"Hurricane Season Ends Quietly," reads the headline (here).
Don't you think that Dubya deserves some credit for this?
Hello world!
7 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children." --Jesus
"Truth will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; Nay, you may kick it around all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver W. Holmes, Sr.
-- Oliver W. Holmes, Sr.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(423)
-
▼
November
(70)
- Media bias by the numbers
- Give credit where credit is due
- Blogging fun
- "Why Mommy Indoctrinates Her Kids"
- Dems adding insult to injury
- Says who?
- Why do you vote like you do?
- Poll--Updated
- Merry Fitzmas, indeed!
- Newsflash: Church failing to keep up with modern ...
- Dems find BigOil smoking gun! (or not)
- Don't pith on me, Roger--reprinted
- Pompous, driven Life?
- Boycott_Citgo
- False dichotomies re. Dem congressional majorities
- Florida the 13th
- Give thanks! . . . on the other hand
- Lovin' Thanksgiving
- "Cat fight" in House
- Theocrat Bogeyman
- O J and W
- Just make sure you spell their name D-I-X-I-E C-H-...
- "Compassionate conservatism," redundant
- Blame Rumsfeld
- Mudslinging-n-hand-wringing at the Scene
- Pervasive racism behind every tree
- Harry Reid's boner
- All politics is local . . .
- Silver-lining snippet
- Sounds like Tenn . . . sounds bad
- Mid-term myths
- Re. Newt's naysayers
- Rudy's tough row (and maybe mine)
- Fear and loathing in Nashvegas
- Inspiring profile of first-time voter
- Ford's future?
- Dems and that sinking feeling (Part 3)
- Krauthammer on the non-tsunami
- "The Sobering Truth"
- Those crazy Dems taking it to the next level
- You want a piece of this [party]?!
- Wrestling not with flesh and blood
- The tsunami in perspective
- Diebold vindiecated!
- Coburn: "bread and circus" governing philosophy f...
- post-election housekeeping
- Nancy and those drapes
- Clear conscience, etc.
- "First-monday-in-November surprise"?
- Voting on Amendment 2
- Don't get the wrong message about Haggard
- Dems and that sinking feeling (Part 2)
- Flat earth fodder
- John F. Kerry is no JFK
- The electronic voting thingies
- Humorous, animated (redundant?) campaign ad
- Serious suppression
- Diefending Diebold
- I guess Europeans don't care about black people
- Early, often and for the children
- "Securing" votes
- Taking Foley nationwide
- Ford, Jr. not so "pro-life"
- Uppity "lawyer"
- Corker and Ford, Jr. on Iraq
- Let's "talk issues"
- Ford, Jr's bull[] pulpit?
- BS backlash (or double-edged BS)
- I kinda wish Foley were on every ballot . . .
- Youtube's impact on politics
-
▼
November
(70)
Some Good blogs
-
-
-
Dealing with Disappointment13 years ago
-
"For the children" has lost its luster14 years ago
Categories
- 2nd Amendment (2)
- a couple things (5)
- blogging (1)
- Bush Derangement Syndrome (40)
- Economics (38)
- Education (25)
- Election 2008 (361)
- elections (105)
- Energy (3)
- Environmentalism (47)
- faith (6)
- Federalism (1)
- Foreign Policy (7)
- Fred Thompson (35)
- GWOT (136)
- healthcare (20)
- immigration (8)
- Law and the Courts (117)
- Liberals and Democrats (109)
- Marriage and family (10)
- media (30)
- Military and Defense (2)
- Obama (73)
- parenting and family (8)
- Race (31)
- Religious Conservatism (95)
- Sanctity of Life (87)
- Sarah Palin (19)
- science denying (3)
- Sexuality (56)
- Sports/Pop Culture (67)
- the Media (17)
- The Tennessee Plan (17)
7 comments:
I give him credit for not screwing up any responses to natural disasters this year.
Well, you can google a response to the argument you googled and pasted if you're looking for "the Republican perspective."
And as far as motivations, I know you'll assume the worst ones are in play, so I won't bother to speculate.
But as far as my position? I think that the Environmental Left (urged on by its umbrella org, the Democrat Party) utilizes hysterical claims to advance its anti-corporate, anti-American and pro-statist agenda. So, many of their (your) claims are horse hooey.
Second, it's not "Bush's government" and there is a lot of controversy about the cause, the significance and the remedy for "climate change" (aka "the Lefty specter formerly known as "global warming").
Oh, and an attorney will preface his comments about where to eat lunch by claiming not to be an expert.
Well, that's encouraging. You're showing progress in your "12 steps from carping to governing" program.
elliemay,
Did Scalia get elected to the MA or U.S. Legislature when I wasn't looking?
Although, I'm not claiming there is a conspiracy about global warming (their agenda is very obvious and their shared interest in advancing the hysteria is obvious as well), it sure is ironic to hear elliemay pooh-poohing a conspiracy theory.
Sorry if you don't like my response, though; and I'm sorry that I don't fall off my chair in rapt amazement at your comments.
But it does make me concerned that maybe you're not enjoying your time here at wisdomisvindicated, elliemay. Feel free to stalk/heckle some other blog; my feelings won't be hurt, and I'll try my best to forge ahead without you.
Ned,
The Supreme Court heard a lawsuit against the EPA for not enacting regulations capping Co2. The Bush administration, backed by the oil/gas lobby are opposed to this. The states, some of them anyway, feel it should be regulated because the EPA's mandate states that it should regulate gasses which will adversely effect our climate/weather system.
It will be the Supreme Court's job to decide whether Carbon Dioxide fits this category, and if it does, it should rule that the EPA is required to regulate this gas. Scalia's vote is pretty much a foregone conclusion (whatever you say Mr. President) but it will be up to the more reasonable members of the SC to decide the case.
A partial transcript of the Court Proceeding which took place Wednesday is available at NPR.
"The Bush administration, backed by the oil/gas lobby are opposed to this. The states, some of them anyway, feel it should be regulated because the EPA's mandate states that it should regulate gasses which will adversely effect our climate/weather system. It will be the Supreme Court's job to decide whether Carbon Dioxide fits this category, and if it does, it should rule that the EPA is required to regulate this gas."
Wow, that's far-reaching.
And dang, I should have sued the FDA way back when to force the Clinton administration to treat RU-486 like I thought it should have been treated (that it was harmful to women) . . . live and learn.
"Scalia's vote is pretty much a foregone conclusion (whatever you say Mr. President) . . . "
That would be news to Scalia and to Dubya.
I'm not shocked that you would bristle at the political consequences of some of Scalia's decisions, but I'd be interested to see the basis for the above assertion.
Well Ned, I'm sure Scalia would disagree with some of Bush's more liberal actions, but it stands that he is more deferential to the President than some of the more moderate members of the Supreme Court.
As for RU-486, if it can be proven that the FDA refused to fulfill their Congressional mandate, than I suppose you might have a case. I haven't seen any studies which shows that RU-486, if given under doctor supervision, doesn't work the way it is intended, or that it creates long lasting physical health problems not listed in the potential side effects.
The EPA is charged by Congress with protecting our environment from toxins, pollutants, or gasses which will have a negative impact on a humans health, or our ecosystem. There is large scale evidence that Co2 emissions are causing, and will continue to cause, adverse effects to the world's ecosystem. Granted, there are some industry funded studies that refute that, but the same went for Tobacco too. If the court finds that the EPA is willfully dismissing evidence of Co2's impact on our environment, than they would be within their rights to require the EPA to do their duty as Congress has mandated.
Post a Comment