The Countertop Chronicles

Read this exchange.

Its from the South Carolina Debate.

Is this really the guy the Democrats are going to nominate?

What does he call the airplanes flying into the WTC and Pentagon. Even Howard Dean isn’t this clueless. Joe Lieberman should take this and RUN RUN RUN. God Help The Democratic Party.

BROKAW: We’re back on stage at the Peace Center for Performing Arts in Greenville, South Carolina, with the seven presidential candidates contesting for the Democratic presidential nomination. South Carolina’s primary is next Tuesday.

Senator Kerry, let me ask you a question. Robert Kagan, who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don’t get it.

Who is right?

KERRY: I think it’s somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing…

BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.

Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.

I mean, I — nuclear weapons, number three.

I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.

That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less — it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it’s primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world — the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven’t embraced, because otherwise we’re inviting a clash of civilizations.

Read this exchange.

Its from the South Carolina Debate.

Is this really the guy the Democrats are going to nominate?

What does he call the airplanes flying into the WTC and Pentagon. Even Howard Dean isn’t this clueless. Joe Lieberman should take this and RUN RUN RUN. God Help The Democratic Party.

BROKAW: We’re back on stage at the Peace Center for Performing Arts in Greenville, South Carolina, with the seven presidential candidates contesting for the Democratic presidential nomination. South Carolina’s primary is next Tuesday.

Senator Kerry, let me ask you a question. Robert Kagan, who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don’t get it.

Who is right?

KERRY: I think it’s somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing…

BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.

Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.

I mean, I — nuclear weapons, number three.

I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.

That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less — it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it’s primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world — the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven’t embraced, because otherwise we’re inviting a clash of civilizations.

Read this exchange.

Its from the South Carolina Debate.

Is this really the guy the Democrats are going to nominate?

What does he call the airplanes flying into the WTC and Pentagon. Even Howard Dean isn’t this clueless. Joe Lieberman should take this and RUN RUN RUN. God Help The Democratic Party.

BROKAW: We’re back on stage at the Peace Center for Performing Arts in Greenville, South Carolina, with the seven presidential candidates contesting for the Democratic presidential nomination. South Carolina’s primary is next Tuesday.

Senator Kerry, let me ask you a question. Robert Kagan, who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don’t get it.

Who is right?

KERRY: I think it’s somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing…

BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.

Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.

I mean, I — nuclear weapons, number three.

I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.

That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less — it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it’s primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world — the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven’t embraced, because otherwise we’re inviting a clash of civilizations.

Disney owned ABC, which has never been accused of being a tool of the right wing, has quite an expose on Saddam’s payoffs. All the usual suspects are listed as having received staggering amounts of money.

In fact, the only person missing from this list is Howard Dean.

Of course, last year he was a nobody (except to me, I predicted his strong challenge in 1996 when he hosted the Democratic Governors Association in Vermont and made his intentions clear). Anyway, I expect as we dig further, we will see smaller sums directed at lots of influential members of the opposition party here (Dean, Kerry, Clinton, Terry McCaulife . . . Scott Ritter anyone) and abroad.

Disney owned ABC, which has never been accused of being a tool of the right wing, has quite an expose on Saddam’s payoffs. All the usual suspects are listed as having received staggering amounts of money.

In fact, the only person missing from this list is Howard Dean.

Of course, last year he was a nobody (except to me, I predicted his strong challenge in 1996 when he hosted the Democratic Governors Association in Vermont and made his intentions clear). Anyway, I expect as we dig further, we will see smaller sums directed at lots of influential members of the opposition party here (Dean, Kerry, Clinton, Terry McCaulife . . . Scott Ritter anyone) and abroad.

Disney owned ABC, which has never been accused of being a tool of the right wing, has quite an expose on Saddam’s payoffs. All the usual suspects are listed as having received staggering amounts of money.

In fact, the only person missing from this list is Howard Dean.

Of course, last year he was a nobody (except to me, I predicted his strong challenge in 1996 when he hosted the Democratic Governors Association in Vermont and made his intentions clear). Anyway, I expect as we dig further, we will see smaller sums directed at lots of influential members of the opposition party here (Dean, Kerry, Clinton, Terry McCaulife . . . Scott Ritter anyone) and abroad.

The National Academy of Sciences has just released a report on Air Quality Management in the United States. The Academy is a non partisan organization, recognized by the United States Government, but not a part of it, that is often used to hash out policy differences and to present an unbiased examination of science and facts. This report represents a tremendous endorsement of President Bush’s environmental policies. Amongst its five major recommendations are:

(1) Strengthening the science that underlies current environmental regulations.

To many regulations are based not upon any scientific principles, but rather on the well funded media relations operations of the major environmental groups. These groups, with their hundreds of millions of dollars annually in contributions have mastered the art of public deception. They employ scores of so called experts on the issues they project to raise the most funds from, and unleash brutal, personally destructive attacks on the reputations of scientists who dare to criticize their political agendas and the shaky science underlying it.

(2) Expand national emissions control systems by focusing on a technology neutral, market based regulations

This is exactly what the Bush Administration has been pushing. Clean the air, we don’t care how you do it. By setting up a market based system where emissions credits can be sold like stock, their is a definite financial incentive to reducing your emissions. It worked beyond imagination with acid rain, and is the foundation of the Clear Skies program.

(3) Transform the SIPs

Under the current Clean Air Act, Congress has directed EPA to set air quality standards for six major pollutants, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, ground level ozone, lead, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide. How those standards are attained is largely up to the individual states who must submit State Implementation Plans showing EPA how they will meet them.

The Academy is recommending that in addition to this process, future efforts to control air pollution focus on what is known as the multi pollutant approach. That is, grouping various pollutants together and finding a cost effective method of reducing them as a group. Again, this was the basis of Clear Skies and is behind the Interstate Air Quality Rule and the Utility Mercury Reductions Rule, both of which were published in the Federal Register today (more on them later).

As much of a triumph as I believe this report is, I do have some concerns. First, the National Academy continues to advocate for further study of Climate Change gases. While I have no problem with further studies (beyond the fact that they are a multi million dollar boondoggle for scientists) since the sound ones all clearly show there is no evidence of anthropogenic climate change (which is different than climate change generally), the continual kowtowing to the Greens is growing rather nauseating.

Second, the Academy once again raises the specter of Environmental Justice. While I don’t think anyone should be forced to endure unnecessary levels of pollution, most industrial facilities don’t locate in poor areas. Rather, wherever they locate, a working class community will often pop up. See, its not too hard to understand. Working class people like to work. Hence, they live where there is work. If they lived where there wasn’t work, they wouldn’t be working. Of course, they could always decide to commute a farther distance from the facility, or work elsewhere, but they generally don’t. Since they moved to the so called nuisance, I don’t see why the facility should be penalized and of course, if it decides to produce its products in China, the working class people living around it will not be working class anymore – they will be in the welfare class and society will be far worse off.

Well, that’s enough for now. More to come later.

Sorry for the light blogging … alright, non existant blogging, the last few days. Its been pretty busy here at work, and I just didn’t have time.

I’ll make it up over the next few days.

The National Academy of Sciences has just released a report on Air Quality Management in the United States. The Academy is a non partisan organization, recognized by the United States Government, but not a part of it, that is often used to hash out policy differences and to present an unbiased examination of science and facts. This report represents a tremendous endorsement of President Bush’s environmental policies. Amongst its five major recommendations are:

(1) Strengthening the science that underlies current environmental regulations.

To many regulations are based not upon any scientific principles, but rather on the well funded media relations operations of the major environmental groups. These groups, with their hundreds of millions of dollars annually in contributions have mastered the art of public deception. They employ scores of so called experts on the issues they project to raise the most funds from, and unleash brutal, personally destructive attacks on the reputations of scientists who dare to criticize their political agendas and the shaky science underlying it.

(2) Expand national emissions control systems by focusing on a technology neutral, market based regulations

This is exactly what the Bush Administration has been pushing. Clean the air, we don’t care how you do it. By setting up a market based system where emissions credits can be sold like stock, their is a definite financial incentive to reducing your emissions. It worked beyond imagination with acid rain, and is the foundation of the Clear Skies program.

(3) Transform the SIPs

Under the current Clean Air Act, Congress has directed EPA to set air quality standards for six major pollutants, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, ground level ozone, lead, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide. How those standards are attained is largely up to the individual states who must submit State Implementation Plans showing EPA how they will meet them.

The Academy is recommending that in addition to this process, future efforts to control air pollution focus on what is known as the multi pollutant approach. That is, grouping various pollutants together and finding a cost effective method of reducing them as a group. Again, this was the basis of Clear Skies and is behind the Interstate Air Quality Rule and the Utility Mercury Reductions Rule, both of which were published in the Federal Register today (more on them later).

As much of a triumph as I believe this report is, I do have some concerns. First, the National Academy continues to advocate for further study of Climate Change gases. While I have no problem with further studies (beyond the fact that they are a multi million dollar boondoggle for scientists) since the sound ones all clearly show there is no evidence of anthropogenic climate change (which is different than climate change generally), the continual kowtowing to the Greens is growing rather nauseating.

Second, the Academy once again raises the specter of Environmental Justice. While I don’t think anyone should be forced to endure unnecessary levels of pollution, most industrial facilities don’t locate in poor areas. Rather, wherever they locate, a working class community will often pop up. See, its not too hard to understand. Working class people like to work. Hence, they live where there is work. If they lived where there wasn’t work, they wouldn’t be working. Of course, they could always decide to commute a farther distance from the facility, or work elsewhere, but they generally don’t. Since they moved to the so called nuisance, I don’t see why the facility should be penalized and of course, if it decides to produce its products in China, the working class people living around it will not be working class anymore – they will be in the welfare class and society will be far worse off.

Well, that’s enough for now. More to come later.

Sorry for the light blogging … alright, non existant blogging, the last few days. Its been pretty busy here at work, and I just didn’t have time.

I’ll make it up over the next few days.

The National Academy of Sciences has just released a report on Air Quality Management in the United States. The Academy is a non partisan organization, recognized by the United States Government, but not a part of it, that is often used to hash out policy differences and to present an unbiased examination of science and facts. This report represents a tremendous endorsement of President Bush’s environmental policies. Amongst its five major recommendations are:

(1) Strengthening the science that underlies current environmental regulations.

To many regulations are based not upon any scientific principles, but rather on the well funded media relations operations of the major environmental groups. These groups, with their hundreds of millions of dollars annually in contributions have mastered the art of public deception. They employ scores of so called experts on the issues they project to raise the most funds from, and unleash brutal, personally destructive attacks on the reputations of scientists who dare to criticize their political agendas and the shaky science underlying it.

(2) Expand national emissions control systems by focusing on a technology neutral, market based regulations

This is exactly what the Bush Administration has been pushing. Clean the air, we don’t care how you do it. By setting up a market based system where emissions credits can be sold like stock, their is a definite financial incentive to reducing your emissions. It worked beyond imagination with acid rain, and is the foundation of the Clear Skies program.

(3) Transform the SIPs

Under the current Clean Air Act, Congress has directed EPA to set air quality standards for six major pollutants, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, ground level ozone, lead, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide. How those standards are attained is largely up to the individual states who must submit State Implementation Plans showing EPA how they will meet them.

The Academy is recommending that in addition to this process, future efforts to control air pollution focus on what is known as the multi pollutant approach. That is, grouping various pollutants together and finding a cost effective method of reducing them as a group. Again, this was the basis of Clear Skies and is behind the Interstate Air Quality Rule and the Utility Mercury Reductions Rule, both of which were published in the Federal Register today (more on them later).

As much of a triumph as I believe this report is, I do have some concerns. First, the National Academy continues to advocate for further study of Climate Change gases. While I have no problem with further studies (beyond the fact that they are a multi million dollar boondoggle for scientists) since the sound ones all clearly show there is no evidence of anthropogenic climate change (which is different than climate change generally), the continual kowtowing to the Greens is growing rather nauseating.

Second, the Academy once again raises the specter of Environmental Justice. While I don’t think anyone should be forced to endure unnecessary levels of pollution, most industrial facilities don’t locate in poor areas. Rather, wherever they locate, a working class community will often pop up. See, its not too hard to understand. Working class people like to work. Hence, they live where there is work. If they lived where there wasn’t work, they wouldn’t be working. Of course, they could always decide to commute a farther distance from the facility, or work elsewhere, but they generally don’t. Since they moved to the so called nuisance, I don’t see why the facility should be penalized and of course, if it decides to produce its products in China, the working class people living around it will not be working class anymore – they will be in the welfare class and society will be far worse off.

Well, that’s enough for now. More to come later.

Sorry for the light blogging … alright, non existant blogging, the last few days. Its been pretty busy here at work, and I just didn’t have time.

I’ll make it up over the next few days.

Well, as some of you may have heard, the District was hit with some snow yesterday. Last nite we were hit with an ice storm. While trying to chop away the 1/2 inch thick sheet of ice on our SUV I decided I would just take the day off.

Thanks to the wonders of the internet I was able to do a remote log in to the office computer and actually get some stuff done from here. . . . but I was also able to take the son out sledding.

While at work yesterday, I took a stroll around the block and snapped some pictures in Lafayette Park across the street.

The General still watches over the nation.

H Street, N.W.

George’s House. Their doing major construction on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. No one really knows whats going on, but they erected these huge green screens to keep the gawkers away.

While the screens are a distraction for me, they have really ruined these folks ability to do their job. What’s the use of a 24 Hour White House Vigil/Protest if no one in the White House can see you? The nukies are inside the tent. Thats a Japanese Reporter trying to coax them into appearing on television.

Well, as some of you may have heard, the District was hit with some snow yesterday. Last nite we were hit with an ice storm. While trying to chop away the 1/2 inch thick sheet of ice on our SUV I decided I would just take the day off.

Thanks to the wonders of the internet I was able to do a remote log in to the office computer and actually get some stuff done from here. . . . but I was also able to take the son out sledding.

While at work yesterday, I took a stroll around the block and snapped some pictures in Lafayette Park across the street.

The General still watches over the nation.

H Street, N.W.

George’s House. Their doing major construction on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. No one really knows whats going on, but they erected these huge green screens to keep the gawkers away.

While the screens are a distraction for me, they have really ruined these folks ability to do their job. What’s the use of a 24 Hour White House Vigil/Protest if no one in the White House can see you? The nukies are inside the tent. Thats a Japanese Reporter trying to coax them into appearing on television.

Well, as some of you may have heard, the District was hit with some snow yesterday. Last nite we were hit with an ice storm. While trying to chop away the 1/2 inch thick sheet of ice on our SUV I decided I would just take the day off.

Thanks to the wonders of the internet I was able to do a remote log in to the office computer and actually get some stuff done from here. . . . but I was also able to take the son out sledding.

While at work yesterday, I took a stroll around the block and snapped some pictures in Lafayette Park across the street.

The General still watches over the nation.

H Street, N.W.

George’s House. Their doing major construction on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. No one really knows whats going on, but they erected these huge green screens to keep the gawkers away.

While the screens are a distraction for me, they have really ruined these folks ability to do their job. What’s the use of a 24 Hour White House Vigil/Protest if no one in the White House can see you? The nukies are inside the tent. Thats a Japanese Reporter trying to coax them into appearing on television.