On warming

Bubblehead - I confess I must not read widely enough on the blogs. I have yet to see one that predicts Cheney will resign. But I agree with you. If there are such blogs I think they are wrong. Unless, perhaps, so many Republicans enter Cheney's office and "make him an offer he can't refuse" he will have no choice.

There are still a few perverse individuals who argue that global warming is (l) either not occurring at all, or (2) is a result simply of natural cycles of nature. To subscribe to the first of these seems to me to be so far-fetched in view of the evidence that we need not take it seriously. To argue the second possibility is not so easily dismissed although I believe it to be no more reasonable than the first. That is, it is undeniably true that the earth seems to have gone through periods of warming and cooling (unless, I guess, if you believe the earth is only 6000 years old which would make such cycles about as reasonable as the existence of dinosaurs contemporaneously with humans). So, let us agree that the earth has and does go through natural periods of climate change. Was there any previous period of time when there were somewhere in the vicinity of a billion cars and trucks (I don't know how many cars and trucks there are but I am guessing a billion more or less)? And how about millions of ATV's, power boats, personal watercraft, snowmobiles, combines, tractors, lawnmowers, etc., and hundreds if not thousands of coal fired power plants, billions of people burning their trash, and other human related activities. Did such things exist back during the previous warming trends? The answer is obviously no. Is it therefore safe to conclude that all these human activities may in fact be influencing climate on this tiny planet we call home? If you don't think so I suggest you submit you resume to the White House. I'm sure they will make a place for you.

There is now talk that our Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, may not be around much longer. His recent purge of Federal Prosecutors may be too scandalous even for Republicans to defend. Hey, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

I am still trying to grasp Republican logic on the differences between Clinton's impeachment for perjury and Libby's case. Kate O'Beirne seems to think that because Clinton admitted to perjury and Libby was only convicted of it by a jury of his peers, that somehow Libby should be pardoned (of course O'Beirne, being a nitwit of the first order, might be simply ignored). But Lindsey Graham is also arguing for a pardon for Libby. Remember him, the guy who was all gung-ho to get Clinton for perjury, but who now wants a different treatment for a Republican colleague convicted of the same offense. He says the two cases are different. He's right. The Clinton case was trivial, this one is serious. You just have to make excuses for Republicans. They have small, smooth brains. They are also the most blatant, disgusting, vile and despicable HYPOCRITES ever to despoil the body politic (to say nothing of the universe).