Friday, June 30, 2006

Let's Have it Both Ways.

Conservatives, of the neo- variety will have a hard time with this one. Now that Global Warming is no long in need of more data, a silver-lining for the do-nothing crowd had been, "Oh well, the increased carbon dioxide will be good for agriculture. It will increase the food supply".

Today Michael Hawthorne of the Chicago Tribune reports on an article in the journal Science from the University of Illinois. From the Hawthorne article:

But a new study with field tests in Illinois and other spots around the globe is challenging that assumption, suggesting that any increase in crop yields due to the buildup of greenhouse gasses would be modest or nonexistent.

No longer can the radical right hoodwink the rest of us on this one.

After reading the article, I recalled having a thought how the right likes to have it both ways: natural resources are basically inexhaustible, or since resources are limited, I'm not likely to share them. Which is it? If the planet is so endowed we can keep sucking it's fruit at an ever-increasing rate in perpetuity, or realizing the fruits have to be parceled out, I"m making sure me and my heirs are getting the limited share.

The lie is preaching one and acting the other. Conservatives know the resources are limited, which is why they hoard them, and blanch when a Warren Buffet gives 90+% of his wealth away, setting a bad example for the rest of theim. So the "we need more data" chant has been a smoke screen for continued obfuscation, and holding the line on needed reform of how we consume the planet's limited resources.

This latest news from the U of Illinois should strip them of their last shred of their emporer's new clothes.

Wednesday, March 8, 2006

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Port (Deal)

Maybe it's lack of reporting, or even lack of proper objection, but your News' Dark Time wonders why objection to the Dubai Ports ownership of US seaports isn't based on more fundamentally conservative principle: Government Ownership!

The NDT staff is yet to hear one conservative commentator or report of same who objects not to our ports being owned by "an ally of questionable commitment", but rather owned by the government of a foreign power. If one wanted to craft a piece of legislation to distinguish between the previous owner, a British company, and the proposed new owner, one would look no further than the question of state ownership. Have our staunch conservatives thrown in the towel on this one? Imagine if the deal goes through. The selected-acting-president has put himself four-square with the principal of expanded government ownership. Not something your good conservatives want to support, regardless of the preferred head-gear of the owners.

Heck, if our administration wants to sell the ports to a government, why not just buy them for usaCo, a wholly owned (for the moment, anyway) subsidiary of the closely held bushCo? And, while you're at it, give a tax break of equal magnitude to the fat cats who will buy the ports. Would that make it any more difficult to fathom than other tax cuts in the face of spending increases we've learned to expect.

is the current deal going through only because the level of indirection from bushCo to Dubai Ports hasn't been unwound by the so-called major media? Or will a Frist-engineered 45 day "cooling off" period allow the republican hill-mongers to buy the time to sink their paws into some of the loose cash likely to flow?

yes, children (in the voice of Fiorello LaGuardia), that's not grandma under the covers, it's the Big Bad Wolf!

Friday, January 27, 2006

It's Hillary Time?

With the Molly Ivins un-endorsement of Hillary recently, I've seen quite a bit of pros and cons on Hillary as representative of the Democratic Party, especially her place on the (top of) the 2008 Presidential ticket.

I've opened up the comments, and will try to moderate. Let's hear what you think.