This breakup is gonna be bigger than Tigers, I tell ya.
Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro warned on Monday that President Barack Obama's "kindly smile" could not be trusted, saying Washington was plotting against leftist Latin American governments including Venezuela's. Castro, 83, who ran Cuba for nearly 50 years before poor health led him to hand the presidency to his younger brother Raul last year, initially welcomed Obama's election but has been increasingly critical.
In a letter read by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at a gathering of leftist leaders in Havana, Castro said the United States was backing rightist movements in a bid to weaken Chavez and other regional socialist leaders.
"The empire's real intentions are obvious, this time beneath the kindly smile and African American face of Barack Obama," Castro's letter said.
"The empire is mobilizing behind rightist forces in Latin America to strike Venezuela and, in doing so, strike (other leftist) states," the letter said.
Castro, who came to power at the head of the 1959 Cuban revolution, criticized Washington's stance on a June 28 coup in Honduras and a deal to allow U.S. troops more access to Colombian military bases.
The elder Castro has been seen only in occasional photos and videos since having surgery for an undisclosed intestinal ailment in July 2006. He still has a behind-the-scenes role in government and keeps a high profile through his writings.
Last week, he chided Obama for accepting the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize as he steps up the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan by deploying more troops.
Chavez, Washington's most outspoken critic in Latin America, called Obama "the Nobel War Prize" winner on Monday.
#5
Do your best to distract us, Fidel, while Obama keeps trying to get Zelaya back in power in Honduras. But we've learned to watch both of Obama's hands and so have the Hondurans.
Democrats on Tuesday begin their new push for an immigration bill, hamstrung by the image of legalizing millions of illegal immigrant workers at a time when the unemployment rate stands at 10 percent -- more than twice what it was the last time Congress tried to act.
"It certainly will confuse the debate a lot more, but at the end of the day what we have to understand is fixing this system will be good for American workers," said Eliseo Medina, executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, which is one of the major advocates for legalizing illegal immigrant workers.
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, the Illinois Democrat who has taken over leadership on the issue after the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, plans to introduce an immigration legalization bill Tuesday, and backers are planning a strategy to avoid repeats of the failed attempts of 2006 and 2007.
In a letter to members of Congress last week seeking support for the bill, Mr. Gutierrez and Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, New York Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said their legislation will end the off-the-books economy of illegal immigrant workers and protect American workers by raising labor standards.
"In these difficult economic times, we must ensure that everyone contributes toward the recovery and prosperity of our nation," they wrote. "To this end, it is imperative that all individuals and employers pay their fair share in taxes."
A draft overview of the bill, circulated with the letter, ends some enforcement tools such as the 287(g) local police cooperation program, calls for an electronic verification system to replace the voluntary E-verify program, argues that there's no need for more U.S. Border Patrol agents or fencing, and establishes a long-term path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
That path would require illegal immigrants to pay a $500 fine, pass a background check and learn English and civics to gain legal status. After six years, they could apply for legal permanent residence, or a green card, which is the interim step to citizenship. There is no "touchback" provision requiring them to return to their home countries at some point in the process.
Republicans are sharpening their attacks and going straight for the jobs argument.
"With 15 million Americans out of work, it's hard to believe that anyone would give amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. "Even the open-borders crowd agrees that illegal immigrants take jobs from American workers, particularly poor and disadvantaged citizens and legal immigrants. This is exactly why we need to oppose amnesty."
His office has calculated that there are 19 states where the number of illegal immigrants in the work force is at least 50 percent of the number of unemployed workers.
#1
"It certainly will confuse the debate a lot more, but at the end of the day what we have to understand is fixing this system will be good for American workers," said Eliseo Medina, executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, which is one of the major advocates for legalizing illegal immigrant workers.
Good for American workers or good for SEIU? Uh-huh. Expand your membership, expand your power, pump up your revenues...you frickin' bastards. And you got crooked politicians like Gutierrez in the palm of your hand, don't you? Just like Teddy. Just like McCain. Just like Obama.
Now the Tsar can watch his kids go to college before the guvmint (probably) will get around to finishing his citizenship application. I can hardly wait to explain to him why we paid out all that money and did everything legally so that he can sit on the sidelines while lawbreakers jump ahead of him and his buddies.
#5
OMG! This immigration legalization legislation is worse than a zombie plague. You shoot it dead, and it slowly gets back up and starts shambling forward again!
Can't these idiots get the idea: We don't want this!
#7
Healthcare, Cap and Tarde or the EPA equivalent, Copenhagen Treaty commitment absent Senate consultation or consent, Immigration reform, massive public debt..... there is a mood of anger in the nation, on the right, and the center, that is unlike anything I have seen or felt in my 62 years. Angry like ready to pop angry, sudden fury angry, old fat retired guy suddenly throwing a punch angry....
Zero and the Dems risk igniting something more than a ballot box revolution.... and for the first time in my life, I sincerely wonder about the transition of power as a peaceful event.
What I do no is that if immigration amnesty becomes a reality, it ends all trust between me and my government, as they prove they hold nothing sovereign or sacred, no the law or their word or their oath!
#8
Zero and the Dems risk igniting something more than a ballot box revolution....
It's well past time.
Posted by: Thomas Jefferson ||
12/15/2009 19:29 Comments ||
Top||
#9
If one governor and one state legislature would recall it's sitting members of congress and stop sending the tax money to D.C., others would follow.
#10
Zero and the Dems risk igniting something more than a ballot box revolution....
I know what you mean. I swore to defend the constitution against all enemies. Foreign and domestic. If the dems try to keep a peaceful transition of power from happening, through force or ballet box stuffing, for the first time I am thinking of open resistance. Peaceful at first, like not sending in taxes or something with sit ins on federal buildings. If met with violence, then open revolt.
How to make friends and influence people, lesson #417:
As one Change to Win labor union blocks a Red Cross blood delivery today, what will a health care system taken hostage by labor unions look like tomorrow?
As Change to Win's Anna Burger is leading her coalition of unions to lobby all around the country "until every man, woman and child has quality, affordable care they can count on," one of her unions is busy blocking the delivery of a Red Cross blood donation to a hospital and picketing private companies' blood drives.
The Red Cross, which has union workers in various locations who are covered both by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and SEIU, says union leaders are trying to disrupt the Red Cross Blood Services operations by going on strike.
That's right. At a time of year when blood donations are at their lowest levels and are the most urgently needed, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, SEIU's sister union and member of Burger's Change to Win labor coalition, took advantage of the opportunity to go on strike on December 4th against the American Red Cross Blood Services Penn-Jersey Region. Local 929 initiated the strike at midnight just as their contract expired. Hours later, the Red Cross was forced to take legal action when some strikers illegally blocked one blood delivery in particular
"the Red Cross says it had to inform union members that a two-year-old child's life depended on our blood delivery before they would allow a Red Cross vehicle to exit the yard to get the necessary blood products to the hospital."
In the Penn-Jersey region alone, the Red Cross provides blood to over 100 hospitals. This incident forced the Red Cross to seek a court injunction against the union, which it won from the court later the same day.
The Red Cross says it is currently in negotiations with union leaders over a pay raise for union workers who package and deliver blood to hospitals, provide assistance at blood drives and help maintain their facility. While the agency struggles during this economic slump, it has been forced to temporarily suspend merit raises for its non-union staff, as are so many other businesses and non-profit organizations. This has become the primary sticking point in negotiations with the union, which will not agree to the freeze.
"We are simply asking union employees to make the same sacrifices that their non-union colleagues have already made," said Anthony Tornetta, Communications Manager for the Red Cross Penn-Jersey Blood Region. "Their refusal to do so remains a significant issue in these negotiations."
The Teamsters have insisted that the issue is one of working conditions and pay, charging the Red Cross engages in unfair labor practices that endanger the safety of the workers and the blood products they deliver. Union leaders accuse the Red Cross of caring more about boosting profits than worker safety, complaining of consecutive workdays without a day off in between. However, the Red Cross maintains that the negotiation issue is one of pay and not safety, indicating that there have been no unfair labor practice complaints filed by the local Teamsters union regarding these negotiations. The union is also demanding a pay increase while non-union workers are under a wage freeze until June 30, 2010. Outside the negotiating table, picketers are telling passersby and media that the working conditions are causing safety issues for donors and staff. But as the Red Cross indicated, the union's behavior is in stark contrast with this claim, pointing out that blocking critical blood deliveries has potentially endangered patient safety, a concern with which the court has agreed.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/15/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Utterly despicable, yes. Surprising, not at all.
Today, the Obama White House announced the nomination of Mari Del Carmen Aponte as U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador. It is not Ms. Aponte's first brush with an ambassadorship. In 1998, President Clinton nominated her to be Ambassador to the Dominican Republic. She was forced to withdraw her name from consideration over allegations of ties to the Cuban spy agency.
From Washington Times, January 25, 1999:
Miss Aponte's withdrawal from consideration for the Dominican Republic post came after she was questioned by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about her contacts with Cuban government employees or agents.
She told the panel that her experience with Mr. Tamayo and Cuban agents had sensitized her to future contacts that might involve Cuban influence.
According to the officials, Miss Aponte said she had no evidence Mr. Tamayo was a Cuban agent, but told him after the FBI inquiries that she wanted no further contacts with his "friends" in the Cuban Interests Section in Washington.
Mr. Tamayo's regular contacts with the FBI apparently allayed Miss Aponte's concerns about any ties to Cuban intelligence. However, Miss Aponte said she had suspicions about Mr. Tamayo's intelligence connections after she was contacted by the FBI in late 1993. She arranged a meeting between Mr. Tamayo and FBI agents investigating the spy recruitment effort, the officials said.
From Insight on the News, February 22, 1999:
According to a confidential intelligence memo delivered to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms of North Carolina, first published by Insight several months ago, Aponte allegedly cohabited with an agent of the Cuban intelligence service, known as DGI. The man, who was not named in the memo, later was identified in followup press reports as Roberto Tamayo.
In October, eight months after Insight's exclusive story concerning White House security lapses and Aponte's relationship with the suspected spy (see "Do You Want to Know a Secret?" March 23, 1998) the formermember of Clinton's transition team quietly stepped aside. It was only earlier this month that news emerged about her withdrawal.
The memo -- written by an intelligence expert working overseas --questioned the lack of a thorough security check into Aponte's background. The memo also alleged that Aponte was recruited as a "DGI asset." According to the memo, "When the FBI eventually questioned her about her involvement with Cuban intelligence, she reportedly refused to cooperate, saying that since she was not seeking a permanent White House position she was not subject to a background check."
Ms. Aponte was later cleared by the FBI. In spite of this, the Clinton Administration declined to nominate Aponte to any other federal appointments Nice to see the US State Department continues to maintain its high recruitment standards. Per Breitbart....."Yes, she "cohabitated" with an agent of the Cuban spy service, DGI. Worse, DGI tried to recruit Aponte as an asset, and yet when the FBI came around to do a background check, Aponte refused to cooperate, "saying that since she was not seeking a permanent White House position she was not subject to a background check." I am sure Aponte will have no trouble at all with the current DOJ and Bureau.
Michael Drebeen, a deputy solicitor general in the Obama administration, had a rough morning last Tuesday. He argued two Supreme Court cases back to back, defending a notoriously vague federal criminal statute -- and the justices worked him over vigorously.
The 1988 law at issue aims at public corruption and corporate misconduct, but sweeps far too broadly, criminalizing schemes to "deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."
If that language seems a little, well, intangible to you, you're not alone. Hurling hypotheticals, the justices strained to find a limiting principle that could prevent the law from covering an employee reading a racing form on the clock (Stephen Breyer) or calling in sick to go to a ballgame (Antonin Scalia). Of some 150 million workers in the United States, Breyer told Drebeen, "I think possibly 140 million of them would flunk your test."
The court's struggle with the "honest services" statute points toward a larger issue: the burgeoning problem of overcriminalization. It's for good reason that our Constitution mentions only three federal crimes (treason, piracy, and counterfeiting).
... Over the last 40 years, an unholy alliance of big-business-hating liberals and tough-on-crime conservatives has made criminalization the first line of attack -- a way to demonstrate seriousness about the social problem of the month, whether it's corporate scandals or e-mail spam...
There are now more than 4,000 federal crimes, spread out through some 27,000 pages of the U.S. Code. Some years ago, analysts at the Congressional Research Service tried to count the number of separate offenses on the books, and gave up, lacking the resources to get the job done. If teams of legal researchers can't make sense of the federal criminal code, obviously, ordinary citizens don't stand a chance.
You can serve federal time for interstate transport of water hyacinths, trafficking in unlicensed dentures, or misappropriating the likeness of Woodsy Owl and his associated slogan, "Give a hoot, don't pollute." ("What are you in for, kid?" your new cellmate growls.) Bills currently before Congress would send Americans to federal prison for eating horsemeat or selling goods falsely labeled as "Native American."
"Is that the system we have, that Congress can say, nobody shall do any bad things?" an exasperated Scalia asked Drebeen. The system we have comes pretty close, unfortunately. And a federal criminal code that covers everything delegates to prosecutors and the police the power to pick their targets at will, leaving everyone at risk.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/15/2009 10:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
12/15/2009 17:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
China has done the same thing for centuries to keep the peasants in check. If anyone complains about anything, the Mandarins come out and find fault with you, thus discrediting your complaint. The fact that your complaint was 100% valid does not matter in the least in this thought system.
Analysts look at the number of senators and representatives who choose to leave Congress as an indicator of how the political winds are blowing for the upcoming congressional elections. For Democrats looking ahead to the 2010 contests, the outlook is anything but bright.The Examiner'sMichael Barone has in recent weeks chronicled the lengthening parade of House Democrats deciding not to seek re-election. Judging by voter attitudes on major issues and their voting intentions as measured by generic ballot surveys, it looks like 2010 is going to be a very tough year for incumbents generally, but especially so for Democrats.
Among the Democrats Barone has spotlighted are Reps. Dennis Moore of Kansas, John Tanner and Bart Gordon of Tennessee, Brian Baird of Washington, and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii. Abercrombie is leaving the House early in order to campaign for governor, but the other four Democrats, all of whose districts have been trending Republican, are simply retiring. Tanner and Gordon are especially noteworthy as less liberal Blue Dog Democrats who have found life under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "challenging."
In addition to retirements, there are many Democrats in serious danger of defeat. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada currently trails both of the Republicans seeking to challenge him. Reid, with Pelosi, is most closely associated with President Obama's agenda, but he is vastly better-funded than either of his expected GOP opponents, and can legitimately claim that Nevadans benefit from his highly visible national political profile.
Similarly, Rep. Dina Titus in Nevada's Third Congressional District, is having a hard time maintaining a slim lead over her expected GOP challenger, despite the clear advantages of incumbency and an eight-point Democratic advantage in voter registration in her district.
In pollster Scott Rasmussen's continuing survey of voters' party preferences for Congress, Republicans have led Democrats for four straight months now.Even though the Republican lead has been reduced to only four points in the most recent results, it's clear the GOP has an advantage in a two-way race against the Democrats.Combine all of this with Obama's historically low public approval rating, and you can expect more Democrats to decide the time has come for them to leave Congress and quit while they're ahead.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/15/2009 10:10 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
In our weekly poll last week, 80 percent of Republicans are definitely or probably going to vote. For Democrats, it was just 55 percent. Those aren't bloggers or political junkies, it's rank and file Democrats, and they're seeing no reason to turn out and vote. Those voters were promised some pretty basic items, and they delivered big for the Democratic Party -- super majorities and a White House landslide. Democrats pissed away their mandate with a series of corporate bailouts, but nothing for main street. The signature Democratic policy item -- health care -- has been hijacked by Lieberman, Lincoln, Baucus, Snowe, and Ben Nelson, to the detriment of pretty much everyone else, all with the full support of a "bipartisan" obsessed White House
The end game in sight, Senate Democrats coped with stubborn internal differences as well as implacable Republican opposition on Monday in a struggle to pass health care legislation by Christmas.
A liberal-backed call to expand Medicare as part of the legislation drew strong opposition from Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. and quieter concerns from a dozen Democrats, raising significant doubts about its ability to survive.
Congressional officials said the administration was recommending the provision be jettisoned to clear the way for the most sweeping health care legislation in a half-century. In response, a top presidential aide, Dan Pfeiffer, said, "The White House is not pushing (Senate Majority Leader Harry) Reid in any direction, we are working hand in hand with the Senate leadership to work through the various issues and pass health reform as soon as possible."
Disputes over abortion and the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and other countries also flared.
Democrats are "looking for 60 votes," said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the party's second-ranking Senate leader -- a statement that has characterized their effort to overcome Republican opposition for months.
President Barack Obama, the fate of his top domestic priority in doubt, invited all Senate Democrats to a meeting at the White House complex on Tuesday -- possibly the final day for an agreement if the legislation is to clear the Senate before Christmas.
In the interim, the president's Monday schedule included a meeting with Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., who has been trying to negotiate a compromise on the abortion issue with Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Both senators oppose abortions, but Nelson has been outspoken in demanding changes in the bill before he can vote for it.
The overall measure, costing nearly $1 trillion over a decade, is designed to expand coverage and ban the insurance industry practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. Obama has also urged Congress to slow the rate of growth in health care spending nationally, and several days after Reid submitted a package of revisions, lawmakers awaited final word from the Congressional Budget Office on that point.
Additionally, a top administration economic adviser acknowledged Monday that the Democratic-backed health care measure would raise spending in the short run, but she said it would eventually generate more than enough savings to offset the expense of expanded coverage.
"Our bottom line is that the bills as they are coming through will genuinely slow the growth of health care spending, both public and private, by about 1 percentage point a year for an extended period," said Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., led the effort to lift a long-standing ban on the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and elsewhere. Obama favored the plan as a senator, but the pharmaceutical industry is opposed, and the White House appeared anxious not to jeopardize a months-long alliance with drug makers who have been helpful in trying to pass the overhaul.
But the obstacle that loomed largest was a proposal to permit uninsured men and women to purchase Medicare coverage as early as age 55.
It emerged last week as part of a framework agreement between moderates and liberals struggling to define the role of government in the newly revised health care system. Additionally, the proposal calls for creation of nationwide plans run by private insurance companies under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the agency that oversees the system through which federal employees and lawmakers obtain their own coverage.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/15/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hoping enough donks grow a set to scuttle this horrible piece of sh*t legislation.
#2
Don't get your hopes up too much, JohnQC. They're most likely just holding out for pork. When Obama and Reid give 'em the number they want they'll settle.
Question: Is Florida Governor Charlie Crist a Republican or a Democrat? Answer: Yes. Depending on what's popular at the moment. Just as one can estimate the time of day by watching heliotropic plants as they lean toward the sun, one can tell an election is nearing when Charlie "Rorschach" Crist starts changing his positions, leaning in the direction of what's popular.
Taking a page from Flip Wilson's Reverend Leroy, Crist belongs to the Political Church of What's Happenin' Now." He's rotating his political stock, to insure that the freshest ideas from polls and focus groups are what he puts out front for the voting public. This is easy enough for a politician who, as Crist has repeatedly demonstrated, has no philosophical core beyond the core belief that he belongs in high office.
As Crist now wishes to be a U.S. Senator from Florida, the public he's most interested in is Republican primary voters, who this year are suffering from an acute case of RINO fatigue. The flavor of the year is clearly conservatism. So a revision of Crist's recent political career, which has been at least as Democrat-friendly as it has been conservative since Charlie was handed the keys to Florida's governor's mansion in 2007, is much in need if Crist is to prevail over conservative former Florida House speaker Marco Rubio in an August primary. The latest polls show Crist maintains a lead over the lesser known Rubio. But that lead is disappearing faster than beer at a frat party.
Just a couple of examples of the new-improved Charlie, fresh from the re-write department: Take President Obama's $7.87 billion stimulus slush fund (please). Crist didn't just take money for Florida from this failed policy after it was adopted, for which he could not be criticized because the money would have been spent somewhere anyway. He supported the policy before it was adopted. He urged the members of Florida's congressional delegation to vote for it, and went so far as to appear with Obama in Florida to whoop up the plan. He decided to sign on with a popular Democratic rookie president and his budget-busting plan at a time when other Republicans were supporting an approach that included far less federal spending and targeted tax cuts to stimulate the private sector.
Crist made his political bed last winter. But now that our rookie president is not so popular (and is likely headed back to AA ball after 2012, there to learn how to hit right-handed pitching), not to mention that his spending-on-steroids plan has yielded little more than mega-debt and promises of inflation to follow, Crist wishes to sleep elsewhere. He now claims he didn't advocate for the policy, even though he's captured on film multiple times and places doing and saying exactly that. He says now he wouldn't have supported the policy had he been in the Senate and was just looking out that Florida received its fair share of the federal boodle. South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson could tell you what this claim is.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/15/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Senate Republicans say they want to "smoke out" Democratic senators who could help them bring down the health care bill, and so far, they think they've found one in Sen. Jim Webb.
With all the attention focused on four other fence-sitting moderates, Webb has voted with Republicans six times on the first series of amendments on the Senate floor -- giving GOP leaders some hope that the unpredictable Virginian could buck his party in the end and block the bill.
South Dakota Sen. John Thune, No. 4 in GOP leadership, said Webb's votes "came as a bit of a surprise" and that he "probably wasn't on our initial list that we thought of [as] people we might get."
Webb, who won his seat in 2006 in a cliffhanger race against Republican George Allen, has taken a low-key role in the debate so far. It's far from clear whether he'll vote for the bill in the end, although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is "confident" that Webb's concerns will be addressed and that he will ultimately back the bill, a Reid spokesman said.
"Jim's gone his own way on several things -- he's independent, and I respect it," said Reid's deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). "But he's been very honest with us throughout, and I count him as an important and valuable member of our caucus."
Still, his early votes have given party leaders pause. He voted for GOP efforts to send the bill back to the Senate Finance Committee as well as to restore proposed cuts to Medicare -- a move some in the GOP said was intended to keep entitlement programs from being "raided" to pay for the new health care initiatives, a label most of Webb's party strongly rejects.
In an interview, Webb said he's "rather skeptical that those cuts [to Medicare] are sustainable," given the increasing number of people from the baby boom generation eligible for the entitlement program. He also said Medicare Advantage programs have improved services in rural parts of Virginia.
"I'm voting my conscience, which Harry Reid wants all of us to do," Webb said. "I have a lot of concerns about Medicare. I think it's important to express those views on these votes."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/15/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I say, forget about "Smoking out" Jim Webb, (smoking is not PC) rather "Set the Hounds" on this "I was born fighting" piker. Not respected by me and an opportunist at best, as the article implies. This guy is Virginia's Dennis Kucinich.
And this surprises whom, exactly....?
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - The Copenhagen climate talks will generate more carbon emissions than any previous climate conference, And that doesn't even count the CO2 spread around by the "delegates" running their mouths. Incessantly.
equivalent to the annual output of over half a million Ethiopians, And much less useful
figures commissioned by hosts Denmark show.
Delegates, journalists, activists and observers from almost 200 countries have gathered at the Dec 7-18 summit and their travel and work will create 46,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide, most of it from their flights.
This would fill nearly 10,000 Olympic swimming pools, and is the same amount produced each year by 2,300 Americans or 660,000 Ethiopians -- the vast difference is due to the huge gap in consumption patterns in the two countries -- according to U.S. government statistics about per person emissions in 2006.
Despite efforts by the Danish government to reduce the conference's carbon footprint, around 5,700 tonnes of carbon dioxide will be created by the summit and a further 40,500 tonnes created by attendees' flights to Copenhagen.
The figure for the flights was calculated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), while the domestic carbon footprint from the summit was calculated by accountants Deloitte, said Deloitte consultant Stine Balslev.
"This is much bigger than the last talks because there are many more people here," she said, adding that 18,000 people were expected to pass through the conference center every day. 18,000 so-called "leaders" and not a one of them knows about teleconferencing. Boggle.
"These are preliminary figures but we expect that when we do the final calculations after the conference is over, the carbon footprint will be even bigger, but we'll lie about it about the same."
Deloitte included in their calculations emissions caused by accommodation, local transport, electricity and heating of the conference center, paper, security, transport of goods and services as well as energy used by computers, kitchens, photocopiers and printers inside the conference center.
Accommodation accounted for 23 percent of the summit's greenhouse gas emissions in Copenhagen, while transport caused 7 percent. Seventy percent came from activities inside the conference center, she said.
"We have been forced to put up some temporary buildings in order to provide the delegation rooms because the number of participants is so much larger than expected," said Balslev. More sleazy politicians hoping to garner a larger share of the increasingly small boodle pie, no doubt.
"For instance the U.S. delegation has ordered an area that's five times as big as last year."
The temporary buildings housing delegation offices are not well insulated and are warmed by oil heaters, so this area is the most energy-wasteful, she said.
The researchers assumed that 60 percent of conference participants would catch public transport to and from the conference but Balslev said that was probably total bullsh*t optimistic.
Balslev said most of the energy used by the conference was from coal fired power stations that power the electricity grid, but some was from wind power. "Wind power" - is that what they call politicians' bloviating now?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/15/2009 10:03 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
this comment at that site: "There is a 75 per cent chance that Al Gore, during the summer months, could be completely fact-free within five to seven years.
#4
My understanding is that while the extent of Antarctic ice is greater, it is substantially thinner over that extent BP. So it's not clear that that is a counter argument to the GW thesis.
"I have a vision of al gore meandering aimlessly across an ice floe wearing nothing but a robe and flip flops. Hes muttering to himself about the bears polar bears as he kicks little snowballs."
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
12/15/2009 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#8
You've gotta love Lindzen's comment, Hes just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.
After all, with logic like that of Maslowski & ilk, the US will be job-free by 2020...
New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in the summertime as early as 2014, Al Gore said Monday at the U.N. climate conference. Northern polar sea ice has been retreating dramatically. These new projections suggest an almost-vanished summer ice cap much earlier than foreseen by a U.S. government agency just eight months ago. "It is hard to capture the astonishment that the experts in the science of ice felt when they saw this," former U.S. Vice President Gore told reporters and other conference participants at a joint briefing with Scandinavian officials and scientists, his first appearance at the two-week session.
The group presented two new reports updating fast-moving developments in Antarctica, the autonomous Danish territory of Greenland, and the rest of the Arctic.
"The time for collective and immediate action on climate change is now," said Denmark's foreign minister, Per Stig Moeller.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/15/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If you believe the earth's core is millions of degrees hotter than it is I imagine it is an easy step to imagine the polar ice vaporizing that quickly. Gore is a confused fellow dazzled by his own awards and bull$hit.
A rantburg deep cover agent has managed to get the source code of these models. Here it is.
procedure model_version1 is
begin
put_line("Polar ice will melt. We are all doomed"):
end model_version1;
procedure model_version2 is
begin
put_line("Polar ice will melt. We are all doomed");
put_line("unless you deposit your savings in my swiss bank account");
end model_version2;
#3
Yeah,I've got Gore's computer model right here:
C:###
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
12/15/2009 2:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The scientist Al Gore is 'quoting' responds: "Its unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."
#7
The London Times and other news outlets have called Gore on this BS.
Unfortunately, the utterly false melting Himalayan glaciers threaten water supply for 1 bilion people claim still goes unchallenged.
FYI, melting glaciers will increase winter and spring river flows when Himalayan rivers are at low water, and reduce summer flows when the rivers are in flood due to the Monsoon.
World leaders began arriving at the United Nations climate summit on Tuesday, seeking to give a shot in the arm to the floundering talks after warnings that the whole event was at risk of ending in failure.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva were among the heavyweights expected in the Danish capital where officials and climate ministers have struggled to make any progress since the marathon meeting began eight days ago.
"I appeal to all world leaders ... to redouble efforts to find the room for compromise, to make a final push in this final stretch," Ban told reporters in New York before flying to the Danish capital.
"Time is running out ... There is no time for posturing or blaming," he said. "If everything is left to leaders to resolve at the last minute, we risk having a weak deal or no deal at all. And this would be a failure of potentially catastrophic consequence."
The summit, which reaches its climax on Friday when 120 heads of state huddle in the Danish capital, has been billed as one of the most important gatherings of the post-World War II era.
The conference's goal is to agree an outline deal of national pledges to curb carbon emissions and set up a mechanism to provide billions of dollars in help for poor countries in the firing line of climate change.
But deep divisions remain over how the tab split, with developing countries demanding that their rich counterparts implement a 40% in carbon emissions by 2020 compared with 1990 levels. You can stick of fork in it. It's dead Jim.
#5
"Time is running out ... There is no time for posturing or blaming," he said. "If everything is left to leaders to resolve at the last minute, we risk having a weak deal or no deal at all. And this would be a failure of potentially catastrophic consequence."
Spoken like someone whose stock options are going to soon expire....
#6
Yeah, yeah. We're all gonna die if we don't buy into your scheme. You have paraded before us and even we peasants can see that the emperor has no clothes. Go back from your Copenhagen meeting via surface freight and save some CO2. Bloody deluded souls. Ah pity the poor fools.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
12/15/2009 19:43 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The puppets - where are the friggin' giant paper-mache puppets? You can't have a good moonbat alarmist-fest without puppets...
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The end game in sight, Senate Democrats coped with stubborn internal differences as well as implacable Republican opposition on Monday in a struggle to pass health care legislation by Christmas.
Question: Is Florida Governor Charlie Crist a Republican or a Democrat?
Answer: Yes. Depending on what's popular at the moment. Just as one can estimate the time of day by watching heliotropic plants as they lean toward the sun, one can tell an election is nearing when Charlie "Rorschach" Crist starts changing his positions, leaning in the direction of what's popular. 
