NASA’S DR. JAMES HANSEN THINKS SO. BLAMES SPECIAL INTERESTS FOR STALLING TRANSITION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY

Dr. James Hansen, a noted climatologist and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, in a posting on the NASA Web site, has called for the incarceration of fossil fuel executives for “spreading disinformation about global warming”. Dr. Hansen, an outspoken environmental advocate, is recommending that the executives be “tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

Special interests, according to Dr. Hansen, have blocked our society’s “transition to our renewable energy future.” Their “methods are sophisticated, he notes, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.” “They (the fossil fuel companies) are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual,” Hansen continued, as he likened their actions to those of the tobacco companies who initially attempted to “discredit the link between smoking and cancer”.

Now, this is not the first time that Dr. Hansen have taken the heads of polluting industries to task. He has been a thorn in the side of the oil and coal industries ever since initially sounding the alarm about global warming in an appearance before a Senate subcommittee over twenty years ago. It was this appearance that is credited with helping to “raise broad awareness” of the global warming issue.

In the intervening two decades, Dr Hansen has angered the Clinton administration, advised Al Gore in his highly successful evolution into America’s environmental conscience, and been censored by the Bushies. He did all this while pissing off the fossil fuel companies to the extent that they tried and failed to have their flunkies in the Bush administration rein him in.

This took the form of everything from having senior NASA administrators attempt to coerce him to change his public statements about the causes of climate change, a move which, of course, failed, to ordering NASA public relations staff to review his public statements and interviews. The latter was instituted following a 2005 lecture at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

But the attempts to silence him did not end there. During a appearance on the iconic, 60 Minutes, Hansen revealed that White House staffers had edited his climate-related press releases with the intention of “making global warming seem less threatening”. To make matters worse, the person charged with doing the editing was a former oil company executive, who after being outed for his part in this fiasco resigned from government and returned to the waiting arms of Big Oil.

At the time Hansen commented that in three decades in the government, he had “never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public.”

Among Dr. Hansen’s other unpopular positions – unpopular for the fossil fuel companies, that is – are his calls for retiring all coal-fired power plants that don’t capture carbon dioxide emissions by 2025. Currently there is no practical technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions.

His contention is that society will reach a “global tipping point” by 2016 if the human population is unable to reduce greenhouse gases.

-Denis

Read more about Dr. James Hansen

WHEN WILL WASHINGTON DISCOVER THAT THE ONLY WORKABLE SOLUTION IS MANDATORY SCIENCE-BASED, THEOLOGICALLY NEUTRAL SEX-ED?

Well my inquisitive friends, I can see you tuning in, drawn perhaps by the salacoius slug, or maybe it’s the provocative couple featured in the attached graphic. No matter. For the record, sex stories tend to do better on this blog than many of the more scientific ones, which in a way is sad, because this is, after all, an environmenal blog. But this posting deals with the best of both worlds, sex and science, and that boondoggle that is ABSTINENCE education. Well, the latest numbers are in as to the effectiveness of abstinence – only education, and as predicted, the news is not good for the politicians and religious groups promoting abstinence as a way of controlling teenage sexual activity.

According to the latest federally funded study of four abstinence-only programs by Mathematica Policy Research Inc., teenagers participating in abstinence-only programs had “just as many sexual partners as nonparticipants”. What’s more, the teenage men and women studied had “started having sex at the same median age as nonparticipants”.

What makes this latest data particularly compelling and worth repeating here is that each of the groups Mathematica studied had taken a broader, better though out approach to teaching abstinence than what might be considered the norm; balancing the heaven/hell/eternal damnation hysteria with meaningful discussions of human anatomy and sexually transmitted diseases. Moreover, each of these programs also helped their students to develop better, more accurate communication skills, resist peer pressure, set personal goals, and enhance their self-esteem, important character building blocks that are all to often passed over in our schools today as they struggle to comply with the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

Lest this seem an endorsement of this sort of abstinence-only education, let me make it perfectly clear, I find it morally and ethically wrong to bully our young men and women with threats of eternal damnation, life threatening diseases and other bad things befalling them merely for pursuing their purely natural hormonal urgings.

What I do endorse is a mandatory, science-based, theologically neutral sex-ed syllabus; one that not only touches on all the major accepted methods of birth control – including abstinence – but which also helps our young men and women develop the character traits necessary to decide wisely when, and with whom, it is correct to establish a physical relationship with.

Now, I am sure that any older evangelicals reading this posting will go ballistic at the mere though that teenage men and women would be wise enough to know when and with whom the time was right to have sex. But then, many of these same folks, more than likely, do not give today’s youth credit for being the sophisticated, wise and thoughtful individuals that so many of them are; figuring, I guess, that because they were unable to make appropriate decisions at that age, that others would have trouble as well.

Thankfully, this is not the case. But then, there are many differences between today’s teenagers and those who have gone before, not the least of which is in the way that they practice their religious faith.

Raised on My Space, MTV and the Internet, these young men and women are technologically astute and worldly. In a break with tradition, they care more about the important issues of the day, such as world hunger, health care, and global warming and less if gay people are allowed to marry, adopt children or serve in the military, issues that drove many of their parents and grandparents to the picket lines and voting box in years previous.

Additionally, today’s young people are more racially and ethnically accepting than their predecessors, believing that all people regardless of color, sexual orientation, or belief system are entitled to freedom, happiness, a good job and a fulfilling family life.

Those who are religious, and that’s a pretty significant number, overall, find themselves drawn more to the personal style of Christianity practiced by Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, than that practiced by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson, religious icons of a previous time. This support of Obama has Republican political strategists scrambling to find ways to draw today’s young evangelicals to their candidate. The only problem is, they have taken these people for granted for so long, they have no idea of how to get them back. If they did, they would not be running that tired, old, out of touch, Beltway hack, John McCain against young, brilliant, Barack Obama and actually thinking that McCain can win.

But how can one expect a party that preaches abstinence to have any concept of what people want?

–Denis

IMAGINE A SYSTEM FOR RATING BUSINESS SUCCESS THAT HAS MORE TO CONSIDER THAN QUARTERLY REPORTS, SALES PROJECTIONS AND CASH IN THE BANK. AT LAST, A SPIRITUAL COMPONENT

Just when it seemed that the pursuit of money, fame and that house in the Hamptons (or for us left coasters, Newport Island,) had lost most of its’ appeal as barometers of one’s success, we now have a new and exciting way to gauge accomplishments in the workplace. And unlike previous ratings systems, quarterly reports, sales projections and cash in the bank are only a part of establishing one’s bona fides.

Now before my regular readers start fearing that yours truly has imbibed of fundamentalist cool aide and is speaking of lunchtime prayer sessions, weekend bible study classes, or for that matter being nice to people that I write about; be advised that all is well here at Libsearthwatch.com. My cynicism, though worn down from the often-thankless job of encouraging humanity to save itself, is, thank god, intact. As are my candor and well-developed bullshit meter. With these paragraphs I am merely setting the stage for a fascinating new posting from the print and electronic edition of Ode Magazine, the global monthly magazine of spirituality, positive living and the environment, that people, (yours truly, included) the world over turn to for the straight stuff about topics that matter to us at this crazy time in all of our lives. But enough shameless plugging of Ode magazine, And yes, I do pay for my subscription.

Spiritual Capitalism (I’m quoting Ode Magazine here) is an exciting new tool for managing the success of an enterprise by values like “integrity” and “commitment” as much as by targets like “efficiency” and “profitability.” “It’s based on the recognition that every businessperson—whether you’re the CEO of a major multinational or the head of your own small firm—is in the service industry, and the services rendered must benefit not just yourself and your shareholders, but the planet and other people as well.” The first commandment of the growing spiritual-capitalism movement is: Taking care of business means taking care of others.

Continue reading this worthwhile posting

BUSH ADMINISTRATION DECLARES WAR ON POLAR BEARS. PERMITS OIL COMPANIES TO “ANNOY AND POTENTIALLY HARM” THE NEWLY PROTECTED SPECIES WHILE DRILLING FOR OIL AND GAS

QUESTION: When is it ok to kill or maim a protected species?

ANSWER: When species interferes with GEORGE BUSH’s friends making money.

Regular readers of libsearthwatch.com will probably remember that it was just about this time last month that the Bush administration, after years of foot dragging, caved to the will of the people – and the threat of numerous well funded lawsuits – and granted protected status under the Endangered Species Act to the Alaskan Polar Bear.

While I praised the administration at the time for their courageous action, regardless of motive, I maintained that I intended to retain a healthy skepticism that this would be different from previous Bush environmental initiatives (Think: the Clear Sky and Clean Water Initiatives) and not weighed down with paragraph after paragraph of loopholes and concessions to Big Oil and other corporate polluters.

In ending that posting, I quoted Natural Resources Defense Council President, Frances Beinecke’s statement that it would “be years and a number of successful court battles before the legislation offered any real protection” to the polar bear.

Sad to say, both Ms. Beinecke and your humble scribe called this one accurately. Now I can’t speak for Ms. Beinecke on the matter, but I was not at all surprised with the recent Fish and Wildlife Service announcement that the Bush administration has given the go ahead to oil and gas exploration companies to “annoy and potentially harm” the newly protected species as they pursue oil and natural gas deposits in and around the bear’s Alaskan Wilderness habitat. This was, after all, the Bush administration we were talking about.

Needless to say, when the announcement broke, the proverbial shit hit the fan with the more extreme green’s among us claiming that the announcement was merely to pave the way for mass genocide against the offending creatures, whom, I might add, have called the wilderness area home for centuries and know nothing about oil exploration, or that, for their own safety, they needed to stay clear of it.

From their reaction, it is apparent that the administration did not expect such an outburst of support for the bears, probably figuring that with gas approaching five dollars a gallon, manufacturing sector unemployment at an all time high, and people struggling frantically to hold on to their homes, that they would not have time to notice the Fish and Wildlife Service announcement, let alone the mental stamina to raise hell over it.

Well my friends, once again the Bushies were wrong, as they are wrong about so much in America today. So the Shitpublicans did what they normally do whenever they miscalculate the will of the American people, they sent in the damage control wizards.

No way was this blanket immunity, the men and women who lie for a living told us. Moreover, it covered only a small number of polar bears and Pacific walruses that may be harmed or killed in the course of the companies doing business in the area. Trust us, they said; No way was this open season on polar bears. No way! Of course, with the Bush administrations history with telling the truth, the chance of that happening is not too likely.

But let’s talk specifics here. For instance: How do we know how many bears are killed and injured? Will the oil and gas exploration companies be required to maintain not only accurate records but also transparency in making them available? Then there is the little matter of whether the oil companies will be legally required to chase the animals away from areas where they may be at risk? Lastly, will the oil and gas companies accord the bears the sort of treatment one would expect to be afforded to a protected species, such as will injured bears receive proper medical help or just be left to die at the scene of the accident? Because after all, Polar Bears don’t vote, nor do they have the type of assets, which would make them a candidate for one of the Prez’s life affirming tax breaks. So, no cash, no vote: no access. Is it any wonder these critters are being screwed?

In summation, in the earlier posting I noticed that several environmental groups had already filed notice that they intended to sue the federal government for not imposing harsher regulations for oil development in the polar bear habitat.

While these people are well meaning and the litigation may some day make things better for the polar bear, the only problem is, legislation is a slow drawn-out process and the polar bears are in a race against time. The administration knows this, as they most certainly know that they will eventually loose. Bit is almost as if this maneuver was never intended to win, but merely to stall things long enough for the Prez and his enablers to award all the available leases in the area. Brendan Cummings, oceans program director for the Center for Biological Diversity says it best, “The only thing keeping pace with the drastic melting of the Arctic sea ice is the breakneck speed with which the Department of the Interior is rushing to sell off polar bear habitat for fossil fuel development.”

It is news like this that keeps me humming the words and melody of that prophetic 1960’s folk song immortalized by Barry McGuire during that long ago Summer of Love, “And you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.” Never were a song’s lyrics as true for today as this tale of environmental and political apocalypse. The only thing wrong was it’s timing.

-Denis

PAINLESSLY AND EASY TIPS TO USE LESS WATER

Much has been written of late, both here at libsearthwatch.com and around the BLOGOSPHERE, about what is being called the coming water wars. While the tendency in most advanced countries is to view the idea of wars being fought over something so basic as drinking water as overblown and the domain of conspiracy theorists, the reality is the worlds supply of potable drinking water is no longer adequate to accommodate the needs of Planet Earth’s ever-growing population without both a serious investment in desalination and other purification technology, and realistic conservation efforts being undertaken here and abroad. Well, that’s the bad news.

The good news is that water conservation does not have to be painful. What follows are some easy to enact, relatively painless ways to reduce one’s water usage and to feel good about oneself in the process. In the interest of disclosure, the inspiration for today’s posting came from a feature in today’s Daily Green.com. In fact the list, minus the comments were pinched from that wonderful site via the Huffington Post’s, Green Page.

INSTALL A LOW-FLOW SHOWERHEAD
The experts tell us that this cuts consumption by 50 – 70%. But just think about the water that you could save if you showered with your girlfriend, boyfriend, spouse, fiancé or that attractive single person down the hall, downstairs, upstairs, across the street, in the next cube, etc?

Best of all, you could sell this liberating idea to your potentially skeptical shower partner as the two of you ‘doing your part for the good of Mother Earth and us all’. What man or woman could resist when the ideas is presented in this way? Talk about a win-win situation…

TURN OFF THE TAP WHILE YOU BRUSH
The EPA tells us that the average bathroom faucet flows at a rate of two gallons a minute. Doing the math, this means that by something so simple as turning off the faucet while brushing, you can save as much as 8 gallons of water per day per person.

There is not that I can add here except, perhaps, to suggest only brushing one’s teeth once a day. Whether this would be done in the morning or evening would depend on one’s social calendar, and whether swapping bodily fluids with another is being contemplated.

WATER YOUR YARD IN THE MORNING
The accepted knowledge here is that it is best to water lawns and outdoor plants in the early morning so less precious water is lost evaporation.

Sadly, during a drought, this advice is about as helpful as reorganizing the deck chairs would have been on the Titanic in that it really doesn’t do all that much to ease the water shortage problem.

A better solution would be to tear the damn lawn up all together and replace it with flora native to your particular environment. Here in Southern California that would be cactus.

Additionally, without the water hogging lawn, there is now plenty of water and space for planting an organic veggie garden. This is another win-win as it conserves water and it guarantees a supply of healthy, non- toxic, locally grown food to eat, which in this time of five dollar gasoline and listeria infected produce is a good thing to have going for you.

For those of you who live in areas with plentiful rainfall, consider also installing a water reclamation system that would capture water run off and store it for use water plants. I realize that I used several potentially scary terms in that sentence, – reclamation system, capture run off. So before you work yourself into a tizzy over having to spend thousands of dollars just to have a few tomato plants, know that a water reclamation system is as simple as a clean garbage-type can positioned underneath your house’s rain gutter. So instead of the rainwater making it’s way to the drain and the ocean or the nearby lake, you the environmentally wise person that you are, are capturing it for eventual re-use. Now, if we could only figure out a way to use this in the Jacuzzi? Talk about what a win –win that would be?

USE A PRO CAR WASH
Here to, the experts tells us that merely washing your car in your driveway uses anywhere from 80 and 140 gallons of water per wash depending, I guess, on the size of your car and how anal you are about getting it new car clean. (Note! Hummers are excluded from these estimates, but we won’t go there as I doubt that there are all that many Hummer drivers reading this blog.) Contrast this to a professional wash, which uses about 45 gallons of water per car.

My friends, I like a clean car as much as the next person, and because my hybrid is black, probably more so than most. However, it is more important to me that the inside is clean, it’s odor free (except for my essential oil air freshener), and the carpets are free of dust, coffee spills and food droppings. So why not do as I do. Once every six weeks or so, I have my car professionally washed inside and out. This I have done at one of the many car washes in my area that recycle their wash water. (Note! You can tell which vendors recycle their water pretty easily, because recycled water smells bad – much the way rainwater smells when puddles of it sit in your yard without moving for a few days.

Then on alternate weekends when my 10 yr old nephew comes to visit, I toss him a few bucks to vacuum the inside and wipe down the dash and console with a damp cloth. This way I’m conserving water, have a relatively clean, odor free car, and am employing the youth of America as they learn the value of working for a dollar in today’s economy. Score this a win-win!

FIX THAT LEAK
The experts tell us that ignoring a dripping faucet, leaky pipe joint or dripping sprinkler head can waste a minimum of 3 gallons of water per day per leak. By itself, this is not a lot of water, but these things do add up. As one not that technically astute, particularly about things that get you dirty or could potentially injure your hands – and plumbing is definitely one of those – I have heard that it is amazing what a two-dollar pack of washers can do to remedy most leaky situations.

However, I can speak from experience, that ceasing to park cars, trucks, motorcycles and other weighty objects on the lawn will go a long way toward stopping leaky sprinkler heads. Plus the oil, which all of these vehicles have a habit of leaking will kill what remains of your lawn, which is bad, unless of course that is part of your plan. Then it is merely another win-win.

To summarize, while each of these changes, my snarky comments notwithstanding, are valid ways to reduce one’s water consumption, nothing will really get any better for the long term as long as environmentalists continue to dance around the real cause of today’s water shortages; the water being wasted daily on the tens of billions of sheep and cattle currently grazing on the world’s great plains as they wait their turn to become steaks and hamburgers.

Drastically reducing our consumption of red meat would not only be healthy, but would go a long way to insure that the nations of the world will not one day be battling over the world’s remaining drinking water.

- Denis

FINALLY, EVERYTHING THAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE NUMBERS IN ARROWS ON PLASTIC CONTAINERS REAALLY MEAN

For the many confused as to the meaning of that number enclosed in triangular arrows on the bottom of your coffee cup, water bottle, sandwich bag or other plastic container, we have prepared this easy guide. Special thanks to National Geographic’s, Green Guide, where much of the source information originated.

POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE (PET or PETE) – (Soft drink bottles, water bottles, beer bottles, mouthwash bottles, peanut butter containers, salad dressing containers, juice bottles, vegetable oil bottles)
Bottles made with PET are considered safe for single use. Repeat using is not recommended as the plastic is porous and it has been known to permanently absorb flavors and bacteria. Note! There are a limited number of reusable containers available that are made from this material, though for the reasons listed above, it is recommended that you avoid using them.

Bottles made with PET or PETE are widely accepted by municipal recyclers.

HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) – (Milk containers, juice bottles, water bottles, bleach, detergent, and shampoo bottles, trash bags, grocery and retail carrying bags, motor oil bottles, butter and margarine tubs, household cleaner bottles, yogurt containers, and cereal box liners)
Considered one of the safer plastics. HDPE transmits no known chemicals into your food.

Most municipal recycling programs accept packaging made with HDPE. Recycled HDPE is used to make Drainage pipe, liquid laundry detergent bottles, oil bottles, pens, benches, doghouses, recycling containers, floor tile, picnic tables, fencing, lumber, and mailbox posts.

POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (V or PVC) – (Window cleaner bottles, cooking oil bottles, detergent bottles, shampoo bottles, clear food packaging, wire and cable jacketing, medical tubing, with additional significant usage in household products and building materials, particularly siding, piping, and windows)
PVC is a plastic to avoid as it has been known to leech hormone disrupting phthalate plasticizers and lead into your food. Additionally, vinyl chloride, a primary building block, is a known human carcinogen.

PVC products are not recyclable and should not be incinerated because heat releases dioxin, another potent carcinogen and hormone disruptor.

LOW DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (LDPE) – (Squeezable bottles, breadbags, frozen food bags, tote bags, clothing, furniture, dry cleaning bags, and carpet)
LDPE is believed to be among the safer plastics, as does not transmit any known chemicals into your food.

Generally recyclable: Accepted at Whole Foods Market, Wal-Mart and at plastic bag recycling centers. Recycled LDPE is used to make Film and sheet, floor tile, garbage can liners, shipping envelopes, furniture, compost bins, paneling, trash cans, lumber, landscaping ties.

POLYPROPYLENE (PP) – (Yogurt containers, syrup bottles, ketchup bottles, caps, straws, medicine bottles & diapers)
Also considered one of the safer plastics as it, too, does not transmit any known chemicals into your food.

Generally recyclable: Check with your local recycling program. Recycled PP is used to make signal lights, battery cables, brooms, brushes, auto battery cases, ice scrapers, landscape borders, bicycle racks, rakes, bins, pallets, and trays.

POLYSTYRENE (PS) – Available in two forms: EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE PS (STYROFOAM) – (take-out containers, clamshell take-out containers and coffee cups) and NON-EXTRUDED PS – (clear disposable takeout containers, disposable plastic cutlery and cups) –
Both forms of this plastic can leach styrene – a possible human carcinogen – into food. Scientists also believe that PS may also disrupt hormones or affect reproduction.

Generally recyclable: Check with your local recycling program. Recycled PS is used to make thermal insulation, light switch plates, egg cartons, vents, rulers, foam packing, carry-out containers.

POLYCARBONATE (PC) – (baby bottles, 5-gallon water bottles, water-cooler bottles and the epoxy linings of tin food cans)
Whether or not packaging made from PC is safe is questionable at this time. Composed of a hormone-disrupting chemical called bisphenol A, which has been linked to a wide variety of problems such as cancer and obesity.

Not Recyclable:

POLYLACTIDE (PLA) – (Baby bottles, some reusable water bottles, stain-resistant food-storage containers, medical storage containers)
Made from renewable resources such as corn, potatoes and sugar cane and anything else with a high starch content.

Not Recyclable: though they can be composted. Most decompose in about twelve days unlike conventional plastic, which can take up to 100 years.

-LIB

Learn more about Recycling Symbols

COULDN’T THE GREENHOUSE GAS BILL FIND A MORE CREDITABLE ADVOCATE THAN FORMER VP CANDIDATE CHAMPIONS LEGISLATION TO FORCE POWER PLANTS, STEEL MILLS AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS TO CUT CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

Sen. Joe Lieberman, for some strange reason the man that my personal idol, former Vice President, Al Gore selected to round out his ticket in the 2000 election, has allegedly turned the corner – well, at least for this week – on the dark side and is championing legislation, which if it is fortunate enough to pass Congress – a major victory in itself – would force power plants, steel mills and other industrial operations to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Sadly, at this point in time, Senator Joe has little if any political creditability, residing as MSNBC’s Tom Curry observed, in a “political no-man’s land, neither entirely out of the Democratic Party, nor exactly in it either.” Additionally, there is that little matter of him supporting Republican Senator, John McCain for president over either Democratic Party option that has and continues to further Senator Joe’s estrangement from the party hierarchy.

The Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill – California Senator, Barbara Boxer and Virginia Senator, John Warner are the other sponsors – would create a complex system of trading carbon dioxide “allowances” between businesses. Apparently, this is a reasonably decent piece of legislation, or at least it was in its original form when it received the blessing of no less than America’s own environmental guru, Al Gore.

Missing from the list of the bill’s supporters is the previously mentioned, Senator John McCain. Presidential candidate, McCain, is reported to be holding back his support until the bill contains more handouts for the nuclear power industry. To accommodate Pappy and his ilk, co-sponsors Lieberman and Warner are said to be are considering an amendment, which would provide funding for the training of nuclear power plant workers and engineers.

So let me see if I understand this, there is no money to educate American veterans of George Bush’s wars, but there is cash to train people to work in the nuclear power industry? And to think that there are those who wonder what is wrong with our current system?

But the gifts do not stop there. Plans are also underway to add language, which would provide funding to redevelop the manufacturing of nuclear power plant components in America.”

Of all the energy businesses that this country could invest it’s taxpayers money in, nuclear is nowhere even near the top of the list. What about solar, or wind, or geothermal, all of which are far safer than nuclear? Do we need another Three Mile Island incident to refresh people’s memories as to why we abandoned nuclear the last time? Frankly speaking, the technology is not safe, at least not the way we slap things together in this country. Then there is the little matter of what to do with the nuclear material when it is no longer usable?

But then what does the safety of the many matter when it is weighed against profits for the few. Besides, someone has to pay the politicians for their labors, and the measly few hundred grand that they receive from the taxpayers is clearly not enough to buy these characters’ loyalty.

WHAT A SHAME THAT IS!

-LIB

Read more about this topic…

PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS DOING SO FOR THE CHILDREN.

The fucking hubris of George W. Bush thinking that the you and I are so damn stupid that we will suspend our disbelief and accept, without any real question, anything he has to say, let alone on a topic as important as the climate bill.

Reality check time, my friends: George W. Bush does not give a damn for the electorate in this country, a fact that his job performance these past seven years makes irrefutably clear. Would a leader who cared have burdened future generations with as much debt as this administration has to finance a war that has succeeded in little other than to smooth the way for his and sidekick, Dick Cheney’s, oil buddies to tie up Iraq’s oil reserves?

Could a caring man have sat back and done nothing to help restore New Orleans, one of our greatest cities, recover from the devastation wreaked on it by Hurricane Katrina; devastation that it’s important to add, could have been avoided had Mr. Bush heeded the warnings of the Army Corps of Engineers and retro -fitted the levies when it was first proposed.

I could go on and on recounting the sins of the Bush Bunch, but to be honest, what good would that do? Either you know these things or you don’t. If you don’t, it is doubtful that anything I could say here will change that fact. Moreover, if this is new information to you, chances are your problems are far worse than anything that the “decider” and his creepy band of loyalists could or would have done to you.

In summation, let’s just say, I am tired of elected officials who lie. Saying that you cannot sign a climate bill because it is an “unfair burden on future generations” is a lie. OUR ADVICE, SHOW SOME BALLS MR. BUSH! TELL THE NATION THE TRUTH, THAT YOU WILL NOT SIGN THE CLIMATE BILL BECAUSE THE PEOPLE IN THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS WHO PULL YOUR STRINGS WILL NOT ALLOW IT. This type of candor I could respect. Chances are, I would still hate everything that you stand for, but I would respect you and at least listen seriously to what you had to say.

It is situations like the above, which make me so glad that Barrack Obama is our party’s nominee for President. Imagine the concept, a president who stares you in the eye and tells you the truth. There may be hope for this crazy planet, yet?

Kudos also to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which earlier today announced that it was coming in line with the policies of it’s candidate and rejecting financial contributions from lobbyists.

-Denis