Okay, let’s see if I can explain this without getting too meta.
A few days back, former Seattle Weekly columnist Geov Parrish posted to HA a kinda-sorta expose of an expose of an expose, highlighting a blog post by Real Change executive director Tim Harris, criticizing an anticipated hit piece in the Weekly. Harris wrote:
So this is what journalism at the new Seattle Weekly has come to. The paper owned and staffed by out-of-towners is out to do an expose on the fact that three or four vendors make as much as $24K a year selling Real Change. With no benefits.
At that rate, they can afford a cheap apartment. Hold the fucking presses!
This apparently pissed off Weekly managing editor Mike Seely, who dismissed Harris’s post as a “singularly bizarre pre-emptive diatribe,” and poked fun at the “sheer presumptive idiocy” of an angry letter aimed at an article that had yet to run.
Well, Huan Hsu’s article is now online, and… it’s not so bad. But then, it’s not so good either. In the end, there really isn’t much there there, though despite Seely’s pre-emptive prickliness, it’s pretty much what Harris predicted: “Not All the Peddlers of Seattle’s Homeless Paper Are Homeless.”
Hmm. To steal a line from Harris: hold the fucking presses.
It hadn’t occurred to me that some customers might feel cheated to learn that their Real Change vendor was not actually homeless. Personally, I would find it gratifying to know that my occasional purchase helped some unfortunate fellow off the streets. Call me naive, but I thought that was the whole idea.
So I’m not sure I get what Hsu is getting at. Some vendors are successful? A handful actually earn enough money to pay the rent? And that’s a bad thing?
I suppose I didn’t know that Real Change called its turf system a “turf system,” but it was pretty obvious that something like that existed. And I now know that most venders make 65 cents on every 1 dollar sale, but that the three top vendors each month get a nickel discount. Um, all in all, not exactly what one might call an “expose.” I mean, imagine if Real Change had done a 1600-word “expose” on how the Weekly used trucks to drop off bundles of papers at area coffee shops… that would be about as fascinating as this piece was.
Still, I think Geov’s presumptive sentiments hold true:
What pisses me off is when anyone – anyone – tries to make a buck or ingratiate themselves (e.g., with dimwitted readers) by pissing on the powerless. It’s one thing to lampoon the idiocies of Seattle liberalism; I might not agree with it (or think it’s well done), but it’s fair game. But trying to manufacture a “scandal” involving one of the few activist-initiated social service projects in town that truly does help people and change lives, all the time, is pure bullshit. Or, in Harris’ words, “What the Fuck”?
What the fuck indeed.
See, there’s a reason why you never read scathing reviews of small, inexpensive, family-owned neighborhood restaurants. What exactly would be the point? The regular patrons already like it well enough to keep coming back, while few outside the neighborhood are ever going to stop in anyway. So why waste column inches slamming some mom and pop lunch shack?
Likewise, absent a genuine scandal or a profound disagreement over the strategy (or goal) of helping the homeless get back on their feet, why on earth would you ever want to do anything but a fluff piece on Real Change? Maybe — just maybe — the Weekly might have succeeded in getting a handful of readers to think twice before forking over their dollar. But to what end? Hsu clearly set out in search of a controversy, and didn’t find one. That’s okay. Lots of stories don’t pan out. So why run the piece?
There is no shortage of important stories to write about, and plenty of worthy targets out there to skewer, but the Weekly chose to pursue an angle they knew could damage public support for an organization dedicated to helping the homeless. Huh. I have nothing against slaughtering sacred cows, but I’d hope the Weekly would view it as more than a blood sport.
Which brings me back to the springboard of this post, and one final observation. Seely sniped at Harris for his “singularly bizarre pre-emptive diatribe,” but from a PR perspective, there was nothing bizarre or singular about it. If Harris was expecting a negative piece in the Weekly (and from his questions, Hsu clearly wasn’t writing fluff,) why on earth should he wait until after it runs to refute it? Harris successfully got his message out in advance of publication, and quite possibly may even have succeeded in softening Hsu’s final edit.
That’s just smart PR. That’s being proactive.
And considering the fact that Harris’s efforts generated two supportive posts on HA, a handful of presumptive letters to the editor, and a preemptive prepublication post by Seely, I’d say it worked.
UPDATE:
Chuck Taylor chimes in over at Crosscut:
We’ll never know how Harris’ preemptive spin helped shape the article — there’s no way it didn’t. If I was the editor, I’d have made extra damn sure there weren’t any problems with it, that it was factually ironclad and fair.
Exactly. Erica also picks it up over on Slog.
So all in all, a pretty effective “pre-emptive diatribe” on the part of Harris.
I was hoping that Geov’s post would have an impact. Did it? Seems that way. good.
Leftist blogger Tbogg.blogspot.com referred to Condi as “Pouty Brown Sugar.” An Imus fan at heart? Where’s the outrage, people? Or is it okay because he’s a democrat? I don’t agree with any of it. Not for Condi, not for a basketball team.
Hey, if I didn’t tell you, you wouldn’t hear it unless you saw Orb.
Goldy, didn’t I see an article on you in Real Change a couple months ago? since you’re going to get slammed by the trolls, maybe a little full disclosure…
I’m acquainted with Tim Harris. He is truly one of the good guys, someone who is genuinely concerned about improving the lives of others. He is an asset to this community. Why anyone would do anything other than a fluff piece on him and his organization is entirely unclear.
@2 – Yeah, it is exactly the same. Jeesch, what an idiot.
(must be Orbass himself desparately trying to get any traffic to his little copy and paste site)
Woohoo: 11/17/2004 – Doonesbury attack piece on Condi from the husband of Jane Pauley!
Fuck the Weekly. I just read the pieces and have to agree with Goldy. There comes a time when you have to gauge your guns when doing ‘crack’ investigations. Uncovering a success within the back alley of homelessness is a GOOD thing, not an unholy expose’ on the extravagances of the ‘supposed’ homeless.
Good Gawd, there are a bushel of issues just in this county alone that warrant a good investigative hose down. Heaven forbid a homeless person make enough money to get a slice at Pagliacci rather than oatmeal at the Union Gospel.
Personally, I would love to read about more of these folks making 24K, even 30K and getting cars and buying iPods. Because that means the system works. Sure, there is a limit to what we give. Making a fair bit of coin (let’s be reasonable here, we’re not talking about Mike! numbers) isn’t a bad thing if we can ensure that the system remains fair and accessible to those who really need it.
The person I give my dollar to isn’t Bill Gates in disguise. He (or she) isn’t there to rip me off. They sell a paper, I buy a paper. If they make enough to get an apartment and enjoy a slice of chicken pesto pizza once in a while – who the fuck cares.
Woohoo: Ted Rall 07/08/2004 – Condi is Bush’s House N—-!
So headlice… do you denounce that?
Since I’m going to be a little rough on him, I have to say I have a profound respect for Tim Harris. He goes out and tries to deal with homelessness every day. I don’t. That being said…
I have lots of issues with Tim Harris and Real Change. I think his basic thesis of homelessness as an economic issue is crap. Economic issues result in people tripling up in one-bedroom apartments. Most homeless are mentally ill and need appropriate psychological care. Fixing things on an economic level does very little to address this.
I am skeptical about addressing homelessness at a local level. When beds, meals, safety and shelter are available in one location and not another, people will go to where those things exist. It’s mean, it’s unfortunate, and I am sorry, but a national problem (a really lousy social safety net) cannot be solved by good intentions in a handful of cities.
Frankly, I get resentful that regional problems get dumped on the City of Seattle. Homeless people come from all over the place. For the suburbs and exurbs to wash their hands and say “well, that’s an urban problem.” is negligent. For Seattle’s political leadership to not engage their counterparts elsewhere in coming up with unified solutions is criminal. If you need to provide food, beds, and shelter, $X will buy a lot more of those in Monroe than in Pioneer Square. That’s dollars-and-cents economics.
What I don’t have an issue with is people selling enough newspapers to support themselves. That’s the point of the whole exercise!
JSA: Interesting take. But I disagree with you and in the next post so will the Social Workers of America!
Let’s back up a minute. The first thing people on your side did during the 2004 campaign was deliver the “misery index”. The misery index? Yeah that. What your side said and many ASSWipes here was the great increase in homeless and those uninsured. When I found figures that proved during the “greatest boom period of the US” words from your side, the inherited numbers Bush received were:
uninsured was > 39 Million and the
homeless was 3.5 Million
poverty was > 31 Million.
Hmmm…?
Rather than dig up some old recycled mags, I went back to the web site:
http://www.socialworktoday.com.....0104p6.htm
“In any given year, a 2000 Urban Institute Study* estimates that 3.5 million people, 1.35 million of them children, will be homeless. Estimates of homelessness, based on the use of shelter beds, suggest that homelessness has been increasing over the last two decades.
How do people become homeless, and why are they not able to get off the street? The famous psychiatrist Donald Jackson was fond of asking: “Why should we not believe that people are always doing the best that they can?” This comment is both a question and a challenge. Can we see how the context of a situation can make apparently unreasonable behavior reasonable?
Townsend is quick to point out that “many homeless people believe that most people don’t understand. They think that people have a preconceived notion of why individuals are homeless. They are discouraged and alone in their situation. They do not feel comfortable in seeking help because they are labeled.”
In 2000, 11.3% of the U.S. population, or 31.1 million people, lived in poverty. The number of poor people in the United States has decreased, but the poverty that does exist has become more severe. Of those living in poverty, 39% had incomes that were one-half of the poverty level. A minimum-wage worker in 2001 had to work an average of 89 hours per week to afford a two-bedroom apartment. This figure is based on the assumption that 30% of the worker’s income would be devoted to housing and the rest to other necessities of living.
So JSA, you postulate the vast majority of these children are mentally unstable?
In 2001 a survey in Seattle found 733 people who were homeless. But wait this was the great boom of Clinton/Gore. Had the bubble burst yet? What about the ones they couldn’t find?
Puddybud:
Do you denounce Bush’s failure as Commander-in-Chief in leading America to a stalemate in Iraq and for not capturing bin Laden?
Do you denounce Bush for not carrying out President Clinton’s war plans to destroy al Qeada after is was confirmed by the CIA that they were behind the USS Cole bombing 6 days into Bush’s presidency.
Do you denounce Bush for claiming in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to acquire yellow cake even though it was debunked by the CIA when Silvio Berlusconi brought the Niger letter to the White House before it was channeled through the UK?
Do you denounce Bush for failing to adequately plan for funding in his budget requests to congress year after year after year for 5 year running?
Do you denounce Bush for undermining the Rule of Law by manipulating US Attorney’s for political gain?
Do you denounce Bush for authorizing torture?
Do you denounce Bush for detaining American citizens and not charging them with any crimes for more than 3 years?
Do you denounce Bush for running the national debt to $10 trillion dollars and creating the largest birth tax in history for every man, woman and child in the United States?
Or are you just a one issue voter; abortion, and therefore anything your leader does will get a pass from you as long as he remains faithful to the anti-abortion issues?
18 missing emails relating to the US Attorney fiasco.
GBS prediciton: Bush gets impeached in less than 12 months.
Similar to the missing 18 1/2 minutes of Watergate tapes.
Pud @ 8:
If you read Ted Rall’s cartoons ANY day of the week, he puts out stuff that is rankly offensive to everyone. Calling Condi a house nigger is pretty much par for the course.
I have to conclude one of three things:
1) He is tired of people saying the same stupid platitudes over and over again, and uses his soapbox to poke people to get beyond trite truisms.
2) He is a very deeply disturbed human being.
More importantly, what does an ink-stained cartoonist’s opinion about anything have to do with anything? Ted Rall’s importance to policy is probably less than Goldy’s. When you attack people who are in positions of import (presidents, secretaries of state, generals, etc.) you are speaking truth to power. When you beat up on cartoonists, well, you’re just a bully.
GBS: You hijacked the thread! Shame on you. You need to wait for a Voice of Chalk Scratching “Nutty” thread!
Puddybud:
Clint/Gore managed the greatest economic boom in the history of mankind. You have no appreciation of how God Damned lucky you were to be one of the few lucky human beings in the history of the world to be a direct beneficiary of their talents.
Quit your crying about President Clinton and the Liberals.
Nobody’s perfect, but we’re far, far better than Bush, Cheney and Rove.
George Washington was a Liberal and always hoped our country would be on the forefront of liberality.
“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
~ George Washington
Do you consider George Washington, a “libetard, too
Puddybud,
You hijacked your moral principles, SHAME on you!!
JSA: Come on? You really think that? I’m a bully becaue I OPJECT to his cariacatures? Ted Rall is a syndicated liberal cartoonist. He gets a pass because your side doesn’t call him on it!
I agree with your #2 statement for both Rall and Headlice! He SUCKS as bad as HEADLICE!
I can’t seem to find the Ted Rall cartoon on Jesse Jackson or Al Sharption. Do you have them JSA?
re comment 114 on towheaded ho’s:Bill McCrutchbrain: How is giving the other side a chance to rebut your views giving the state the power to slence you — unless your speech can’t stand up to criticism.
Your question is a non-sequiter — and you are an idiot.
The filter keeps eating my comments.
Bill McCrutchbrain: How is giving the other side a chance to rebut your views giving the state the power to slence you — unless your speech can’t stand up to criticism.
Your question is a non-sequiter — and you are an idiot.
OBJECT – If I could only type
GBS: First off good afternoon. Glad to see you in full form this day.
We didn’t come up with the misery index for the 2004 election cycle. And… when I demonstrate the facts why do you go apoplectic? Of all people I expect you to react calmly to facts. Well, you must be under the weather!
It was your side on ASSWipes who threw the homeless and uninsured levels as ammunition for Kerry. When I went back and normalized the values, low and behold these values increased while this Boom was in effect and your side held the purse strings!
I think what Hsu is getting at is that trashing a rival paper is good clean fun.
I swore that I’d never touch the Seattle Weekly again, but I may relent long enough to pick up a copy and see if the new conservative management is still making their living off escort service and weirdos-seeking-sex ads.
I mean, it’s not like SW was respectable to begin with …
They did have some good people on the editorial side, though, until the new conservative management ran them off.
“Likewise, absent a genuine scandal or a profound disagreement over the strategy (or goal) of helping the homeless get back on their feet, why on earth would you ever want to do anything but a fluff piece on Real Change?”
If I had to guess, I’d say SW has adopted Frank Blethen’s strategy for creating market share by eliminating competition.
pud @ 11: You just swallowed the false tautology hook, line, and sinker. Congratulations!!!!
Living space in an urban area is really expensive. Worse, a lot of people have jobs that don’t pay really well. Both of these are important economic issues, and they must be addressed. I’m more concerned about jobs. As much as people rail about the cost of living in Seattle and other American cities, the cost of living in most urban centers in the US is lower than comparable cities abroad, so we’re doing something right here. At the same time, the life expectancy in the rest of the developed world is longer, the poverty rate is lower, the literacy rate is higher, &c.
Saying that we have to suffer with a high relative level of poverty to enable mass creation of wealth is another bullshit tautology, but it’s not one I want to spend a lot of time on today.
Now, on to the more important bullshit tautology of the say. Most of the poor people I know don’t shuffle around on the street. They live in shared housing. It sucks. A two-bedroom apartment of your own would be a lot nicer.
Poor != homeless. Even the article that you cited says that. According to the Urban Institutes’s numbers, of the people living below the poverty line, fewer than 10% of those are homeless. I suspect that number is somewhat inflated, but I don’t know how they are counting homeless people. There is usually some extrapolation from samples based on the idea that they didn’t find all the homeless in a given sample when they counted. How accurate or inaccurate these extrapolation methods are is outside of my area of expertise.
Homelessness is a very visible form of poverty. Homeless people generally don’t have any form of work whatsoever. When the voices in your head are chiming in with advice constantly, even focusing on a hamburger grill gets kind of tough.
You keep pointing out that there were poor people when Clinton was president. Yes. There were also beggars on the streets of Rome when Claudius was emperor. I fail to see what that has to do with anything. There will be rich people and poor people. Always have been, always will be. Some people will stay on the streets due to sheer cussedness no matter what you do.
Alleviating poverty and homelessness is a legitimate function of the state. Getting it to zero is not a reasonable goal. Does every single node and every single wire work the first time you fire up a big network system? If so, let me shake your hand. If not, I’m not going to say you are a lousy engineer because you have a failure rate >0.
@2 If you’re looking for someone here to endorse Tbogg.blogspot.com’s choice of language — so you can diss liberals in general as racist hypocrites — seek elsewhere. Offensive language is offensive, no matter who utters it. That language will receive no ratification from me or anyone else on this board.
@2 (continue) Assuming, of course, you haven’t lied about what Tbogg.blogspot.com said, or taken it out of context — which I certainly wouldn’t take for granted. I won’t expend my time to fact-check your comment; suffice to say that if a Republican’s lips are moving, he’s probably lying.
@8 Assuming Ted Rall, whoever he is, said that — yes, I certainly denounce it. Wouldn’t everyone? Where is the issue here? Other than the distressing fact that our media organizations have figured out that offensive slurs sell papers and attract listeners?
The fact Rall has occasionally stepped over the line doesn’t change the fact his edgy criticism of public figures has significant redeeming social value, just as “Fanny Hill” has literary value somewhere between the descriptions of copulation (which, actually, are artfully done with language that is not intrinsically prurient).*
* If you’re not old enough to remember when “Fanny Hill” was standard freshman extracurricular reading, you’re too young to form a competent opinion on any political subject. In my own case, it’s not a coincidence that I read “Fanny Hill” and was a Goldwater Republican at the same time. The two sort of go together.
@9 “Economic issues result in people tripling up in one-bedroom apartments.”
The new trend is families tripling up in $750,000 starter homes.
Goodness headlice: you need state power to create a radio station? I thought your great speaking guvnur of NY
12 The recently completed One Night Cout found 1,589 in Seattle, 2159 in the county as a whole. That’s actually down slightly from the year before, but quite a bit above the numbers in 2001.
good stuff horsey.
Rog @ 33:
I think you were trying to be funny, and that’s good. We need more levity.
If you have enough change jingling in your pocket that you can put 1/3 of the 10% down on a $750,000 starter home, this has ceased to be a discussion of poverty, and has started to be one on the oppression of the, frankly, pretty damn well-off. $750,000 still buys a pretty nice house in Seattle. Nobody has to have a house that nice. At that point, it’s a lifestyle choice.
Ahhh JSA: Looks like I torqued the chain.
You make this so easy for me. Who did the NASW support in 2004?
http://www.socialworkers.org/p.....062204.asp
Let me reiterate the misery index of 2004. Which political party used it? Which political party used homelessness, uninsured and poverty as a club on the American populace?
YOU GUYS.
Why did you guys do it? Why was it blogged incessantly by the likes of Clueless, Headlice, Donnageddon, Windie and others? Form the correct search string and you can read all about their faux concern about the poor. Yet when man is in need what do the ASSWipes do? NUTHIN!
YOU GUYS AMAZE ME.
You wrote: At the same time, the life expectancy in the rest of the developed world is longer, the poverty rate is lower, the literacy rate is higher
I answered:
You guys destroyed our school system with the dumbing down to the lowest common denominator in the class room.
You guys took the smartest and the brightest when they were young and forced Ritalin and Prozac down their throats because the teachers thought they were troublemakers when all it was children who became bored with the unchallenging work given to them in elementary school.
You guys made today’s textbooks worthless such that American kids can’t find half the foreign countries in the world.
You guys made math dumb where children can no longer divide multiple values in their heads. They need a calculator.
Now I swallowed the false tautology on the homeless? Waaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!
I was a poor black boy from Philadelphia south west side, not from the ‘burbs of Bala Cynwyd. I saw homeless growing up in Philly. Most ASSWipes on this blog are like the priest and the jewish guy in Christ’s parable; they cross over the street to get away from them!
I never said Poor != homeless. But your side does! Google “Poor equal Homeless democratic party” and start reading the 935,000 hits in .014 seconds!
JSA I have a great response for you if Voice of Chalk Scratching releases it. I’ll wait to see if he has the balls to release it.
But while we wait for Scratchy Voice to release my post! Google “Poor equal Homeless democratic party” and start reading the 935,000 hits in 0.14 seconds!
Pud @ 19:
Do I think you’re a bully for railing on Rall? No. Not really.
Perhaps I misunderestimate you, but I suspect you don’t pick up Eat the State (Geoff Parish’s newspaper which publishes Rall) or surf to his website on a regular basis. The fact that you were alerted that he called Condi an n—– back in 2004 was drawn from one of The Usual Sources.
Find me the person who is circulating chain mails about that eeeeeevil wicked cartoonist all the way off in New York City, and I’d say you have a bully.
What a weird query Pud. Are you starting with some preconceptions and trying to shoehorn the facts to fit them?
Maybe it’s the Liberal Canadian Bias Filter that they install on all the bits that come up here, but the first page of responses were all well-intentioned bits of Democratic party platforms to help alleviate homelessness and poverty. I don’t have a problem with that.
@14 “GBS prediciton: Bush gets impeached in less than 12 months.”
I do think this ship has set sail.
Since taking over Congress in January, Democrats have held more than 100 hearings on Republican misfeasance and malfeasance. Some may see this as aimless (and pointless) partisan sniping. It is not. They are painstakingly and systematically constructing a case for impeachment based on violations of the presidential oath to uphold the Constitution and laws.
The crucial fact is that a growing number of Republican senators are either disquieted by what they see, or nervous about their own political survival.
Even in the intensely partisan environment surrounding Watergate, there was a point beyond which even the most partisan Republicans would not follow their party’s leader further into the wilderness. It was a delegation of Republicans, not Democrats, who marched on the White House to inform Nixon he faced certain removal if he didn’t resign.
Members of Congress know how to count votes. The House will not move an impeachment resolution until the Senate votes are there. They aren’t there yet. Groundwork has to be done, and the foundation laid — that’s what you see happening now. Although the process may seem to be crawling now, when the pieces fall into place and the Senate votes materialize, things will happen very fast.
It’s hard to tell which scandal will ring down the final curtain on the Bush regime. The U.S. Attorney scandal could do it, as even the most conservative Republican gags on corrupt law enforcement. But it’s hard to tell because there probably are more scandals out there waiting to be discovered, possibly huge ones, that individually or cumulatively will seal the deal. And Washington insiders probably know what they are, and where the skeletons are hidden, but are biding their time.
The most dangerous thing for Bush is that as the administration’s aura of invincibility dissipates, as its ability to protect and shield its loyal lackeys begins to come apart, the witnesses possessing smoking-gun evidence will begin to calculate in terms of self-preservation; and a trickle of incriminating evidence will first erode the dam of silence, then breach it, and become a raging flood.
I give it even odds this president will not serve his full term.
@37 “$750,000 still buys a pretty nice house in Seattle.”
Not really. There’s whole neighborhoods you can’t even get into for 750K. Out in the burbs, little new construction is being built at price points below that amount. We are very rapidly approaching the point where 750K will be needed to get into middle-class housing.
Yep, I’m in a bad fucking mood because these Republicans, the bastards you so whole heartedly support are absolutely breaking our military, raiding our treasury, and have been breaking the law since day one by using AOL and RNC email accounts for official government business thereby skirting the laws that had to be set up because of Nixon and the Watergate tapes.
I’m sick to death of conservatives ruining MY country and blaming Liberals.
I’m sick to death of our wounded soldiers getting shitty care while Democrats vote for VA funding and Republicans vote to cut VA funding.
I could give a SHIT about some half ass numbers you keep spinning up to blame CLINTON — AS PER USUAL!! President Clinton and the Democrats are some of the best things to happen to this country.
The “right’s” bullshit is getting old.
Conservatives are on the wrong side of every fucking major issue and I’m sick of having to fight MORONS who are such religious zealots they cannot fight for what is right and best for America.
Conservatives in general take an opposite stance just to be polarizing. It’s been the rights mantra for decades now and pushed heavily by Tom DeLay and his ilk. Why you want to align yourself with the enemies of the Constitution is beyond me, but knock yourself out.
Breaking News — CBS has fired Don Imus from his radio job
42 Three-quarters of a mill? That’s not much more that the going price for a plain-jane, half-century old Balch-built Cape Cod in Wedgewood, even if it still has its original “one-butt” kitchen.
41 “It’s hard to tell which scandal will ring down the final curtain on the Bush regime.”
Yup, there’s certainly a sizeable selection. Todays “vanishing emails” revelation might just be what starts the snowball rolling down the mountain.
Hey if there are vanishing emails then nail ’em. I don’t agree with that type of Dita Beard erasures. I have no problem there. Honesty is above all else. I have never wavered from that.
Pud
JSA: My response is in Hoary Gory Land! Will Ol’ Scratchy Voice allow it’s release?
GBS: Why argue anymore. I give up!
JSA I answered your Rall bullying question. Scratchy Voice will not release it!
Is this how your people support the troops GBS?
http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/shoot.jpg
#8: Yes, I would denounce that. Would you?
Roger: Goldy likes people to list their source so it can be checked out. I provided a source so people can check it out. But you still don’t want to see for yourself and assume I’m lying. To those who DID go and see for themselves, you’re not lookin’ too good right now.
Pud @ 47 wrote: I have never wavered from that.
Puddybud, there’s one strange quirk about the truth when you lie, you’re a liar. When you don’t lie, but don’t tell the whole truth, you’re still a liar. When you’re silent, you still betray the truth as a liar would.
That’s the long and the short of it.
All the other bullshit everybody is chaffing over pales compared to the failed presidency of George W. Bush. Our fellow citzens are dying, being horribly wounded, and psycologically damaged because he’s failed to plan for victory, he’s failed to arm our troops properly, he’s failed to provide adequately for their healt care, he’s failed to give them the proper training, he’s failed to give them the rest between deployments they deserve, he’s failed to enlist his own daughters in his NOBLE cause.
You’re right there’s no sense in arguing when you’re on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the truth.
The strangest part is, you continue to stay on the wrong side of the truth. I think the part you REALLY don’t undertand is that you can remain a Republican and be on the side of truth.
Why don’t you try it sometime?
@ 51:
Cute: Want to have the IAVA rating posted on elected officials and how they voted to support our troops?????????
Well, do ya?
You want me to post that????
You fucking got it.
We’ll see who the fuck supports the troops and who doesn’t!
Imus is a Republican — Always has been. But, he hates Bush — for good reason!
See if you can shut the Stones up.
BROWN SUGAR Richards/Jagger
“Gold coast slave ship bound for cotton fields
Sold in a market down in New Orleans
Scarred old slaver knows he’s doing alright
Hear him whip the women just around midnight
Brown sugar how come you taste so good?
Brown sugar just like a young girl should
Drums beating, cold English blood runs hot
Lady of the house wonderin’ where it’s gonna stop
House boy knows that he’s doing alright
You shoulda heard him just around midnight
Brown sugar how come you taste so good, now?
Brown sugar just like a young girl should, now
Ah, get along, brown sugar how come you taste so good, baby?
Ah, got me feelin’ now, brown sugar just like a black girl should
I bet your mama was a tent show queen
And all here boyfriends were sweet sixteen
I’m no schoolboy but I know what I like
You shoulda heard me just around midnight
Brown sugar how come you taste so good….”
Don’t you dare run away Pud my bombshell is coming!!
I’m waiting. But not too long. I have some errands to run!
Now that Imus was fired by Jackson adn Sharpton, will Jackson and Sharpton apologize to the three Duke Lacrosse players?
Doubt it.
Moonbat!s are always held to higher standards.
Pud
GBS: I will move and become Libertarian! Hence my vote won’t count for much!
Lib, I know there’s room for me in your tent right?
Rog @ 42:
When my graddaddy built his house in Mount Baker, it was this remote, out-of-the way neighborhood where a journeyman counstruction worker could build a house cheap. Got himself a nice chunk of land, a view of the lake and Mount Rainier to boot.
It ain’t that neighborhood any more. I can’t afford to live there, and I make more than he ever did in his life, adjusted for inflation and everything.
[ I suppose if it was my dying wish to live in Mount Baker and be up to my eye teeth in hock, I objectively could do it. Why bother? Life is short. ]
In most of Europe and the wider spots in the road in Asia, you can’t afford a house with dirt attached. You just can’t. Don’t ask. That’s the province of the folks with a high 8 or low 9 digit net worth. Even those piddly multi-millionaires don’t rate.
Vancouver has already become that sort of place. Want a house here? In any neighborhood? To be my neighbor in grungy, grubby East Vancouver, you’re looking at a million bucks, and you don’t get a tax deduction on your mortgage. If you want to live someplace nice, then it gets expensive. Seattle is close behind. There is a finite supply of land, and an increasing number of people with money who want a piece of that land.
Meanwhile, we don’t have our insta-teleport machines to get us from jobs in Seattle to suburban developments in Ellensburg. We’re still using cars, and cars don’t go much faster than they did 40 years ago. Most people have hit the limits of their willingness to commute. That pushes prices up again.
“Housing” in Seattle more and more means a condo. Don’t like it? Move to Nebraska. Lots of room there. Look into all the exciting career opportunities, and remember to check out the symphony and the opera while you’re there!
The Seattle School Board picked the woman for the superintendent job.
” “As a military person, I am disturbed by what is going on in America now,” he said and jabbed his finger in the air. “They want to withdraw their troops.” He banged his fist on his desk. “We want the Americans to stay. Why are people thinking like this?” …
“I want you, as a reporter, as a journalist,” the general said to me, “to get our Kurdish voice to the American people so they know about Kurdish suffering in Iraq. We don’t want the American army to leave this area. The terrorists are excited about what is going on in the Congress.” …
“What do you think will happen,” I said, “if the United States withdraws from Iraq next year?”
“It will be easier for terrorists to attack us,” the general said. “We are surrounded by enemies. They will attack Kurdistan from everywhere. We believe, as Kurds, it is not honorable for Americans to withdraw. It will be bad for Americans, too. They will be killing themselves. If Americans leave us we expect terrorists will reach the American country very soon.” ….
“We believe if the Americans withdraw from this country there will be many more problems,” he said. “The Sunni and Shia want total control of Iraq. We are going to get involved in that. Iran is going to be involved in that. Turkey is going to be involved in that. Syria is going to be involved in that. The Sunni and Shia fighting in Baghdad will pull us in. We are going to be involved. Turkey and Iran will make problems for us. It is not going to be safe. All the American martyrs will have died for nothing, and there will be more problems in the future. Americans should build big bases here.” …
“There are two kinds of love,” he said. “The kind between a man and a woman. And the kind between people and nations. Americans are beheaded in Baghdad. But they are welcome in Kurdistan.”
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187281.php
Time to print this:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001412.html
Puddybud my post is in Goldy’s filter. Don’t worry though, you’ll be seeing it quite often with your “I don’t waiver from the truth quote.”
@47 Maybe there’s still hope for you, puddinghead. Perhaps a spark of cognitive reasoning still lives somewhere in your atrophied gray matter. Conceivably, you may someday become a viable candidate for redemption.
Your comment @47 is black-and-white proof that even a hopelessly partisan wingnut like you knows criminal obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence when it smacks him between the eyes.
Even you can discern when partisan activities cease to be politics and become crime.
When wingnuts like you begin leaving the reservation, so to speak, it’s all but over.
And when the final curtain rings down on the Bush regime, it will be a Puddybud, not a Roger Rabbit, pulling on the curtain rope.
The timing of Don Imus’ departure from the media scene is ironic. Imus went one slur too far. Perhaps Imus’ firing is both prescient and allegorical: maybe the Bush gangsters have finally broken one law too many, and gone one scandal too far. To virtually every American old enough to remember, the disappearing e-mails bear a striking resemblance to Nixon’s erased tapes. Did you notice how the tide floating Chimp’s boat suddenly went out this week?
That roaring noise beyond the horizon is the tsunami coming in.
IAVA (Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America)
How did your congressional representative vote?
DEMOCRATS
Sen. Patty Murray gets a rating for supporting the troops of A-
Sen. Maria Cantwell gets a rating for supporting the troops of A-
Rep. Brian Baird gets a rating of supporting the troops of B
Rep. Adam Smith gets a rating of supporting the troops of A-
Rep. Norm Dicks gets a rating of supporting the troops
Rep. Jay Inslee gets a rating for supporting the troops of A
Rep. Jim McDermott gets a rating for supporting troops of C- SHAMEFUL
Rep. Rich Larsen gets a rating for supporting the troops of A
Democrats GPA for supporting the troops: 3.625
TROOP HATERS
Rep. Dave Reichert gets a rating for supporting the troops a FUCKING D-
Rep. Doc Hastings gets a rating for supporting the troops a whopping C
Rep. Cathy McMorris gets a rating for supporting the troops a FUCKING D
Troop haters GPA for their unwillingness to support our troops: 1.33
Fat, dumb, and unpatriotic is now way to go trough life, troop hater.
Here’s the link: http://capwiz.com/iava/dbq/officials/
Now, Puddybud, are you going to waiver from the truth or are you going to say Republican leaders DO NOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS!
Which is it Puddybud, your moral principles or your political leaders unprincipled hatred of our troops?????????????
“Honesty is above all else. I have never wavered from that
Pud
04/12/2007 at 2:44 pm”
@51 “Is this how your people support the troops GBS?”
No. Those are your guys, not ours. The ski masks (not to mention the sign) are a dead giveaway — these yahoos are anarchists, who are people who don’t believe in government at all. They are totally anti-government. Does that sound like “liberals”? Hardly. Anarchists are as rightwing as it’s possible to get. This is an internal problem for you rightwing guys to deal with — a family problem, so to speak — and no concern of liberals. My advice is, deal with it.
Maybe I was too optimistic @66 in hoping puddinghead might recover from wingnut brain rot someday.
You can plausibly criticize liberals for a lot of things, but supporting anarchy isn’t one of them.
@52 I have already commented on this subject @32 and see no need to add to that.
http://capwiz.com/iava/dbq/officials/
Who wants to know how congresional leades are ranked by the IAVA?
Go here. By randomly selecting states and a distirct with a Republican I couldn’t find a Republican with “B” rating or better.
Found plenty of Democrats with B’s and A’s though.
Prove me wrong, you conservative troop haters. Prove me wrong.
Conservatives just fucking hate the troops!
#74 should read @54 not @52
@55 “The strangest part is, you continue to stay on the wrong side of the truth. I think the part you REALLY don’t undertand is that you can remain a Republican and be on the side of truth.”
I don’t see how. The GOP has been so thoroughly hijacked by the wingnut hysteria it is no longer possible to be Republican and ethical at the same time. To be on the side of truth, you have to leave the Republican Party.
We are witnessing the death throes of the party that once followed Ike. How sad.
Not that the GOP of the 1950s was right, or even honest, but it was infinitely closer to respectability than the wreckage now littered across the global landscape.
Conservatives see my post at 70:
WHY DO YOU GUYS HATE THE TROOPS????
THIS IS GOING TO BE MY MANTRA FROM NOW ON!!
@ 69:
Yep 18 1/2 minutes of missing tapes and 18 missing emails.
33 years and 1 day ago, they the judiciary committee subpeoned the White House.
That’s why I predicted earlier that Bush will be gone in 12 months or less!!!
I see Puddybud fled from the truth!!
C’mon, Puddybud, tell us why you support Bush and the rest of the troop haters?
@61 This typifies the incoherent swill leaking from the hazardous waste barrels where the rightwing offal is stored. CBS fired Imus, not Jackson or Sharpton. I doubt that CBS management takes orders from those guys; more likely, they cater to their paying advertisers, who in turn are worried about their public image to paying customers. Jackson and Sharpton didn’t file charges against the Duke players, an incompetent prosecutor did, and he’ll likely pay for his sloppy work by losing his license to practice law — as he rightly should. Few abuses of the power that lawyers hold in our society are more egregious than railroading innocent people, even unintentionally. So what’s your fucking problem, pud? Not enough blood on the floor for ya, yet? If you need additional human sacrifices, may I suggest there’s plenty of deserving characters on your side.
@62 “Lib, I know there’s room for me in your tent right?”
Probably not. Our tent is big, but not that big. Your views on abortion aren’t the problem; while anti-abortion Democrats are not loved in their party, they are tolerated. Your cumulative views on everything else are the problem. Above all, your contempt for truth is an overwhelming problem.
We Democrats don’t have a specific litmus test for integrity, but we know rotten fish when we smell it.
@63 “There is a finite supply of land”
No, only a finite supply of land adjacent to utilities and infrastructure, and within reach of jobs, shopping, health care, and the other amenities of civilization.
There’s plenty of empty land on this continent if you can manage to live a self-contained existence more than a stone’s throw away from an all-weather road.
I don’t mean to imply that life is idyllic in the wide-open countryside, however. One thing I’ve noticed about Washington’s rural counties is they either don’t have municipal landfills, or they don’t use them. Virtually every 2-acre plot has a 75-year accumulation of junk cars, discarded appliances, trash bags, and other human-generated detritus thrown into the weeds growing unmolested and unmown around the periphery of the tumble-down trailers, shacks, and cabins dotting the otherwise verdant countryside. The defining characteristic of our state’s ex-urban lands is the trash — of infinite volume and variety — strewn across the countryside. It seems that, outside the cities, when people are done with things they simply heave them out the back door into the yard, where it thenceforth reposes forever.
@63 Not to make anyone drool, but I pay a couple hundred bucks a month for a couple thousand square feet; and I share fences, not walls, with neighbors. However, that said, the going price in my neighborhood — roughly half a million — is by no means enough to keep the riff-raff out.
There comes a time in everyone’s life when a hoary old mortage actually starts to look pretty good. Everything is relative, I guess.
I get up at noon, do no work, and have a net worth 20 times my mortgage balance; in fact, my cash on hand exceeds the mortage balance. No credit card balances, no car payments, and my oil stock went up another two bucks today. I made over $1,000 in the stock market today while doing absolutely nothing except sitting on my fat bunny butt posting liberal propaganda on HorseAss!
Ah … life is gooood.
Republicans weren’t completely stupid when they invented the capitalist system. Sure beats hell out of working.
mortgage
my “g” is sticking — there appears to be grape jelly in the cracks between the keys — I wonder if Mrs. Rabbit has been using my computer again?
Well pud your message (now at 39) was released from the filter.
I don’t understand what you wrote. I hope you’re good at hooking up wires, because you ain’t much of a debater when you get like this.
First, what’s the point of a single point on the misery index that is non-zero? Where has it gone since Bush is in office? You didn’t provide that information. My quick search says it’s gone up, but who cares?
Social workers support Kerry? You don’t say. Given the Republican response to ALL forms of inequity, including homelessness is “It’s the will of God/The Market. Let them rot.” that doesn’t surprise me.
Schooling is a state issue. Don’t say “you guys”. That’s crap. There are very blue and very red states with good public schools, and there are very blue and very red states with bad public schools. Nobody has seen a Democrat in Mississippi or Alabama since the 70s, but the schools there suck pretty hard anyhow. Yes, they suck in DC too. Maybe it’s because only poor black children go to public schools in DC. I don’t know, and I don’t care. I don’t consider education to be a partisan or a racial issue for that matter.
Here’s a link with some numbers to play with. Keep modifying the dials until it shows that all districts run by liberals are failures while all districts run by conservatives are successes. It could keep you busy for a while.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsrepo.....statecomp/
I like talking with you because you are interesting much of the time. When you start getting into LIBERALS BAD! ALL BAD THINGS IN AMERICA ARE THE FAULT OF LIBERALS, well, it’s trite, and if you really think that’s true, you’re not too bright. I don’t blame conservatives for everything wrong in America. Sometimes, the world changes and shit happens.
Well, Roger, I must agree with your analysis of the beginning of the end. I know you were old enough to be politically engaged when the Watergate Crisis unfolded. I believe, correct me if I am wrong, that you were back from ‘Nam by then.
I had been out of the service a little over a year when it started to slide sideways. . .And I remember the sick, strange feelings I had every night as more and more slime leaked out of Washington,D.C. Coming back from the service was a form of Culture Shock, but Watergate was even more so. . .NOT MY COUNTRY. . .GOD,NOT MY BELOVED COUNTRY….
With this batch of moronic criminals it has been more strung out. . .and more angering. Now I mostly feel impatience. Impatience for the end. Impatience for the cleasing to start. Impatience with those so invested in supporting the unsupportable.
Rog @ 86:
What you said. When I said a finite quantity of land, I meant a finite quantity with the parameters that you specified.
Raw land in the middle of nowhere is still next to free. It’s those wide spots in the road where it gets pricey.
Twenty-two missing laptops is obstruction of justice, pure and simple. This makes Rosemary Woods seem a piker. . . .
So why are gas prices rising, and Roger Rabbit’s wealth rising with them? These short-term fluctuations are not really a function of how much oil is in the ground. The current spike is a result of an uptick in demand that is normal for spring, and a dip in supply due to refinery maintenance which is normal for this time of year.
However, the order book of a company like NOV (my largest oil sector holding, although by no means the only one in my portfolio) reflects the expectations of calculating and savvy business executives with respect to whether current oil prices will hold up long-term. NOV sells offshore platforms at several hundred million a pop, and its customers are buying. They need sustained oil prices above $40 a barrel to make those investments pay. And it’s clear from the orders being placed now with equipment makers like NOV that the people who drill for new oil supplies believe they can make a healthy profit at minimal risk on oil that costs over $20 a barrel at the wellhead.
A couple years ago, a Houston investment banker named Matt Simmons who specializes in oil industry finance published a book called “Twilight in the Desert.” You may not have heard of Simmons or his book, but everyone in the oil industry has. It motivated the Saudi government to publicly deny Simmons’ conclusions.
This book doesn’t restate conventional wisdom. It contains original conclusions derived from careful study of raw data in hundreds of engineering papers and reports in the archives of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. What Simmons did was collect and collect data from these papers and put it together to fill in a picture of Saudi reserves and future Saudi production capacity. Virtually every other book on peak oil cites this book as a primary source. On this subject, Simmons is the horse’s mouth.
The reason for that, of course, is that the Saudi government treats information about reserves, production rates, and technical details of oilfield operations and field condition as state secrets. So, the information Simmons gleaned from the SPE files is the best available to anyone outside the inner councils of the Saudi government.
Simmons says you should be very afraid.
The Saudis have glibly promised to not only maintain their current production for decades to come, but to double it by 2020. Simmons says that’s bullshit. He says the world’s biggest oilfield, which for 60 years has accounted for 50% to 60% of Saudi production, is over 90% depleted and the Saudis will be hard pressed to maintain its current production of 5 million bpd for more than a few more years. And there is nothing to replace it. The Saudis haven’t found a big new field for over 35 years. Nor will they ever again, because the oil-bearing geological structures peter out beyond Riyadh, and there’s nothing under the sands of the empty Saudi interior. Nearly all of Saudia Arabia’s oil is either under, or within a few miles of, the Persian Gulf.
Simmons says oil may cost $200 a barrel by 2010, unless a global recession dampens demand. But even in a low-growth or no-growth economic scenario, demand will continue to rise rapidly in China and India. There will not, he said, be supply increases to fill it. So prices have to go up.
I wouldn’t buy the stocks of the oil majors, because they don’t own the oilfields anymore. Most of the planet’s remaining oil has been nationalized, and in the future, the big oil companies will simply be paid fees by governments to pump and transport it. That means those companies can’t grow their profits, and their stocks will behave like utility stocks — low risk stocks with assured dividends that don’t aprpeciate over time.
The companies that make exploration and drilling equipment and/or provide oilfield services are a different story. The revenue stream flowing to the tool makers hasn’t been — and won’t be — nationalized by grasping regimes. $60 a barrel oil pays for a lot of drilling equipment, and $200 a barrel oil will pay for even more! You can buy any of those stocks, even at today’s inflated share prices, with little or no downside. Why? Because, while we may still experience temporary dips in oil prices, oil prices will continue to trend upward over the long haul for the simple reason that demand is higher than ever before and there are no supergiant oilfields left to discover. Absolutely none. All of the world’s supergiants are at least 50 years old, many have already passed peak production and the rest soon will, and there is nothing out there to replace the small number of fields that supplies over half of the world’s oil. You simply can’t make up the production of a 1-million-barrel-a-day oilfield by drilling more 10-barrel-a-day stripper wells.
Be very afraid.
collect and collate
$10 gas and $10 Lake Washington bridge tolls are coming. That’s why Seattle housing is cheap at $750,000, so get it while you can!
Within a few years, there will be a financial Berlin Wall between Seattle and the east-of-lake communities that will make traveling across Lake Washington a rare excursion to grandma’s house instead of an everyday event. You will think twice before driving 20 miles to anywhere for anything.
Better start planning for it now.
Someday soon, the Ghawar oilfield will go brrrrip-hiccup-fart and all of a sudden that 5 million bbls a day will be 350,000 bbls a day, and that’s all she wrote as far as our profligate oil-consuming lifestyle is concerned, folks.
Yeah, there’s lot of oil in the Alberta and Orinoco tar sands and Wyoming’s oil shale, but it will take 40 years to develop that production to Saudi Arabia’s present capacity.
And remember, even when those super-expensive supplies come on line, demand won’t be today’s demand. Demand isn’t static. It’s growing several times faster than new supplies.
” . . . the going price in my neighborhood — roughly half a million — is by no means enough to keep the riff-raff out.” RR @ 88
Good God, man, they let Republicans into your neighborhood? Whoa, keep your doors locked, your shades drawn, and never lend one of them your tools.
SIMMONS HAS BEEN WRONG BEFORE ON HIS $100 PER BARREL PREDICTIONS. IIRC, THE SAUDIS ARE DOING A HELL OF A LOT OF DRILLING TO MAINTAIN PRODUCTION LEVELS. THE JURY IS STILL OUT ON THEM.
IN ANY CASE, THE DEMS CAN ONLY WIN BY PLAYING ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE – MORE EFFICIENCY, MORE RENEWABLES AND EVEN NUKES WILL PLAY A ROLE.
WHAT’S GOT TO GO IS FOSSIL FUELS – THEY’RE DESTROYING THE PLANET.
Just because the Kurds, and Barzani in particular, want to embrace the United States, is no reason for the United States to embrace them. Their strategic interests are not necesarily ours, as a nation.
The Kurds want their own nation. The Turks desparately want to prevent such a formation, particularly right on their border. The Bush syndicate has debts to the Kurds. . .it is commonly believed the Kurds served Saddam up to our hands. But as long as we provide unconditional support to the Kurds, they will not negotiate with either the southern Shia or the Sunni. The Kurds want Kirkuk. . .they say it is historically and culturally Kurdish. . .which is arguable, but more importantly, it floats on a lake of oil.
If we support the Kurds in their desire for Kirkuk, the Sunni’s will never rest in their insurgency and will be motivated to fight to the death. Without Kirkuk, and its oil, the Sunni’s face extermination as a powerless minority in any coalition government. With Kirkuk, they have some leverage, and maybe some future in a coalition. If the Kurds, continue to be supported by our forces, they will never negotiate this prize, which is not so simply a natural Kurdish territory. Further, If we support the Kurds in their desire for Kirkuk, we totally alienate our allies, the Turks. The Turks are Sunni, and while not great lovers of Iraqi Arabs, they are predisposed to favor the Sunnis in their quest for Kirkuk. In fact, there is evidence that some Turkish elements are supporting some elements of the Sunni infrastructure.
While Sistantani and Muqtada Al-Sadr share the Shia faith with the Kurds, they are not natural allies. . .The Kurds have long standing issues with Iran. . . .and so it goes.
The Bush administration, and the neocons in particular, are babes in the wood in this thicket. They have proven their incompetence over and over. They have so thoroughly confused their own interests, with the true strategic interest of the United States that they cannot, and simply do not have political will, to seek a true solution in Iraq.
I believe, it may be possible to achieve a viable coalition that will be stable, but first the Kurds must give way. The window for this is closing, and vanishing at an accelerating pace. Muqtada Al-Sadr is growing impatient, and perfectly capable of fielding literally several hundred thousand followers at his word. If Sistani is persuaded to allow this, we disappear in this cauldron like dewdrops in a bucket of boiling lead.
I grow very weary of morons who yammer about ‘supporting our troops’.
George Patton, for all his failings, was a brilliant battle field commannder. What he said, roughly, was that he wanted his troops to give the patriots of the other side the opportunity to die for their country. Or as it was more directly expressed to me by a DI: We want live Marines, not dead heroes.
I absolutely do not see where the policies we are pursuing now,lead to this. Others have said, and I concur, “Stay the Course” is not a strategy. It is a formula for disaster.
WOW GBS I looked at your site and I chose Doc Hastings for example
I just did a quick check on a contentious issue-House support for Iraq victory in 2005.
The House agreed to H. Res. 612, to express the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq by a yea-and-nay vote of 279 yeas to 109 nays with 34 voting “present”, Roll No. 648. 12/16/2005 The same resolution when it counts he keeps his Yes vote and this time it’s good?
“Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 612) expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq” 2 Procedural votes he voted to affirm victory in Iraq
2 Yes Votes – held against him yet he votes for the final bill which is real deal
Now I look at Norm Dicks
he House agreed to H. Res. 612, to express the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq by a yea-and-nay vote of 279 yeas to 109 nays with 34 voting “present”, Roll No. 648. 12/16/2005 – Y and they agree
Passed Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 612) expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq 12/16/2005 – Votes No twice and they agree? It’s the procedural vote to the one above.
So your group was against the House supporting victory in Iraq before they were for it?
Interesting methodology GBS Interesting.
@96 What I want to know is why White House staffers, at work on paid time, were using private e-mail accounts set up through the RNC to conduct official business.
The answer, of course, was to cover their tracks; and to be able to scrub incriminating e-mails before investigators found them; and to immunize themselves from criminal charges of destroying official documents.
To me, it’s compelling evidence they knew what they were doing was actionable; it’s compelling evidence of criminal intent.
@101 Don’t worry, the real estate agent warned me about that when I moved in.
@102 Simmons had to work with sketchy information, so it’s inevitable that some of his numbers would be off.
Here are the fundamental facts about Saudi oil. In the early days, the oil came up from natural pressure, and what came up was 100% oil. Today, to keep the oil flowing, the Saudis pump millions of barrels a day of seawater into the oil-bearing rocks through injection wells on the periphery of the oil column, and this water creates artificial pressure that pushes the oil up into the wells.
The superlative porosity of the oil-bearing rocks in Saudi Arabia’s premium oilfields has allowed individual wells to produce as much as 40,000 bpd for decades without pumps.
But those injection wells on the margins of the field move closer together every year. In Ghawar, by far the planet’s largest oil deposit, nearly all of the production over the last 60 years has been in a relatively compact area in the north end of the field. What comes up from those wells now is 30% to 50% water, mixed with oil and gas, instead of the pure crude of bygone days. Something like 95% of the recoverable oil in that area has been extracted. The sweetest oil spot on earth is nearly empty.
As you move farther south in Ghawar, the rock becomes denser, which not only makes it harder to drill, but means it contains less oil and the oil moves slower through the rock into the wells. This means you can’t achieve the production rates of wells in the premium areas. As the sweet end of the field peters out and engineers go after this harder-to-get oil from the less prolific portions of the field, production rates will fall.
At the Saudis’ other giant fields, the story is much the same: These fields have been in production for 50 years, water injection was employed from the beginning to maintain high flow rates, and all of this fields are described by petroleum engineers as “extremely mature,” meaning most of the oil has been extracted.
Over the lat 50 years, the Saudis have emptied their premium fields while leaving lesser fields lying fallow. They have two fields of decent size brought into production fairly recently; which, however, together produce only a small fraction of what comes up from the old, nearly depleted, “crown jewel” field. They also have about 80 much smaller undeveloped fields, which have poorer characteristics (which is why they haven’t been developed) and together are incapable of replacing the production of the principal fields.
Even more critically, despite intense exploration efforts, the Saudis have not found more oil over the last 30 years; and it is now apparent there is no more to be found. While detailed data are hard to come by, it is known that the Suadis have been employing sophisticated secondary and tertiary recovery techniques for many years, which indicates they began the endgame process of squeezing the final barrels from their big fields many years ago.
Thus, a day is coming when Saudi production will drop, notwithstanding Saudi promises to increase production. The thesis of Simmons’ book is that day is not far away. Given Simmons’ limited access to key technical data, he’s bound to be off on some of his calculations and timing.
But let me ask you this: If his basic theme is incorrect, what is the reason for Saudi secrecy? If they have plenty of oil, why are they so determined to hide data that would allow impartial outside observers to calculate the production level they can sustain?
Plus, from what IS known about Saudia Arabia’s oilfields, all the evidence points to a peaking of production within a few years. They simply do not have any untapped prolific reservoirs in reserve; to the contrary, ALL of their prolific producers are “extremely mature.”
And there is not another Saudi Arabia anywhere on the planet.
Be very afraid.
What the planet does have is tar sands, oil shale deposits, and coal deposits that can be converted to petroleum products (but not for less than today’s high prices); but it will take many decades to develop these sources to a level of production that can make up for declining Saudi production. And it seems likely the Saudi peak will get here before that “unconventional” production does.
And then there is the matter of demand. Humanity’s thirst for oil is insatiable. China and India are evolving into societies that will have gigantic middle classes. In the future, demand for oil will impossibly outstrip supply; and it will take high prices to constrain demand to a level the producers can supply. Cheap petroleum is a thing of the past, folks. I wouldn’t rule out future gas wars and dollar-a-gallon gas again — but if it happens, it will be brief and temporary. The production and demand demographics all point to long-term petroleum prices settling at a significantly higher level than today’s $60 bbl. To keep our auto-based lifestyle within reach of middle class consumers, we will need a much higher level of fuel efficiency than today’s fleet average.
Wow PelletHead@111: Your thinking has “evolved” from the old it’s the Publican’s fault for high oil prices. Now if Clueless Stupid and other Moonbat!s can agree with PelletHead?
The Donk led by Burqaless Pelosi lead Congress last January created legislation to “punish” the oil companies, which I predicted would raise oil prices after Feb 7 (another Puddy Truism with 8 cents rise on Feb 8-10th) you changed your tune.
Search the ASSWipes archives and you’ll see Puddy was the first to deliver the China and India petroleum use figures. Puddy told you the oil demand was causing prices to increase. Yet you and your other libtard dopes here on ‘Wipes called me every name in the book.
So, I can’t wait for Maria CantVoteWell to come out and decry these high oil prices and blame it on Ted Stevens. I can’t wait for Patty NotSoSmart Murray to ask why did this happen. We need to smartest woman wearing pants Hilary Poll The Wind Clinton to call for a senate investigation.
Huh…? None of these will happen? Shucks!
Mr Stupid: Your hero is in more trouble.
http://www.comcast.net/tv/inde.....lsgonewild
GBS I did some more checking on #70
How much did Congress allocate for Katrina rebuilding? Over $60 BILLION and counting. Some estimates have it at $110 BILLION.
So IAVA counts against the three WA Republicans when they vote against three bill amendments which throws more money towards Katrina in a defense appropriations bill but count it when the Donk say Yea and when the final bill arrives without the Katrina funding and the three WA Republicans vote Yes on the final bill with the Donk and it’s counted for them?
So I guess by your reckoning you agree with what the Pelosi lead Donk are doing right now with the $24 Billion in pork attached to the Iraq funding bill?
Interesting reasoning GBS Interesting!
GBS More fact checking on #70
The Streit Amendment which calls for a balance budget in $2012 and funding troops w/o cuts in programs to balance the budget is voted NO by The Three Republicans and Yea by the Donk. This is counted against the three.
When the amendment is reworded and all vote for it, then it’s counted as good?
Interesting reasoning GBS Interesting!
It’s all there GBS. I don’t have the time to investigate more but thanks for the site. I will write the Paul Rieckhoff and ask what is their methodology for analysis on some of these votes.
Your thinking has “evolved” from the old it’s the Publican’s fault for high oil prices.
PUDDYWHACKO: WELL DURING CLINTON’S DAY? THE PRICE? NOW THE CHIMP? THE PRICE?
REMEMBER THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION VEHICLE? A CLINTON INITIATIVE KILLED BY THE CHIMP? JUST GOOGLE IT.
JUST THINK (I KNOW THAT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU) BUT TRY ANYWAY. AN AL GORE PRESIDENCY AND A NEW GENERATION VEHICLE THAT GETS 80 PLUS MPG.
A FLEET TURNOVER TO THAT KIND OF CAR WOULD PUT GAS INTO THE HIGH DOLLAR, LOW TWO DOLLAR RANGE.
YEAH, IT’S THE PUBLICAN’S FAULT.
Pud You don’t have to write to Paul, had you done your homework at the IAVA site they express how simple their methodology is in the subject of supporting the troops.
Basically it goes like this: How many times did you vote in support of veterans issues out of the total number of times you could have supported the veterans. It ain’t rocket science, so you conservatives ought to be able to grasp the concept without too much tutoring.
They count the total number of bills affecting our troops and they have a sliding scale to grade the elected officials on how many times they vote to fund troop/veteran issues. The more you vote to support the troops the higher grade you get.
For instance to get an “A” rating means you have to vote in support of the troops you have to vote to support the troops 90% of the time or better.
Dave “Fuck the Troops” Reichert votes against the troops 40% of the time. Sen. Murray and Cantwell vote to support the troops at least 90% of the time.
Why are you against supporting the politicians who consistently vote to support our troops with the armor, training, equipment, and health care they deserve?
See what you are doing is bullshit, Puddybud, and you’re going get it thrown back in your grill constantly. You Cherry pick one to two or three bills out of more than 150 that they’ve voted on to try and make shitty and flimsy point.
Interesting, Puddybud, interesting you’d spin your crap against the veterans.
That crap won’t pass muster on MY watch any longer. I’m going to be on the TROOP HATERS ass like Al Sharpton on a racist.
If you want to support the Republicans who consistently vote against the troops then you’re going to be called the TROOP HATER that you are. The choice is yours.
Support the politicians who vote to REALLY support the troops or be known as “Puddybud the TROOP HATER.”
You posting links to Anarchists and calling us Liberals troop haters isn’t going to fucking fly anymore! You set off the wrong vet!
So Puddybud GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT because it is all there!!
You choose to cherry pick the truth agiainst vets.
SHAME ON YOU!! YOU TROOP HATER!!
IAVA (Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America)
How did your congressional representative vote?
DEMOCRATS
Sen. Patty Murray gets a rating for supporting the troops of A-
Sen. Maria Cantwell gets a rating for supporting the troops of A-
Rep. Brian Baird gets a rating of supporting the troops of B
Rep. Adam Smith gets a rating of supporting the troops of A-
Rep. Norm Dicks gets a rating of supporting the troops A-
Rep. Jay Inslee gets a rating for supporting the troops of A
Rep. Jim McDermott gets a rating for supporting troops of C- SHAMEFUL
Rep. Rich Larsen gets a rating for supporting the troops of A
Washington Democrats GPA for supporting the troops: 3.625
TROOP HATERS i.e. Republicans
Rep. Dave Reichert gets a rating for supporting the troops a FUCKING D- ALMOST A GOD DAMNED “F”!!!!!!!
Rep. Doc Hastings gets a rating for supporting the troops a whopping C
Rep. Cathy McMorris gets a rating for supporting the troops a FUCKING D
Washington’s Troop haters GPA for their unwillingness to support our troops: 1.33
Fat, dumb, and unpatriotic is now way to go trough life, you TROOP HATERS!
Here’s the link: http://capwiz.com/iava/dbq/officials/
Now, Puddybud, are you going to waiver from the truth or are you going to say Republican leaders DO NOT SUPPORT THE TROOPS!
Which is it Puddybud, your moral principles or your political leaders unprincipled hatred of our troops?????????????
“Honesty is above all else. I have never wavered from that
Pud
04/12/2007 at 2:44 pm”
Exposing the real TROOP HATERS is my new mission. I’m sick and tired of Ass Holes posting links pictures of unpatriotic Anarchists and then saying they’re on the side of Liberals. FUCK YOU ALL!
PacMan, what do you think of your elected TROOP HATERS that you support?