The War on Terra: NASA's Mission Modified
You just know there were dozens of high-level meetings that went into this decision. From Aero-News.net:
You know what this is about. It's about NASA scientists talking out loud about global warming.
Now, I gotta say, I usually can follow the nutty logic that infects our national discourse these days. The abortion thing, OK, you define it such-and-such and you can call it "murder" and that justifies gritting your teeth and squinting in a menacing manner whenever the topic comes up; the war, yeah, if all Arabs are the same then it makes sense to torture, rape, and murder innocent Iraqis in response to something that was done by a group of Saudis. The gay issue, since anyone who hears about homosexuality is going to rush right out and try it and catch AIDS and die, you'd better keep any mention of it out of the schools. And so on, usually I can see what the "reasoning" is.
But global warming. Why would anyone want to take a chance on sending our plantary environment into a chaotic state? OK, you might not like Al Gore because he's a liberal or whatever, it's not about Al Gore. OK, so business is going to have to spend some money and change the way they do things, whatever, that means that whoever provides the new clean technology will make money, what goes around comes around, it's an opening for the next generation of entrepeneurs. Yes, the oil industry feels threatened -- well, what have they done for us lately? Why would we care?
This is almost like a test case, like the Rovians want to see how far they can push it. Can they take some arbitrary piece of science, turn it around, and get the public to accept the opposite? If they can twist the media into publicizing "the controversy," if they can get their opinion on the TV screen, then some number of people are going to believe it. Just to see if it works.
The only other thing I can think of is the Apocalypse scenario, if we can hurry up the destruction of the world then it means Jesus will come back sooner. Sorry to say, that is still a plausible hypothesis for understanding these kinds of decisions, even at the highest levels of government.
David E. Steitz sounds like a guy who doesn't really want to "spend more time with his family" soon. He likes that nice paycheck.
Funny, this guy's name is like Veirs Mill Road, they spell it Steitz sometimes, and Stietz other times.
America, you elected these clowns, you deserve whatever you get. It's the voters' version of the Pottery Barn principle at work: you broke it, you bought it.
To understand and protect our home planet ... really, who cares about that junk?
This just in -- NASA is no longer in the business of protecting our planet. For the first time since 2002, NASA's mission statement makes no mention of the planet Earth.
The New York Times reports that for the past four years, NASA's mission statement read, "To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers... as only NASA can."
Since early February, however, NASA's mission statement -- placed on all its budget and planning documents -- now reads "to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research."
No mention is made of exploring... or protecting... terra firma. Has NASA Given Up On Planet Earth?
You know what this is about. It's about NASA scientists talking out loud about global warming.
Now, I gotta say, I usually can follow the nutty logic that infects our national discourse these days. The abortion thing, OK, you define it such-and-such and you can call it "murder" and that justifies gritting your teeth and squinting in a menacing manner whenever the topic comes up; the war, yeah, if all Arabs are the same then it makes sense to torture, rape, and murder innocent Iraqis in response to something that was done by a group of Saudis. The gay issue, since anyone who hears about homosexuality is going to rush right out and try it and catch AIDS and die, you'd better keep any mention of it out of the schools. And so on, usually I can see what the "reasoning" is.
But global warming. Why would anyone want to take a chance on sending our plantary environment into a chaotic state? OK, you might not like Al Gore because he's a liberal or whatever, it's not about Al Gore. OK, so business is going to have to spend some money and change the way they do things, whatever, that means that whoever provides the new clean technology will make money, what goes around comes around, it's an opening for the next generation of entrepeneurs. Yes, the oil industry feels threatened -- well, what have they done for us lately? Why would we care?
This is almost like a test case, like the Rovians want to see how far they can push it. Can they take some arbitrary piece of science, turn it around, and get the public to accept the opposite? If they can twist the media into publicizing "the controversy," if they can get their opinion on the TV screen, then some number of people are going to believe it. Just to see if it works.
The only other thing I can think of is the Apocalypse scenario, if we can hurry up the destruction of the world then it means Jesus will come back sooner. Sorry to say, that is still a plausible hypothesis for understanding these kinds of decisions, even at the highest levels of government.
NASA spokesman David E. Steitz told the Times the change was made to bring NASA's stated goals in line with President Bush's aim for manned spaceflight to the moon and Mars -- but that explanation isn't sitting well with many NASA scientists, who fear the omission means NASA is no longer concerned with projects dealing with such global issues as climate change, and greenhouse emissions.
David E. Steitz sounds like a guy who doesn't really want to "spend more time with his family" soon. He likes that nice paycheck.
“We refer to the mission statement in all our research proposals that go out for peer review, whenever we have strategy meetings,” said 25-year NASA veteran Philip B. Russell, an atmospheric chemist at the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, CA. “As civil servants, we’re paid to carry out NASA’s mission. When there was that very easy-to-understand statement that our job is to protect the planet, that made it much easier to justify this kind of work.”
Furthermore, NASA researchers say the change was made without consulting the agency's 19,000 employees -- an issue Stietz attributed to NASA administrator Michael Griffin's "headquarters-down" style of management.
“I don’t think there was any mal-intent or idea of exclusion,” Steitz added.
Funny, this guy's name is like Veirs Mill Road, they spell it Steitz sometimes, and Stietz other times.
That doesn't wash, however, with James E. Hansen -- the NASA climatologist who in February claimed political appointee George Deutsch threatened him for speaking out about the potential dangers from greenhouse gases.
“They’re making it clear that they have the authority to make this change, that the president sets the objectives for NASA, and that they prefer that NASA work on something that’s not causing them a problem,” said Hansen, who directs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, on the new mission statement.
America, you elected these clowns, you deserve whatever you get. It's the voters' version of the Pottery Barn principle at work: you broke it, you bought it.
To understand and protect our home planet ... really, who cares about that junk?
posted by JimK at 2:07 PM
43 Comments:
Dr D
If you're still reading, just saw the first campaign signs up for your race this weekend. I have no doubt your positions are atrocious but I d0 think you have a clever slogan. Don't wish you success but hope it's a fun campaign. We need a few politicians around here on all sides with a little imagination.
H.A.
By the way, I haven't checked the site since Friday but I see there was a lively conversation about revisionist history which I haven't the strength to read at present. Just glad Orin's around.
I do have a couple of related items to introduce though:
1. My kids were on a mission trip to New Orleans last week which reminded me I wanted to check out Anne Rice's latest book. In case you haven't heard this woman, renowned for her vampire stories, has renounced her obssession with superatural evil and become a Bible believer. In the afterword of the book I read last week, she describes how she became a Christian believer by immersing herself in historical sources concerning first century Palestine for research on one of her books. Having read everything she could find 24/7 for about a year and a half, she came to believe that there was a pattern among liberal biblical scholars of bias and antipathy against Jesus. She also came to the conclusion that the only logical explanation for everything that followed was that Jesus actually performed the miracles mentioned in the Bible and that he actually rose from the dead. It's not the first time an agnostic researched the evidence and came to this conclusion but, still, it's pretty astonishing. Anyway, I hope everyone will take a look at the description of historic revisionism in her book. It's only about 15 pages long.
BTW, TTFers will love Rice. her son is gay and she supports the right of gays to worship with other believers.
2. Francis Collins, a notable biologist and former atheist who is now an evangelical Christian. Collins was the first person to map the human genome. He was profiled in the Washington Post on Saturday. He says if scientific skeptics would apply the same rigor they use to study the natural world to religious inquiry, they would see that science and faith are completely compatible. Here's a quote: "For a scientist, it's uncomfortable to admit there are questions your scientific method isn't going to be able to address."
He believes in both evolution and creationism but says scientists have been a tougher audience to crack.
H.A.
the sky is falling, got it.
it is Bush's falt. got it.
as long as you don't ask me to pay for anything, or ask me to change my behavior I don't care.
Jim,
We just saw some evidence last week that the global warming numbers have not been properly stated. A group of respected scientists presented this evidence to Congress. Try to keep up with the latest scientific research. Also, there is presently no evidence that human activity is causing whatever temperature variance has occurred.
BTW, I think the proper agency for this concern would NOAA not NASA.
H.A.
"Anonymous said...
the sky is falling, got it.
it is Bush's falt. got it.
as long as you don't ask me to pay for anything, or ask me to change my behavior I don't care."
Did you write this, Jim?
What? Are you asking if I commented anonymously and said this stuff? If that's your question,, the answer is No. I don't really understand what he's trying to say. Not that I care.
JimK
Glenn Greenwald on Sunday, July 23rd, 2006 at 8:19 AM - PDT
The full extent and irreversibility of the damage to our country wrought by the Bush administration will likely not be known until well after George Bush finally disappears from our political life. But understanding the dynamics and impulses of the movement which have enabled these abuses is a critically important task, and that is the project undertaken by John Dean’s new best-selling book, Conservatives Without Conscience (selected excerpt is here). Fortuitously for Dean, this examination of what has become the so-called "conservative" movement (composed of Bush followers, neoconservatives and hard-core religious conservatives) comes at the perfect time.
With 2 1/2 years still left for this administration, the true radicalism of the administration and its followers has become unavoidably, depressingly clear, and it is equally clear that this movement has not reached anywhere near the peak of its extremism. Dean’s central thesis explains why that is so.
Dean contends, and amply documents, that the "conservative" movement has become, at its core, an authoritarian movement composed of those with a psychological and emotional need to follow a strong authority figure which provides them a sense of moral clarity and a feeling of individual power, the absence of which creates fear and insecurity in the individuals who crave it. By definition, its followers’ devotion to authority and the movement’s own power is supreme, thereby overriding the consciences of its individual members and removing any intellectual and moral limits on what will be justified in defense of their movement.
Dean relies on substantial social science data to illustrate the personality type that seeks out authoritarian movements. But his case is made much more persuasively by what one can visibly see unfolding before one’s own eyes.
As Iraq collapses into all-out civil war and new, tragic levels of violence, Bush supporters continue to insist that things are going well there and our invasion was a success. As the Middle East spirals into all-out regional war, Bush supporters insist that this repulsive violence is actually good for the region — wars are encouraging "birth pangs" on the road to progress, as the Secretary of State put it yesterday — and they are now actively involving the U.S. in this escalated conflict, even while Iraq rapidly falls apart.
And there is seemingly no limit — literally — on the willingness, even eagerness, of Bush supporters to defend and justify even the most morally repugnant abuses — from constantly expanding spying on American citizens, to a President who claims and aggressively exercises the "right" to break the law, to torturing suspects, imprisoning journalists, and turning the United States into the most feared and hated country on the planet.
And as radical as the administration has become, it is clear that the administration has not even come close to reaching the level of extremism which would be necessary for its supporters to object — if such a limit exists at all. If anything, on those exceedingly few occasions over six years when his followers have dissented from the Presidents’s decisions — illegal immigration, Harriet Miers, the Dubai port deal – it has been not because the administration was too radical, extremist, militaristic and uncompromising — but insufficiently so.
Bush supporters want more spying, much more aggressive actions against investigative journalists and even domestic political opposition, more death and violence brought to the Middle East, more wars, and still fewer restraints on the President’s powers, to the extent there are any real limits left. To them, the Bush administration has not been nearly as extremist and aggressive as it ought to be in dealing with the Enemies. And that is to say nothing of the measures that would be urged, and almost certainly imposed, in the event of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil or in the increasingly likely event that our limited war in Iraq expands into the Epic War of Civilizations which so many of them crave.
Ultimately, as Dean convincingly demonstrates, the characteristic which defines the Bush movement, the glue which binds it together and enables and fuels all of the abuses, is the vicious, limitless methods used to attack and demonize the "Enemy," which encompasses anyone — foreign or domestic — threatening to their movement. What defines and motivates this movement are not any political ideas or strategic objectives, but instead, it is the bloodthirsty, ritualistic attacks on the Enemy de jour — the Terrorist, the Communist, the Illegal Immigrant, the Secularist, and most of all, the "Liberal."
What excites, enlivens, and drives Bush followers is the identification of the Enemy followed by swarming, rabid attacks on it. It is a movement that defines itself not by identifiable ideas but by that which it is not. Its foreign policy objectives are identifiable by one overriding goal — destroy and kill the Enemy, potential or suspected enemies, and everyone nearby. And it increasingly views its domestic goals through the same lens. It is a movement in a permanent state of war, which views all matters, foreign and domestic, only in terms of this permanent war.
Supreme Court justices who rule against the President on national security matters are tyrants, traitors and pro-terrorist. Journalists who uncover legally dubious government conduct carried out in secret are criminals who should be imprisoned for life or hanged. Virtually every political opponent of the administration’s of any significance — Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry, the Clintons — is relentlessly branded as a liar, mentally unstable, corrupt, seditious, and sympathetic to the Enemy.
And even those who devoted much of their adult lives to military service to their country (often in ways far more courageous and impressive than most Bush supporters), or even those who have been longtime Republicans and conservatives, have their characters relentlessly smeared and motives and integrity impugned as soon as they criticize the administration in any way that could embarrass the President — Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neill, the war critic Generals, Joe Wilson, Scott Ritter, Wesley Clark, John Murtha, John Paul Stevens, and on and on and on.
It is a movement devoted to the destruction of its enemies wherever they might be found. And it finds new ones, in every corner and seemingly on a daily basis, because it must. That is the food which sustains it.
* * * * *
In many ways, John Dean is the ideal person to examine this dynamic because he has seen and experienced both sides of it up close and personal. Attracted to the political conservatism of Barry Goldwater, Dean joined the Nixon administration and, at the age of 32, became Nixon’s aggressive White House counsel, deeply involved in helping to perpetrate many of the Watergate abuses. Morton Halperin, who was a standing member of Nixon’s "enemy list," claimed in an Op-Ed in Friday’s Los Angeles Times that Dean authored a 1971 memo setting forth a plan to "use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies."
But in 1973, Dean became the first high-level Nixon official to turn against the administration, famously testifying before the Senate Watergate Committee that the President (as well as Dean himself) was personally involved in the Watergate cover-up. As a result of his refusal to copy the example of blindly loyal authoritarian followers such as G. Gordon Liddy and Charles Colson — who lied and covered-up for their leader — Dean became one of the most hated enemies of Nixon followers, a hatred which, he later discovered, would make him the target of the right-wing authoritarian tactics which he previously wielded against Nixon’s enemies.
In 1991, as Dean recounts at length, he learned that 60 Minutes and Time Magazine were preparing to feature a new book, entitled Silent Coup, which claimed that Dean himself was the one who ordered the Watergate break-in. The book alleged that Dean’s motive was that his wife, Maureen, had a connection to a Washington, DC call-girl operation and thus had knowledge of various sex scandals involving Democrats, and Dean sought to obtain documentation to use against them.
The very idea that Dean himself had ordered the Watergate break-in because of his wife’s connection to a call-girl service, and that these secrets were somehow kept for 20 years, was completely absurd on its face. And once Dean vehemently denied these allegations, both 60 Minutes and Time investigated the claims and both decided not to run the story — a noble decision which, in Time’s case, led to the loss of the $50,000 it had paid for the rights to run an excerpt of the book.
But using right-wing smear techniques which, back then, were still new, but which are now a staple of the "conservative" movement, these patently false allegations against Dean were aggressively promoted by right-wing ideologues and then accepted and given great attention by the mainstream media. The book’s publishers enlisted both right-wing follower G. Gordon Liddy and by-then-born-again Christian right activist Charles Colson — both of whom still hated Dean for his blasphemy in testifying truthfully against the President — to promote the book and push its allegations against Dean.
More and more right-wing groups and personalities jumped on board this smear campaign, until it received full-fledged support from mainstream right-wing media personalities. That, in turn, induced many mainstream media programs — from Good Morning America to CNN’s Larry King Live — to invite the authors on to discuss the book. Out of this now all-too-familiar process, this defamatory book ended up on the New York Times’ Best Seller List. As Dean recounts:
Despite most of the news media’s fitting dismissal of Silent Coup’s baseless claims, the protracted litigation provided time for the book to gather a following, including an almost cultlike collection of highprofile right-wingers. Among them, for example, is Monica Crowley, a former aide to Richard Nixon after his presidency, and now a conservative personality on MSNBC, cohosting Connected: Coast to Coast with Ron Reagan. Other prominent media-based conservatives who have joined the glee club are James Rosen and Brit Hume of Fox News. How these seemingly intelligent people embraced this false account mystified me, and I wanted to know. . . .
As for Colson, his reason for promotion of Silent Coup remained a complete mystery for me, as did the motives of people like Monica Crowley, James Rosen, Brit Hume, and all the other hard-core conservatives who embraced this spurious history and made it a best seller. The only thing I could see that these people had in common was their conservatism.
That is how the "conservative" movement works to this day, although its methods have become even more efficient and less scrupulous. Petty allegations and character attacks begin percolating in the smear sewers of the right wing — through insinuations by talk-radio dirt-mongerers like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, speculation by Matt Drudge, smear campaigns by shadowy groups and organizations, and now by attention-desperate and glory-seeking right-wing blogs. From there, the attacks are reported by the right-wing media and then fed into the mainstream media.
A lynch mob is created which seeks not the truth of what happened, but the destruction of the movement’s enemies. "Conservative" rank-and-file, confining themselves to an echo chamber, embrace the allegations instinctively, because they are made by the movement’s defenders against the movement’s enemies. And their allegiance to their movement and a desire to destroy their opponents overrides any concern for proportionality or truth. As Dean documents, it is what the contemporary, so-called "conservative" movement feeds on more than anything else — a limitless and bloodthirsty attack on the character of its opponents and enemies.
* * * * *
Dean advances and then amply documents (both with his own analysis and social science data, the former being far more persuasive than the latter) what I consider to be the book’s two central points:
First, that what is currently described as the "conservative movement" bears virtually no resemblance to Goldwater’s conservatism, and has nothing to do with restraining government power or preserving historical values. Instead, it has transformed into an authoritarian movement which largely attracts personality types characterized by a desire and need to submit to and follow authority.
Second, because those who submit to authority necessarily relinquish their own conscience (in favor of serving the conscience of their leader and/or their movement), those who are part of this movement are capable of acts which a healthy and normal conscience ought to preclude. They can use torture, break laws, wage unnecessary wars based on false pretenses, and attempt to destroy the reputation of plainly patriotic and honest Americans — provided that they are convinced that doing so advances the interests of the authority they serve and the movement of which they are a part.
The central premise of Dean’s argument is that the current "conservative" movement shares none of the core principles of the political conservatism which attracted Dean to its movement — those espoused by Dean’s longtime friend, Barry Goldwater (whose 1960 book, The Conscience of a Conservative, is the source for Dean’s title). That the Bush movement bears no resemblance to traditional conservatism is a view shared by scores of the country’s most prominent conservatives, such as Pat Buchanan and increasingly George Will. The Father of Modern Conservatism, Bill Buckely, just yesterday pronounced that Bush’s "singular problem" is "the absence of effective conservative ideology." And before his death, Barry Goldwater himself frequently accused the religious right of assaulting core conservative principles.
Relatedly, Dean documents that the "conservative" movement is composed of various factions who actually share very little in common in the way of political beliefs and could not come close to agreeing on a core set of political principles and ideals which define their movement. In the absence of a set of core, shared beliefs, what, then, binds them and maintains their allegiance to this political movement?
The answer Dean provides is the shared hatred of common enemies. And their collective attacks on those enemies have become the consevative movement’s defining attribute. And that is sufficient to maintain allegiance because, argues Dean, what Bush followers crave more than anything else is submission to a powerful authority as a means of alleviating their fears of ambiguity, uncertainty and complexity — the same attributes which are common to all followers of authoritarian movements on both the right and the left:
Given the rather distinct beliefs of the various conservative factions, which have only grown more complex with time, how have conservatives succeeded in coalescing as a political force? The simple answer is through the power of negative thinking, and specifically, the ability to find common enemies. . . .
Important conservative opinion journals, like the National Review and Human Events, see the world as bipolar: conservative versus liberal. Right-wing talk radio could not survive without its endless bloviating about the horrors of liberalism. Trashing liberals is nothing short of a cottage industry for conservative authors. . . .
The exaggerated hostility also apparently satisfies a psychological need for antagonism toward the “out group,” reinforces the self-esteem of the conservative base, and increases solidarity within the ranks.
The heart of [New York University Professor John] Jost and his collaborators’ findings was that people become or remain political conservatives because they have a “heightened psychological need to manage uncertainty and threat.” More specifically, the study established that the various psychological factors associated with political conservatives included (and here I am paraphrasing) fear, intolerance of ambiguity, need for certainty or structure in life, overreaction to threats, and a disposition to dominate others.
This data was collected from conservatives willing to explain their beliefs and have their related psychological dynamics studied through various objective testing techniques. These characteristics, Dr. Jost said, typically cannot be ascribed to liberals.
A healthy skepticism is warranted with regard to the ability of social science data to reveal truths about political movements. But ultimately, the ability of that data to persuade is dependent upon the extent to which it comports with one’s own observations. And when Dean cites and applies the conclusions of the famous study by Stanley Milgram, in which subject participants administered what seemed to be excruciatingly painful electric shock because they were instructed by authority figures in white coats to do so, its applicability to the Bush movement becomes self-evident:
When "a person acting under authority performs actions that seem to violate his standards of conscience, it would not be true to say that he loses his moral sense," Milgram concluded. Rather, that person simply places his moral views aside. His "moral concern shifts to a consideration of how well he is living up to the expectations of the authority figure."
The Bush administration’s ability to engage in extraordinary and radical behavior has not occurred in a vacuum. The administration is radical and can act seemingly without limits because its supporters and followers are radical and limitless in their allegiance to its abuses. Understanding the disturbing and dangerous human dynamic which fuels that movement is critical to understanding the movement itself, and ultimately, to defeating it. Dean’s book is a uniquely valuable tool for understanding what the so-called "conservative" movement has become.
Okay,
So there was this little project called EOS DIS (Earth Observation System Data Information System).
It was a major focus of NASA about 15 years ago.
My husband moved here from California to help Raytheon with their successful bid to win this program. They built a bunch of satellites, launched them, and they are now feeding lots and lots of data to scientists around the US and lots of scientists can get access to the information. Apparently it is tracking weather patterns, densities, all sorts of stuff.
But it was a massive system and it is fielded.
http://spsosun.gsfc.nasa.gov/eosinfo/EOSDIS_Site/index.html
So the focus could have come off NASA website, Jim, quite simply because this was a major focus while they were building and fielding the system - but it is up now, the scientist have a ton of data, and the focus for NASA at least is off this system since they were only I imagine really involved in it's deployment. It would be other scientists involved in analyzing the data.
The discussion that I had with my husband about global warming was that the scientists he had talked to utilizing the masses of data from EOSDIS said that the data was inconclusive - and that we might be entering the next ICE age.
Oh, and I spent the weekend with a a friend of mine at the beach who is a PHD scientist at NIH. She says that she worked for a firm - Tiger - that for 5 years tried to prove DNA chains evolved by tracking genes in DNA chains and showing how one DNA chain could have evolved into another. They couldn't do it. It didn't map at all. She also indicated that embroyonic stem cell research is potentially dangerous - because embroyonic stem cells can turn into potentially anything - think cancer. She indicated they are making a number of exciting discoveries with adult stem cells - fixing heart muscles, starting to help some people regain movement after spinal injuries - and believes that if the adult stem cell researchers have another year of federal funding without being distracted by the embryonic stem cell research - which is not as mature - that the embryonic stem cell research might not be necessary at all.
"She indicated they are making a number of exciting discoveries with adult stem cells"
This is true and will become a campaign issue. The Senate approved a bill 100-0 last week to expand non-embryonic stem cell research but the House rejected it. Campaigns don't come into focus until Labor Day.
H.A.
Theresa
I would be interested to see a link to that "Tiger" project or any other information about it.
JimK
I have a friend that is doing work on spinal cord injuries using adult stem cells. I asked him about this, and he said that most scientists are abandoning fetal stem cells. Because they’re just to unstable and adult stem cells is becoming easer to manipulate. The added bonuses is that the patients immune system will not reject its own stem cells as it does fetal cells so no need for immune suppressing drugs.
Anonymous said...
Glenn Greenwald on Sunday, July 23rd, 2006 at 8:19 AM - PDT
Paranoia is an unfounded or exaggerated distrust of others, sometimes reaching delusional proportions. Paranoid individuals constantly suspect the motives of those around them, and believe that certain individuals, or people in general, are "out to get them."
example
John Dean
Now here is an article that might be of interest to some here, in today's Washington Post.
And the Evolutionary Beat Goes On . .
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 24, 2006; Page A07
with a very cool, yet strikingly funny morphing Stephen Jay Gould. Since Prof. Gould is no longer with us, I hope wherever he ended up that he is happy in that place. Sorry to disappoint anyone of you, but I am a religious person that really does understand that good and decent people need not believe in a deity.
I still remember an interview with him by CBS News (and broadcast on their CBS Sunday Morning news program). The Mrs. was watching it with me. The interview was as interesting as it was revealing of the prejudices of Gould. At the end of the interview, the Mrs. commented that Gould struck her as being quite arrogant. I looked at her, and thanked her for the observation (as she is not really political at all like me, so to hear such an observation without any input from me is well...revealing).
Having just read John Dean's new book, I'd have to say he is one of the least delusional people I can think of.
It is interesting, though, to watch the true conservatives rejecting the current gang of fanatics in power. It was good for awhile, the Republicans were able to get a majority by catering to the nuts, but now they see that the party has abandoned its ideals and gone off on some crazy course. John Dean describes himself as a "Goldwater conservative," he's no liberal, but his book is a thoughtful and well-informed dissection of the authoritarianism that has replaced careful conservatism in the GOP.
In this light, it's not surprising to see William F. Buckley, spokesman for conservatism for as long as anyone can imagine, telling CBS News, "If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign."
In my opinion, there is plenty of room for a debate between the conservative and liberal points of view in American policy-making, I like to see one balance the other. But in the current regime, both conservatism and liberalism have been abandoned, with some personal and self-serving "gut feeling" replacing both philosophies.
JimK
I didn't read all 37 paragraphs of the Dean post but the whole idea that the Bush administration has an enemies' list and is intolerant of dissent or authortitarian is ridiculous. Here's an excerpt:
"The answer Dean provides is the shared hatred of common enemies. And their collective attacks on those enemies have become the consevative movement’s defining attribute. And that is sufficient to maintain allegiance because, argues Dean, what Bush followers crave more than anything else is submission to a powerful authority as a means of alleviating their fears of ambiguity, uncertainty and complexity — the same attributes which are common to all followers of authoritarian movements on both the right and the left"
With this type of hyperbole, you could probably say something like this about any administration. From the beginning of this one, there have been a number of viewpoints represented in the Cabinet itself. If you're going to say anyone who resist liberal propaganda is "authoritarian", You're just talking in circles, jollying yourself up, as it were.
Nifty Ice
"In my opinion, there is plenty of room for a debate between the conservative and liberal points of view in American policy-making,"
Right. To JK, Clinton is conservative and Nader is liberal.
N I
So Anon- or whatever, thinks people who write about vampires believe in them? So does that mean people who write about "good" things like the Easter bunny believe that is how chocolate eggs happen?
I agree- Dana's positions are terrible- universal health care, excellent public education, and equality. Shame on her- let's find someone who can run on important things like -no flag burning, no ESOL, no gay marriage and no sex education. Oh, wait, I think that candidate is running in Pennsylvania and a lot of other places.
And to heck with Earth- the Left behind people guarantee we won't need it much longer.
Andrea
"So Anon- or whatever, thinks people who write about vampires believe in them?"
Andrea, I must have caught you on a bad day. No, I think there are probably few people who write about vampires and actually believe in them. People are fascinated by evil though and at some point it becomes sick. Anne Rice has said she won't write another vampire novel for any amount of money.
"So does that mean people who write about "good" things like the Easter bunny believe that is how chocolate eggs happen?"
Did you ever see that episode of Vicar of Dibley when the old lady dies and makes the Vicar promise to dress up like the Easter Bunny and deliver baskets? If not, it can found on DVD. It's hysterical.
"I agree- Dana's positions are terrible-"
Well, let's the Dr a break at this point. The campaign slogan is cute.
"universal health care,"
A good goal but if it's run or over-regulated by the government, it will be a disaster. If the government wants to intervene, it could start by funding expanded medical education and producing more doctors. That would drive the cost down and maybe every doctor won't be overly compensated.
"excellent public education,"
Yes, we need to weed out the liberal propaganda. Best idea would be tuition vouchers.
"and equality."
Of people not behaviors.
"Shame on her- let's find someone who can run on important things like -no flag burning, no ESOL, no gay marriage and no sex education."
I have no doubt the doctor will be obsessed with these topics so they must be inportant.
"Oh, wait, I think that candidate is running in Pennsylvania and a lot of other places."
Two pro-lifers running against each other. This will become a more common as time goes by. In 2008, there is likely to emerge a new moderate party that will replace the Democrats. It's already in the works.
"And to heck with Earth- the Left behind people guarantee we won't need it much longer"
This merits a lengthy discussion. Perhaps, this evening.
H.A.
Something wicked, this way comes:
"Anti-Abortion Forces Attack Amnesty International"
By BRIAN MURPHY
AP
ATHENS, Greece (July 24) - Famed for its human rights work, Amnesty International is under siege from religious groups outraged by a proposal that would expand Amnesty's mandate to include supporting access to abortion.
A small but growing band of anti-abortion campaigners and Roman Catholic clerics - including some who have backed Amnesty's activities in the past - claim the Nobel Prize-winning group is drifting away from its principles of unbiased advocacy.
They have threatened to pull away members and donations, and have called for a flood of protest letters to Amnesty offices - the same strategy Amnesty uses to pressure for the release of political prisoners and others.
Amnesty officials note that any decision is still more than a year away at the earliest.
Top Amnesty officials were unavailable for interviews.
Religious groups have long been a pillar of the organization, which was founded in 1961 by a Catholic lawyer in Britain and now has more than 1.8 million members and many other supporters around the world. Its work to free people held by repressive regimes led to Amnesty winning the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize.
"This is completely inconsistent with what Amnesty has been about," said John-Henry Westen, a board member of the Campaign Life Coalition, a Toronto-based group representing about 110,000 families. "We consider this an attack on the rights of the unborn."
Westen said some members - including several "significant" financial contributors to Amnesty - already have stopped supporting the group.
"This is forcing people to make a choice," he said.
Amnesty's various regional offices are being asked to study whether to end the group's official "neutral" stance on abortion. In its place, the group could declare access to abortion a human right.
Few places, including the United States, appear ready for an up or down vote on the matter. Instead, the discussions so far have been general, noncommittal and passionate. In New Zealand, Amnesty's local director, Ced Simpson, said there have been "strongly held views on both sides of the debate."
A final decision could come at Amnesty's next international gathering - in Mexico in August 2007. But the Amnesty statement said "much depends on the outcomes" of the current debates in various countries. It could either be adopted by consensus or put to a formal vote. Otherwise, it could be dropped or sent back for more discussions.
In the meantime, opponents are trying to ignite a global movement that would draw in conservative Muslims and evangelical churches. Their long-range worry is that Amnesty's move could encourage other rights and aid agencies to take similar views on abortion.
"We are deeply disappointed by the path taken by Amnesty. For those of us who champion real human rights, these trends makes us a bit queasy," said Austin Ruse, the Washington-based president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, a nonprofit research group that has called its 100,000 members to mobilize against the proposal.
In Britain, one of the largest anti-abortion groups, the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, has urged its members to turn their backs on Amnesty if the proposal is passed.
"You can't just support a group because they do some good things," said Janet Thomas, a society member in Wales. "You have to weigh your decision against the bad things they do."
Pope Benedict XVI has not spoken on the issue. But some high-ranking clerics have denounced the proposal, including Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican 's office for peace and justice.
An open letter by Bishop Michael Evans of East Anglia, England - a 30-year member of Amnesty - said it would be "very difficult for Catholics and many others" to continue supporting Amnesty if the proposal is passed. In Canada, Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary called the proposal "a gross betrayal" of Amnesty's mission and policies, which includes opposition to the death penalty.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.
07/24/06 15:03 EDT
andrear said...
dang that wit is amazing, and so pithy. Have you ever thought of doing stand up?
“To heck with Earth, Universal health care!”
I will admit, sometimes I do this just to amuse myself.
The pro-TTFer anon strikes again.
H.A.
Yea, this sounds like the ravings of a sain man, I don’t know if you could be any more over the top. If you added some men in black and a UFO or two you might have something.
smear campaigns by shadowy groups and organizations, and now by attention-desperate and glory-seeking right-wing blogs. From there, the attacks are reported by the right-wing media and then fed into the mainstream media.
By definition, its followers’ devotion to authority and the movement’s own power is supreme conservative" movement has become, at its core, an authoritarian movement composed of those with a psychological and emotional need to follow a strong authority figure which provides them a sense of moral clarity and a feeling of individual power
And there is seemingly no limit — literally — on the willingness, even eagerness, of Bush supporters to defend and justify even the most morally repugnant abuses
administration has not even come close to reaching the level of extremism which would be necessary for its supporters to object — if such a limit exists at all.
the increasingly likely event that our limited war in Iraq expands into the Epic War of Civilizations which so many of them crave.
the glue which binds it together and enables and fuels all of the abuses, is the vicious, limitless methods used to attack and demonize the "Enemy," which encompasses anyone — foreign or domestic — threatening to their movement. is the bloodthirsty, ritualistic attacks on the Enemy de jour — the Terrorist, the Communist, the Illegal Immigrant, the Secularist, and most of all, the "Liberal."
foreign policy objectives: one overriding goal — destroy and kill the Enemy, potential or suspected enemies, and everyone nearby.
Virtually every political opponent of the administration’s of any significance — Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry, the Clintons — is relentlessly branded as a liar, mentally unstable, corrupt, seditious, and sympathetic to the Enemy.
A lynch mob is created which seeks not the truth of what happened, but the destruction of the movement’s enemies. a limitless and bloodthirsty attack on the character of its opponents and enemies.
Wow, that hits a little close to home, doesn't it, Anonymouse?
Anonymous writes,
Something wicked, this way comes:
"Anti-Abortion Forces Attack Amnesty International"
ATHENS, Greece (July 24) - Famed for its human rights work, Amnesty International is under siege from religious groups outraged by a proposal that would expand Amnesty's mandate to include supporting access to abortion.
Interesting choice of words..."is under siege from religious groups outraged by a proposal..." Yes, Martha, those fanatics are on the warpath again...
My favorite line? Oh, it would have to be this by a long shoot,
Amnesty's various regional offices are being asked to study whether to end the group's official "neutral" stance on abortion. In its place, the group could declare access to abortion a human right.
Got that? The group could declare ACCESS to abortion as a HUMAN RIGHT?
FOR WHO????? LOL! Certainly not for those that fall into the class of nascent human life.
I bet AI will go along with this idea...and will self-destruct in the process. A pitiful end to a once noble organization.
“A lynch mob is created which seeks not the truth of what happened, but the destruction of the movement’s enemies. A limitless and bloodthirsty attack on the character of its opponents and enemies”
As apposed to a lynch mob that seeks the truth I like that can anyone give me an example of a lynch mob that seeks the truth?
Shadowy groups and organizations.
No Paranoia in this statement can you name a shadowy group or organization?
Glory-seeking right-wing blogs
You got it I am in this for the glory.
Anonymous said...
Wow, that hits a little close to home, doesn't it, Anonymous?
Lets break it down
Paranoia is an unfounded or exaggerated distrust of others,
Sometimes reaching delusional proportions.
Paranoid individuals constantly suspect the motives of those around them,
And believe that certain individuals, or people in general, are "out to get them."
Example
John Dean
I still stand by this, he is a nut. The fact that Jimk thinks that Dean is not a little over the top says a lot about JimK.
Let me put it this way, Anon. It was one thing to call the "liberals" paranoid, traitors,, etc. But now you find yourself in the position of also having to say those same things about conservatives -- here's John Dean, from the Nixon administration, and there's William F. Buckley, saying the President should resign, that he's a failure, and the rest of them, the actual conservatives. Et cetera. GWB and his supporters are so far off the chart, that to support them you have to believe that everyone else is, as you say, mentally ill, paranoid, delusional.
I don't take any pleasure in this, I used to enjoy ignoring the political news. But the radicals in power are opposed by liberal and conservative alike, they are a menace to the world and an embarrassment to the US.
JimK
"As apposed to a lynch mob that seeks the truth I like that can anyone give me an example of a lynch mob that seeks the truth?"
Yes, Dumbya and his cronies who send prisoners off to secret prisons in foreign lands to be tortured. I bet they even use nooses to "extract truth" from prisoners. We all remember the photos of the US military's treatment of the prisoners in Abu Graib. Those photos are evidence of another lynch mob run amok trying to "extract truth" from prisoners thanks to the leadership coming out of Washington these days.
"Shadowy groups and organizations.
No Paranoia in this statement can you name a shadowy group or organization?"
Yes, Dumbya and his cronies. See above.
Frank
"It was one thing to call the "liberals" paranoid, traitors,, etc. But now you find yourself in the position of also having to say those same things about conservatives -- here's John Dean, from the Nixon administration, and there's William F. Buckley, saying the President should resign, that he's a failure, and the rest of them, the actual conservatives. Et cetera."
Anyone can be paranoid. There always will be people will all kinds of views who are. It doesn't one can't point out liberal delusions.
Some conservatives say Bush policies have failed. That's a far cry from this over-the-top accusation of authoritarianism. Liberals have been doing this for the last six years. John Dean is someone who like to get back the attention and adulation he once received from the biased liberal press.
Anytime someone tries to go off on this "Bush is a dictator" canard, try this sanity check. Go to the gift shop at any historical site run by the Federal government. You'll find many books critically analyzing the Bush administration. Yeah, real scary dictator. can't even get his own book store to stop selling negative books about him.
BTW, liberals aren't paranoid. They know full well that Bush is not an authoritarian dictator. It's all a deceptive political ploy. Indicative of Democratic ethical fiber.
H.A.
Frank said...
"As apposed to a lynch mob that seeks the truth I like that can anyone give me an example of a lynch mob that seeks the truth?"
Yes, Dumbya and his cronies who send prisoners off to secret prisons in foreign lands to be tortured. I bet they even use nooses to "extract truth" from prisoners. We all remember the photos of the US military's treatment of the prisoners in Abu Graib. Those photos are evidence of another lynch mob run amok trying to "extract truth" from prisoners thanks to the leadership coming out of Washington these days.
Frank you get one more shot to make some sense here is the quote again. You might want to look up the word “NOT”.
“A lynch mob is created which seeks not the truth of what happened, but the destruction of the movement’s enemies. A limitless and bloodthirsty attack on the character of its opponents and enemies”
"Shadowy groups and organizations.
No Paranoia in this statement can you name a shadowy group or organization?"
Yes, Dumbya and his cronies. See above.
Frank
Hey Frank I found the website for Dumbya and his cronies. You got to check this out!
By your definition, a shadowy organization!
www.loc.gov/rr/news/fedgov.html
I don’t take any pleasure in this, I used to enjoy ignoring the political news. But the radicals in power are opposed by liberal and conservative alike, they are a menace to the world and an embarrassment to the US.
JimK
I don’t like this any more than you men, but this is the way he wants it, well he gets it.
Support for the war in Iraq well look who supports the president.
A Senate proposal to withdraw troops by the end of this year failed Thursday, 93-6.
The House on Friday voted 256-153 to support the military mission in Iraq
Sounds like the president has a lot of support from dems and republicans.
So.
Jim.
When we catch Osama, do you think he is entitled to an American lawyer and trial like any American citizen ?
If he's accused of an American crime, yes, we should follow the American system.
We patriotic Americans think there is something special about our country. It's not just all the cool people, it's the way our government operates -- it's our freedom. If Osama is guilty, there will be witnesses, evidence, etc., to convict him, and he deserves the same treatment any other accused person gets.
But you don't think the administration is going to let that happen, do you?
JimK
Osama doesn't need a trial. He's not only admitted his crime, he's boasted of it and has said it will do it again as soon as he can.
Shooting him on sight will be fine.
"I found the website for Dumbya and his cronies. You got to check this out!
By your definition, a shadowy organization!
www.loc.gov/rr/news/fedgov.html"
Well all right!
Did you find out who attended the meetings Cheney hosted to rewrite our energy policy that led to oil companies' record profits? I'd like to send the attendees a personal thank you note. I enjoy spending $50 per tank twice as much as the measly $25 per tank of a few years ago, don't you?
"I enjoy spending $50 per tank twice as much as the measly $25 per tank of a few years ago, don't you?"
It's part of a Bush plan to reduce global warming. Raise the price of gas and everyone will drive less.
Oh, that's right! That was Jimmy Carter. My bad.
It's part of a Bush plan to reduce global warming. Raise the price of gas and everyone will drive less.
Oh, that's right! That was Jimmy Carter. My bad.
No bush was against drilling in Anwar so that the price of oil would go up.
Wait that was the democrats.
Did you find out who attended the meetings Cheney hosted to rewrite our energy policy that led to oil companies' record profits? I'd like to send the attendees a personal thank you note. I enjoy spending $50 per tank twice as much as the measly $25 per tank of a few years ago, don't you?
Hey if you can’t afford it, to bad, you can use the metro. Or walk, ride a bike, or any of the other “green” ideas that you liberals are always asking others to do. Plus by doing this, All Gory will think that the planet will stop warming by the middle of September.
Oh I can afford the Bush price at the pump (not that you care), but like most Americans, I don't like having to fork over all that dough for a tank of gas.
I don't like having to fork over all those taxes to pay for the Bush war in Iraq either, especially after we were told by the chief warmonger himself that Iraq's oil production would pay for the war. Another lie on the way to Iraq's civil war in the making...
Look what showed up in my mailbox today. It's good to know some on the right comprehend science.
"Dear Fellow Citizen,
I'll give it to you straight:
We have a growing crisis on our hands ... one that seldom gets the attention it deserves.
I'm speaking about global warming.
And left unchecked, we can expect glaciers and polar ice caps to melt, severe storms to become more frequent, prolonged droughts to devastate agricultural lands, sea levels to rise and entire ecosystems to be thrown out of balance.
...
Please don't shy away from this fight. Global warming is indeed a large and complex problem. But inaction is just not an option - because the longer we wait, the worse it will get.
I look forward to working together on behalf of our future. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Senator John McCain"
"severe storms to become more frequent,"
hey, where are all the hurricanes the global warming baandwagon was predicting for this summer?
""severe storms to become more frequent,"
hey, where are all the hurricanes the global warming baandwagon was predicting for this summer?"
Read the following article from The Weather Channel and learn where the severe storms have been this year. Maybe you should try a real news outlet so you can keep up with reality instead of asking your moronic questions all the time.
http://www.weather.com/newscenter/stormwatch/
"Early Severe Season Summary
7:01 p.m. ET 7/7/2006
J. Wilson, Meteorologist, The Weather Channel
The first five months there have been a few notable severe weather outbreaks, especially in March and April.
In early 2006, the season began relatively slowly but quickly jumped into significant outbreaks of tornadoes on March 11-12th, March 30th, April 2nd, April 7th, April 13th and April 16th, with the most notable on March 12th, April 2nd and April 7th.
There were 48 people killed across the central US in the March and April due to tornadoes, many of them in Tennessee from the two most severe outbreaks (April 2nd and 7th). Most people were killed in damage to houses - 58% and mobile homes - 33%. During the last 3 years, only 43 people have been killed on average per year, making 2006 an unusually deadly season so far.
United States 2006 Preliminary Tornado Counts vs 10 Year Averages.
Courtesy of Dr. Greg Forbes The Weather Channel's Severe Weather Expert:
In January there were 35 tornadoes versus a 10-year average of 40. The month was 13% below the 10 year average. The record for January is 212 tornadoes set in 1999.
In February there were 13 tornadoes compared to a 10-year average of 25. The month was 48% below the 10 year average. The record for February is 83 tornadoes set in 1971.
In March there were 104 tornadoes versus a 10-year average of 63. The month was 60% above average. The record for March is 180 tornadoes set in 1976.
Notable Outbreak: Severe weather rocked parts of the U.S. Southern Plains and Midwest on March 11-13, 2006, with at least 75 confirmed tornadoes in 7 states from Oklahoma to Illinois. There were 10 deaths in this outbreak.
Record March 2006 Rainfall in Hawaii:
The Hawaiian Islands were extremely wetter than normal, with an all-time monthly rainfall record set on Mt. Waialeale (Kauai) of 93.7 inches in March 2006. This was nearly 60 inches above normal and broke the old record set in April 1971 (90.07) inches. Six weeks of excessive rainfall over the state resulted from a persistent upper level wind and pressure pattern that steered storm systems across the islands over and over again.
In April there were 196 tornadoes versus a 10-year average of 143. The month was 37% above average. The record for April is 267 tornadoes set in 1974.
Notable outbreaks: On April 2, 2006, a major outbreak of severe weather occurred with at least 60 confirmed tornadoes across Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana and Tennessee. Northwestern Tennessee was the hardest-hit area, with 19 confirmed deaths in two counties (Dyer and Gibson). There would be 28 people killed from this outbreak with 26 total from tornadoes. Additional severe weather occurred in the Tennessee Valley on the 7th, with over 40 confirmed tornadoes. Nine people were killed in Sumner County, TN just north of Nashville as a tornado rated F3 on the Fujita Scale tore through the county. On April 13, severe thunderstorms produced a tornado that ripped through eastern Iowa, including Iowa City and the University of Iowa campus where significant damage occurred. There was one fatality in the state
In May there have been about 150 reported tornadoes compared to the 10 year average of 294. The month has been 49% below average. The record for May is 543 tornadoes set in 2003.
In the United States, persistent and heavy rainfall during May 12-15, 2006 brought historic flooding to New England, described as the worst in 70 years in some areas.
In the United States, prior to the wet season exacerbated wildfires in Florida during the first two weeks of May. Smoke from fires forced a temporary closure of Interstate Highway 95 from Port Orange to Edgwater. In Florida, the rainy season usually begins around the beginning of June.
January to May 30, 2006 The United States has had 491 tornadoes by preliminary count according to Dr Forbes - TWC Severe Weather Expert, with a 10 year average of 565. The season so far is running 13% below average. However, it has been a deadly season mainly due to the terrible outbreaks in March and April with 52 people killed compared to an average of 43 people across the United States.
"The first five months there have been a few notable severe weather outbreaks, especially in March and April."
Same as it ever was. The global warming lunatics predicted a record hurricane season in the Atlantic this summer. They've already missed because nothing's happened yet. Where are the hurricanes?
"Heat Deaths Overwhelm California Coroners
By JULIANA BARBASSA, AP
SAN FRANCISCO (July 27) - Scorching temperatures have resulted in scores of heat-related deaths since a statewide heatwave began July 16, and coroners in hard-hit Fresno Count are staking bodies two to a gurney because there are so many, the coroner said.
The number of deaths continued to rise to 81 despite a slight dip in triple-digit temperatures.
As many as 20 of the deaths are in Fresno County where medical examiners are performing autopsies nonstop and bodies are decomposing, making the causes of death difficult to determine, coroner Loralee Cervantes said.
Temperatures approached 110 in Fresno and other Central Valley cities on Wednesday, but forecasters said a slow cooling trend was under way, with highs expected to drop a few degrees by the weekend.
"We're seeing some relief coming, if you can call 105 relief," said National Weather Service forecaster Jim Dudley."
---------------
"Heat Wave Makes Cattle Farm Crisis
Thousands of Animals Dead; Carcasses Piling Up
By OLIVIA MUNOZ, AP
FRESNO, Calif. (July 26) - The state's record-setting heat wave has killed thousands of dairy cows and other livestock, leaving farmers with piles of carcasses and creating a backup at factories that turn the dead animals into pet food.
A combination of sweltering temperatures, growth in the state's dominant $5 billion dairy industry and fewer plants to properly dispose of the animals have forced several counties to declare a state of emergency.
The declarations allow dead livestock to be dumped in landfills - something usually outlawed because of health risks.
"But what can we do? We have to weigh the possible contamination to ground water versus piles of dead cows stinking and attracting flies," said Phil Larson, chairman of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors.
The heat wave, with 10 straight days of 100-degree temperatures, brought the threat of more rolling blackouts and raised the number of suspected heat-related deaths to at least 56. Cooler weather was not expected until Wednesday.
Fresno County, which reached 113 degrees in recent days, was one of the first to declare an emergency when a plant that handles the bulk of the region's dead animals broke down earlier this month.
After the old carcasses began decomposing in the searing summer heat, county officials were forced to make the declaration - the first in the county's history, Larson said."
Flooding in Ohio Prompts Evacuations
By M.R. KROPKO, AP
EASTLAKE, Ohio (July 29) - Fast-rising water gushed into homes early Friday in suburban Cleveland, chasing people to rooftops to await boat rescues as 10 inches of rain raised the Grand River 11 feet above flood level.
"We think everybody got out. But we cannot be certain," warned fire Capt. Ken Takacs, who estimated 600 residents were evacuated along the river, which curves around three sides of Painesville.
In Eastlake, between Cleveland and Painesville along Lake Erie, the Coast Guard searched for a man reported missing while checking on his boat at a marina near the Chagrin River. The Lake County coroner identified a man found drowned as Stephen Rihaly, 51, of Eastlake, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer reported.
A deluge hit the area Thursday and early Friday, but by midday the sun broke through and flood waters began to recede. The weekend forecast called for clear weather.
By Friday night, most residents had returned to their homes, but two shelters remained open for those experiencing power outages or sanitation problems, Painesville police dispatcher Wendy Loomis said.
"It is receding, but we still have a lot of little secondary creeks that are still at a higher level," Loomis said.
Gov. Bob Taft declared a state of emergency in Lake County, helping the state provide resources to respond to the flooding and assist with recovery.
Updated:2006-07-29 13:17:58
Dakotas at 'Epicenter' of Nation's Drought
By JAMES MacPHERSON
AP
STEELE, N.D. (July 29) - Fields of wheat, durum and barley in the Dakotas this dry summer will never end up as pasta, bread or beer. What is left of the stifled crops has been salvaged to feed livestock struggling on pastures where hot winds blow clouds of dirt from dried-out ponds.
Some ranchers have been forced to sell their entire herds, and others are either moving their cattle to greener pastures or buying more already-costly feed. Hundreds of acres of grasslands have been blackened by fires sparked by lightning or farm equipment.
"These 100-degree days for weeks steady have been burning everything up," said Walter Johnson, Steele's mayor. "I'd go for 2 feet of snow than this."
Farm ponds and other small bodies of water have dried out from the heat, leaving the residual alkali dust to be whipped up by the wind. The blowing, dirt-and-salt mixture is a phenomenon that hasn't been seen in south central North Dakota since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, Johnson said.
More than 60 percent of the United States now has abnormally dry or drought conditions, stretching from Georgia to Arizona and across the north through the Dakotas, Minnesota, Montana and Wisconsin, said Mark Svoboda, a climatologist for the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
An area stretching from south central North Dakota to central South Dakota is the most drought-stricken region in the nation, Svoboda said.
"It's the epicenter," he said. "It's just like a wasteland in north central South Dakota."
Conditions aren't much better a little farther north. Paul Smokov and his wife, Betty, raise several hundred cattle on their 1,750-acre ranch north of Steele, a town of about 760 people.
North Dakota's all-time high temperature was set here in July 1936, at 121. Smokov, now 81, remembers that time and believes conditions this summer probably are worse.
"I could see this coming in May," Smokov said of the parched pastures and wilted crops. "That's the time the good Lord gives us our general rains. But we never got them this year."
Brad Rippey, a federal Agriculture Department meteorologist in Washington, said this year's drought is continuing one that started in the late 1990s. "The 1999 to 2006 drought ranks only behind the 1930s and the 1950s. It's the third-worst drought on record - period," Rippey said.
Svoboda was reluctant to say how bad the current drought might eventually be.
"We'll have to wait to see how it plays out - but it's definitely bad," he said. "And the drought seems to not be going anywhere soon."
Post a Comment
<< Home