaching close to 16 percent. Latinos, meanwhile, face unemployment rates around 13 percent. The unemployed are, of course, far less likely to have health coverage.
Furthermore, both African Americans and Latinos are disproportionately represented in service-sector jobs that offer less security and fewer benefits, making it likely that any recovery will come later and be less complete for those groups.
Racism in our country has been defined by actions. But racism can also take the form of inaction in the face of inequality. In 1899, W.E.B. DuBois wrote in The Philadelphia Negro that the "most difficult social problem in the matter of Negro health is the peculiar attitude of the nation toward the well-being of the race. There have, for instance, been few other cases in the history of civilized peoples where human suffering has been viewed with such peculiar indifference."
Those fighting health-care reform now are showing the same "peculiar indifference" toward the welfare of blacks and Latinos in this country at the beginning of the 21st century that DuBois identified at the end of the 19th.
I doubt that most critics of health-care reform today are motivated to criticize the president because of his race. But without health-care reform, people of color will suffer the most. Is that outcome an acceptable by-product of inaction? That is the conversation about race and health care that we should be having.
In Copenhagen for two weeks, UN members had been crafting a new and greener future based on the Kyoto accord. Other than some anarchist protesters and video of Danish Police clubbing said protesters, everything was going according to schedule. Now, depending on your point of view, you can believe what you wish to believe. If you're an extreme green, you may choose to believe that President Obama highjacked the show and the whole thing collapsed. On the other hand, if you're acolyte of the Messiah, you may wish to believe that he swooped in at the last moment and salvaged what he could. As in typical in the world today, everything is spun and there is no straight answer but there appear to be some hot headed people around the world this morning:
Tim Jones, a spokesman for the World Development Movement, said: "The president said he came to act, but showed little evidence of doing so. He showed no awareness of the inequality and injustice of climate change. If America has really made its choice, it is a choice that condemns hundreds of millions of people to climate change disaster."
Friends of the Earth said in a statement, "Obama has deeply disappointed not only those listening to his speech at the UN talks, he has disappointed the whole world."
The World Wildlife Fund said Obama had let down the international community by failing to commit to pushing for action in Congress: "The only way the world can be sure the US is standing behind its commitments is for the president to clearly state that climate change will be his next top legislative priority."
Many delegates had been looking toward China and the U.S. - the world's two largest carbon polluters - to deepen their pledges to cut their emissions. But that was not to be.
The U.S. got its share of blame.
"President Obama was not very proactive. He didn't offer anything more," said delegate Thomas Negints, from Papua New Guinea. He said his country had hoped for "more on emissions, put more money on the table, take the lead."
Obama may eventually become known as "the man who killed Copenhagen," said Greenpeace U.S. Executive Director Phil Radford.
Money to help poor nations cope with climate change and shift to clean energy seemed to be where negotiators could claim most success. Pollution cuts and the best way to monitor those actions remained unresolved.
Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren, negotiating on behalf of the 27-nation European Union, blamed the impasse on the Chinese for "blocking again and again," and on the U.S. for coming too late with an improved offer, a long-range climate aid program announced Thursday by Clinton.
