data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ca091/ca0910307d99d5dd5499232a84bce7acd65cbba4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2ee55/2ee55ccb6b9d2982b6c59140135340d70964466d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3d522/3d522d96fb95c264e99cf93564bfad1f36f5bf59" alt=""
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.
The decision, which likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, building standards, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.
The E.P.A. is under order from the Supreme Court to make a determination whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and safety, an order that the Bush administration essentially ignored despite a near-unanimous belief among E.P.A. experts that the research points inexorably to such a finding.
Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), proposing new rules for greenhouse gas emissions. If passed the new rules would mean that the EPA would have sole power to regulate greenhouse gases and define what constitutes as a greenhouse gas.
Under the proposed rule businesses that use fossil fuels would be regulated, products and buildings would have requirements and even farm animals would be subject to taxes.
So far this new rule -- which would have enormously negative effects on our economy -- has sat on the back burner. But under an Obama administration, with the environment a hot button issue, the new rules could become a reality. That’s why some in Congress are taking steps to try and stop action before it happens.
H.R. 391 is a bill being spearheaded by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). This amendment to The Clean Air Act would provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to regulation by the EPA.
There could be one hundred billion Earth-like planets in our galaxy, a US conference has heard.
Dr Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Science said many of these worlds could be inhabited by simple lifeforms.
He was speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago.
So far, telescopes have been able to detect just over 300 planets outside our Solar System.
E: What are three things you’d like to really see Obama change in this country?
JG: I’d like to see him be a proud liberal and say it. You know what I mean? There’s no shame in being a liberal – it’s something to be very proud of. He should say it – cause he is one – and he should be proud to be one. And since it is clear and has been clear since Reagan that the republicans, the “conservatives” will NEVER play ball…NEVER…fu%$ um.
Their policies have destroyed us and most of the world – that’s a fact not an opinion. Their policies of deregulation, pre-emptive strikes, unmitigated support for Israel to the detriment of the Israelis, Palestinian’s, Americans, the British. Every single policy that “conservative republicans” have put forth since Reagan has destroyed us. And we affect most of the world, so why do they still get a say? That’s what blows my mind. It’s almost like self-flagellation or masochism in some way. We keep going to that portion. They are NEVER going to compromise. The thing is that the more you give in to something like that, the more they take advantage.
The reason a person is a conservative republican is because something is wrong with them. Again, that’s science – that’s neuroscience. You cannot be well adjusted, open-minded, pluralistic, enlightened and be a republican. It’s counter-intuitive. And they revel in their anti-intellectualism. They revel in their cruelty.
I don’t know if you heard me talking to Jenny a while ago, but I was saying that first you have to be an asshole and then comes the conservatism. You gotta be a dick to cleave onto their ideology.
E: This might be an appropriate time to segue into Sarah Palin. I would love to know what you think about Palin.
JG: Probably what most people think about Sarah Palin. She’s small-minded and mean-spirited. It has nothing to do with gender — I don’t give a shit about her gender — she is what the Republican Party has become: obstructionist, contrarians, small-minded, all of these things. She just happens to be attractive. There’s definitely something wrong with her. She’s lacking in so many areas. Of course she’s successful with a segment of the country because she represents that lesser segment of the country. It’s people’s lesser nature – their human frailty. You know whatever’s wrong with them is what she is about.
E: I think it’s safe to say she’s done some pretty nutty things.
JG: It’s not even nutty. It really is neuroscience. I truly believe that it has something to do with their limbic brain. I really believe that some people’s limbic brain dominates more than others. Our limbic brain controls all our emotions and it causes us to be irrational. Our limbic brain goes into action when we’re ecstatic, frightened, when we’re having sex. I really believe that if a neuroscientist examined the brain of somebody who identified as a conservative, they would find it’s wired differently.
A Dutch MP who called the Koran a "fascist book" has been sent back to the Netherlands after attempting to defy a ban on entering the UK.
Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders had been invited to show his controversial film - which links the Islamic holy book to terrorism - in the UK's House of Lords.
But Mr Wilders, who faces trial in his own country for inciting hatred, has been denied entry by the Home Office.
He told the BBC it was a "very sad day" for UK democracy.
The Dutch ambassador was also at Heathrow to make clear his government's opposition to the ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK.
'Free speech'
Mr Wilders' film Fitna caused outrage across the Muslim world when it was posted on the internet last year.
After being questioned at Heathrow, the MP said he had been to the House of Lords two weeks ago and there had been "no problem".
He added: "I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm not protesting or running through the streets of London."
Mr Wilders added: "Democracy means differences and debate. It's a very sad day when the UK bans an elected parliamentarian... Of course I will come back."
He said the government's actions had proved that Gordon Brown was the "biggest coward in Europe".
Mr Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "fully supports the decision" taken by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.
Mr Wilders was invited to the House of Lords for a screening of Fitna by the UK Independence Party's Lord Pearson.
The peer said it was a "matter of free speech", telling the BBC: "We are going to show it anyway because we think MPs and peers should see this film."
'No purpose'
He added: "The film isn't offensive unless you are a violent Islamist. Most of my Muslim friends think it's a very good film."
Fitna's opening scenes show a copy of the Koran followed by footage of the 9/11 attacks in the US and the bombings in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005.
The Lords screening went ahead as planned, despite Mr Wilder's non-attendance.
It has come to this: If you are an Islamic radical, trained to carry out terrorist atrocities in al-Qaeda’s jihad against the United Kingdom, the British will welcome you with open arms. Not content with that, Great Britain will lobby insistently for your release from custody so that you may freely roam British streets—and the halls of Westminster.
If, by contrast, you are a duly elected representative in the democratic government of a country to which England is bound in the European Union, and you speak about the undeniable—though mulishly denied—nexus between Islamic doctrine and jihadist terror, Great Britain will slam her door in your face.
Currently burning up the tubes: Rep. Paul Kanjorski's description, late last month, of how close to the brink the global economy came on September 18. That was the day, recall, when Congressional leaders emerged stunned from a meeting with Henry Paulson, and gave him broad authority to spend $700 billion.
Part of what he said:On Thursday at 11:00 a.m. the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S., to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there.
If they had not done that, their estimation is that by 2:00 p.m. that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.
Speaking of talk radio (which I listen to constantly), I remain incredulous that any Democrat who professes liberal values would give a moment's thought to supporting a return of the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative shows. (My latest manifesto on this subject appeared in my last column.) The failure of liberals to master the vibrant medium of talk radio remains puzzling. To reach the radio audience (whether the topic is sports, politics or car repair), a host must have populist instincts and use the robust common voice. Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism.
One of the nuggets I've gleaned from several radio sources is that Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who has been in the aggressive forefront of the campaign to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, is married to Tom Athans, who works extensively with left-wing radio organizations and was once the executive vice-president of Air America, the liberal radio syndicate that, despite massive publicity from major media, has failed miserably to win a national audience. Stabenow's outrageous conflict of interest has of course been largely ignored by the prestige press, which should have been demanding that she recuse herself from all political involvement with this issue.
Last year, an anxious, depressed 17-year-old boy was admitted to the psychiatric unit at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne. He was refusing to drink water. Worried about drought related to climate change, the young man was convinced that if he drank, millions of people would die. The Australian doctors wrote the case up as the first known instance of "climate change delusion."
Robert Salo, the psychiatrist who runs the inpatient unit where the boy was treated, has now seen several more patients with psychosis or anxiety disorders focused on climate change, as well as children who are having nightmares about global-warming-related natural disasters.
Such anxiety over current events is not a new phenomenon. Worries about contemporary threats, such as nuclear war or AIDS, have historically been woven into the mental illnesses of each generation. But global warming could have a broader and deeper effect on mental health, even if indirectly.
From crisis to catastrophe. Off a cliff. Dark, darker, darkest. Mortal danger of absolute collapse. Armageddon.
President Obama and top Democrats on Capitol Hill are deploying these and other stark predictions of doom and gloom to push through their economic-stimulus package. In terms not heard in Washington since the late 1970s under President Jimmy Carter's watch, the new president has sought to terrify Americans into supporting the $800 billion-plus bailout bill.
While President Bush was accused shortly after taking office in 2001 of "talking down the economy" - and for saying the economy was "slowing down" - Mr. Obama is using ever-heightening hyperbole to hammer home his message. But the strategy brings great risk for the "Yes, We Can" man, who just three weeks ago told America in his inaugural address that despite "a sapping of confidence across our land," his election meant Americans had "chosen hope over fear."
"Chicago Bob", calling into a radio talk show, explains the need to rush on the Stimulus package before anyone gets a good chance to review its sordid details. The transcript:
"I really feel that what I'm gonna give you here is a smoking gun.
I'm a conservative Democrat and I'm from Chicago... and I, I feel that I was betrayed.
I was in a meeting after Obama got elected and I was told by the Democratic officials in that meeting that we were gonna give billions of dollars that was gonna come down the pike, our way, and what we were to do with it was we were supposed to do with it...
We are gonna build an army of Democratic patronage jobs.... gonna completely freeze up the Republicans forever and ever...
2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.
Obama will accomplish his agenda of “reform” under the rubric of “recovery.” Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn — although they will make it less painful — but they will do a great deal to change our nation.
In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)
But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.
Ancient Persians were the first to use chemical warfare against their enemies, a study has suggested.
A UK researcher said he found evidence that the Persian Empire used poisonous gases on the Roman city of Dura, Eastern Syria, in the 3rd Century AD.
The theory is based on the discovery of remains of about 20 Roman soldiers found at the base of the city wall.
The findings were presented the Archaeological Institute of America's annual meeting.