Displaying 811 To 840 Of 3,237 Comments Where’s the Headline on Human Extinction? It is so much easier to believe the denial and side with the deniers….comforting in fact…after all did God not give ALL of the earth to Adam and Eve? Yes, and in record time their decision making disrupted the natural order. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 27, 2014 @ 3:59 pm More realism…. Here is an article to scare the bejabbers out of us: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/jun/24/natural-resources-and-development-china “If Dambisa Moyo’s calculations are correct, we are in big trouble – which makes the central premise of her book, Winner Takes All, all the more arresting. Governments across the world, she writes, have singularly failed to grasp what’s coming – with one sensational exception. “Simply put, the Chinese are on a global shopping spree.” State-sponsored Chinese corporations are busy buying up commodities across Africa, North America, the Middle East, South America – anywhere they can – in a concerted strategy to seize control of resources before the rest of the world wakes up to the looming crisis. They’re striking deals with what she calls the “axis of the unloved” – developing countries rich in commodities but poor in political and economic capital – in return for much needed investment, employment and infrastructure.” For the rest of us…..it will be war…. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 27, 2014 @ 3:57 pm Miles- take a look at the post I left for Ad Lib. I think it speaks to your point as well. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 27, 2014 @ 3:52 pm Wrote this at DK….resonates with your position rather well. Big $$$$$ Group Sounds Climate Change Alarm Bells Hundreds of Billions of Dollars….in property under water or without water; in lost production hours; in compensatory energy costs; and in lost crop yields. The study, commissioned by the Risky Business Project report, which describes itself as nonpartisan and is chaired by former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Thomas F. Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, makes the case for long-term business planning and for reducing emissions blamed for heating the planet. Key findings: The report was created by a coalition of mega-wealthy business leaders, former federal cabinet officers, policy specialists and scientists as a call to action by the business community. The report concludes:“With this report, we call on the American business community to rise to the challenge and lead the way in helping reduce climate risks. We hope the Risky Business Project will facilitate this action by providing critical information about how climate change may affect key sectors and regions of our national economy.” http://thenextgeneration.org/… » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 27, 2014 @ 3:47 pm So, did you smear her shoes with bear bait hoping for an intervention from Mother Nature? I know that is how I would feel. Still that person captures the thinking of so many. I help to run a coop. Part of what we do is recycle. We have managed to become a center for area recycling and from about 25 farms we are collecting several TONS of recyclable material a year. Every now and then someone makes the point that we are such a small piece in the puzzle. I have been edified to see how quickly this POV is closed down by the assertion that little by little eventually becoming more and more. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 27, 2014 @ 3:42 pm I am with you in this challenge. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 27, 2014 @ 3:36 pm Let’s assume this is so….what then are you suggesting? Do what, or not do what? Specifics please. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 27, 2014 @ 3:35 pm Thanks. I took a quick look excellent. I wonder if the Planet should have a page dedicated to Green related issues. Worth exploring. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 27, 2014 @ 3:34 pm And how is it you are doing this? Have you written an article about it? You should! » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 27, 2014 @ 3:32 pm Great metaphor…..an earth centered universe misorients those who believe in it….a human centered earth does the same thing. Bravo. Well said. When we see ourselves only as the users of the earth we become the losers of the earth. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 27, 2014 @ 3:32 pm WHERE’S THE HEADLINE ON HUMAN EXTINCTION (as a direct result of Climate Change)(in the not too distant future)? Indeed. Well, there is one right here. I would like your permission to reprint this post at Daily Kos. My headline would be: Climate Change Threatens Human Extinction in Two Decades I have to say that I find the counter arguments that take on McPherson’s thesis and challenge his evidence equally as interesting. Here is one of them: http://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-it-wrong/ The author there, Scott Johnson, says that “In many ways, McPherson is a photo-negative of the self-proclaimed “climate skeptics” who reject the conclusions of climate science. He may be advocating the opposite conclusion, but he argues his case in the same way.” He then goes on to analyze the claims and the science in support of or in opposition to them. It makes for interesting reading. Now I am going to sound like a Republican….I am not a scientist. But I know who the scientists are and I the reality of climate change is the common ground on which almost all of them stand. The vast majority of that number also believe that while there are many factors contributing to global warming, cooling; to the quality of the air, the water, the land; to the survival of flora and fauna….that human activity especially in regard to fossil fuel burning has contributed significantly to those changes. I find debate like that represented by McPherson’s claims and Johnson’s counter claims. Neither has done original research and both claim to be reporting the work of those who have. We need more of this. The debate is essential if for no other reason than having it moves more and more onto the common ground. I want to thank you joining us and for offering us this insightful and disturbing essay/article. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 27, 2014 @ 3:28 pm Republicans to Sue Obama For Not Being Republican Oh they will love it…AND impeachment. Both, and….. I suggest that the suit may be filed but it will not get a hearing which will take Boehner beyond November when I think he thinks there will be fewer TP and more institutional GOP in the House. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 30, 2014 @ 6:42 am Nirek asks a good question…. the answer the GOP is now dominated by reactionaries. Those who can only react and obstruct since any movement is by definition progressive. As to your point. No- they do not have standing. No court has ever accepted an action such as the one being proposed by Boehner. As to the number persons pushes impeachment. The silent cannot be counted among those opposed to it- they are just on the sidelines but rest assured they would have no choice if the measures get to the floor. The party you are defending, the one I belonged to and worked for, no longer exists. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 29, 2014 @ 9:09 pm The other article is from http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/06/constitution-check-could-the-house-sue-the-president-for-refusing-to-carry-out-the-laws/ » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 29, 2014 @ 5:47 am This is an effort by Boehner to sidestep the impeachment problem for him (since he does seem to recall how bad this was for the House GOP with Clinton). But…… 47 members of the House have signed onto a request that the Speaker accept articles of impeachment from the House floor and 7 members of the Senate have said there are grounds for a trial. Your thinking is that of a moderate Republican, the kind I used to be, but the GOP is now driven from above by very wealthy people who want Obama totally neutralized and a message sent to all progressive, from alongside by the powerful media and organizational voices and lobbies that are funded (like many members of Congress) by those same folks and whose popular base is the same that from below is screaming for blood. Boehner would not be entertaining a suit against the President if he was not fearful that he could not, as he has not, control his own caucus. So this is red meat to divert their attention. It has done the opposite- exciting those same groups who are now touting this as a pre-impeachment exercise. Boehner knows that the House does not have standing. The only way this could be done, even procedurally, is to pass a bill in the House and Senate (which then the President has to sign?) to take the Executive Branch to court. Now, members of the House or Senate could file a suit. It is an issue of standing. In law, standing defines the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes and criteria: 1) The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. The “something to lose” doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief. 2) The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. 3) The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive a portion of any fines collected by the government from their violation of law. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will “imminently” be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff “lacks standing” to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. Good articles at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/26/boehner-may-not-have-the-ability-to-sue-obama-after-all.html The remedy for the failure of a President (or other member of the government) to abide by the law from within the government itself is impeachment. “In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.” » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 29, 2014 @ 5:46 am cyndibru in reply to your impeachment point…. 47 members of the House have signed onto a request that the Speaker accept articles of impeachment from the House floor and 7 members of the Senate have said there are grounds for a trial. Your thinking is that of a moderate Republican, the kind I used to be, but the GOP is now driven from above by very wealthy people who want Obama totally neutralized and a message sent to all progressive, from alongside by the powerful media and organizational voices and lobbies that are funded (like many members of Congress) by those same folks and whose popular base is the same that from below is screaming for blood. Boehner would not be entertaining a suit against the President if he was not fearful that he could not, as he has not, control his own caucus. So this is red meat to divert their attention. It has done the opposite- exciting those same groups who are now touting this as a pre-impeachment exercise. Boehner knows that the House does not have standing. The only way this could be done, even procedurally, is to pass a bill in the House and Senate (which then the President has to sign?) to take the Executive Branch to court. Now, members of the House or Senate could file a suit. It is an issue of standing. In law, standing defines the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes and criteria: 1) The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. The “something to lose” doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief. 2) The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. 3) The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive a portion of any fines collected by the government from their violation of law. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will “imminently” be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff “lacks standing” to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. Good articles at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/26/boehner-may-not-have-the-ability-to-sue-obama-after-all.html https://planetpov.com/2014/06/26/republicans-to-sue-obama-for-not-being-republican/#comment-215122 The remedy for the failure of a President (or other member of the government) to abide by the law from within the government itself is impeachment. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 29, 2014 @ 5:43 am We will go down, but we will do it with honor? And the cost will be so grave that we will regret it to our dying day. We are in a go for broke reality now, my friend. If the GOP take the Senate, they will impeach and try Obama. They will cripple him in his last two years and they will move one repeal after another through Congress forcing him to veto them. Nothing gets done and they get to blame the President and the Dems for not doing it. I am at the point of saying that we have to do what is necessary. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 26, 2014 @ 8:16 pm There is a time and a place to punch back and bloody the opponent, to pound the bully into submission. In this case, in the hope that we do not get an impeachment trial that eat up his last two years. I think we have to punch them so hard in the face and kick them so hard in the balls that they are doubled over in pain, gasping for breath, water running from their eyes and snot from their noses, puking up their guts. And the last words they hear before they fall to the ground in pain is: “I didn’t break a sweat. Next time, it will be for real….” » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 26, 2014 @ 6:59 pm In order to win in November the GOP must: A) Keep their base inflamed, EVERY MOVE by the GOP in the House and Senate is geared to the midterms…EVERY MOVE. If NOTHING gets done they get to tell their base that THEY stopped Obama’s (add adjectives here) agenda from getting on the table AND they get to tell Obama’s base that the man has failed to deliver. Since EO’s are examples of things getting done the GOP must block them if they can and label them as dictatorial in a court challenge and in the upcoming impeachment trial. Ad Lib….your essay speaks the truth at many levels but unless those who are the Obama/Democratic base pay as much attention as the GOP base the result is not going to be good for Americans of all political shades. This is why I propose that the executive branch push for the impeachment of John Boehner, and take the GOP in the House and Senate to court for malicious interference with the Executive Branch its attempt to carry out its Constitutionally Prescribed Duties. I would do both with utmost seriousness. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 26, 2014 @ 2:38 pm McDaniel Lost…The Shot Heard Around The World P.S. Keep on posting. Your insights are sharp, your writing clear and your interaction sharp. You will build a following. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 27, 2014 @ 6:55 pm Rather than conservative, I prefer the word “reactionary.” Coservatives hold to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion. Reactionaries are considered to be one end of a political spectrum whose opposite pole is radicalism; an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism. They are defined mostly in terms of what they react against, what they oppose. They are, by intention, obstructionists. This is neoconservativism applied to matters both domestic and foreign. They are by nature zealots and thus incapable of deep or abiding compromise (using apparent compromise as a tactic leading to a long term win). In other words……what you said! » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 27, 2014 @ 6:54 pm And in order to rule, they have to do everything they can to interfere with the governance of the other party. Such interference keeps the Democrats from getting much of anything done (which they could use to build the case for their continued leaderhip) AND, perversely, becomes a way for the GOP to attack the Dems for not getting anything done. Ruling implies “ruling over” another but for whose good. Typically the rulers rule for themselves and their allies. “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” Sinclair Lewis. [img]http://www.quotesvalley.com/images/33/when-facism-comes-to-america-it-will-be-wrapped-in-the-flag-and-carrying-a-cross.jpg[/img] » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 27, 2014 @ 6:46 pm You chose the key quote to lift out of his diatribe: “I guess they can take some consolation that they did something tonight, by once again reaching across the aisles, by once again compromising and by once again abandoning the conservative movement…..Today the conservative movement took a backseat to liberal democrats…” when you couple this with Maya Angelou’s quote: “when someone shows you who he is …believe him.” SO what is he saying about HIS side. a) True conservatives do not reach across the aisle And then he cites Reagan nine times. Reagan who with the Dem leadership in the House and Senate working with the GOP leadership there shaped a series of major policy initiatives. McDaniels might want to check out Reagans stance on social policy- he would not agree with the likes of the would-be Senator. Their GOP, their Reagan, their Lincoln are mythic and thus unreal. Acts like McDaniels when gathered into the national narrative being crafted by the GOP as a whole should be cause enough for the thinking, the aware to turn their backs on this obnoxious brand of conservatism. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 26, 2014 @ 2:20 pm God, Mother Nature, Or The Higher Power. I found it and left a comment for you at the story. Well done. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 26, 2014 @ 7:15 pm You did it! » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 26, 2014 @ 6:55 pm AH! There he/she is. Thanks for the 2nd try. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 26, 2014 @ 6:54 pm What sidebar…point me in the proper direction. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 26, 2014 @ 6:53 pm I am liking this idea too. It is a diffent kind of post is it not? » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 26, 2014 @ 6:52 pm Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or, alternately, that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God (the Force?). Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god. Many Eastern religions/life philosophies are considered to be pantheistically inclined. That was my hook to your Taoism. » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 26, 2014 @ 6:51 pm Did you see my Carrie Underwood video and the supposed Matching Poem “How Great Thou Art”? I did it in a hurry..I think I may have been your first respondent….well hurrying is made possible by not double checking. If you tried to match up the words in the script to the music, you discovered what I just did…they do not match. There are apparently dozens of versions of this poem/hymn. Nonetheless, the message remains..How Great Thou Art! » Posted By MurphTheSurf3 On June 26, 2014 @ 6:48 pmComments Posted By MurphTheSurf3
– $66 billion to $106 billion in coastal property below sea level by 2050 with the Northeast the most affected,
– Up to $701 billion worth of existing coastal property will below mean sea levels, with more than $730 billion of additional property at risk during high tide
– Labor productivity of outdoor workers could be reduced by 3-5 percent with the Southeast the most affect with up to 120 days a year of Plus 95 degree air temperatures.
– 14 percent increase in the demand for electricity for cooling and heating costing customers up to $19 billion per year.
– 11,000 to 36,000 additional deaths a year directly related to climate change.
– Crop yield reductions in the Midwest by 19 percent in the mid-century and by 63 percent at the end of the century.
– 18 percent reduction in the amount of potable/drinkable ground water
The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States
http://riskybusiness.org/
~H.L. Mencken
B) Keep their base engaged,
C) Suppress the Democratic base
D) Dispirit the Democratic base
b) They do not comprise
c) They have an agenda defined by the TP wing of the GOP.
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats