Cynical Nation

These statistics mean nothing. The key is the total number and not the percentage of increase per year.

How can it mean "nothing" when European emissions levels are moving in the wrong direction at more than twice the rate as ours?

Moreover Kyoto itself is based on PERCENTAGES!

It's one of the reasons America won't sign on.

We NEED a variance that allows us higher percentages overall because of our highly mobile society.

Kyoto, instead gives such variances to "industrializing nations" like India and China and not the U.S.

The rising CO emmissions percentages in Europe suggest that most of those European nations that signed on and clucked their teeeth at America for not doing so are hypocrites.

Those rising percentages indicate that not only is Europe failing to bring its CO emmissions down, in accordance with Kyoto, but that it isn't even seriously attempting to do so.

What I want to know is: Who was the monkey in charge of U.S. environmental policy in 1995-2000?

Whoever that neandrathal was certainly did a "heckuva job" didn't he? We should nickname him "Brownie" to emphasize that he was no "Greenie."

Anyone have any idea who that imbecile was? Strikes me as the kind of guy who couldn't win an election with a majority of the vote!

>Strikes me as the kind of guy who couldn't win an election with a majority of the vote!

Really. Wouldn't even surprise me if he couldn't carry his home state.

What a shock! The free-marketplace works. Which is why I support conservatives who believe in a true free-market. Nationally and locally, it's these true fiscal conservatives who will help solve the environmental problems with face. Men such as State Sen. Fred Smith here in North Carolina.

Nationally, I have to wait and see because men such as McCain and Guiliani would joing guys like Kennedy and Feingold.

By the way, I just realized that I dont like the title of this post. America is not "Bush's", although he certainly thinks so....

Barry said, "Wouldn't even surprise me if he couldn't carry his home state."

chuckle...if he who is environmental guru carried his home state back then, would he have been pres?

JMK, the term used for China and India was (I believe) 'developing' rather than 'indutrializing'.

Therein has always been my biggest complaint against Kyoto. How the hell does China, whose consumption of oil has grown exponetially every year and whose economy dwarfs all but ours, somehow get a pass on emission control?

BW, just recall this: the U.S. senate unanimously rejected our signing onto Kyoto.

At that time, Bush was governor of Texas.

Rachel: "chuckle...if he who is environmental guru carried his home state back then, would he have been pres?"

He would have won the electoral contest, which would have rendered the Florida controversy moot.

“JMK, the term used for China and India was (I believe) 'developing' rather than 'indutrializing' ” (Mal)
“Therein has always been my biggest complaint against Kyoto. How the hell does China, whose consumption of oil has grown exponentially every year and whose economy dwarfs all but ours, somehow get a pass on emission control?” (Mal)
“BW, just recall this: the U.S. senate unanimously rejected our signing onto Kyoto.” (Mal)
“Nationally, I have to wait and see because men such as McCain and Guiliani would join guys like Kennedy and Feingold.” (Concerned Conservative)
(Concerned Conservative)


On many social issues (gun control, gay marriage, environmentalism), they almost certainly would, although both those guys should take a long hard look at the last election – gay marriage was beaten badly in 8 of 9 referendums and squeaked by in AZ, race/gender preferences went down a huge defeat in Michigan, Eminent Domain was restricted by wide margins in 9 of 11 states and Arizona passed an English as the official state language referendum, and referendums that would deny bail to illegal aliens charged with crimes and deny punitive damages to illegal aliens in Civil Suits – the electorate has spoken and on issues like gay marriage and the borders, they are squarely on the “Right” side of those issues (pun intended).

Although the gay marriage referendums that passed did so by smaller margins than ones in 2004. And Dakota defeated a harshly restrictive anti-abortion ref.

Fred, only ONE "gay marriage" initiative passed (inexpilcably in AZ)! Of the nine such initiatives on State Ballots, the other eight were all voted down, and by pretty wide margins.

Gay marriage is opposed by Americans slightly better than two to one.

Likewise, Americans favor first trimester abortion, by almost that same number (better than two to one), which is again very close to the number who oppose "late term" or "partial birth" abortion (about 60%).

South Dakota's measure sought to restrict access to all abortions, except in the cases of rape and incest, and in that regard it was too restrictive and inconsistent with the views of most Americans. South Dakotans clearly come down on the issue the way most of America does - a huge majority supports first trimester abortion and a huge majority opposes "late term"/"partial birth" abortion and support things like parental notification.

Most of the time, not all, of course, but most of the time, the people get things more consistently correct than do most legislators.

There are those who claim that many of Arizona's punitive measures toward illegal aliens won't stand up to varios court challenges, but there are no federal statutes I can think of that ban states from enacting such things, just as there is no Constitutional Right to come here outside of the immigration statutes laid down. Further, had those initiatives been on the Ballot in all fifty states, I could barely conceive an electorate anywhere that would vote those Arizona measures down.

Another interesting set of laws were signed by Oklahoma's & South Carolina's Governors just days apart, which allowed juries in each of those states to sentence repeat pedophiles (repeat offenses on children under 14) to death.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/06/18/EDGS0INKA21.DTL

Again, and this is just my own view, but if that sort of measure was placed on the Ballot anywhere, I could not conceive of a single state that wouldn't support it. Some might derisively say, "How about NY, NJ, MA or VT?"

And as I'd be deeply ashamed of the folks in any place that didn't support such sensible provisions, I don't believe that those states would oppose either the death penalty for repeat child molestors, or AZ's anti-illegal immigration measures. I believe those issues just have too much emotional appeal to lose, and remember that New York State voters approve of Capital Punishment by a wide margin.

No, with race/gender preferences being voted down 58/42 in "consistently Blue" MI, 9 of 11 Eminent Domain restriction measures passing and gay marriage being defeated on 8 of 9 Ballot initiatives, Americans spoke with a pretty clear and Conservative voice this past November on the Ballot initiatives.

I'm all for killing pedophiles. True scumbags. Forthat matter, murderers, kidnappers and arsonists should also get it.

Without question, I agree with you Fred, but the amazing thing is how that crime (pedopilia) has seemed to have exploded lately.

Certainly pedophlia seems more prevalent today, though some of that may be due to better undercover techniques (groups like "perverted justice," etc) and more victims coming forward, rather than some seizmic sociological shift. Still, that recent Dateline series was shocking in showing both the scope of the problem (hundreds of online hits on their decoys in mere hours online) and the diversity of backgrounds among the predators - many caught up in their stings were professionals (including a physician, a Rabbi, a number of cops, firefighters, scool-teachers and a few feds, at least one with the Dept of Homeland Security).

With the recidivism rate for such predators at around 90%, it's hard to rationalize ever letting these guys out on the street again.

So, I'm with you there Fred, if that Ballot initiative were put before me (Capital Punishment for repeat pedophiles) I'd vote for it.

In the meantime "Megan's Law" (mandatory sentences for pedophiles) would be a great start.

Why are there mandatory sentences for drug crimes and NOT for violent crimes and pedophilia?!

I'd love to see the Rockefeller Drug laws dropped for drug crimes (even though I still support criminalizing the sale of illegal drugs), and instituted for violent thugs and sexual predators.

Personally, I don't see such issues as "Liberal" or "Conservative," as there are those on both ends of the ideological spectrum who support & some who oppose these measures.

There isn't or certainly shouldn't be a "Liberal" or "Conservative" way of dealing with pedophiles, our broken immigration system, or the abuses of Eminent Domain.

The "therapeutic" approach to crime just doesn't seem to work for many violent offenders and sexual predators. I think such measures are an indication of the level of frustration that's out there in regards to dealing with these kinds of crimes.

My libertarian beef with "Megan's Law" (at least I think the law includes the proviso) involves the rule that sex offenders must register once they're out and neighbors must be made aware of their presence. Why?
They committed a crime, served the sentence they were given and were deemed to be suitable for release. They paid their debt to society. If they're still looked upon as enough of a threat to have to register and notify neighbors, why are they being freed? Keep the scumbags in prison.
This is in no way a defense of sex offenders, but more a question of why they're being set free if there is obviously a question in the authorities' minds of whether they might repeat their crimes.
I look at it either as: you were found guilty, you served your sentence and now that you've paid whatever debt to society, you're free to resume whatever semblance of a normal life you can (on probation or not) OR you committed a heinous crime and you deserve life in prison.
I say keep them locked up for life.

"They committed a crime, served the sentence they were given and were deemed to be suitable for release. They paid their debt to society. If they're still looked upon as enough of a threat to have to register and notify neighbors, why are they being freed? Keep the scumbags in prison." (Fred)
(Fred)


A fair point.

I'd like to see some serious mandatory sentencing with little discretion, so that judges cna't dole out separate levels of sentencing, one for those who have the cash and connections and another for those who don't.

That's the main reason I support some kind of mandatory sentencing for most violent crimes. I've seen many examples where the politicians, or their family members, family members of police officers, etc getting relatively light sentecing for the same kind of violent crime that others get hammered with big time sentences.

Take away some of the judge's discretion and you take away a major source of injustice (disparate sentencing).

Personally I don't like the neighborhhod notification laws either because they invite vigilantism.

Absolutely true re: vigilantism.

And you say: "That's the main reason I support some kind of mandatory sentencing for most violent crimes. I've seen many examples where the politicians, or their family members, family members of police officers, etc getting relatively light sentecing for the same kind of violent crime that others get hammered with big time sentences."

Totally agree. Even for non-violent crimes...take the dopey Wesley Snipes tax evasion thing a few weeks ago; if I owed the IRS a load of unpaid taxes, I'd have gotten arrested at the airport and tossed in the can. But a celebrity? God forbid he should miss a day on the set of his movie.

I think this may be a new record of fred-JMK agreements for a single day.
And I also think this may be a new record for the subject of a post shifting to something totally unrelated in the least amount of posts: from Kyoto to pedophiles in 6 entries!

Take away some of the judge's discretion and you take away a major source of injustice (disparate sentencing).

Then why have judges in the first place?

Well Fred, I think most of our disagreements (most NOT all) are over issues on which you take a more traditional Libertarian stance, while I take a more Conservative one.

Prior to 9/11 I probably was 60% Libertarian and 40% Conservative, since 9/11, it's probably 60/40 Conservative to Libertarian.

Actually, I was probably tending that way even before 9/11/01, since I increasingly approved of Guiliani's (actually Bill Bratton's) measures for crime reduction. Yes, they were invasive, intrusive and often ham-handed, but they were smart enough to employ them where they were needed.

While aggresive stop & frisks and street closure crackdowns would draw rightful howls of outraged protest from places like Manhattan below 96th St, Staten Island, Throggs Neck, Riverdale and Park Slope among others, they not only targeted the right communities for reducing violent gun and drug crimes (the inner cities), they did so with great results - in NYC murders dropped from over 2000 under Dinkins to around 500 under Guiliani. Most of those lives saved where minority lives, as most of the victims of those thugs were blacks and Hispanics in places like the South Bronx, East New York & Bushwick, Brooklyn and Jamaica, Queens.

I oppose any form of amnesty for illegal immigration, I support a fence and strict enforcement with heavy fines for all companies and individuals who knowingly hire illegals and a stricter limit on legal immigration along with the end to the "diversity preference" for immigration.

Ideally, I'd like to make sure that at least 60% or more of all immigrants to this country come here from Europe...that would be ideal, since we are a country rooted in European traditions. Even America's blacks are "Europeanized," they speak a European language (English), and have been immersed in European customs, traditions and our Euro-American culture for generations.

On tax policy, I revile the income/productivity tax because (1) it excludes over 50% of Americans and (2) allows the truly wealthy to avoid paying anything close to their fair share. I'd prefer a consumption tax (The Fair Tax) because, while it would still exempt those earning less than $30K/year, it would tax those Americans working in the underground economy (off the books), as well as the wealthiest Americans.

My opposition to gay marriage is over the death of marriage in many European countries since gay marriage was approved there.

There's nothing at all "anti-gay" about opposing gay adoption (I do) and gay marriage. To be "anti-gay" one would have to support criminalizing homosexuality, which I do not - part of that 40% Libertarian view I still hold.

I am glad we agree on mandatory sentences for pedophiles and otehr violent offnders and on limiting judicial discretion.

"Take away some of the judge's discretion and you take away a major source of injustice (disparate sentencing)." (JMK)
"Then why have judges in the first place?" (CRB)
(CRB)


I don't think there should be wide discretion on any crime CRB.

Sure, on most crimes there should be a range (so much for a first offense, and latitude to take into account any ameliorating circumstances), but there should also be a limit - not probation for one guy and ten years in a federal pen for the other.

I'd like to see all first offenses fall within a given, relatively narrow range and have that range maintained as it escalates for second and third offenses.

For violent crimes there probably should be a "three strikes" law, but in my view, it should be three violent crimes, NOT a third offense (shoplifting) that puts someone away for life, the way some of the more flawed laws have been written.

I think there should be one day set aside every year when all crimes are punishable by death (or, perhaps, life in prison). You murder someone, you drive drunk, you mug an old lady, you shoplift, you drive carelessly, you extort, you set a building on fire, whatever--death row for ya! It'd be great to watch everyone behave themselves for one day.

If only that would work, I'd love the idea, Fred.

The problem is that prison and even the death penalty are reactions to crimes and crimes are committed, primarily by reckless, irresponsible, self-destructive people...like the dope who offered $200K (out of a 1 million insurance policy he had on his wife) to an undercover cop to kill his wife before Christmas, so the funeral would be over before his Christmas celebrations began...or Ronell Wilson 9the Staten Island gun runner) who executed two undercover NYPD Detectives, when he turned their gun buy into a robbery/murder.

Fred, that's just one of the reasons I so vigorously support mandating birth control for all people who are "wards of the state" - from incarcerated felons to those dependent on public assistance - so long as they remain "wards of the state."

We'd prouce a lot less reckless, irresponsible and self-destructive people that way.