Bush’s War on the Environment

“I wouldn't be talking $hit about Ralph. He is in position to have most of you ready and willing to kiss his a$$. Stay tuned ,he's no dummy.”

“phaedrus wins the "i coulda been a contender" award.....


ketchup special interest?

Sunday, March 14, 2004 1:13 a.m. EST
Teresa: I'll Use Ketchup Cash if Race Turns Ugly

Teresa Heinz Kerry is warning that she'll use the vast Heinz ketchup fortune to repel personal attacks by the Bush campaign - insisting for the first time publicly that there are legal ways around the campaign finance laws that could allow her to spend far more than the $2,000 legal limit to get her husband elected.

Asked last week if she had decided to spend "any of your own fortune" on the presidential race, Heinz Kerry initially told National Public Radio's Renee Montagne, "I cannot, by law; $2,000 is it, and I've said that so many times."

But in the next breath the ketchup heiress warned, "Any time the honor of my family or myself is trashed, I will do what any American would try and do, which is to fight to redeem it."

"And there are legal ways of doing that," she insisted.

Heinz Kerry predicted that the Bush campaign would indeed go after her and her family personally, setting off the tripwire that would open up her $700 million pocketbook.

"I'm sure it will get very ugly and personal," she warned. "But I think ... ugliness speaks for itself, and expensive ugliness speaks for itself even more."

Asked if she was expecting "any particular accusations, any particular vulnerabilities on your part?" Heinz Kerry told NPR, "No."

"[There are] no vulnerabilities on my part. My life's an open book. I'm honest, I work hard, I care about people, and I have hopes for the world and for us, and I think we're not being well-served and well-led."”

“Primaries failing to draw numbers

By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Voter turnout in the Democratic presidential contests that quickly sealed the nomination for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry was one of the lowest on record, according to a study released yesterday.
The findings were in sharp contrast to the media-driven image of an angry and energized Democratic electorate turning out in droves in the party's delegate-selection contests through the Super Tuesday primaries.
With the exception of New Hampshire, the report by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, which tabulates and analyzes voter participation, said that turnout "was generally low — in the aggregate, the third-lowest on record."
"Only an estimated 10.3 million citizens ... nationally participated in the selection of Sen. John Kerry as the Democratic nominee," it said.
That constituted just 11.4 percent of the electorate,
The Republican presidential primary turnout was the lowest on record. An estimated 4 million voters, or 6.6 percent of the eligible electorate in the 11 states that held primaries went to the polls. But, unlike the crowded field of candidates in the Democratic primaries, President Bush was assured of renomination.
"We've known from looking at the primary numbers for 2000, when we last had a primary on the Republican side, that the turnout was higher on the GOP side in most states than it has been for the Democratic primaries in 2004," said Christine Iverson, the Republican National Committee's press secretary.
Senior Democratic Party officials took what little solace they could from the report's finding that Democratic turnout in the 20 states that held primaries through Super Tuesday on March 2 was "higher than the 9 percent which voted in the uncontested 1996 presidential primaries and the virtually (after New Hampshire) uncontested primaries in 2000 in which 10.1 percent of the eligible electorate voted."
"There is energy and enthusiasm for our Democratic nominee and that's an indication that the Democrats will have a much better turnout in the general election," said Tony Welch, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.
But comparisons to 1996 and 2000 was thin gruel for the Democrats in light of the rest of the report's turnout data, which suggested surprisingly anemic turnout in the Democrats' political base.
Overall, "it was lower than the turnout for every other presidential primary season in these states and more than 50 percent lower than the primary turnouts of 1968 and 1972," the report said.
Turnout in the later Democratic contests was in sharp contrast to the higher voter participation levels in New Hampshire and near-record turnout in the Iowa caucuses that preceded it.
But the report's author, Curtis Gans, pointed out that "turnout levels in presidential primaries are not a predictor of general election turnout." Primary turnout increased between 1984 and 1988 (from 24 percent of eligibles to 25.9 percent) but general election turnout fell in 1988 to the lowest level since 1924."
The speed with which Mr. Kerry sailed through the compressed primaries to become the presumptive nominee "may come back to haunt [his party], as it gives the GOP five months to define Kerry before he has his optimum opportunity to present himself in the best light at the Democratic National Convention," Mr. Gans said.”

“Pull your head outta Bush's ass before you asphyxiate.”

“What a load of S H I T!!

I've been traveling with some Cubans and for the most part they love their country and are really dreading when the U.S. comes in and royally screws them over.”

“Lookout --- For all the rhetoric they sling around, I'm surprised they haven't started up the witch hunts again.”

“Jeepers! If Ollie North sez it's true.....well......it's GOTTA be true!”

“What is poor?
Bruce Bartlett
October 2, 2003


The Census Bureau recently released its annual report on poverty in the United States. It was widely reported that the number of people officially defined as poor rose by 1.7 million, raising the poverty rate from 11.7 percent of the population to 12.1 percent. None of the stories I read called attention to another Census report released the same day calling into serious question the way we now measure poverty.

Even many economists probably don't know that the "official" measure of poverty was developed in the 1960s as a sort of "back of the envelope" exercise. The woman who came up with it certainly never meant for it to be taken as a definitive measure. Nevertheless, it has survived to the present day, increased only by the rise in the Consumer Price Index each year.

Liberals have long criticized this method, saying (rightly) that the official poverty measure bears no relation to any meaningful concept of true poverty. The problem is that all of their suggested "improvements" would have the effect of substantially raising the poverty rate. One of their goals, of course, is to justify increased welfare spending and bigger government.

Unfortunately, the whole notion of poverty is extremely subjective. The original definition was based on food consumption, which then took about a third of a low-income family's budget. Now it's about 20 percent, but in the meantime many new needs have emerged that one can reasonably argue have become necessities of life.

Two hundred years ago, Adam Smith recognized that our concept of adequate living standards will change over time. Today's luxuries become tomorrow's necessaries. "By necessaries," he said, "I understand, not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without."

Smith noted that a linen shirt would be considered necessary in his time even though the ancient Greeks and Romans got along fine without linen at all. So, too, many items that did not exist even in the recent past are often considered necessary for life today, even by the poor.

In a supplementary report that got no press attention, the Census Bureau looked at some of these new necessities and their ownership by the poor. It turns out that many poor people today own appliances that were considered luxuries when I grew up, and some would still be considered luxuries today. For example, 91 percent of those in the lowest 10 percent of households -- all of whom are officially poor -- own color TVs; 74 percent own microwave ovens; 55 percent own VCRs; 47 percent own clothes dryers; 42 percent own stereos; 23 percent own dishwashers; 21 percent own computers; and 19 percent own garbage disposals.

When I grew up in the 1950s, only the wealthy owned color TVs, clothes dryers, stereos, dishwashers and disposals. These were all considered luxuries. We got by with black and white TVs, hanging our wet cloths on a line to dry, washing dishes by hand and throwing our potato peels in a pail instead of down the drain. So did most other middle-class families. Not even the wealthiest people owned microwave ovens, VCRs or computers.

Some economists have suggested that using consumption, rather than income, as the measure of poverty gives a better idea of the true economic condition of the poor. They note that many of those officially classified as poor based on income actually live quite well. For example, many are elderly who own their homes free and clear. Others may just be poor temporarily and can draw down savings to tide them over. An analysis by economic Daniel Slesnick found that the official poverty rate of 13.8 percent in 1995 would actually have been 9.5 percent if based on consumption rather than income.

The Census Bureau itself acknowledges serious limitations to its calculations. One problem is that it is required by law to use a measure of inflation that is known to overstate price increases. Using a corrected inflation measure would have lowered the poverty rate from 12.1 percent to 10.8 percent last year. The inclusion of income that is not now counted, such as noncash income transfers like food stamps, would lower the rate to just 7.5 percent.

Lastly, it is worth noting that few of the poor remain poor for very long. According to the Census Bureau, over half of all those classified as poor between 1996 and 1999 were so for less than four consecutive months. Eighty percent were poor for less than a year. This sort of income mobility means that our measures of income inequality are also overstated, according to a new Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco study.


Bruce Bartlett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a TownHall.com member group.”

“Skewed poverty picture
By Donald Lambro

So much economic disinformation comes out of the network news shows that they should start their broadcasts with this warning: "Beware, you may not be getting the full story in this report."
Take last week's news about incomes and poverty. What they reported was largely accurate as far as it went, but what they left out gave viewers a distorted picture of the true nature of poverty and household incomes in America today.
Yes, the number of people below the poverty income level rose last year as a result of a number of factors. The economic slump between 2000 and 2002 was the chief reason. (Divorce is a big factor in rising poverty, though this is rarely mentioned in these stories.)
But it wasn't reported that the number of poor in 2002 was still below average poverty levels of the past 20 years.
Nor did the networks point out that last year's 12.1 percent poverty rate (up from 11.7 percent in 2001) was still below the 15.1 percent rate in 1993.
The poverty number falls and rises with the economic cycles, but over the long term poverty has been falling in America — especially over the past decade.
Also unreported was the remarkable fact that the poverty rate was the same as it was last year for whites, Latinos and Asians. The big increase was among blacks — rising from 22.7 percent to 24.1 percent — which sent the overall rate up by four-tenths of 1 percent.
The Census Bureau numbers also told us the median household income fell last year. OK, incomes fall when the economy declines and unemployment rises, but this is a moving number, and that was last year's news.
The good news story this year is that incomes have been rising, thanks to the Bush tax cuts. And that has increased consumer spending, which has produced two big improvements:
(1) Retail sales are up by eight-tenths of 1 percent in August alone, following a 0.9 percent increase in July.
(2) That's fueling faster economic growth — 3.3 percent in the second quarter and an estimated 4 percent to 5 percent growth in the July through September third quarter.
There were other strong economic reports last month that did not get even a mention on the network news shows: Home sales rose to another record level in August. Single family home sales increased 3.4 percent to 1.15 million homes. Previously owned home sales rose by 5.5 percent.
So we have rising incomes, higher retail sales, the continued boom in housing, increased economic growth and the Fed's pledge it will keep interest rates low for sometime to come.
This has kept the Conference Board's index of leading economic indicators — the measure of how the economy will perform over the next half year or more — rising for four straight months.
Job creation, as always, remains the one lagging statistic to show any significant improvement. Businesses wait until they have enough evidence of higher sales and orders before hiring more workers. In the interim, they rely on increased overtime or temp workers.
But there are signs the job picture will be improving. The welcome story in this year's economy is higher earnings, and with annual economic growth rising to 4 percent or more, layoffs and jobless benefit claims have been declining.
The Democratic presidential candidates have been having a field day pounding President Bush for the 6.1 percent unemployment. Their mantra, which gets repeated over and over again on the campaign stump, claims this is the worst jobless crisis since Herbert Hoover — with no disagreement from network news editors who gleefully include this line in all their reports.
The truth is of course that we have had 6.1 percent unemployment many times since the Hoover administration and many economists once viewed that rate as full employment.
"In reality, today's 6.1 percent unemployment rate is the same as it was in 1994 or 1987 or 1978 — years in which nobody pretended to see any similarities with the Great Depression," says economist Alan Reynolds.
My own belief is that more Americans are working than the Labor Department's monthly business payroll survey finds. They are small business entrepreneurs, often working independently under contract to larger firms, which the payroll survey misses.
The network stories uniformly focus on manufacturing jobs that have been moved overseas, and that is certainly true. What they do not report is a deeper, structural change that has been going on for decades: the ability through new technology to make things faster, cheaper and better with a lot fewer workers.
All Americans benefit from this change through lower prices at home and beating the competition abroad. We benefit in another way, too, over the long term: New technology inevitably produces more jobs to develop, sell, ship and promote these products, which is why total U.S. employment is the highest it has ever been in our history.

Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent for The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.”

“Over the next days and weeks you are going to hear plenty about Bush's proposals to make it easier for power generating plants to upgrade and modernize. Under Clinton rules a plant could not make any major repairs or modernize a piece of equipment without going ahead with a complete modernization of the entire plant to meet current pollution standards, something that would cost many millions of dollars. Under Bush's proposal a plant could make repairs and modernize some of its equipment without having to bring the entire plant up to current clean air standards. But ... there's a restriction; a caveat, and this is a restriction that the anti-capitalist environmental crowd won't disclose to you. Under no circumstances will that plant be allowed to produce any more pollution than it is permitted to produce right now. In other words, the rule change cannot result in dirtier air. Ah ha! You didn't know that, did you. Golly, imagine that. Surely the mainstream media would have shared this little tidbit with you by now.”

“Strat still trying to defend Dubya and his crooked friends.... while they steal him blind.

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.”

“most of the people that voted for Nader last time will not vote for him this time. Simply because he cost the election for Gore last time. People realize the vast destruction and harm Bush has caused this great nation and realize it's time to fire him.”

“man, ya'll hav no interest in the whole story....typical


The congress has passed an energy bill. Environmental groups are calling it a "disaster." Does this mean that it is a disaster for our environment? No, it doesn't mean that at all. What it means is that it is good for capitalism. It's good for the American economy.

Remember ... at the end of the cold war, the left, the world socialist movement, had to look for a new home. Socialism and communism were discredited. Capitalism had prevailed. The anti-capitalist crowd was looking for refuge, and they found that refuge in the environmental movement. Even Gorbachev himself now fancies himself to be a world environmental leader. So, when you hear "environmental groups" bleating and whining about an energy bill ... you can assume that something good has happened for the cause of economic liberty and commerce.”

“Let's not forget the environmentalists as these fires rage through California. It is the eco-radicals who have prevented thinning of these very areas that are burning. The environmentalists protested and fought, the areas that were to be thinned remained clogged with fuel for wildfires, and 1,000 homes burn.

Here's something else you might not remember. In 2000, which, by the way, was an election year, Tom Daschle added a little amendment to a defense spending bill. That amendment exempted logging interests in Sough Dakota from restrictive environmental regulations that prevented thinning of forests and wooded areas that could be threatened by wildfires. The amendment also excepted South Dakota loggers from lawsuits by the environmental crowd. The environmentalists didn't so much as raise an eyebrow .. not even the Sierra Club. And why not? Because Daschle is a liberal Democrat .. and environmentalism isn't so much about our environment as it is about conservative vs. liberal politics.

I wonder how many environmentalists homes have been lost in California to wildfires.”

“Yeah, I remember 1980-92... 12 years of environmental degradation thanks to your boys, Dewd. Now they're at it again even bigger than before and all you can do is cash your tax refund and grin like a chimp.

I'm sorry, but I have to wonder..... What are you doing on a backpacking board, really? I don't know why you're here except to troll. How is it you supposedly care for the outdoors and simultaneously attempt to defend this administration's environmental policies?

It's paradoxical, to say the least.”

“Lets hope Bush wins this war too.......can't stand the environment all that dirt.....and allergies and stuff.....lets support Bush and crush the environment and all the stuff it attacks us with once and for all!!!!!! :)”

“Those damn butterflies are pissing me off!!!”

“"You didn't know that, did you. Golly, imagine that. Surely the mainstream media would have shared this little tidbit with you by now.".........."


IT'S A VAST LEFT WING CONSPRICY! OH MY GOD!!!!!!!

RUN! RUN FOR THE HILLS! THE DEMS ARE COMING!! THE DEMS ARE COMING!!



Protesters rally against Iraq war, occupation
Worldwide demonstrations mark year of conflict
Saturday, March 20, 2004 Posted: 10:27 PM EST (0327 GMT)


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Antiwar rallies were being held around the world Saturday, the day after protests in Baghdad marked the anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

In the United States, rallies were held in Los Angeles, California; Fayetteville, North Carolina; and Crawford, Texas, where President Bush has a ranch.

Demonstrators against the Iraq war gathered in England, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Australia.(Full story)

In Cairo, Egypt, protesters burned a U.S. flag and called Bush a liar, though riot police far outnumbered the protesters.

Thousands of demonstrators braved a downpour in Tokyo, Japan, to express their displeasure with the U.S.-led effort. Some carried signs depicting the Statue of Liberty about to launch a missile.

In Bangkok, Thailand, a man in a mask depicting Bush carried an oil can and led another man -- wearing a mask of Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra -- by a leash.

Protesters carried signs in London, England, calling Bush the "world's worst terrorist" and labeling Prime Minister Tony Blair a "Bliar."

Two protesters scaled Big Ben, then stood for hours just beneath the face of the clock tower with a sign reading "Time for Truth."

In Rome, Italy, demonstrators set off colorful smoke flares at the residence of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

In the United States, rallies were also scheduled Saturday for Los Angeles, California; Fayetteville, North Carolina; and Crawford, Texas, where Bush has a ranch.

Thousands of Sunni and Shiite Muslims had come together to rally in Baghdad on Friday, one year after the beginning of the war.

President Bush defended the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Bush's remarks, delivered Saturday during his weekly radio address, echoed a longer speech he gave Friday.

"The liberation of Iraq was good for the Iraqi people, good for America and good for the world," the president said Saturday.

Bush said "violent thugs and murderers" were at work in Iraq, but said the war's result was that "the worst regime in the region was given way to what will soon be among the best."

Bloody week
Car bombs in Baghdad and Basra this week killed at least 10 Iraqis.

And a 1st Infantry Division soldier died Friday from injuries suffered in a Bradley fighting vehicle accident Wednesday, the Coalition Press Information Center said Friday.

The soldier was one of two injured in an accident that killed another soldier. The Bradley overturned near Baji.

Two U.S. Marines from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force were killed Wednesday in Iraq's al Anbar province, the Coalition Press Information Center said Friday.

The two deaths bring to 572 the number of U.S. troops killed in the war's first year, 389 of them from hostile fire.

Since Bush declared the end of major combat operations May 1, 433 troops have been killed, 274 from hostile fire.

CNN's Sally Holland, Jane Arraf, Walter Rodgers and Kianne Sadeq contributed to this report”

“There ALL around us!

The World to out to get get us!

OLD EURPOE WILL BE LAUNCHING THERE SCOLIALIST MISSLES AT US AT ANY SECOND!!

RUN!! DON'T READ THIS-----RUN!!!


Deadly attack on Iraq Green Zone
Sunday, March 21, 2004 Posted: 2:16 PM EST (1916 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A rocket attack in the vicinity of Baghdad's Green Zone has killed two Iraqi civilians and wounded at least five others, U.S. military and hospital sources said.

Three rockets were launched, one of them hitting inside the zone, which serves as the U.S.-led coalition's headquarters.

A U.S. soldier was slightly wounded, the sources said.

The other rockets landed near Baghdad's fairgrounds and Iraq's Foreign Ministry, just outside the zone.

Figures differed about the number of Iraqis wounded. Iraqi hospital sources said nine Iraqis were wounded while the Coalition Press Information Center said five Iraqis were wounded.

Also Sunday, a U.S. soldier was shot and killed in a non-combat incident that took place while soldiers were preparing for patrol, the coalition said. The soldier was from the 1st Infantry Division, based in Samarra, about 70 miles north of Baghdad.

Sunday is a holiday in Iraq, and Iraqi officials have asked citizens not to gather in large groups for security reasons.

Saturday night, insurgents launched at least five rockets on a U.S. military position in Fallujah, killing two soldiers and wounding six other troops, a U.S. military spokesman said.

Five soldiers and one sailor were among the wounded in the incident, which happened around 7 p.m. (11 a.m. ET), the spokesman said.

European Union President Romano Prodi on Sunday cautioned Americans not to "confuse terrorism with the Iraqi war" in their assessment of Europe's reactions to U.S. foreign policy.

Speaking on 'Fox News Sunday," Prodi said the war in Iraq "was a mistake."

He called it "a break" in a political strategy "of trying to make things better."

"I don't think the fight against terrorism is better because of the war in Iraq," Prodi said. "Clearly, it is not."

Anti-war protesters held rallies around the world this weekend to mark the anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Thousands of Sunni and Shiite Muslims rallied in Baghdad on Friday.

In the United States, rallies were held in Los Angeles, California; Fayetteville, North Carolina; and Crawford, Texas, where President Bush has a ranch.

Demonstrators against the Iraq war also gathered in England, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Australia. (Full story)

In Cairo, Egypt, protesters burned a U.S. flag and called Bush a liar, while thousands of demonstrators braved a downpour in Tokyo, Japan, to express their displeasure with the U.S.-led effort. Some carried signs depicting the Statue of Liberty about to launch a missile.

Protesters carried signs in London, England, calling Bush the "world's worst terrorist" and labeling Prime Minister Tony Blair a "Bliar." Two protesters scaled Big Ben, then stood for hours just beneath the face of the clock tower with a sign reading "Time for Truth."

In Rome, Italy, demonstrators set off colorful smoke flares at the residence of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Despite the rallies, the chief architect of the war stood firm on Saturday.

U.S. President George W. Bush defended the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, during his weekly radio address.

"The liberation of Iraq was good for the Iraqi people, good for America and good for the world," the president said Saturday.

Bush said "violent thugs and murderers" were at work in Iraq, but said the war's result was that "the worst regime in the region was given way to what will soon be among the best."

In addition to the two soldiers killed Saturday night, there were three other U.S. deaths Friday, according to the coalition: a Marine died from hostile fire in western Iraq; a 1st Infantry Division soldier died of injuries received in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle accident in Baji Wednesday that also killed another soldier; and a 1st Infantry Division soldier was electrocuted while working on communications equipment north of Ba'qubah.

With the deaths, 578 U.S. forces have died in the year-long Iraq war -- 392 from hostile fire, 186 from non-hostile incidents.

Of those, 439 have died since May 1, when U.S. President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat -- 277 from hostile fire, 162 from non-hostile incidents.

CNN's Sally Holland, Jane Arraf, Walter Rodgers and Kianne Sadeq contributed to this report.”

“SPOKANE, Washington (AP) -- A Bush administration official criticized the jeweler Tiffany & Co. on Thursday after the company publicly opposed plans for a silver and copper mine beneath a wilderness area in Montana.

Tiffany officials paid for an open letter published Thursday in The Washington Post that asked Forest Service chief Dale Bosworth to block the mine's construction. The mine would require boring three miles under the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area near the Montana-Idaho border.

Mark Rey, an undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture, said the letter signed by Tiffany's chief executive was filled with errors, though he declined to say what they were.

Mining interests also criticized Tiffany, suggesting the company was responding to threats of boycotts of its jewelry from environmentalists opposed to the projects.

The Forest Service approved the mine in June, but nine environmental groups have sued to stop construction, saying the mine would hurt grizzly bears and bull trout in the area.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/25/tiffany.mine.ap/index.html

*”

“By Craig Welch
Seattle Times staff reporter


ELAINE THOMPSON / AP
Chinook salmon hatchlings swim in a tank at the Issaquah Salmon Hatchery in Issaquah. The Bush administration intends to count fish produced in hatcheries when deciding whether fish runs deserve federal Endangered Species Act protection.

But the policy shift flabbergasted environmentalists, who argued that it ignores decades of evidence that hatchery fish — often reared from eggs taken from fish native to different rivers — are distinct from their wild brethren.

"It's a downright zany idea," said Chris Wood of Trout Unlimited, a former Clinton administration official. "The idea that artificially raised fish are the same as those raised in a healthy productive stream is a dramatic departure from 30 years of well-established science."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001916458_salmon30m.html”

“ELAINE THOMPSON / AP
Chinook salmon hatchlings swim in a tank at the Issaquah Salmon Hatchery in Issaquah. The Bush administration intends to count fish produced in hatcheries when deciding whether fish runs deserve federal Endangered Species Act protection.

E-mail this article
Print this article
Search archive
Most e-mailed articles


Related stories
Ban on killing wild steelhead reconsidered; hearing due


A major policy shift by the Bush administration to count millions of hatchery fish — often reared in trays or concrete pools — alongside wild salmon could lead to the removal of Endangered Species Act protections from several Washington salmon runs.”

“Private property rights: In Florida, a win. In San Diego, a loss.
Neal Boortz
April 30, 2004

I can’t remember who first issued the warning, but they were more on-target than they would ever know. No man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session. If quotes won Pulitzers, this one would qualify. Make it a Nobel.

Let’s add the United States Supreme Court to this list of entities dangerous to the basic concepts of liberty and to your property rights. In 1795 the Supreme Court described the power of eminent domain as “the despotic power.” Things change. In the mid-1990s the Supreme Court opened a floodgate of government abuse of private property rights with its interpretation of the “public use” restriction on government seizures of private property contained in the Fifth Amendment. The Supremes essentially said that any use of private property that could in any way benefit the public legitimizes the seizure of that property from its rightful owner, including the general catch-all of increasing tax revenue.

Since the date of that Supreme Court evisceration of private property rights, local governments have engaged in an orgy of land seizures, often at the behest of private developers, for projects that in no real sense constitute a “public use.”

For an example let’s pay a quick visit to San Diego’s popular Gaslamp District. There we will find Ahmed Mesdaq’s Gran Havana Cigar Shop and Coffeehouse. Mesdaq has owned his business in the Gaslamp District for 13 years. He recently spent $2.5 million to purchase and renovate his current location. Someone else, though, has their eyes on Mesdaq’s property. A private developer named GRH LLC wants to build a Marriott Renaissance Hotel on the site of Mesdaq’s business. They have tried to buy his property, but Mesdaq says no. He likes his location, he just spent big bucks renovating it, and he wants to stay there. He feels that he can’t find another suitable location in the district for the price that has been offered. That should be the end of the story. Sadly, it’s not.

Enter the San Diego City Council. On April 27th the city council voted to take Mesdaq’s land away from him and hand it over the GRH. The council decided that a nice 334-room Marriott on that property is more to their liking than a cigar and coffee shop because the hotel will generate more in property taxes. Mesdaq will be paid a “fair” amount for his property. “Fair,” as determined by the city council, not the free marketplace. Mesdaq will essentially be out of business.

How many members of the San Diego City Council actually managed to stand up for the concept of private property rights? Just one. The vote on the seizure was 8 to 1. Nice going, San Diego.

Eminent domain abuse is epidemic across America in the wake of the hideous SCOTUS decision. In Alabaster, Alabama 12 landowners are being forced out of their homes to make way for a Wall Mart.

The Alabaster city council wanted the sales tax revenue that the superstore would generate. You would be surprised to learn how many cases of eminent domain abuse across the country involve Wall Marts, though they certainly aren’t alone when it comes to using government to avoid the free market.

While there’s bad news for property rights in San Diego this week, there’s good news in Florida. Earlier this week Florida residents were alerted by talk radio to a set of bills moving through the Florida House and Senate. These bills, if passed, would allow local municipalities and counties to seize private property and turn it over to private developers for office buildings, shopping centers, bowling alleys, automobile dealerships, apartment complexes or virtually any private use.

The owner of the seized property would, again, be paid a “fair” price for his property … using the government’s definition of “fair,” not the property owner’s. The anti-property rights bill was on the fast track for passage by the end of the week. Developers and city governments were licking their chops.

For many, the American dream is to own real estate. The majority of Americans who manage to build a million-dollar net worth do so through investments in real estate. The methodology is simple.

You figure out where people are going, then you get there before they do and buy a piece of real estate that you think will appreciate in value when the hoard arrives. You then wait until someone else wants that real estate more than you do, and is willing to pay you a handsome profit.

Developers aren’t particularly fond of this system. They don’t like paying some private land owner a million dollars for a piece of property he bought ten years ago for one-tenth that amount. This eminent domain law in Florida would have changed all that. Instead of going to the individual property owners to negotiate a price, developers would simply have identified the property they want to their local politicians. The politicians, with visions of more tax revenue rattling in their political skulls, would begin the condemnation process while the developer counts the money he saved by circumventing the free market.

Well … It didn’t work. Tuesday morning Florida residents were flooding legislative offices with emails and telephone calls. By Tuesday afternoon some legislative sponsors of the bill were withdrawing their support. By Wednesday evening the bill was dead, with all mentions of eminent domain removed. In Florida, at least for the time being, private developers will still have to negotiate with property owners to purchase property.

Meanwhile, in San Diego, Ahmed Mesdaq wonders why GRH isn’t negotiating with him any further over the purchase of his property. It’s simple. GRH has a new business partner – government – a partner can use force to simply take the property. With a partner like that, why negotiate?

By the way … the Marriott folks should be ashamed.


Neal Boortz is a lawyer and nationally syndicated radio talk show host.”

“More Senate Judiciary Committee Chicanery
David Limbaugh
April 30, 2004

Senator Charles Schumer and his leftist colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee have reached a new low in suggesting that President Bush is being divisive by appointing his political allies to the bench.

Every president is entitled and expected to appoint to the bench those who share his worldview. The nominee's party affiliation is not a legitimate reason for the other party to oppose confirmation unless, perhaps, it will lead him to judicial activism on the bench. But in such cases it's not his party affiliation but his activism that makes him objectionable.

The irony is that conservatives, as a matter of principle, generally reject judicial activism. That is, they believe that judges should interpret rather than make laws. Conservative appointees are far less likely to impose their ideology through judicial "legislation." (Please, liberals, don't trot out Bush v. Gore here.)

It is liberals, like Schumer, who support liberal judicial activists for the bench because they believe the end justifies the means. Indeed, for years the Left was upfront about its intention to use the courts to further its policy agenda, since it was unable to do so through democratic processes.

How else would they have succeeded in federalizing abortion "rights"? And they're trying it again with same-sex marriage, beginning with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Consider the audacity of Schumer lecturing President Bush for appointing to the court conservative Republicans who would probably exercise judicial restraint, when the Schumerites would confirm liberal Democrats who would unapologetically engage in judicial activism.

That's why it's a little hard to take Chuck Schumer castigating President Bush for appointing his White House Counsel Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. "If President Bush wanted to unite us, would he nominate Brett Kavanaugh?" a pseudo-incredulous Schumer asked, oozing with indignation.

Wrong question, Senator. Judicial appointments are not designed to bring harmony to Washington. Besides, Bush can hardly be accused of divisiveness for doing what all presidents do and are supposed to do. You, Senator, are the one being divisive, by opposing judicial nominations for purely partisan reasons. If it's harmony you want, quit your posturing and honor your constitutional duty to confirm qualified nominees.

There is no requirement that a judicial nominee have a history of nonpartisanship as a condition to serving on the court. In fact, shouldn't we be skeptical about anyone seeking such an appointment who doesn't have strong political convictions?

Almost every judicial nominee worth his salt will have a partisan background or ideological history. But Mr. Kavanaugh's presumed partisanship is more transparent because, unlike many nominees, he is not currently on the bench where his politics would be below the radar.

Surely Schumer doesn't intend to invoke some new rule that only sitting judges (or nonpartisan private sector lawyers) are eligible for judicial appointment and that officials serving in the other two branches of government (or partisan private sector lawyers) need not apply.

What the judiciary committee ought to consider are the appointee's character and qualifications. No one is disputing that Yale Law School graduate Kavanaugh has stellar legal credentials. The problem is that he has been working closely with President Bush, and in particular advising him on other judicial appointments. That, according to his pristine opponents, makes him unacceptably partisan.

These people hold grudges. It became clear in their grilling of Kavanaugh that their primary beef with him was not his own judicial background, but his participation in supporting other Bush judicial nominees that these obstructionists opposed.

The Schumer doctrine appears to be, "we obstructionists will not only usurp the presidential appointment power, we'll disqualify anyone who gets in our way. We'll even blacklist those who helped the president exercise his constitutional prerogative to appoint like-minded judges."

It is difficult to overstate the chutzpah of Charles Schumer and his unmerry band of obstructionists in criticizing President Bush and Brett Kavanaugh for their partisanship when these same senators have turned the entire confirmation process into a rank partisan charade. To them the question is not whether a nominee is or has been partisan, but whether he belongs to the acceptable party.

I could better handle the liberals' refusal to be fair and honorable on judicial appointments if they would admit they treat the judiciary as the third political branch that they intend to fill with liberal activists. But just as with so many other things, as a cynical diversion they accuse the other side of the very sin they're committing. They have no shame.”

“By the time your kids are adults the Spruce-Fir Forest in the Smokies will be gone.

But that's okay, I guess.”

“As you know, sKerry loves to go around criticizing people for driving "gas-guzzling" SUVs. Like most "environmentalists," he blames these vehicles for global warming, destroying the environment and gobbling more of their fair share of gasolene. But ... like most anti-capitalist "environmentalists," it turns out sKerry is a complete hypocrite. He owns an SUV himself!

But wait...it actually gets better. When confronted by a reporter in Houston (on Earth Day, no less) and asked whether or not he owned an SUV, Kerry replied "I don't own an SUV." Kerry was then asked whether or not his wife owned a Chevrolet SUV. His response? "The family has it. I don't have it." You've got to be kidding me....he's actually blaming his wife for driving the gas guzzler! I'm sure she really appreciated that. And what about that big Suburban Kerry tools around in on the campaign trail? How about that?

Like most eco-radical enviro-phonies, Kerry doesn't practice what he preaches. He lives in big mansions that use large amounts of energy, drives big cars and big boats and has an SUV. Then he actually gets up there and tries to act like a holier-than-thou environmental advocate -- while passing the buck to his wife!

Maybe the Secret Service should shuttle sKerry around in a Toyota Prius instead to cut down on harmful emissions.”

“2004

03/19/04 -- BLM okays energy exploration in sensitive Utah lands
02/27/04 -- More drilling slated for Padre Island
02/13/04 -- EPA promises more security, less information on industrial facilities
02/13/04 -- EPA lets power plants pollute Theodore Roosevelt National Park
01/30/04 -- EPA's mercury pollution plan mirrors industry's recommendations
01/23/04 -- Forest Service to boost logging in Appalachian forests
01/23/04 -- Forest Service drops "survey and manage" rule for loggers
01/09/04 -- Pentagon to seek more environmental exemptions
01/09/04 -- Forest Service curtails logging appeals process


2003

12/05/03 -- BLM wants to weaken grazing protections to help livestock industry
11/14/03 -- Bush administration seeks increase in use of ozone-depleting pesticide
10/31/03 -- EPA tricks public, treats industry on dangerous pesticide
10/17/03 -- EPA will not regulate dioxins from sewage sludge
10/10/03 -- New EPA dam proposal threatens salmon
10/10/03 -- EPA further delays long overdue Clean Water Act enforcement upgrade
09/12/03 -- Private contractors to determine endangered species' future
08/08/03 -- Bush administration offers to double logging in Northwest
07/18/03 -- Bush asks Supreme Court to overturn roadless protections
06/20/03 -- DOD reneges on plan to test for perchlorate pollution at U.S. bases
05/30/03 -- White House buries mountaintop mining regulation
05/30/03 -- White House forest-fire plan axes environmental protections
05/30/03 -- Park Service opens Maryland seashore to Jet Skis
05/23/03 -- BLM opens fragile dunes ecosystem to off-road recreation
05/23/03 -- Bush administration cuts wildlife protection, boosts logging in Northwest forests
04/25/03 -- White House says "ready, aim, shoot" on wilderness
04/11/03 -- Bush administration rolls back wilderness protections
02/28/03 -- Bush administration rejects wilderness protection in Alaska's Tongass
02/07/03 -- Bush administration pushing for pesticide exemptions from international environmental treaty
01/31/03 -- New EPA air rules for ocean vessels too weak
01/10/03 -- Despite scientific concerns, Interior Department approves power plant near Yellowstone
01/03/03 -- Forest Service loosens logging restrictions for small-scale projects


2002

11/22/02 -- EPA proposes weakening of Clean Air Act
11/22/02 -- Bush administration opens national park to drilling
11/01/02 -- Bush officials suppress science on Klamath River policy
10/25/02 -- U.S. EPA fails to meet deadline for handing over air documents to Senate
10/04/02 -- BLM approves oil and gas drilling in Utah
09/27/02 -- Bush administration revives controversial California gold mine
09/13/02 -- EPA backs off issuing strong antipollution standards for off-road vehicles
08/23/02 -- Bush administration abandons California water plan
07/26/02 -- Bush uses national security to gain corporate secrecy and immunity
07/19/02 -- Bush administration opposes renewable energy requirement
06/07/02 -- Bush administration refuses to crack down on diesel pollution
05/24/02 -- Bush administration lets construction companies off the hook for protecting environment
05/10/02 -- Bush administration agency secretly fights mine reforms
05/03/02 -- Corps of Engineers' plan threatens to pollute Florida Everglades
05/03/02 -- EPA to let mining industry dump waste in waterways
04/19/02 -- Bush administration ousts top global warming scientist
04/12/02 -- Forest Service wants to circumvent environmental laws
04/05/02 -- Bush administration scales back habitat protection for endangered butterfly
03/29/02 -- BLM proposal could doom California dunes
03/29/02 -- Forest Service reverses mine approval
03/29/02 -- Pentagon seeks exemption from environmental laws
03/15/02 -- Gas drilling returns to Padre Island National Seashore
02/22/02 -- BLM rule could block federal land protection
02/15/02 -- National Forest in Missouri opened to drilling
02/15/02 -- Bush backs Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste dump
01/18/02 -- Coming Soon: More logging in the Pacific Northwest


2001

12/14/01 -- USFS guts protections for undeveloped forest lands
12/14/01 -- DOE weakens standards for Yucca nuclear storage
11/02/01 -- Corps of Engineers ignores "no net loss" wetlands policy
09/07/01 -- Bush backing away from pledge to clean up federal facilities
08/17/01 -- Bush administration appeals federal judge's decision to ban drilling off California's coast
07/13/01 -- Bush outlines an 'all talk, no action' approach to global warming
06/15/01 -- BLM upholds "non-controversial" portion of hard rock mining rules
05/04/01 -- Bush launches a "sneak attack" on the Roadless Area Conservation Plan
03/30/01 -- Bush administration suspends "the contractor responsibility rule"
03/16/01 -- Bush administration seeks to roll back Roadless Area Conservation Plan
03/09/01 -- President nominates J. Steven Griles as deputy secretary of Interior


Enjoy!

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/fridays.asp”

“1990; tilt lives in wood framed house.

1991; tilt used wooden pencils and wrote on paper, stolen from trees in a surprize attack.

1992; tilt camped and hiked in a national forrest and enjoyed his time there.

1993; tilt used toilet paper almost the entire year...


1994; tilt continued to drive hi vehicle, powered by gasoline which was refined from oil taken from a well”

“I think you can read.

By anyone's standard Bush is a disaster. He was a wreck waiting to happen. The only thing we didn't know was how big a wreck he could be --- and I think he's exceeded all expectations in that regard.”

“Yet another high ranking EPA official quit last week to "spend more time with her family".

I wonder why all this talented people decide their jobs aren't fulfilling anymore.”

“this these”

“2004:
stratdewd played his maple-neck guitar thus depriving maple sugar freaks of their fix.

Where's the integrity, man?”

“rosewood sucks!”

“With electric guitars, you can make the whole thing out of plastic and it won't make a bit of difference, LOL

Strat with an oil by-product guitar --- powered by the burning of sulphur-laden bituminous coal.

Hmmmm?”

“Plastic???

You moron!

If it ain't wood, it ain't a guitar.

Rosewood may suck up the sweat, but the mellow sound of a rosewood board is nice to have in your arsenal of axes.”

“I thought you might have an opinion on the subject, LOLOLOLOLOL”

“stratdewd don't like rosewood......freakin' commie bastard!!!”

“i played ales paul a couple weeks ago that i rekon i could get used to if i had to.....

meanwhile, back at the ranch....

April 27, 2004, 9:23 a.m.
Whole Lotta Hot Air
The truth about Superfund.

By Sam Dealey

Earth Day came and went last week, and despite the most dire predictions of the Green Lobby, the overwhelming majority of Americans are still breathing. To hear many of the environmental activists over the last week, this is no thanks to the Bush administration, which evidently has gutted eco-friendly funding.

"When it comes to the environment, the current administration has routinely put polluting special interests before the public interest," said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth Action, in a typical statement. "At a time when 40 percent of our nation's waters are still too polluted for fishing and swimming, when 30,000 Americans die prematurely each year due to air pollution and when hundreds of toxic waste sites threaten our communities, our nation simply cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush."

Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) spells it out even more clearly. "George Bush Passed The Burden Of Cleaning Toxic Sites From Polluters to Taxpayers," he says on his website, in capital and bolded letters.

But in the case of funding toxic-chemical cleanups — the so-called Superfund, a perennial favorite of the environmental lobby — this turns out not to be true. Consider the two issues at stake: Who pays, and how much?

Until nine years ago, the Superfund was maintained by three separate taxes. Two were fees levied respectively on barrels of petroleum and other toxic chemicals. The third was a relatively small tax levied on all corporations making more than $2 million, regardless of whether those companies used toxic chemicals. Those taxes expired in 1995, and though nominally pushed by President Clinton, were not renewed by the GOP-controlled Congress. Thus far, Bush's great sin is in not raising the issue again.

And with good reason. Far from whacking corporate America, those fees and taxes only hurt consumers, to whom the financial burden was passed in the form of higher prices at gas stations and stores. Since the various taxes expiration in 1995, money to fund toxic-pollutant cleanups has simply come from general tax revenues.

And contrary to the claims of environmental activists, it's Republicans who seem best at funding these cleanups.

At first glance, the Green Lobby appears to have a point. In 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration, inflation-adjusted Superfund appropriations totaled $1.5 billion — $231 million, or 15 percent, more than last year's amount. Overall, Superfund appropriations under Clinton averaged $1.6 billion per year, whereas under Bush they have averaged just $1.3 billion. That sounds an awful lot like the nasty Republicans have been gutting environmental cleanup.

But a closer look at those inflation-adjusted funding levels tells a different story. In 1992, for example, the Democratic-controlled Congress and President George H. W. Bush appropriated $2.038 billion for Superfund. In 1993, when Clinton took office, that same firmly Democratic Congress allotted $1.858 billion — a nine-percent cut from the previous year. In 1994, the cuts were more severe. Democrats appropriated $1.634 billion, a 12-percent reduction from the previous year.

With the arrival of the GOP Revolution in 1995, Superfund cuts slowed to six percent, and even went up in 1996 and 1997, by four and 6 percent, respectively. The last three years of Clinton's presidency saw further erosion of funds, at 4.5, 9.2 and 10.7 percent.

All in all, from the last year of the elder Bush's administration to the last year of Clinton's, appropriations for Superfund fell by a whopping 34.5 percent.

Surprisingly, funding under the current administration for the program looks positively Democratic. In 2001, Bush's first year, the Republican Congress added .3 percent to the program. In 2002 and 2003, cuts totaled 5.6 and .6 percent, respectively, over the previous year's funding levels. From the last year of Clinton's administration to the current Bush funding level, appropriations for Superfund have declined by 5.9 percent.

But even that number is deceptive. Beginning with 2001 appropriations, Congress spun off two programs whose budget lumped in with the overall Superfund appropriations and funded them separately. Add that money into the mix — for Brownfields cleanups and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR/NIEHS) — and funding for toxic-waste cleanup under Bush rises substantially. Indeed, appropriations last year totaled $1.59 billion — just a hair under Clinton's average of $1.6 billion, and considerably more than his last years in office.

None of this, of course, should excuse serious toxic contamination by the government, corporations, and communities. But that same censure should also apply to politicians and partisans who seek to pollute the public debate on this serious issue in an election year.

— Sam Dealey is a writer in Washington, D.C.”

“You're going to choke on that.”

“But what does stratdewd think?”

“Can you use the words "Stratdewd" and "think" in the same sentence? (joke)”

“hardy har har....


you are starving for the truth. go into the light....GO INTO THE LIGHT! the light is goood, it will lead you hooooome.....go intoooo the liiiiiiight......”

“And he was on the record too!.....


"In a desperate bid to ram through his corporate-pandering, pollution-spewing, totally nonconstructive energy bill, Bush took the risk of lying on record today. He claimed to reporters that if his energy bill had been passed in 2001 that the US would now have the oil it needed, in large part because ANWR oil would be flowing. But "The best U.S. Geological Survey estimate is that less than a six-month supply of oil could be economically recovered from ANWR - about 3.2 billion barrels...- and that it would take at least 10 years of exploration, drilling and pipeline construction before the oil would reach refineries. In its peak year of production -- 2027 -- the Arctic refuge would yield less than 2 percent of projected U.S. consumption in that year. "
--Democrats.com”

“EPA Relied on Industry for Plywood Plant Pollution Rule

By Alan C. Miller and Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writers


WASHINGTON — Pushing aside new scientific studies of possible health risks, the Environmental Protection Agency approved an air pollution regulation this year that could save the wood products industry hundreds of millions of dollars.

In doing so, the agency relied on a risk assessment generated by a chemical industry-funded think tank, and a novel legal approach recommended by a timber industry lawyer. The regulation was ushered through the agency by senior officials with previous ties to the timber and chemical industries.

continued...”

“WASHINGTON — The volume of toxic pollutants released into the environment in the United States rose 5 percent in 2002, the first increase since 1997, the government reported Tuesday.

Those two years are the only ones to show an increase since the Environmental Protection Agency began keeping track of the billions of pounds of pollution under a 1986 law. In 1997, the increase was 6 percent.

Even with the most recent rise - a dramatic turnaround from the 13 percent decline in 2001 - environmentalists say the EPA is still letting industry underreport the amount of air pollution by 330 million pounds a year.

Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., a senior member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the pollution count shows the Bush administration is largely ignoring environmental protection.

"It's no wonder that polluters feel free to increase their toxic releases of mercury, lead and other hazardous substances," he said. "This just proves that the policies of the Bush administration have moved us backward, not forward, on the environment."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/headlines/D83CG9800.html”