Coming up in Copenhagen
Friday, December 4, 2009
Governments will gather in Denmark on Monday for two weeks of work on a new global climate treaty. In a 190-degree turnaround from its response to the 1997 Kyoto treaty, the United States will arrive with a strong commitment to lower carbon dioxide emissions.
When he arrives at the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) on December 9, President Barack Obama will submit a proposal to cut CO2 emissions by 17 percent over the next 10 years, the first step in reducing greenhouse gas pollution by 80 percent by the middle of the century.
The new U.S. commitment toward battling climate change has made waves across the scientific and political communities invested in cutting back global greenhouse gases.
“President Obama has said that he will enter Copenhagen with a goal for 17 percent reductions by 2020, which is a bit more ambitious than his earlier goal of 15 percent,” said Nancy Jackson, executive director of the Climate & Energy Project headquartered in Lawrence. “That certainly has been noted around the world.”
The Copenhagen summit has ambitious goals, but a host of thorny issues to resolve. Topping the list for the approximately 90 leaders attending is the problem of money. Poorer country say they must allocate their budgets to health, education, infrastructure and other basic concerns first, while richer countries insist that nations with huge populations like China and India will count for most CO2 emissions in the future (China has now overcome the U.S. as the biggest greenhouse emitter).
The European Union parliament faces clashes over how to fund the financial aid that needs to be sent to the developing world to create cleaner sources of energy.
In the United States, money is also the big issue. Opponents of new energy legislation say the cost will be too high.
Last month, Carol Browner, Obama’s assistant for energy and climate change, said that the cost of clean-energy initiatives will be about $173 per year for a family of four, citing the figure calculated by the Congressional Budget Office. Republican leaders quote other studies, the details of which I outlined in a previous article, that say costs would be higher.
But to many, the benefits of paying an extra $15 in utility bills every month will be well worth it. In addition to the health benefits—the British medical journal Lancet reported last month that millions of lives could be saved by reducing the chances of heart and lung disease—is the economic growth promised by a new energy policy.
That promise of growth includes Kansas.
From our perspective here in Kansas, said Jackson, the important thing to remember is that “as the global economy moves toward a low-carbon future, Kansas is particularly well situated to thrive. We have in abundance the fuels of the future, which include wind; biomass as a potential fuel, both for direct burning and for gasification; and an abundance of sun.”
Jackson noted that the issue of carbon sequestration, which keeps CO2 out of the atmosphere and is detailed in the proposed energy legislation in the U.S. Senate, will also benefit the Kansas agricultural economy.
“Our farmers and ranchers will be able to sequester carbon in our soil at a profit,” she said. “In so many ways we are looking at some new crops on the plains that could actually set our agriculture up to stay even or perhaps do better over time in a low carbon future.”
With America gearing up to become an energy economy, the Copenhagen summit is the big game to watch next week. Will recent statements about plans to cut back CO2 by the big emitters, China and India, bear fruit? Will the leaders of the wealthiest countries come together on creative solutions for supporting new energy practices in developing countries?
As Obama stated earlier this year, now is the time for decisive action: “No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. ... Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it--boldly, swiftly, and together—we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Listen to Alex Jones live radio 512 646 5000. Globle warming is a hoax. Al Gore will not show up. Go to Change Chicago.com
December 4, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Video-Climategate: Science is dying-wsj.com
December 4, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Listen to Republic Broadcasting Network.
December 4, 2009 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
google nocapandtrade.us
December 4, 2009 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
Governor: Backup plan on global warming needed
San Francisco Chronicle
Thursday, December 3, 2009
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article...
"California has set an ambitious agenda to combat climate change, but on Wednesday Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the state needs to prepare for the worst if human action cannot stop global warming and the rise of sea levels."
December 4, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Reddog,
What would you ever do without google? And do you also realize that by not providing hyper links to the readers here that no one is going to give a damn about what you say and your message means next to nothing? Just thought I would point that out.
December 4, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I just recently read an article in Scientific American warning of the possibility of a coming Ice Age, (caused, actually, by global warming) - and how climate shift could occur with parts warming and other parts getting colder. What I found of particular interest was now they believe the Ice Age that took over Greenland and drove the Vikings out may have happened in as little as one year, not over a decade or more as they previously thought. Damn Vikings had more HumVee's than we knew :)
December 4, 2009 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Reddog is right about one thing this time.
It was reported on national news yesterday that Al Gore has canceled.
There also seems to be a big scandal about numerous scientists who have changed data to make this warming thing look worse than it is.
December 4, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Thanks Observation - have had some more pressing issues to deal with lately....
Well, from the article, it appears that global warming & cooling don't always affect the entire world the same - shifts occur from one region to another - when 1 cools, another often warms, it isn't always that the entire globe heats up or cools. But what was really interesting in the article was the speed with which they now believe the ice hit Greenland - before this we've been told that climate shifts that rapid were only caused by and due to man's intervention. Now we're discovering that rapid climate changes have occured in the past.
But it could still be the fault of mankind. Think of all those guys in the galley manning the oars...... the methane and CO2 released..... why, a couple dozen burly oarsmen belching and whatnot are probably easily output the equal of a diesel generator - LOLOL ;-)
December 4, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Speaking of the public being mislead, anyone catch the latest little aside from the Secret Service during this White House crashers fiasco?
Secret Service: Threats Against Obama No Higher than Normal
The director of the Secret Service today disputed widely-reported claims that President Obama is receiving more death threats than previous presidents.
At a congressional hearing into the White House security breach that took place last week, when Tareq and Michaele Salahi "crashed" the White House state dinner, Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said the current threat level against the president is normal.
"The threats right now ... is the same level as it has been for the previous two presidents at this point in their administrations," Sullivan said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/...
December 4, 2009 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Let's see...... normally, Home Depot will sell, say, 1 million cases of caulking per month. Cash for caulkers will up sales to 1.8 million for 1 month, followed by sales of barely 200,000 the following month after the program ends. Then we'll find out that most people used the caulk not to seal their windows but as a cheap replacement for concrete in their fence cornerposts. And how much will it cost the taxpayers? LOL ;-)
December 4, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
You are dead on about climate change causing it to warm some places and cool others while the overall mean temperature does go up or down. But Houston's early snowfall is off-set by our having an unusually warm fall with the first real dip below freezing occurring only last night so I fail to see observations point.
Also if I remember correctly the head of the Secret Service also said the threat level against Obama had dropped off to its current level from a much higher level early on. We don't want to make it sound like the earlier concerns were totally unjustified now do we :-)
December 4, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
observation
You are just so funny....I can't hardly stop laughing at some of the things you say!
December 4, 2009 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
observation
I presume that you left the word "you" out of your last post....referencing me of course.....didn't want the full effect of your dig to get lost. You are welcome in advance! :-)
December 4, 2009 at 6:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
By the way observation....I would rather be a LIBERAL than an observation......Now I can't wait for the biscuitboy reference.
December 4, 2009 at 6:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I for one am thankful that you gave reddog the info that you did......was geting tired of google this and google that....now maybe I will actually read some of the things he references. Probably not many though....:-)
December 4, 2009 at 6:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy, I found nowhere in the article or statements from the Secret Service representative that the threat level has fallen off from previous higher levels. He stated "at this time in their presidency" it is the same as the former 2 presidents. Now one might read into that as an implication that it was higher in the past, but that was not stated in any way, shape or form by the articles I have read. The claim that it has fallen off from earlier peaks was made by a Newsweek reporter, who also cited the 400% increase as coming from a book written about the Secret Service ealier in the year. Interesting how they've suddenly changed from how the level is up 400% to how its dropped off to normal levels. Almost reminds me of how "Global Warming" is now being touted as "Climate Change"......
December 4, 2009 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
so... are we denying that 6 billion plus humans are impacting the environment? Just curious.....
December 5, 2009 at 12:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Go to we are change youtube channel.
December 5, 2009 at 1:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
google unfilered news
December 5, 2009 at 1:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
We have a Republic if we can keep it.
December 5, 2009 at 3:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
Here we go again. Since I have no idea what article you are referring to I have no idea what was in the article and what wasn't. What I do know.....(or to quote one of your conservative friends, tbluma, "I know what I heard").....was a discussion about how the threat level against Obama was quite high at one time....(hence the early establishment of protection for him)......but has now leveled off to a normal level for Presidents at this point in their terms. The statement was made by a spokesman for the secret service on one of the news channels. If it is that important to you find it yourself.
But I must then ask you why you think Obama was given Secret Service protection so early in his candidacy if the threat level against him was so normal
December 5, 2009 at 4:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
You might also ask yourself why...if the threat against Obama has always been so normal......the statement you quoted about "at this time in their presidencies" was used at all. Why didn't he come right out and say "No, there has never been an elevated threat". Why give the implication if it is not warranted. Or is that just another left wing plot by the Secret Service.
Since we are both speculating about the difference in information we received...it just might be possible that the additional comments about the earlier threat was left out of those conservative rags you read because it didn't fit their agenda. JMO :-)
December 5, 2009 at 4:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
To paraphrase a cartoon character...I have seen the enemy and he is us. I finally figured out what you do and it took me so long because it is the same as what I do. We are not so interested in disproving the other as we are in twisting his words so we can restate our points last. In that, we too are fellow travelers.
December 5, 2009 at 5:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
observation
As part of my on-going program of honesty and full disclosure I will now tell this. You are once again so wrong......You may have noticed that I have never before used a hyper-link myself....why....because I never knew how until you explained it to reddog. So now your effort to help a fellow-traveler has provided this wonderful new weapon to a stinking, rotten, dirty low down limp wrist-ed commie pinko of a LIBERAL. And he thanks you muchly for the help in furthering the cause of LIBERALISM.
December 5, 2009 at 7:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I have also noticed that you use them sparingly your self. Since you obviously know how it must be because you...like me.....prefer to shoot from the hip.......except of course through that extremely closed conservative brain filter of yours.
I do hope you have a nice holiday season and manage to sell a car or two before all your steak knives rust.
Viva la LIBERALSIM!!!
December 5, 2009 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
observation
I clicked on your link and was happy to find the porn shots there. Why should I use links when you do so much more for me when you do?
December 5, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy, you claim that you have no idea what article I was referring to nor what was in the article.
I clearly posted the link in my earlier reference where I posted parts from the article. The link was from cbs news. Call that a conservative rag if you wish.
AND..... I also said - one might read into it that he was implying by "at this time" - that it may have been higher earlier on. But nowhere did the head of the Secret Service explicitly state that.. In fact, he claimed he had no idea where the 400% figure came from. It actually came from a book ABOUT the U.S. Secret Service published earlier this year by author Ronald Kessler.. After more investigation, I found this:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declas...
Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told NEWSWEEK........ there were “substantial spikes” in the rate of threats the service received against Obama before and after last year’s presidential election, and then again before and after Obama’s inauguration last January. Over succeeding months, however, the rate of threats has dropped substantially, Donovan said—so substantially that while the average number of threats received is running at about the same level as it did during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, on some recent days the rate of threats received against Obama has actually been LOWER than the rate during the reigns of Clinton and W.
........ Kessler told NEWSWEEK in an e-mail that while “threats go up and down … the 400 percent increase is correct on average.......
some of the drop in the threats against the president could be explained by a reduction this year in messages from international terrorist spokesmen, including Osama bin Laden and top sidekicks like Ayman al-Zawahiri and U.S.-born Al Qaeda propagandist Adam Gadahn. In the runup to the speech Obama gave in June in Cairo seeking a rapprochement between the U.S. and the Islamic world, there was a flurry of Al Qaeda broadsides against Obama, which some analysts characterized as an effort to preempt Obama’s appeal. Since then, anti-Obama diatribes from Al Qaeda and other international extremists have tapered off, though not disappeared. One of the counterterrorism officials suggested the reduction in Al Qaeda threats could be because bin Laden and co. have been knocked “off balance” by military pressure from the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan
December 5, 2009 at 10:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
SO.... what I gather from this is..... the head of the Secret Service had no idea where the 400% figure came from.... but a spokesman for the Service cited the figure as about right overall on average....... and on some days he gets less threats than Bush, some days more..... and some threats come from overseas, not American haters..... and yes, I assumed the early protection was because of some racists nutjobs. And warranted.
Which brings me to this question: Is the 400% increase normal, since all presidents have "spikes and lows" in threats? Did Bush and Clinton have times in their terms/inaugurations where the threat level increased 400%?
I have never, ever stated that I thought threats against Obama in the past were "normal". I have fully recognized that he has an element hating him that other presidents have not had - racists. I have simply questioned, overall, if he has seen more hatred in the form of death threats than the previous president. Because I saw a level of hatred and public displays of such against the previous president I had never seen before.
I have no idea what you really mean by twisting to make points. Perhaps you mean you had no idea what article I was referring to when I clearly posted the link. Or perhaps you meant that cbs news was just another conservative rag. I really don't know. Sometimes things can be easily disproven, sometimes someone says something that can be used to restate or negate points. I really don't care. It's all just part of normal discussion and debate. Take it as you will.
goodoleboy, I have never stated that humans cannot or do not impact the environment. For the record, I believe they do, in many different ways. I have questioned to what degree, and is it the primary responsibility for the warming trend we have/had been going thru.
If 100% of scientists agree, and the data is in no way manipulated, then pretty much would agree. But when I see claims that not one scientist disagrees on one hand, but on the other hand see many, many scientists disagreeing, sueing to have their names removed from pro-warming reports, seeing their funding taken away if they disagree, data being dishonestly manipulated, etc.... a systematic political machine discrediting any and all dissension............... then I take pause and say "hey, wait a minute - something doesn't feel/smell right here". (Another example where I'm one of those who find it hard to take things "purely on faith").
I especially find it hard to swallow when the purported leader of the movement lives the exact opposite lifestile - private jets, houses that use 20x as much energy as the norm, etc...... I mean, I wouldn't have alot of respect for the leader of a vegetarian movement if I saw him eating a 16oz ribeye...... ;-)
December 5, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
So do we tell our children not to respect adults? Quite often the "Do I as say not as I do" motto is applicable, yet we still have to listen. I would hedge my bets Gore would accept the changes handed down to him.
Anyways....
You are never going to have a consensus on this topic, until it comes to pass there will always be detractors. To me it is logical to believe that as humans continue to populate this world and pollute it that bad things are in store for us in the future. I see a lot of comparisons to the past, the problem is that there never has been anything like this human experiment, not even close, therefore benchmarking is almost a moot point, we are in uncharted waters.
December 5, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I agree, goodoleboy - I worry much about pollution of our environment. Which is why I have often stated in the past that I'm not totally against the green movement inasmuch as it makes us more environmentally conscious and we create less pollution. I don't view it quite the same as global warming, however, even though the 2 are intertwined. Regardless of how much we mistreat and pollute our environment we may have global warming and cooling trends that are completely beyond our control. Nobody can say for sure, just as nobody can answer why Greenland turned so cold in what they are now finding out, was possibly less than a year.
As you say, we are in uncharted waters. But then again we always have been ;-)
I'm sure Gore would accept changes handed down to him...... but what is keeping Gore from making changes on his own? I would like to see him lead by example......
December 5, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I guess what I'm trying to say (to be clearer, now that I've been labed the master of dodge and deception) is that I worry much more about toxifying our water, polluting our air, destroying our natural habitat, etc.... than warming the planet. The former we have the ability to control - the latter, we may have little if any say in the matter.
December 5, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
It was the twist and dodge.....please be clear.
You are right on about your link. I only looked at your second post when checking prior to making that statement not the first. I grovel at your feet begging forgiveness.
But while down there I noticed that I had never used this 400 per cent figure you keep bandying about. That was your figure and had nothing to do with my claim. Otherwise your very wordy response seems to confirm what I did say.....that there were times earlier when the threat level against Obama was higher than it is now. You are the one that tore into the 400 per cent. All I said was that they had been at a significantly higher level which you now seem to confirm. So what is the problem?
December 5, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
But if the warming of the planet is indeed caused even partly by the creation of greenhouse gases.....as per the original claim.....we might also have a bigger say in the matter. Not 400 per cent though. :-)
December 5, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes
Please show where I said anything about 400 percent until my Dec., 5, 1:14 p.m. post.
December 5, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Sorry - twist and dodge - I confused it with my signature dance move - LOL
Nowhere have I ever attributed the 400% figure to you. I am using the figure that has been blasted virtually everywhere in the news, and also the figure referred to by the head of the Secret Service. Check the news - the 400% figure has virtually saturated the market in discussions about Obama death threats. So I use the figure being used.
And yes, what I have found DOES confirm that the figure has been higher. BUT..... it is also confirms that the figure spikes and drops for ALL presidents. In other words....... Bush, Clinton, and every other president had times when it was higher. (BTW - There were 8 people arrested at Bush's 2nd inauguration, none at Obama's). So my question remains: Were there comparable spikes and dips during the previous presidencies? Were they comparable to the 400% figure being commonly used, higher, or lower? The problem is, if it is about the same, with the same spikes, why are we suddenly making such a huge deal out of it and attacking the far right as if this was something brand-new when we virtually ignored it for the previous admin? I don't mean to condone or downplay the seriousness of it in any way shape or form. Just trying to use a little logical perspective.
My comments are often wordy because I have repeatedly learned the hard way around here that sure enough, if I don't explain every last detail clearly...... it will be misinterpreted. And if I do, it will be overlooked. I lose either way - LOL
But this is off-topic so I'm sure this thread will soon be pulled alltogether :(
As for the planet warming, I do not know. I do become even more skeptical when finding that the data has been manipulated and fudged. I'm surprised that all the "Bush lied about WMD's" people aren't upset at the merest hint of faulty data, intentional or otherwise. I guess maybe they need to check the political affiliation of the scientists in question before decided to believe them or not - LOL. Anyway, again........... I'm all for doing what we can to limit pollution and the destruction of our environment. Just don't lie to me about the reasons for it is all I ask.
December 5, 2009 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I do understand what you are saying about dips and spikes...(a companion dance to the twist and dodge incidentally)....I think the attention probably initially grew from the obvious and undeniable question of his race. Of course people have threatened to kill other presidents......and maybe in almost as large of numbers at time. But when the threat becomes "Kill the N#####.......that brings the whole spec tor of our racial past into the equation. And something that you surely can't deny is that there are still people in this country who still feel, and would act, that way now.....(no political affiliations intended even though LIBERALS usually try harder for political correctness in this area). Sorry, I just had to throw that in. But what then does any of this have to do with Copenhagen? Isn't Copenhagen the motherland of the worlds raunchiest pornography and legal drugs so I guess that's what we need to talk about to stay on topic
December 5, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I agree biscuitboy - I did mention earlier that this president has had to deal with one threat that no previous president has - racism.
I rarely watch Glenn Beck - not because I don't like the guy (I manage to look beyond the theatrics and comedy and get to the meat of it) - but because he isn't aired at a time convenient for me usually. However, I just stumbled across a show he has on right now on Fox where he has an all-black panel and audience, talking about issues - it is downright fascinating and insightful.
Oh, and I think someone on the show mentioned the word Copenhagen so its on-topic. ;-)
December 5, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
You gotta watch this if you can.... many of the people are conservatives, tea-party attenders, people who voted for Obama, disallusioned Republicans, etc...... I gotta find a link to this whole show after its over...
December 5, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
It's called "Time To Be Heard"...
December 5, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
PS - Copenhagen is also a tobacco chew or snuff similar to Skoal...... (Glenn is on a break at the moment...)
December 5, 2009 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I would STRONLY recommend all to watch this - Glenn Becks "Time To Be Heard" special forum speaking with black conservatives. I don't care if you love or hate Beck, identify yourself as Dem/Repub/liberal/conservative, whatever, this is an excellent show about many subjects from the point of view of black conservatives. Most are Repub, the overwhelming majority of them voted for Obama - some excellent discussion. This was actually aired Nov 13 but this is the first time I came across it.
Please don't knock me for the website, its just the first place I found the videos. Unfortunately they've not released the last 2 sections, which I managed to catch on TV, and unfortunately, were the best of the lot. But please take the time if you can to watch them.
http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/200...
Also on the foxnews site is the printed transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5...
December 5, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
If you have weekend free minutes on your cell phone call Alex Jones 512 646 5000 and listen for an hour.
December 5, 2009 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
to what?
December 6, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
I watched the Beck segment you spoke of, to be honest I was not very impressed with it, with the exception of their perceptions of their own communities, other than that it was more of the same conservative, and tea party arguments I have heard before.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say one a few things, some might not like. A lot of the problems with those neighborhoods they spoke are indeed education and faulty parents. It’s a continuous cycle that propagates itself. With affirmative action and all the grants and scholarships afforded to minorities nowadays all a kid in that situation has to do is stay in school, get good grades, and college and then a job is all but guaranteed, but somehow the cycle continues.
The problem I have with all of it is that I have heard this same rhetoric before, yet nothing seems to change, it makes me question whether they actually want to take ownership of the problem or just continue on with the status quo. They have to change their culture, "keeping it real" is just failure in motion.
December 6, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
The only real way a culture can be forcibly altered from outside the culture is through all out war.......be that a war with guns or with economics.
December 6, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Thank you for taking the time to watch it anyway, goodoleboy. As I said, the last 2 segments I think were the best but unfortunately you would have to read the transcript as they haven't released the video of them. I did not expect anyone with a liberal point of view to agree wholeheartedly with their conservative outlook - especially black conservatives disagreeing with long-held stereotypes perpetuated by many, for example, biscuitboys implication stated above when he said "LIBERALS usually try harder for political correctness in this area". However, I think it was an enlightening insight that hopefully would help dispel some of the broad labels and stereotypes put on groups by liberals and conservatives alike.
December 6, 2009 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The panelists themselves even said as much when they complained about their peers mocking them and complaining they were "going white" when they tried to further their education or even use good grammar. Similar to what I've heard coming from Bill Cosby. Look how he has been ridiculed and ostracized by many within his own community. My hat is off to those brave enough to take a stance and suffer the arrows thrown their way as a result.
I also got a kick out of the one that spoke to Garafalo - you know, Ms "everyone-at-a-tea-party-is-a-racist"........ ;-)
December 6, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
PS - goodoleboy, I did not intend that to be meant as a "label" for you. You have stated often that you tend to lean more to the liberal view of things, just as I have often stated I am more on the conservative side of the fence. Difference is, I think for at least the both of us (and others) we do not have the dividing fence built so high that we are incapable of looking over it and seeing/listening to what is on the other side, and at times even being on that other side. For too many in this country nowadays the fence is impenetrable and insurmountable, unfortunately :(
December 6, 2009 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
No offense taken, but to be honest in regards to their claims I agree with some. The problem is that I am polar opposite on some as well. It really irks me that the opposite of liberal is conservative and visa versa. I thought it was good when they focused on the problems facing the black community, not so much when they discussed social issues in general where it became very similar to most of the far right rhetoric I read and watch. I think you should just label my point of view the "the dudes" that way I don't get grouped in with those I detest, which is just about all the politicians nowadays.
December 6, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
open_eyes, goodoleboy and others:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/empor...
December 6, 2009 at 9:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Google Pajamas Media Viscount Monekton on Climategate: "They are Criminals" [pjm exclusive]
December 7, 2009 at 3:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
The Copenhagen Treaty is the begining of one world government. From the time of Babel to the present God's established plan is that nation's remain free and independent. As nation's turn their backs on God, they become slaves of men who lose their liberty and their independence. The principle of independence is the coronerstone of our republic. The independent and neutral nation envisioned and created by our Founding Fathers is dead. We may be entering an age of darkness and judgement.
December 8, 2009 at 11:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )