Fred Thompson – May 4?
(Hat-Tip: Drudge Report)
The usually anti-Bush Lebanese paper, Lebanon Daily Star, had it quite on the mark when it said how absolutely useless and undermining Pelosi’s visit was to the
We were under psychological pressure and mind games
PLASTIC BAG BAN FULL OF HOLES
The city of
's Board of Supervisors voted last week to outlaw plastic checkout bags at large supermarkets and chain pharmacies. The stores are encouraged to use bags made of recyclable paper, which can biodegrade in about a month, or compostable bags made of corn or potato starch, which have not yet been widely studied. San Francisco
It is a unique response well suited to a city that prizes its special nature -- one that already has curbside pickup for recycling foodstuffs in compostable bags. But as other cities weigh
's choice, they might want to consider some of the consequences, says USA Today. San Francisco
- Plastic bags cost about a penny each, paper costs about a nickel and compostable bags can run as high as 10 cents each.
- The California Grocers Association, which lobbied against the ban, doubts this new industry can produce enough of the compostable bags quickly.
- The bags also must be segregated from regular plastic, making recycling efforts more difficult.
- Paper bags generate 70 percent more air pollutants and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
- This is because four times as much energy is required to produce paper bags and 85 times as much energy is needed to recycle them.
- Paper takes up nine times as much space in landfills and doesn't break down there at a substantially faster rate than plastic does.
Public education campaigns about littering and recycling can help more than ineffective bans on products that are used every day by billions of people worldwide, says USA Today.
Source: Editorial, "Plastic bag-ban full of holes," USA Today, April 2, 2007.
For more on State and Local Issues:
10 Out Of 10 Terrorists Agree… They Want the Democrats in Office
I will post a new article on the recent visit by Pelosi to the Middle-East, and then I will post two old posts on Democrats and Terrorists.
Dr. Francis Collins – Human Genome Project Head – Discusses His Faith
While Dr. Collins is an old-earth creationist, I am a young earth creationist. I cannot wait until the new creation museum is opened and kids have an alternative in visual form to all the photo’s (many now debunked) in their biology textbooks:
In Response to Another Blogger
just getting it into the record
Just because you can find info on the internet that support any claim doesn’t – by itself – discredit that claim. I have a National Enquirer tabloid that has a photo of Jesse Jackson on its cover with his mistress. Just because the National Enquirer gets it wrong 98% of the time doesn’t mean Jesse Jackson didn’t have an affair.
I can say the same about authors who write books. Michael Moore comes to mind first off. All his books are full of misstatements and misquotes put forward as truths. I will give one small example:
So you need to deal with the merits of the argument and not where they come from, and in doing so you will not be committing a fallacy of logic.
I will post two refutations of Michael Moore
From other authors
The above link is found at a great site: Journal of Debunking 9/11 Myths
It is in response to this blog: Be Very Scared
The below is such a great help in understanding what the “Project for a New American Century” is all about… by refuting the crazy conspiracy people who love to link to anti-Semitic sites.
Mr. Legge, like many critics of the administration in recent years, attributes both the 9/11 attacks, and the subsequent wars in
It is certain that there was a strong desire on the part of some members for a “catalyzing event”, like Pearl Harbor,  in order to provide the impetus of the invasion of
The footnote supporting this argument then points to:
3. A plan existed. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
“The process of transformation.” The plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new
While the somewhat edited quote 1, is superficially accurate, the conclusion which is drawn from it, is completely wrong. This is not only "not proof of complicity", this is such a mischaracterization of what that quote says as bordering on academic fraud. The author states that the “Pearl Harbor” they are referring to is "in order to provide the impetus of the invasion of
Afghanistan only merits a brief historical mention, in regards to the cruise missile attacks carried out by President Clinton in 1998, and only while discussing the Navy’s decreased staffing.3 A researcher does not need to try and infer what PNAC is talking about, however, the "process of transformation" that they are referring to is specifically discussed on the page previous to the “Pearl Harbor”quote (emphasis added):
To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.4
It is no surprise that proponents of this theory only quote the one sentence, not even the whole sentence in this case, because if you read the rest of the paragraph, it becomes abundantly clear, that this has absolutely nothing to do with US international policies after 9/11 (emphasis added):
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new
Furthermore, there is no “strong desire” for this “catalyzing change”, not even the technological transformation which they are actually talking about. They are merely pointing out the likely timetable for these changes to take place, thus the sentence at the end about the process taking decades.
And regards to the
absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future
They aren’t just talking about a sneak attack, they are talking about a sneak attack using a technology that we are unprepared for, just like the Japanese aircraft carriers on December 7th, 1941. Arabs with box cutters and fake bombs may be a sneak attack, but they were hardly something that could have been prevented by this technological transformation they have spent the entire paper advocating.
An in-depth analysis of this 90 page document also shows that an invasion of
Mr. Legge then continues this paragraph with:
The fact that the air attack on
This is one of many cases where the author “suggests” things that he admits he can’t prove. I am not aware of the academic merit of just suggesting things. If you have no proof, or even a logical hypothesis, then why are you bringing up the subject? Perhaps if he had done some research on this area he wouldn’t need to suggest as much. One good example is General Tommy Franks’ autobiography, “An American Soldier”, which describes the hectic process and frantic international negotiations needed to prepare for the invasion.
In regards to the “less than a month” part, on August 7, 1998 over 200 people were killed in near simultaneous bombings at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.9 Less than 2 weeks later, on August 20th, the US carried out attacks against suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan.10 Is Mr. Legge going to “suggest” that Clinton had plans prepared ahead of time?
1 This quote from the paper titled “Rebuilding America’s defenses” available here http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm actually reads in full from page 51 “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
2 Page 73-74 “Likewise, terminating the no-fly zones over Iraq would call America’s positions as guarantor of security in the Persian Gulf into question; the reaction would be the same in East Asia following the withdrawal of US forces or a lowering of American military presence.”
3 Ibid page 40
4 Ibid page 50
5 Ibid page 51
6 Ibid page 67
7 Page 50 “Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years.”
8 Ibid page 50: The United States cannot simply declare a "strategic pause" while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts.”
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
When the Left Attacks!
The progressive democrats who supposedly want free speech, the right to hold any opinion, the pacifists, were once again physically attacking a person of the opposite view. Maybe this is why Pelosi likes the covering over her head? Maybe she supports
UPDATE: here is low resolution cell phone video of these “free-speech” liberal “activists”. Please take note I have commented on what these kids are really pushing for in my blogs:
NBC 4 Video is Here (it is linked through Drudge, so it is slow) Take note the first comment has it right… it mentions that these liberal democrats that are pelting Rove’s car and trying to get the speech stopped are mirroring the Fascists from Germany. This was a tactic they used to silence the opposition. That is, shouting down speakers, having speeches canceled by causing too much of a ruckus, and the like.
What conservative student union shouted down or shut down any liberal speaker? Sheehan can speak unabated on a campus without body-guards. Ann Coulter cannot. Pacifists my ass!
Christian Church &
Just as during the Cold War and the eventual fall of communism in
Any who come here who are Christians, please pray for this Catholic priest.
The Newsweek poll shows that only 13% actually believe all that naturalistic evolution and its science teachers espouse. 48% believe in a young-earth. And 30% believe in theistic-evolution. So if you combine theistic-evolutionists and young-earthers, you have a population of 78% that believe in a personal God. Remember, there is no personal God in pantheistic worldviews (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and the like). Yet, any stance in the classroom about either Intelligent design or mere criticisms of evolution (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, the fossil horse series, the peppered moth story, fossil gaps, and the like) are not allowed.
Yet most of