Chicago Friday, August 15, 2008
Governor Rick Perry
Your Tuesday, August 12, 2008 Wall Street Journal OpEd "Texas Is Fed Up With Corn Ethanol" is refreshingly clear and understandable, in contrast to the usual blarney put out on the subject by the Washington Bureaucrats. Even those attributes are multiplied considering your direct knowledge and responsibility in the area.
I do wonder why we hear so rarely about attributes of the subject that influence it more than any other:
Biofuels come from only a 2-dimensional space, the surface of the earth, and only 1/3 of that not covered by salt water. And that is further limited by corn's inability to grow just anywhere. Oil on the other hand comes from a 3-dimensional space, all that's under the surface of the earth, and the entire surface, covered by water or not. The depth of that space is ultimately limited to 4,000 miles, but so far we've only tried the first eight miles, and that in only a very few locations.
Brilliant geoligists are constantly working to predict the best places to try, but I think even they would agree that the final, and absolute, proof of the existence of oil anywhere in that space is drilling a hole that results in oil coming out.
Of course, biofuels are said to be 'renewable.' But how often?Pretty much only annually, and corn especially, is effectivly less than even that, requiring rotation with other crops to avoid exhausting the ground. Oil is assumed to be 'exhaustable', but considering the number of places where we've proved it is or isn't compared to the places we've left to look, for all practical purposes it is as good as renewable.
Arnold H Nelson
Friday, August 15, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Texas Governor Rick Perry on biofuels
Wednesday, August 13, 2008 10:41 AM
From: "Arnold Nelson" <ah_nelson@yahoo.com>
To: "WSJ Letters" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>
Chicago, Wednesday AM, August 13, 2008
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople: Texas Governor Rick Perry's Tuesday, August 12, 2008 Wall Street Journal OpEd "Texas Is Fed Up With Corn Ethanol" is refreshingly clear and understandable, in contrast to the usual blarney put out on the subject by the Washington Bureaucrats. Even those attributes are multiplied considering his direct knowledge and responsibility in the area.
It makes me wonder why we hear so rarely about attributes of the subject that influence it more than any other: Biofuels come from only a 2-dimensional space, the surface of the earth, and only 1/3 of that not covered by salt water. And that is further limited by corn's inability to grow just anywhere. Oil on the other hand comes from a 3-dimensional space, all that's under the surface of the earth, and the entire surface, covered by water or not. The depth of that space is ultimately limited to 4,000 miles, but so far we've only tried the first eight miles, and that in only a very few locations. Brilliant geologists are constantly working to predict the best places to try, but I think even they would agree that the final, absolute, proof of oil existence anywhere in that space is drilling a hole that results in oil coming out.
Also, biofuels are said to be 'renewable.' But how often? Pretty much only annually, and corn especially is effectively less than even that, requiring rotation with other crops to avoid exhausting the soil. Oil is assumed to be 'exhaustible', but considering the number of places where we've proved it is or isn't compared to the places we've left to look, for all practical purposes it is as good as renewable.
Arnold H. Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
From: "Arnold Nelson" <ah_nelson@yahoo.com>
To: "WSJ Letters" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>
Chicago, Wednesday AM, August 13, 2008
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Gentlepeople: Texas Governor Rick Perry's Tuesday, August 12, 2008 Wall Street Journal OpEd "Texas Is Fed Up With Corn Ethanol" is refreshingly clear and understandable, in contrast to the usual blarney put out on the subject by the Washington Bureaucrats. Even those attributes are multiplied considering his direct knowledge and responsibility in the area.
It makes me wonder why we hear so rarely about attributes of the subject that influence it more than any other: Biofuels come from only a 2-dimensional space, the surface of the earth, and only 1/3 of that not covered by salt water. And that is further limited by corn's inability to grow just anywhere. Oil on the other hand comes from a 3-dimensional space, all that's under the surface of the earth, and the entire surface, covered by water or not. The depth of that space is ultimately limited to 4,000 miles, but so far we've only tried the first eight miles, and that in only a very few locations. Brilliant geologists are constantly working to predict the best places to try, but I think even they would agree that the final, absolute, proof of oil existence anywhere in that space is drilling a hole that results in oil coming out.
Also, biofuels are said to be 'renewable.' But how often? Pretty much only annually, and corn especially is effectively less than even that, requiring rotation with other crops to avoid exhausting the soil. Oil is assumed to be 'exhaustible', but considering the number of places where we've proved it is or isn't compared to the places we've left to look, for all practical purposes it is as good as renewable.
Arnold H. Nelson
5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Will Obama be "at least a competent president"?
Chicago, Wednesday AM, July 23, 2008
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Your OpEds are the best in the business, never more than when they include Mr. Shelby Steele. There was more information in his Tuesday, July 22, piece 'Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama' on Barack Obama than anywhere else since he began his run for president.
Deep in the middle of this article is a thought I have not seen anywhere else: "... an Obama presidency might nudge the culture forward a bit -- presuming ... he would be at least a competent president. (A less-than-competent black president would likely be a step backwards.)"
Barack Obama is the least prepared, most inexperienced and under educated candidate for US president or Vice President in history. His most significant work experience is eight years in the Illinois State Senate, a job requiring less management talent that a Chicago Bears third string jock strap attendant, without the responsibility. And if he'd been 100% white he'd never even have got that gig.
Next on his Curriculum Vitae is "Neighborhood activist", a Chicago euphemism for junior precinct captain, itself a euphemism for an errand creature who is given a list of voters every two years, and is told: "If any of these people don't vote, you're outahere, pal!!!"
Obama has a hardly used Harvard Law Degree, teaching Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, as Clinton at the University of Arkansas. Clinton went on to get elected state Attorney General, elected and reelected Governor of his state. OBama? See Chicago Bears attendant above.
For all of John McCain's problems with teleprompters, Obama cannot speak without one. Listen to one of his off the cuff public speeches, he says more 'uhs', 'ums' and 'ya knos' than a class of third graders. Ronald Reagan learned to speak as an actor, but practiced management by being elected and re-elected Governor of the nation's largest state.
It's unfortunate that so many prominent American blacks are so impressed with Obama - the absolutely brilliant and super educated Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, recently said "it's a remarkable accomplishment" that a black politician is on track for his party's presidential nomination.
Obama's election as President will be no less embarrassing for all concerned than the election of any run-of-the-mill far left fringe Democrat politician. Presuming Obama would be at least a competent president is a mighty big presumption if you expect to "nudge the culture forward a bit."
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Editors, Wall Street Journal
Your OpEds are the best in the business, never more than when they include Mr. Shelby Steele. There was more information in his Tuesday, July 22, piece 'Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama' on Barack Obama than anywhere else since he began his run for president.
Deep in the middle of this article is a thought I have not seen anywhere else: "... an Obama presidency might nudge the culture forward a bit -- presuming ... he would be at least a competent president. (A less-than-competent black president would likely be a step backwards.)"
Barack Obama is the least prepared, most inexperienced and under educated candidate for US president or Vice President in history. His most significant work experience is eight years in the Illinois State Senate, a job requiring less management talent that a Chicago Bears third string jock strap attendant, without the responsibility. And if he'd been 100% white he'd never even have got that gig.
Next on his Curriculum Vitae is "Neighborhood activist", a Chicago euphemism for junior precinct captain, itself a euphemism for an errand creature who is given a list of voters every two years, and is told: "If any of these people don't vote, you're outahere, pal!!!"
Obama has a hardly used Harvard Law Degree, teaching Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, as Clinton at the University of Arkansas. Clinton went on to get elected state Attorney General, elected and reelected Governor of his state. OBama? See Chicago Bears attendant above.
For all of John McCain's problems with teleprompters, Obama cannot speak without one. Listen to one of his off the cuff public speeches, he says more 'uhs', 'ums' and 'ya knos' than a class of third graders. Ronald Reagan learned to speak as an actor, but practiced management by being elected and re-elected Governor of the nation's largest state.
It's unfortunate that so many prominent American blacks are so impressed with Obama - the absolutely brilliant and super educated Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, recently said "it's a remarkable accomplishment" that a black politician is on track for his party's presidential nomination.
Obama's election as President will be no less embarrassing for all concerned than the election of any run-of-the-mill far left fringe Democrat politician. Presuming Obama would be at least a competent president is a mighty big presumption if you expect to "nudge the culture forward a bit."
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Chicago, Illinois USA Tuesday PM, July 22, 2008
Editors, UK Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
In his Tuesday, July 22 column 'Obama for commander-in-chief' Gideon Rachman asks "why is Barack Obama just four points ahead in the polls?" Obama is the least prepared and most inexperienced candidate for US president or Vice President in history. His most significant work experience is eight years in the Illinois State Senate, a job requiring less management talent that a Chicago Bears 3rd string jock strap attendant, without the responsibility.
Obama's second biggest career move was "neighborhood activist, " a Chicago euphemism for junior precinct captain, itself a euphemism for an errand creature who gets a list of voters every two years, and is told: "If any of these people don't vote, you're outahere, pal!!!"
Obama has a hardly used Harvard Law Degree, McCain used his service academy commission for 20 years, flying in combat, and oh yeah, 4 years as POW. And you want the Harvard grad to be CinC? Obama taught Law at the University of Chicago, as Clinton at the University of Arkansas. Clinton went on to get elected state Attorney General, elected and reelected Governor of his state. OBama? See Chicago Bears attendant, above.
For all of John McCain's problems with teleprompters, Obama cannot speak without one. Listen to one of his off the cuff public speeches, he says more 'uhs', 'ums' and 'ya knos' than a class of third graders. Ronald Reagan learned to speak as an actor, but practiced management by being elected and re-elected Governor of the nation's largest state (60% of population, and 90% of GDP, of the UK.)
It's unfortunate that so many prominent, accomplished American blacks are so impressed with Obama - the absolutely brilliant and super educated Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, recently said "it's a remarkable accomplishment" that a black politician is on track for his party's presidential nomination.
Obama's election as President will be no less embarrassing than the election of any run-of-the-mill far left fringe Democrat politician. The question is not why Obama is 'only' four points ahead of McCain - why was he even nominated? Answer: If he'd been 100% white, he'd have trouble getting that Chicago Bears comparable position, AKA Illinois State Senator.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago, IL USA
Editors, UK Financial Times
Gentlepeople:
In his Tuesday, July 22 column 'Obama for commander-in-chief' Gideon Rachman asks "why is Barack Obama just four points ahead in the polls?" Obama is the least prepared and most inexperienced candidate for US president or Vice President in history. His most significant work experience is eight years in the Illinois State Senate, a job requiring less management talent that a Chicago Bears 3rd string jock strap attendant, without the responsibility.
Obama's second biggest career move was "neighborhood activist, " a Chicago euphemism for junior precinct captain, itself a euphemism for an errand creature who gets a list of voters every two years, and is told: "If any of these people don't vote, you're outahere, pal!!!"
Obama has a hardly used Harvard Law Degree, McCain used his service academy commission for 20 years, flying in combat, and oh yeah, 4 years as POW. And you want the Harvard grad to be CinC? Obama taught Law at the University of Chicago, as Clinton at the University of Arkansas. Clinton went on to get elected state Attorney General, elected and reelected Governor of his state. OBama? See Chicago Bears attendant, above.
For all of John McCain's problems with teleprompters, Obama cannot speak without one. Listen to one of his off the cuff public speeches, he says more 'uhs', 'ums' and 'ya knos' than a class of third graders. Ronald Reagan learned to speak as an actor, but practiced management by being elected and re-elected Governor of the nation's largest state (60% of population, and 90% of GDP, of the UK.)
It's unfortunate that so many prominent, accomplished American blacks are so impressed with Obama - the absolutely brilliant and super educated Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, recently said "it's a remarkable accomplishment" that a black politician is on track for his party's presidential nomination.
Obama's election as President will be no less embarrassing than the election of any run-of-the-mill far left fringe Democrat politician. The question is not why Obama is 'only' four points ahead of McCain - why was he even nominated? Answer: If he'd been 100% white, he'd have trouble getting that Chicago Bears comparable position, AKA Illinois State Senator.
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago, IL USA
Friday, June 27, 2008
Chicago Sun-Times and 2nd amendment
Friday, June 27, 2008 1700 Editors, Chicago Sun-Times
Gentle people:
According to Friday, June 27 Sun-Times articles, many intelligent people are upset with the US Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision. The lead news article is headlined "Court blows away gun ban", and starts out with "Chicago is in the cross hairs of the gun owners rights movement". A second article quotes Mayor Daley saying the decision is "frightening" and harkens "back to the Old West". An editorial says it is a tax on Chicago citizens "to be paid in blood and money."
Why don't these influential Chicago citizens fight this outrageous decision by using the Constitution itself?
The job is half done: just take the 21st amendment "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed", replace "eighteenth" with "second" then follow procedures described in Article Five:
Get it passed by 2/3 majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then get it accepted by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Note all three of these bodies are elected by the people, not appointed by the President. Also note, the President is not needed to repeal an amendment, nor are any unelected judges.
Good luck.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 773-677-3010
Chicago IL Saturday, June 28, 2008 6PM Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
Three letters in the Saturday, June 28 New York Times show confusion about the "archaically written" Second amendment to the US Constitution, what is meant by "a well regulated militia", and "service in the militia." A fourth letter says "This decision is for liberals what Roe was for conservatives."
Justice Scalia goes a little further than the first 13 words of the Second Amendment to address the confusion, starting his majority opinion with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” followed by 1000 words of explanation, concluding with "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."
Unlike Justice Blackmun in 1973, Justice Scalia needed only the words of the 2nd Amendment for his argument, not the penumbra.
But if people don't like this decision, why not fight it using the Constitution itself?
The job is half done: just take the 21st amendment "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed", replace "eighteenth" with "second" then follow procedures described in Article Five:
Get it passed by 2/3 majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then get it accepted by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Note all three of these bodies are elected by the people, neither nominated nor appointed by the President. Also note, the President is not needed to repeal an amendment, nor are any unelected judges.
Good luck.Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Chicago Tuesday, July 1, 2008 Voice of the People Chicago Tribune
Gentle people:
A 1100 word article "Roberts' record on high court defies '05 pledges of centrism" about the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court contains the word 'Constitution' only once ("execution by injection does not violate the Constitution".)
This seems strange since 'Constitution' is 14th word of the Oath Chief Roberts took as Chief Justice, as in "I ... do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States."
But the author spends most of his article blathering on about things like scaling back "the reach of civil rights laws," upholding "the federal ban on ... 'partial-birth' abortion," and limiting "the ability of women to file equal-pay claims."
Has the author ever given any thot to the position of the Supreme Court relative to the other two branches of the federal government, as stated in the Constitution? The most important federal government responsibility, laying, collecting, and spending taxes is given exclusively to the legislature, the branch closest to the people, in Article I; The next most important responsibility, leading the armed forces, is given to the President in Article II, because you can't lead an army by committee.
Not until Article III do you see the Supreme Court. Besides being the last of the first three Articles, it is also the shortest, and compared to the broad responsibilities defined for the legislature and the executive, those of the Supreme Court are quite clearly defined and limited to three kinds of cases and two kinds of controversies.
No mention of interpreting the Constitution, nor deciding if laws passed by the legislature and agreed to by the President are Constitutional. These did not come up until soon after our founding, when Chief Justice John Marshall came up with 'Judicial Review'.
As useful as that constitutionally undocumented power is, it should not have been used in the Dred Scott Decision effectively saying slavery was legal everywhere and forever, nor in Plessey v. Ferguson, that said it was OK to racially segregate public transportation, and certainly not used to roundup and detain 110,000 US citizens of Japanese descent, as FDR did in 1942. And it sure shouldn’t be used to move the final word in the conduct of war from the executive to an unelected committee.
But even the specifically limited responsibilities of the Supreme Court stated in Article III of the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, are concluded: "...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
So much for co-equal branches.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 773-677-3010
Chicago IL Tuesday PM, July 01, 2008 WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
A Tuesday, July 1 letter 'Stopping Hitler Was a Good Thing' remarking on Dorothy Rabinowitz's review "Forget the Good War" of Friday , June 27 shows considerable concern with "those who would rewrite history, particularly the history of the Second World War."
History rewrites don't impress me much either, but second-guessing is something else again. In this some strategic thinking by FDR could have resulted in the most important strategy in centuries: once the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Friday August 25, 1939, was broken with Hitler's invasion of Russia starting on Sunday June 22, 1941, had we stayed out of it completely, siding with neither power, the future would have been drastically improved.
There was no way Germany could defeat Russia, since to do so would require total occupation, and Russia was just to big for Germany to occupy decisively. Similarly, Russia could never defeat the superior war-making capabilities of Hitler - they would have exhausted each other completely, leaving the rest of the world in relative peace.
This would also have been the end of Communism, preventing the Cold War and Communist China.
This would have left FDR able to attend to Japan full time, specifically the prevention/preempting on any surprise attacks.
The one thing this strategy might not have done is get us out of a depression, which FDR was unable to do in 8 years of peace. He realized this, and so did 90% of US voters. Was that worth 419,000 lost US lives? Beyond fodder for hundreds of novels, absolutely irrelevant now, and no amount of rewriting history will change that.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Gentle people:
According to Friday, June 27 Sun-Times articles, many intelligent people are upset with the US Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision. The lead news article is headlined "Court blows away gun ban", and starts out with "Chicago is in the cross hairs of the gun owners rights movement". A second article quotes Mayor Daley saying the decision is "frightening" and harkens "back to the Old West". An editorial says it is a tax on Chicago citizens "to be paid in blood and money."
Why don't these influential Chicago citizens fight this outrageous decision by using the Constitution itself?
The job is half done: just take the 21st amendment "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed", replace "eighteenth" with "second" then follow procedures described in Article Five:
Get it passed by 2/3 majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then get it accepted by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Note all three of these bodies are elected by the people, not appointed by the President. Also note, the President is not needed to repeal an amendment, nor are any unelected judges.
Good luck.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 773-677-3010
Chicago IL Saturday, June 28, 2008 6PM Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
Three letters in the Saturday, June 28 New York Times show confusion about the "archaically written" Second amendment to the US Constitution, what is meant by "a well regulated militia", and "service in the militia." A fourth letter says "This decision is for liberals what Roe was for conservatives."
Justice Scalia goes a little further than the first 13 words of the Second Amendment to address the confusion, starting his majority opinion with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” followed by 1000 words of explanation, concluding with "We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."
Unlike Justice Blackmun in 1973, Justice Scalia needed only the words of the 2nd Amendment for his argument, not the penumbra.
But if people don't like this decision, why not fight it using the Constitution itself?
The job is half done: just take the 21st amendment "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed", replace "eighteenth" with "second" then follow procedures described in Article Five:
Get it passed by 2/3 majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, then get it accepted by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Note all three of these bodies are elected by the people, neither nominated nor appointed by the President. Also note, the President is not needed to repeal an amendment, nor are any unelected judges.
Good luck.Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640
Chicago Tuesday, July 1, 2008 Voice of the People Chicago Tribune
Gentle people:
A 1100 word article "Roberts' record on high court defies '05 pledges of centrism" about the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court contains the word 'Constitution' only once ("execution by injection does not violate the Constitution".)
This seems strange since 'Constitution' is 14th word of the Oath Chief Roberts took as Chief Justice, as in "I ... do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States."
But the author spends most of his article blathering on about things like scaling back "the reach of civil rights laws," upholding "the federal ban on ... 'partial-birth' abortion," and limiting "the ability of women to file equal-pay claims."
Has the author ever given any thot to the position of the Supreme Court relative to the other two branches of the federal government, as stated in the Constitution? The most important federal government responsibility, laying, collecting, and spending taxes is given exclusively to the legislature, the branch closest to the people, in Article I; The next most important responsibility, leading the armed forces, is given to the President in Article II, because you can't lead an army by committee.
Not until Article III do you see the Supreme Court. Besides being the last of the first three Articles, it is also the shortest, and compared to the broad responsibilities defined for the legislature and the executive, those of the Supreme Court are quite clearly defined and limited to three kinds of cases and two kinds of controversies.
No mention of interpreting the Constitution, nor deciding if laws passed by the legislature and agreed to by the President are Constitutional. These did not come up until soon after our founding, when Chief Justice John Marshall came up with 'Judicial Review'.
As useful as that constitutionally undocumented power is, it should not have been used in the Dred Scott Decision effectively saying slavery was legal everywhere and forever, nor in Plessey v. Ferguson, that said it was OK to racially segregate public transportation, and certainly not used to roundup and detain 110,000 US citizens of Japanese descent, as FDR did in 1942. And it sure shouldn’t be used to move the final word in the conduct of war from the executive to an unelected committee.
But even the specifically limited responsibilities of the Supreme Court stated in Article III of the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, are concluded: "...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
So much for co-equal branches.
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 60640 773-677-3010
Chicago IL Tuesday PM, July 01, 2008 WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
A Tuesday, July 1 letter 'Stopping Hitler Was a Good Thing' remarking on Dorothy Rabinowitz's review "Forget the Good War" of Friday , June 27 shows considerable concern with "those who would rewrite history, particularly the history of the Second World War."
History rewrites don't impress me much either, but second-guessing is something else again. In this some strategic thinking by FDR could have resulted in the most important strategy in centuries: once the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Friday August 25, 1939, was broken with Hitler's invasion of Russia starting on Sunday June 22, 1941, had we stayed out of it completely, siding with neither power, the future would have been drastically improved.
There was no way Germany could defeat Russia, since to do so would require total occupation, and Russia was just to big for Germany to occupy decisively. Similarly, Russia could never defeat the superior war-making capabilities of Hitler - they would have exhausted each other completely, leaving the rest of the world in relative peace.
This would also have been the end of Communism, preventing the Cold War and Communist China.
This would have left FDR able to attend to Japan full time, specifically the prevention/preempting on any surprise attacks.
The one thing this strategy might not have done is get us out of a depression, which FDR was unable to do in 8 years of peace. He realized this, and so did 90% of US voters. Was that worth 419,000 lost US lives? Beyond fodder for hundreds of novels, absolutely irrelevant now, and no amount of rewriting history will change that.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Sunday, June 8, 2008
New York Times on Global warming and Al Gore
Chicago IL Sunday, June 8, 2008 6PM
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
An Op-Ed couldn't start out more unequivocally than Charles M. Blow's Saturday, May 31 'Farewell, Fair Weather' with: "We are now firmly ensconced in the Age of Extreme Weather."
Strange, since the rest of the piece is a cornucopia of equivocations: The second sentence: "[T]here have been more than four times as many weather-related disasters in the last 30 years than in the previous 75 years." An accompanying note defines a "weather-related disaster" as fulfilling any one of four criteria: "10 or more people killed, 100 reported affected, declaration of state of emergency, call for international assistance."
Then "The United States has experienced more of those disasters than any other country." Combining that statement with the disaster definition’s 4 points, all involving people, and the fact that the US is the world's third most peopled country... what did you expect?
Mr. Blow continues: "Last year [reports were issued] concluding that 'human influences' (read greenhouse-gas emissions) have 'more likely than not” contributed to this increase. The United States is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse-gas emissions." More likely than not? Equivocation city. Since CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas', and 6 billion people breathe it out every 10 seconds, what will you do with that? The US is 'one of the'...? Equivocation number 3. Maybe you didn't hear the first time: The US is the third most populated country in the world. More equivocations: "Furthermore, a White House report about the effect of global climate change on the United States ... reaffirmed that the situation will probably get worse: In addition to temperature extremes, “precipitation is likely to be less frequent but more intense. It is also likely that future hurricanes will become more intense, with higher peak speeds and more heavy precipitation ... .”Probably, likely, likely, equivocations 4, 5, and 6.
Then an irrelevancy: “In 2005 … the estimated damage from storms in the United States was $121 billion. That is $39 billion more than the 2005 supplemental spending bill to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Does the Times’ style book require Op-Eds make at least one reference to the war?
And: “About $3 billion has been allocated to assist farmers who suffer losses because of droughts, floods and tornadoes among other things.” The 2008 World Almanac says "Total US Government Agricultural Payments" have averaged $16 billion a year for the 4 years 2003-2006 - so what?
A final point: Have the climate change alarmists given any thought to their leader, the guy who won an Oscar, and a Nobel Prize, for his 'work' on climate change? How did he get so influential? Well, he was born into US political royalty, inheriting safe seats in both the House and Senate from his very astute politician father. How about his education? Again, he got into Harvard, but owes a good deal of that good fortune to his lineage. Advanced degrees? Zero! Since he's such a big deal in the ‘science’ of climate change, what's his science education background? Two courses, one something called ‘Man's place in Nature‘ ( he got a ‘D‘ in that.) This mope is a complete fraud, and anyone who follows him should be ashamed of themselves.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL 60640ah_nelson@yahoo.com 773-677-3010
Editors, New York Times
Gentlepeople:
An Op-Ed couldn't start out more unequivocally than Charles M. Blow's Saturday, May 31 'Farewell, Fair Weather' with: "We are now firmly ensconced in the Age of Extreme Weather."
Strange, since the rest of the piece is a cornucopia of equivocations: The second sentence: "[T]here have been more than four times as many weather-related disasters in the last 30 years than in the previous 75 years." An accompanying note defines a "weather-related disaster" as fulfilling any one of four criteria: "10 or more people killed, 100 reported affected, declaration of state of emergency, call for international assistance."
Then "The United States has experienced more of those disasters than any other country." Combining that statement with the disaster definition’s 4 points, all involving people, and the fact that the US is the world's third most peopled country... what did you expect?
Mr. Blow continues: "Last year [reports were issued] concluding that 'human influences' (read greenhouse-gas emissions) have 'more likely than not” contributed to this increase. The United States is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse-gas emissions." More likely than not? Equivocation city. Since CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas', and 6 billion people breathe it out every 10 seconds, what will you do with that? The US is 'one of the'...? Equivocation number 3. Maybe you didn't hear the first time: The US is the third most populated country in the world. More equivocations: "Furthermore, a White House report about the effect of global climate change on the United States ... reaffirmed that the situation will probably get worse: In addition to temperature extremes, “precipitation is likely to be less frequent but more intense. It is also likely that future hurricanes will become more intense, with higher peak speeds and more heavy precipitation ... .”Probably, likely, likely, equivocations 4, 5, and 6.
Then an irrelevancy: “In 2005 … the estimated damage from storms in the United States was $121 billion. That is $39 billion more than the 2005 supplemental spending bill to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Does the Times’ style book require Op-Eds make at least one reference to the war?
And: “About $3 billion has been allocated to assist farmers who suffer losses because of droughts, floods and tornadoes among other things.” The 2008 World Almanac says "Total US Government Agricultural Payments" have averaged $16 billion a year for the 4 years 2003-2006 - so what?
A final point: Have the climate change alarmists given any thought to their leader, the guy who won an Oscar, and a Nobel Prize, for his 'work' on climate change? How did he get so influential? Well, he was born into US political royalty, inheriting safe seats in both the House and Senate from his very astute politician father. How about his education? Again, he got into Harvard, but owes a good deal of that good fortune to his lineage. Advanced degrees? Zero! Since he's such a big deal in the ‘science’ of climate change, what's his science education background? Two courses, one something called ‘Man's place in Nature‘ ( he got a ‘D‘ in that.) This mope is a complete fraud, and anyone who follows him should be ashamed of themselves.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL 60640ah_nelson@yahoo.com 773-677-3010
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
