Just An Old Fashioned SNAFU

Here, for your perusal, is another in a long list of “What were they thinking?” As a part of the climate bill- you know, the one that costs money and does nothing? Oh wait- that is EVERY BILL we see nowadays- I see I must be more specific. 

This is the bill where there is 3.4 million dollars for the “turtle tunnel” on a less than one mile stretch of hiway 27 in Florida. Well, it turns out that this is not the only brain- dead piece of pork that was inserted into this Obamanation of a bill. 

The latest is an attempt to revive the marshland that was lost during Hurricane Ike, on Galveston Island. Look- I know their heart is in the right place, but one has to ask- where are their brains? Allow me to explain my logic- In 1883, there was the town of Indianola, on the Texas coast, near Matagorda Bay. There was a rail line that ran through the town, and because of its position on the Bay, was poised to become a freight depot for stores and goods that had been transshipped from overseas. Then came the Hurricane, and it wiped everything out except the rail tracks. People clung in trees for 20 hours to avoid the flood surge.

When the storm diminished, the survivors climbed down, surveyed the damage, and decided to rebuild, based on the idea that this was a once in a lifetime storm- which was a possible scenario. Unfortunately, it was not the correct one.

They rebuilt, and got life back to normal, but the very next year, another, even deadlier Hurricane came along and completely wiped out the town, even the rail tracks were washed away this time.

My point is that this Wetlands restoration will not succeed- oh, it might be around for a couple of years, but sooner or later, there will come along another hurricane, and there goes all the work and money that went into this project.

More than $5 million in federal stimulus money will help in the restoration of West Galveston Bay’s rapidly dying marshes, officials said Tuesday.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration selected the project as part of a $167 million effort to create jobs by rebuilding damaged wetlands, shellfish beds and coral reefs along the nation’s coasts and the Great Lakes.

The money for West Galveston Bay will be used to rebuild 328 acres of marshes with dredged sand. It will be the largest in a series of restoration projects for an area that has lost more than 5,200 acres of marsh since the 1950s because of erosion, sea-level rise and subsidence — the sinking of soft soils.

The intertidal wetlands are critical because they act as nature’s speed bumps against wind and waves. They also serve as a productive nursery for a variety of sea life, including white and brown shrimp, blue crab and red drum.

chron.com

Once again, I am reminded how illogical liberals can be- and inconsistent in their philosophies also. On the one hand, they rant that Darwin MUST be taught as “settled science” in our classrooms, but then they ignore his theories regarding survival of the fittest in their futile quests to “save” the snaildarter, or spotted owl, or animal du jour, rather than allowing nature to determine the species’ viability. 

The hurricane destroyed these wetlands- and the next hurricane will destroy some other wetlands- look at Louisiana. There were plenty of wetlands destroyed there. This is what hurricanes do- they carve new shoreline out of old. To try and deny that is insanity at its worst, because this is insanity with our money, and it will, by the very definition of what hurricanes do, be wasted money.

Hurricanes carve out their own “wetlands”. and they do this naturally- it is the height of arrogance to think that we should even attempt to do this, especially in this time of no money. If we were flush with money, I would still feel this was a foolish project, but if we had the money to waste, (in other words, not tax money, but private money), then my objections would be less vocal.

Private money can do whatever it wants, however illogical it may appear to be.

Our money, however, should be targeted to what will immediately help us, not on “feel good” projects that will just get blown away with the next storm.

Idiocy of that scope is a province reserved for the liberals who feel they know best- an ingrained delusion they will probably never lose.

They should be playing in a rubber room, but certainly NOT with our money.

Blake

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

56 Responses to “Just An Old Fashioned SNAFU”

  1. Savonarola says:

    BLAKE
    they rant that Darwin MUST be taught as “settled science” in our classrooms, but then they ignore his theories regarding survival of the fittest in their futile quests to “save” the snaildarter, or spotted owl, or animal du jour, rather than allowing nature to determine the species’ viability.

    SAV
    That’s not actually what “Darwin’s theory” says. That’s what (unfortunately) often gets taught to 5th graders because — well, let’s face it — they’re not ready for the plethora of technical details. Also unfortunate is the fact that simpletons and idiots end up with this catch phrase but no understanding.

    Case in point: Blake argues that we should simply let nature take its course by artificially disrupting habitats.

    If Blake is locked into his favorite padded room, where he can’t obtain food and water, that’s just natural selection, right Blake? But this is better: this is like Blake waking up one morning and finding that a padded room has been built around him. Clearly, that’s Blake’s own fault that results from his poor fitness, and nature says that he deserves to die… at least in BlakeLand, where reality means nothing.

    Blake, you don’t understand much about evolutionary theory. or ecology. or basic reasoning. But, hey, not having the slightest idea what you’re talking about has never stopped you before…

    • Blake says:

      Savvie- you are ranting even more illogically than ever before- have you taken drugs today? Those will not help you- you have to admit you have a problem before you can begin to heal.
      My logic is sound, and that is a part of Darwin’s theory, just not all the parts, but a relevant one nevertheless.
      Your case in point is wrong- I do not argue for artificially disrupting habitats- I argue when a hurricane disrupts a habitat, we are wrongfully DISRUPTING nature by attempting to play God with the altered habitat.
      Is that clear enough for you?

      • Savonarola says:

        BLAKE
        that is a part of Darwin’s theory

        SAV
        According to simpletons, yes. Heck, I bet you even have to look up “fitness.”

        BLAKE
        I do not argue for artificially disrupting habitats-

        SAV
        I said that you think that it is letting “nature” take its course when we artificially disrupt habitats. Please learn how to read.

        BLAKE
        we are wrongfully DISRUPTING nature by attempting to play God with the altered habitat.
        Is that clear enough for you?

        SAV
        Clear enough to confirm that you’re a loon. You argue against restoring a disaster buffer because the buffer has been degraded by natural means. By the same token, we should cease trying to restore healthiness degraded by naturally-occurring diseases and to aid animals injured by falls driven by good ol’ natural gravity. Cancer research should stop because cancer is natural and we shouldn’t fight it, and that will save money. The rim of the Grand Canyon should be absent of safety rails, too; if the bustle of people behind someone knocks that person over the edge, that’s just tough beans according to Blake. Survival of the fittest, and all.

        Why induce an avalanche to make the slopes safer? There will just be the danger of an avalanche later? We should just neglect to take precautionary measures, because that would be “playing God,” right Blake?
        Why build a house? Eventually it will degrade.
        Why rebuild a house? Eventually it will degrade again. That’s just playing God. Houses must be an abomination to God’s destructive handiwork.

        Blake, you’re insane.

        But here’s the best part, folks:

        BLAKE (to John)
        The people on 9/11 were not killed by a natural event- there’s your ignorance in equating the two events-

        SAV
        The building of the highway is not a natural event, either, but Blake decided to take shots at building a tunnel to minimize the impact of the artificial disruption to the turtle habitat.

        Blake, get help. Incredibly, you’re making even less sense than your hero Rush.

        • Blake says:

          No, actually, what you did say was that I think (putting words into my head- that is called ASSUMING) we should simply let nature take it’s course by artificially disrupting habitats. You are the one who needs to learn to write a comprehensible sentence that actually says what you mean it to say. All else is gobbelty- gook.
          Now you equate 9/11 to building a highway, and you claim I am insane? Really, dude- get help, or wear a helmet.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “Now you [SAV] equate 9/11 to building a highway, and you claim I am insane?>>

          DAR
          When did Sav mention 9/11 except to quote you? Answer: he didn’t. Somebody is losing it.

          BLK: “They are called theories because they are not yet established as fact.”>>

          DAR
          I already taught you this. Why didn’t you learn so you can refrain from looking so foolish?

          The idea that the earth goes around the Sun is a “theory” Blake. Is this because it is “not yet established as fact?”

          As I posted here Sunday, June 21:

          “Theories” are actually the *goal* of science. Because theories, in science, tell us how things work (“laws” just tell us how things are).

          The idea that the earth goes around the sun is a theory, and a fact.

          “Many theories have become established as fact. Doctors are certain of germ theory–that various germs cause a number of ailments. Astronomers are certain of the heliocentric theory of the solar system–the sun, not the earth, is the center of the solar system. Geologists are certain of the plate tectonic theory–that continents and sea floor are moving on large chunks of the earth’s crust. And biologists are certain that all living things share a common ancestor.”

          D.
          ——————-
          “A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to *explain* a set of empirical observations.”

        • Blake says:

          A theory is a possible fact,not yet proven to be true.

        • Blake says:

          Aah, there you go again, assuming, but this time (again) the ass is you- I have told you before I do not listen to Rush, and yet you do not comprehend- do you have this same trouble with ALL facts?

      • Blake says:

        Survival of the fittest is the most settled part OF Darwin’s THEORIES. They are called theories because they are not yet established as fact. If so, they would be called Darwin’s facts, wouldn’t they?
        Doing this project is as ridiculous as grabbing sand out of the surf and putting it on the beach- wait- that is EXACTLY what it is, and it is futile and a waste of our money at this time.

        • Savonarola says:

          You knocked the turtle tunnel and proceeded to argue that we should let nature take its course. Simple as that.
          But, fine, let’s address the position you’re now touting: that we shouldn’t reverse effects that occur due to nature. This is still absurd. I raised multiple objections to this idea, and you didn’t address a single one. In fact, you fell farther off the wagon, somehow managing to lodge your head even farther up your backside.

          BLAKE
          Now you equate 9/11 to building a highway, and you claim I am insane?

          SAV
          You established a differentiation based on the status of being natural. You argued that 9/11 wasn’t natural, so your argument doesn’t apply to it. I argued that building a highway isn’t natural either, so your argument doesn’t apply. What you tried to conclude instead of this, sane people can only speculate. It should have been obvious given the multiple counterexamples, but you — of course — didn’t comprehend.

          BLAKE
          A theory is a possible fact,not yet proven to be true.

          SAV
          Please go back to 6th grade. It’s pretty sad that primary grade students know more than you do.

          BLAKE
          Survival of the fittest is the most settled part OF Darwin’s THEORIES.

          SAV
          You’re an idiot. Please check the history of the phrase. Darwin didn’t come up with it, and he didn’t its being used.

          BLAKE
          They are called theories because they are not yet established as fact.

          SAV
          6th grade. Seriously. I’m not kidding.

          BLAKE
          Unless I miss my guess, these owls are not human- oh look- neither are snail darters.

          SAV
          That doesn’t answer John’s question. Those animals are threatened by artificial effects. Now you’re saying they don’t count because they’re not human? Insane.

          BLAKE
          we cannot afford at this time to do these pork projects- we just cannot.

          SAV
          Restoring a tract of land that serves as protection from natural catastrophe, thereby reducing probability of property damage and loss of life while increasing property values qualifies as “pork”? And you’re arguing against doing it?
          You’re insane and an idiot.

        • Darrel says:

          So, Blake, rather than admit his elementary school misunderstandings of science, chooses to keep digging his hole a little deeper, as usual. He didn’t get this dumb without a lot of practice.

          BLK: “A theory is a possible fact,not yet proven to be true.”>>

          DAR
          So I’ll ask you again. Don’t be a coward and run from the question:

          The idea that the earth goes around the Sun is a “theory” Blake. Is this because it is “not yet established as fact?”

          Put another way, is the theory that the earth goes around the sun “a possible fact,not yet proven to be true?”

          Is germ theory, “a possible fact,not yet proven to be true?”

          Is the atomic theory of chemistry “a possible fact, not yet proven to be true?”

          Is the Newtonian theory of mechanics “a possible fact, not yet proven to be true?”

          Is the theory of general relativity “a possible fact, not yet proven to be true?”

          Just wondering if there is some kind of floor to your utter stupidity.

          D.
          —————-
          Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

          • Big Dog says:

            I think we have proven the planets revolve around the Sun and that germs exist and some of them are infectious so I am not sure we would call them theories any longer.

            • Darrel says:

              I understand that you are “not sure” but realize you are wrong. They are, in fact, theories. Theories are the *goal* of science because they provide the explanation for the facts (even laws) we observe. Being in the medical field, you ought to get up to speed on this.

              Again:

              “A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to *explain* a set of empirical observations.”

              D.
              ————–
              “A few words need to be said about the “theory of evolution,” which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, “theory” often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, “theory” means “a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.” as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors–the historical reality of evolution–is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth’s revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved “facthood” as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled “New evidence for evolution;” it simply has not been an issue for a century.”

              – Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

            • Savonarola says:

              DOG
              I am not sure we would call them theories any longer.

              SAV
              I am sure about whether we would call them theories. We do. Look up “germ theory of disease” and “heliocentric theory.”
              As we’ve tried over and over (and over and over and over) to tell you, this is the way the word “theory” is used in science.

              Why must you guys persist with this scientific illiteracy?

              DOG
              Darwin did not even come up with the idea of evolution.

              SAV
              Perhaps not originally, but a mere idea isn’t incredibly valuable in science. Having evidence that supports an idea is what’s important. (A person might have the “idea” that pigs fly, but we don’t really care until there’s evidence.) Not only did Darwin gather evidence for the “idea,” but he proposed specific mechanisms by which the overall effect could happen. The combination of his work produced the theory of evolution, which has continually been tweaked and made more detailed over time.

            • Blake says:

              And, apparently not proven, or they wouldn’t call it a theory- oh wait- they are scientists- are they absent – minded? One might be excused for thinking so, because the everyday person likes the idea of plain speech, calling something what its name really is , rather than the silly PC word du jour.

            • Savonarola says:

              BLAKE
              And, apparently not proven, or they wouldn’t call it a theory-

              SAV
              Yes folks, Blake doesn’t believe that heliocentrism has been proven or that germs cause some diseases. C’mere, Blake, I have a Legionella cocktail for you…

              There’s only so much that scientists can do when their audience refuses to understand mere definitions. This is not hard. Look it up in a science text. Sixth graders can understand this. You can’t because you’re an idiot.

              Again, the irony: Let’s call them dadess. In science, we’d have “evolutionary dade.” When scientists talk about dades, they are using the definition of dade that applies to scientists. Even if the word dade has a different meaning in non-science use, scientific use of the word dade is not affected. Thus we can have heliocentric dade, germ dade of disease, etc, and the truth value of those positions remains the same.
              In other words, Blake is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. Even when he’s had it explained to him countless times, he still doesn’t get it. He’s an idiot.

            • Darrel says:

              Why is Blake such an intellectual coward that he must insist on running from answering this question?

              “The idea that the earth goes around the Sun is a “theory” Blake. Is this because it is “not yet established as fact?”

              Once again we are reminded that here in the US we swim in a sea of scientific illiteracy. This is especially so with regard to evolution, no doubt because of religious indoctrination. Out of 21 peer countries, the US comes in last in this regard. It’s a national disgrace.

              I have found that almost every misconception about evolution is dealt with in this very basic and introductory FAQ including Blake’s determined and persistent misunderstanding of the word “theory.”

              There is no excuse for such ignorance. The information is right at your finger tips. One hours reading can go a long way but you have to have the courage to examine your beliefs and consider that you may be wrong and have something to learn.

              D.
              —————
              “It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error. But nature has not given to everyone a talent for the purpose; and among those to whom such a talent is given there is often a want of disposition or of courage to do it.”
              –Thomas Paine, preface to Age of Reason, part 3

            • Blake says:

              Wow- I would not take you for someone who has actually read Paine-
              I disposed of the “theory” argument up above, if you care to read it- it concerns the persistent misuse of the word by pseudo- intellectuals who feel superior to everyone else- sound familiar, D? It should- look in the mirror- Perhaps when you libs begin calling a spade a spade, instead of attempting to “soften the blow” with well meaning, but misleading words we can have a conversation.

            • Darrel says:

              Why are you afraid to answer this question Blake?

              “The idea that the earth goes around the Sun is a “theory” Blake. Is this because it is “not yet established as fact?”

              D.

            • Blake says:

              I have answered you D- if you choose not to accept my answer, that is fine with me- it is not intellectual “cowardice” to have a different opinion of something, unless, apparently, you are a liberal. Then it is okay to call someone apparently anything you wish without cause.
              This circular argument you wish to pursue serves no one, and just makes you look really desperate and intellectually dishonest.

            • Blake says:

              Oh- as to the question, the earth revolving around the earth is fact, not theory- it has been misnamed by scientists, or I should say, not properly categorized when found to be fact. Satisfied?

            • Blake says:

              I mean the Earth revolving around the sun. oops.

            • Darrel says:

              BLK: “the earth revolving around the [sun] is fact, not theory- it has been misnamed by scientists,”>>

              DAR
              Well I guess that is as close as Blake can get to admitting he is wrong on this. If only those darn scientists knew better than to misname things so Blake could understand them!

              Schat: “some theories that we believe are proven (theory of relativity for example) are still not proven to be considered, scientifically, a fact. Same with evolution.>>

              DAR
              Dear Schatzee, I am saddened to hear you didn’t get the note about the theory of relativity being proven to be a fact, over and over and over, a hundred times over. Every television set, every computer, relies upon principles based upon Einstein’s scientific theory (oh the irony of you making a fool of yourself, on, a computer!). Every GPS, which relies upon our measuring the speed of light to *17 decimal places,* every satellite, everything we have ever sent into space and communicated with, every nuclear bomb, every atomic clock… well, you get the idea. In 1905 Einstein’s theory was controversial. A few years later, not so much.

              Incidentally, quantum theory is also EXTREMELY well established. That happened probably before your parents were born.

              Here are a few simple examples that have confirmed Einstein’s theory:

              ***
              1. Planetary orbits will be slightly different from the paths predicted by classical mechanics;

              2. A beam of light will curve when passing near a massive body (i.e., light responds to gravity);

              3. Mass has intrinsic energy, in the amount of mc²;

              4. Time slows down for moving clocks.

              5. Massive object have a higher inertia when they’re moving.

              DAR
              We even used to postulate an unobserved moon to account for a distortion in the orbit of (I think Neptune). Einstein’s relativity explained the problem with no moon, which we now know, never existed (but this didn’t stop astrologers from incorporating it in their calculations. Oops!).

              But if you like to keep it simple, best to stay with the heliocentric theory. Most people can understand that the earth going around the sun is a fact. It’s also a theory. In science, there is no contradiction or even tension between the two. Sorry about that.

              D.
              —————
              “Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.”
              –Stephen J. Gould, 1981

            • Darrel says:

              BLK: “I would not take you for someone who has actually read Paine-“>>

              DAR
              Well then you don’t actually pay very close attention. Paine was very much a freethinker, just like many of the other founders. At our last meeting (52 in attendance) we spent the first hour honoring him (it was the 200 year anniversary of his death on June 8). From our meeting notice:

              “Come celebrate July 4 at the June 27th meeting as we commemorate Thomas Paine. It is important that the life of this courageous man be remembered, and told to our youth and young in spirit, for the optimistic inspiration it gives of what one person can do to change the world for the better. We will also listen to a dynamic presentation from Carl Shapiro entitled “Thomas Paine and the American Revolution” on CD.”

              We also sell his books at our Springfest booth.

              D.
              —————–
              The man who first uttered and printed the name “The United States of America.”

              He helped found the first society for the abolition of slavery in America.

              He was one of the first to call for the creation of a Union of Nations which would bring some peace and prosperity to the world.

              He was the inventor of the first iron (steel) bridge. His pamphlet Common Sense ignited the American Revolution and his booklet “The Rights of Man” helped lead to the liberation of America from the yoke of the British.

              etc.

            • Schatzee says:

              I don’t think we should and learned people probably would not. I think it is common for the improper term to be used long after theory becomes fact (or perhaps even interchangeably whether they should be or not).

        • Blake says:

          Restoring a tract of land that will melt easier than the first time, taking our money and effort with its passing, is not a smart use of the money, but then you libs have never known the value of money, or you wouldn’t be spending it like drunken lottery winners.

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          Restoring a tract of land that will melt easier than the first time, taking our money and effort with its passing, is not a smart use of the money,

          SAV
          Buying food that will simply be gone in a week is a waste of money. And you’ll still be hungry.
          Taking a shower is simply a waste of time and water. You’ll just get dirty again.

          The restoration serves a purpose, Blake. It even stands to benefit real people. But you’re not one of those people, so you don’t care, huh?

  2. John says:

    Using Blake’s logic, the people killed on 9/11 deserved it. They were not the “fittest”. Give me a break. I guess ignorance is bliss.

    • Blake says:

      OOh- we have another indoctrinated liberal- talk about ignorance.

    • Blake says:

      The people on 9/11 were not killed by a natural event- there’s your ignorance in equating the two events- and it not a matter of “deserving” anything- that is a liberal argument, and baseless as well as cowardly.

      • John says:

        And how is the plight of spotted owls and snail darters natural events? Spotted owls are threatened by timber harvest and snail darters are threatened by dams. How are these threats any different than humans flying airplanes into buildings?

        • Blake says:

          Unless I miss my guess, these owls are not human- oh look- neither are snail darters.
          John, the threats to these animals do not even come close to the events of 9/11- these animal events are gradual, and quite probably irreversible. Species go extinct all the time- we cannot afford at this time to do these pork projects- we just cannot.

    • Big Dog says:

      9/11 was not a natural act. A hurricane is.

      • Savonarola says:

        So is a tornado that destroys your house. Don’t rebuild, because that would be playing God.

        • Blake says:

          There is a difference between the natural world, and a house, wouldn’t you agree?

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          There is a difference between the natural world, and a house, wouldn’t you agree?

          SAV
          Ah, so we have an additional criterion. We’re not allowed to attempt any reversion as long as the disaster is natural and as long as the damaged entity is natural.

          Suppose a small town is partially fed by a naturally occurring grove of apple trees. Suppose a tornado destroys these trees. Must the townsfolk now abandon this land and resulting food source destroyed by natural causes?

          How about another?
          Suppose a collection of thatched huts are protected by a swath of wooded area that serves as a windbreak. A freak lightning strike burns down the woods. If the hut-dwellers transplant trees to restore the windbreak, are they “playing God” and therefore acting unacceptably?

          How about another?
          Some kids like exploring a cave. A huge storm uproots trees that block the cave’s entrance. If the kids move the trees to get into the cave, are they acting unacceptably?

          Suppose a kid was in the cave when the opening was blocked. Tough beans for that kid, huh?

          What if the same thing happened to a cave where a bear lived? What if the bear couldn’t get back in? What if the bear was inside and couldn’t get back out? When could humans remove the obstruction, and when could they not? Why?

          Of course, I argue that the whole “playing God” nonsense is moot. It’s a matter of ecology, which Blake doesn’t understand and likely refuses to understand.

        • Blake says:

          Shoulda, woulda, coulda- everything is presupposed “theory”-I tell you what- you argue with the wall on this, you are making no sense, but straying further and further from the point, which apparently you can never seem to grasp.

          Pity, really- we had such high hopes that you might be able to function as a normal person.

          We are SO dissappointed.

  3. Scott says:

    Wow the liberal chuckleheads have started frequenting this site…

    What part of “hurricane” was unclear? Last I checked that’s an act of nature. Now if the deterioration was a result of human actions then by all means restore it. However an investigation should be made in those cases of man made disruption so that the proper parties bear at least some of the cost.

  4. Scott says:

    For us Marylanders we’re screwed. Here is the email I recieved from Cardin on Cap & Tax.

    “Thank you for contacting me about your concerns over a cap-and-trade bill. As a member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, I believe that global warming is a major threat to both our nation and the world and that bold action is needed. Dramatically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is essential to protecting the planet, the public’s health, and our national security. The good news is that a well designed cap-and-trade program can be a cost effective way to address this threat and help us to develop a clean and sustainable economy.

    Many of American’s leading companies, including major manufacturers and utilities support cap and trade. The United States Climate Action Partnership is an alliance of major businesses that have come together to call on the Federal Government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. They believe this step is necessary for our future economic prosperity even in our current economic circumstances. This partnership includes major companies such as General Electric, Deere and Company, DuPont, and PepsiCo.

    The general consensus of the scientific community is that the effects of global warming are largely caused by increased carbon emissions produced by human activity. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) most recent report confirmed this finding. The IPCC is a non-partisan organization comprised of top scientists from around the world. If left unchecked, the impacts of global warming – increased hurricane damage, real estate loss, energy and water costs – will cost our economy $1.9 trillion annually by the end of the century. While too numerous to list here, the national security and public health risks associated with climate change are troubling. The short and long term threats this poses to our economy and standard of living must be taken very seriously.

    Unlike a carbon tax, the cap-and-trade model provides businesses and corporations with the most flexibility, enabling market-driven forces to minimize overall costs and achieve maximum efficiency in reducing emissions. This model has been successful in curbing other pollutants in the past. The Acid Rain Program, established under Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, utilized a cap-and-trade program and dramatically reduced sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush estimated the benefit-to-cost ratio of the sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade program at 40-1. Praised by businesses and environmental groups alike, cap-and-trade programs offer a pragmatic approach that meet both our economic and environmental goals.

    This market driven program would provide incentives for businesses to invest, create jobs, and save Americans billions of dollars in the long term. Investments in clean energy will generate approximately 3 times as many jobs as the equivalent amount spent on carbon-based fuel. A recent report released by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that if emissions are reduced by 56 percent by 2030, the resulting savings on energy bills from reductions in electricity and fuel would produce net annual savings for households, vehicle owners, businesses, and industries of $255 billion. New incentives will lead to fruitful innovations, and help America become a world leader in a new manufacturing sector, allowing us to export our expertise, intellectual property, and products worldwide. The Political Economy Research Institute estimates that the passage of a cap-and-trade bill would produce 1.7 million new jobs – 26,605 in Maryland alone. These jobs will be permanent, good paying, and will help rebuild our manufacturing sector.

    I believe it is critical to Marylanders and all Americans that we pass legislation that moves our nation towards a greener economy and begins to reverse global warming. A cap-and-trade program offers a pragmatic, market-driven solution. I know that this crisis will allow Americans to do what we do best – overcoming a challenge through imaginative innovation. I believe that these policies will transform our economy, and position us to continue our global leadership for decades to come.

    Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me again with this or any other issue of concern to you.”

    • Blake says:

      Yeah- just like a politician to jump on a bill they have not read. Would you buy a car, or house without reading the contract? To say that this is terminally ignorant is to be too kind by far, and anyone who is for this POS is by definition, out of their mind, because I know despite the liberal dead- heads we get on this site, NO ONE HAS READ THIS BILL. If you say you have, I say you are lying- the best one can do in the measly time allotted by the Hussein admin. is to skim it, and even then, it will be changed in the Senate.
      Perhaps it can die an ignominious death in the Senate.
      We can hope.

    • Big Dog says:

      Cardin is full of bull excrement.

    • Darrel says:

      “email I recieved[sic] from Cardin on Cap & Tax.”

      DAR
      All true and good to go. So good to see something intelligent posted about Cap and Trade around here!

      My friend Barbara also wrote a very informative letter about this.

      D.

    • Schatzee says:

      This guy is so full of it and I hate these lovely form letters we get whenever we try to contact someone about this crap. I don’t care what he believes or thinks, his job is to represent myself and other Marylanders and, quite frankly, he’s doing a lame-a$$ job of it. Like the rest of the state. So still looking to move…

      Wish the libs who were unhappy with our country would do the same – move to some place where they could be happy rather than trying to change America from what she was always meant to be. A limited government, FREE country.

  5. Blake says:

    I am disturbed at the way tou libs dance aropund a subject- you call it an “issue” instead of a problem, you persist in mis- labeling facts as “theories”- no wonder it is hard for rational people to believe you. Call something what it truly is, and you will never have trouble being understood again.
    Come on—– it’s really easy—– I am sure you can do this; remember, baby steps- Do not under ANY circumstances try to parse the meaning of the word “is”- you will break something, I am sure- leave that to the pros.

  6. Schatzee says:

    Theory is defined as “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” [dictionary.com] That would kind of back up Blake and BD stating that if something is proven it is no longer considered a theory. Some theories that we believe are proven (theory of relativity for example) are still not proven to be considered, scientifically, a fact. Same with evolution.

    As for Climate Change, I can’t believe that anyone of average intelligence looking atht raw climate data and noting the natural shifts in temperature and its cyclical nature can still tow the Climate Change party line. I think it’s insane and yet some folks have so much invested in this “theory” that they refuse to see that if climate change is occurring on planets where man is not located (like Mars) then certainly man is not responsible for these changes. This seems kind of 6th grade to me.

    Conservation can be a great thing – when taken to extremes (like anything else) it is prohibitive and wasteful. Wetlands and marshes can and will re-establish themselves if left alone but we cannot stop the growth of the world to save one species or another. Just not feasible or even desirable. If people want to crusade and save the snail-thingys then more power to them – on their own time and money. Not mine. This is not what our tax dollars are for. Raising people to be proper stewards of the planet is within everyone’s power and their right, taking one person’s money for these ridiculous (and probably BS) purposes is unconstitutional and wasteful. IMHO

    Oh, how are they going to make sure the turtles use only those tunnels anyway? Crossing guards??? Talk about creating jobs…LOL

    • Savonarola says:

      Neocon: “Theory” means guess.
      Scientist: That’s not how scientists use the word.
      Neocon: “Theory” means guess.
      Scientist: Maybe in your language, but not in ours.
      Neocon: “Theory” means guess. I know what scientists mean better than scientists do.
      Scientist: You’re insane.

      Read up on what the National Academy of Sciences says about how scientists use the word “theory.”

      This is sixth grade science class material. Seriously. You guys are idiots. Seriously.

      • Blake says:

        eriously- you guys are PC idiots, Sav. We go with the dictionary definition of “theory”, which would mean that anyone using that word when talking about an established fact, i.e.- the Earth revolving around the sun, is not using the word in it’s correctly defined usage.
        Now, if you want to have a debate on whether that is right or wrong, so be it, but the fact is, Dog and I are right about the term “Theory”.
        So get off your high horse, and quit making the argument about this little niggling thing.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “We go with the dictionary definition of “theory”, which would mean that anyone using that word when talking about an established fact, i.e.- the Earth revolving around the sun, is not using the word in it’s correctly defined usage.”>>

          DAR
          Okay, here’s the dictionary:

          ***
          the⋅o⋅ry
          –noun, plural -ries.

          1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.

          That’s number ONE.

          Again I ask you:

          ‘Is the theory of general relativity “a possible fact, not yet proven to be true?”’

          How deep do you want to dig the hole?

          D.
          —————
          “Einstein published more than 300 scientific works and more than 150 non-scientific works.[4][5] In 1999 Time magazine named him the Person of the Century, and in the words of a biographer, “to the scientifically literate and the public at large, Einstein is synonymous with genius.”

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          We go with the dictionary definition of “theory”,

          SAV
          And nobody ever argued that the dictionary definition of the word “theory” was wrong. We’ve argued that science uses the word in a different way than common usage. I even provided a link, which any idiot could follow and read. You apparently aren’t high enough on the scale to qualify as an idiot.

          According to the National Academy of Sciences (that’s an exclusive organization of renowned scientists, for you utter dolts who don’t know):

          In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. ….

          Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease.

          BLAKE
          I disposed of the “theory” argument up above,

          SAV
          You think so only because you’re deluded. And dumber than a sixth grader.

          Let’s try some extremely simple logic. You’ve acknowledged that heliocentric theory is a fact. You’ve seen that scientists use the phraseology heliocentric theory to refer to this fact. Thus, scientists use the term theory differently than the uneducated masses. QED.

          Maybe you should email a science professor at your nearest accredited research university and ask about what scientists mean when they say “theory” (a la “scientific theory.”) Then you can accuse another scientist who teaches science of not knowing anything about science and its terminology.

          BLAKE
          quit making the argument about this little niggling thing.

          SAV
          There’s a point to having this argument. It’s to expose your appalling combination of idiocy and unwillingness to learn. This is literally sixth grade material that you’re getting wrong, and you’re insisting that your knowledge of science terminology is more reliable than that of actual scientists and science teachers. There are appropriate descriptors for such a position, but I’m not allowed to use them here… and you probably would have to look up the words anyway.

      • Schatzee says:

        Actually I am a scientist and if you read below I not only know the difference but would agree that they are often used interchangeably and incorrectly. However, that does not change the fact that the lay definition according to the dictionary supports what Blake and others have said above.

        Seriously – you’re out of your league and wasting our time. Seriously!

        • Savonarola says:

          SCHATZ
          Seriously – you’re out of your league and wasting our time. Seriously!

          SAV
          I’ve been gone for more than a day, and I’m still ahead of you. Because you apparently missed the memo, I’m a scientist and I teach science. Because you apparently can’t read, nothing I’ve said about the scientific method and scientific terminology has been untrue, mistaken, or misleading. Meanwhile, plenty of what Blake has said about the scientific method and scientific terminology has been wrong.

          Educated people might indeed be wasting our time trying to get sixth grade-level facts through Blake’s thick skull, but to argue that I’m out of my league is absurd.

          Do you disagree with the statement from the NAS that I linked to?

        • Blake says:

          I read your NAS link, and I refer you to the second part, which you might have passed over, which is relevant to the argument at hand. The first just indicates how lazy some scientists are in relabeling their “guesses”, after they become indisputable fact. I can’t help their inherent laziness- but perhaps they could take a course of concise language?

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          The first just indicates how lazy some scientists are in relabeling their “guesses”, after they become indisputable fact.

          SAV
          That’s not what it says at all. Not even close. Please learn how to read.

        • Blake says:

          I did read- please learn to comprehend what is written.

        • Savonarola says:

          BLAKE
          please learn to comprehend what is written.

          SAV
          Years ahead of you, Blake. Scientists don’t label “guesses” as scientific theories. That is explained clearly enough for non-dolts to comprehend easily. Thus there is no “relabeling” (your word) when something is established as fact. Ergo, you’re wrong. You’re also an idiot.
          When scientists tell you what scientists mean, you’d have to be an idiot to think you know better than they do. QED.

  7. Blake says:

    There are still parts of Darwin’s “theories” that are not proven- whether we are descended from apes, for one contentious example. That we are from the same “family” of animals as apes, etc., is beyond dispute, but if we “turned” into human, wouldn’t there be some others in the natural order of things that are in the middle of the process? There is no proof that we made the jump from apes themselves, just from a more primitive and “ape- like” (according to our arrogance) human being.
    There is one of the weaknesses, if you will.