Drug prohibition does cause crime - but you need it. If marijuana were legal, then cocaine would be the big one in the drug trade, if that was legal, then something else would arise. What are you talking about? I mean, screwing kids is illegal to, and people commit crimes (often violent) to do it anyway. Certainly you don't think we should adjust the laws for that do you?
that Rudy doesn't deserve to toot his horn about 911. Then no, I didn't miss it.
And after thought, I cannot comaplain about that because he threw it in the political minefield, and it is fair game.
I read these facts when they came out a month ago.
My distress is not in what this guy reports, it's the fact I can predict what is going to be in an article that is getting old.
The fact that this is 'news' to anyone, and not just a repetition of things said 4 weeks ago is what is shocking....
Not a good story when I can tell you 80% of the gist before I even read. I would not consider this anything but someone repeating a bunch of common news stories, then trying to pass himself off as a "in depth" analysis.... BORING!!!!
Let me guess the talking points.
1. He doesn't believe the people who say the surge is working.
2. Violence in the first place in that region is unacceptable.
3. His view of what working means, doesn't necessarily involve less violence against American troops.
4. Bush is a liar
5. The intelligence is skewed.
Okay, so out of 5 we'll see how I did....
I love how this paper claims that "very likely" constitutes proof in the scientific realm. Once again smugging those who are not in it and claiming it is to difficult to understand. But, and correct me if I am wrong:
If I put a solid red hot piece of metal the size of a golf ball into an 8 oz cup of water, I can say for sure it will increase the temperature of the water. A scientist would not say that it is "very likely."
The 'skeptics' you refer to are not doubting that the climate is changing.
The arguement is how much we as a species are responsible for it, and what we can really do to help it, instead or revamping our whole economy before we know the facts.
Personally, I think energy conservation is a good thing.
I also think that things can be misjudged, and taken out of context. I read the IPCC summary report. It is a little disturbing that 'very likely' is being taken as 'true' and those who don't believe it are ridiculous. The fact that the ones trying to prove this, can only muster up the confidence to say 'very likey' is not only a natural invite for skepticism, but a motive to keep research going, instead of taking 'very likely' as scientific proof as 'good enough' proof in the future.
All Comments »
Atlanta City Guide
Powered by Foundation
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation