# I'm changing my vote



## Stephen (Apr 1, 2004)

I posted something similar to this on the AMC board...

If you've followed any of my postings, you know that I've been somewhat antagonistic in my views...

But a couple of the members from over there engaged me offline and we discussed the history of conservation politics, and I've conceeded the point.

It's important enough to me that I'm... somewhat reluctantly... switching my vote. It appears that the environment has more to gain from a Kerry administration than from the current mismanagement that's in place now.

I'm looking for support here, I guess... cause a lot of my friends are gonna give me a hard time about switching. Am I really doing the right thing here?  :idea: 

-T


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 1, 2004)

i don't see how there could be any doubt actually.  both parties are actually "bad" for the environment, because both parties support corporations, trading, and making money over people, environment, community, etc. even though they talk big on those issues, neither party is putting their money where their mouth is.  there are actually very very few differences between the two major parties, that's why every election year half the population doesn't vote...  cause they don't really have much of a choice.  usually the choice is "bad" or "worse" - this is year in no different.  but, we do have "electable" candidates!  *shakes head*

but in regards to environment issues, i know of very few rebpublican politicians in washington that are putting the environment above special interest.  while democrats in washington at least occasionally put the environment above special interests and corporations.

regardless of how you vote, cheers for engaging in a discussion about the topics and making serious considerations about how you feel and the direction of the country.  if everyone excersiced this important option we all have as citizens, this country would be run much differently, washinton "politics as usual" wouldn't be as bad, and people would be a lot less apathetic.


----------



## SilentCal (Apr 1, 2004)

A breath of fresh air to this election would be a third party that was the "anti-Party".   The Democrats and Republicans on the national level really don't seem to care about the little guy.   They are more intent on bashing each other's records and smearing the other guy.   If we could have a legitamate third party candiate who could just talk about how he would make the country better:
1.  Get working on the future social security time-bomb.
2.  Get our Education system the money it needs.
3.  Get our noses out of every other countries business.  Why do we have to be the global policeman?   Isn't that what the U.N. is for?
These plus countless other home-grown issues are the things that most people care about.  Maybe I should run....

The8re-  I'd vote for the guy you are most comfortable with.   It's your vote and you should not let others influence it.   Read the papers, watch the news and make an informed vote.


----------



## coberg (Apr 1, 2004)

*Bush is the anti-Christ*

It would be VERY difficult for anyone to do as much damage to the environmental laws of this country as the Bush-inator has in the past four years.  His policy seems to be to destroy any park, wetland, species, or reserve on earth as long as it provides some benefit to one of his buddies.  

In short, don't be upset about switching your vote away from Bush if you care anything for the environment.


----------



## Greg (Apr 1, 2004)

*Re: Bush is the anti-Christ*



			
				coberg said:
			
		

> His policy seems to be to destroy any park, wetland, species, or reserve on earth as long as it provides some benefit to one of his buddies.


I hear these types of arguments a lot. Can anyone point to *specific* events or policies that demonstrate this, and the corporate entities that profited as a result? Please, don't think I'm naive if this is obvious. I'm just looking for factual information to make an informed choice.

_Edit: And a reference to an unbiased source demonstrating the above would be great too. Thanks._


----------



## coberg (Apr 1, 2004)

*Here's a start...*

I get most of my information from Environmental Protection groups like DENLines: http://den.defenders.org/ but they typically link to news articles from major news sources, like the LA or NY Times.

I'll post more definitive sources once I'm not sneaking into the board when I'm supposed to be working...  

I think you're facing an uphill battle looking for a truly unbiased report on anything environmentally related.  We're all pretty emotional about these things!

 :lol:


----------



## Stephen (Apr 1, 2004)

I'm having a great day, thanks. How about you?  :lol: 

 8)  :beer:  :dunce:  :idea:  :blink:    :-?    :roll: 

-T


----------



## Greg (Apr 1, 2004)

Nice sig, Spatula Boy.


----------



## skican (Apr 1, 2004)

No politician will ever care about the little guy. It's all about the almighty dollar. Period! It's up to us to do what we can. Whatever we can.
Having a bad day....


----------



## coberg (Apr 1, 2004)

*You got that right!*



			
				skican said:
			
		

> No politician will ever care about the little guy. It's all about the almighty dollar. Period! It's up to us to do what we can. Whatever we can.
> Having a bad day....



Amen, my brotha!


----------



## Max (Apr 2, 2004)

Can we expect a retreat over to the "Ross Perot write-in camp" when Kerry stumbles into some political pothole that the media eventually digs for him?


----------



## ChileMass (Apr 2, 2004)

It's too bad - both Kery and W have personal amibitions that don't translate into good governance, and we all pay the price for it.  Both of these guys are buffoons, so I'm voting with my wallet.  If Kerry's democrat programs will cost me more than W's elephant plans, I will probably vote for W.  But if W continues to pander to the religious right, I may have to vote for Kerry.  Neither gives a crap about trees and mountains.....I am up in the air now..... :roll:


----------



## Stephen (Apr 2, 2004)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> I am up in the air now..... :roll:



The air... another thing they don't care about... right?  :lol: 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

-T


----------



## MtnMagic (Apr 2, 2004)

It was reported today that at White House staff meeting last week there was a heated discussion about the health of Vice President Cheney and his angina problem. 

President Bush interrupted and stated emphatically that men do not have anginas.

The president was especially perplexed when a staffer said that Cheney has acute angina.


----------



## coberg (Apr 4, 2004)

*One Man*

uphillklimber.

I guess we could be punishing one person a little too much, but I think your football analogy misses the mark slightly.  If the quarterback had the power of veto, or the power to sign any play he wanted into law, then it would be dead on.  But nowhere else does one man have that veto/law power, hence it is much easier to blame Bush.


----------



## smitty77 (Apr 5, 2004)

I have always maintained that politicians will tell you whatever you want to hear to get elected.  One ironic point:  Kerry wants us to have a lower dependency on foreign oil, yet he criticized Bush for not opening our reserves to lower the price of gas.  Which side is he on?  Higher prices will cause us to use less, and yet he wants to flood the market to lower the price so that the public can use more!

I wish someone would make him outline exactly HOW he's going to reduce our dependency on oil.  In fact, I wish he would clarify a lot of his blanket statements.  How can the economy be in the crapper if the unemployment rate is the same as when Clinton was in office and the stock market and housing markets are booming?  Personally, my company 401k returned 25% last year, and it was supposed to return 4 or 5%.

Personally, I'm voting for the evil I know.

Another scary thought:  The rumor mill has Unsteady Teddy Kennedy as his potential running mate!!!!!!!  Anyone else hear this??

Smitty


----------



## Stephen (Apr 5, 2004)

smitty77 said:
			
		

> Another scary thought:  The rumor mill has Unsteady Teddy Kennedy as his potential running mate!!!!!!!  Anyone else hear this??
> 
> Smitty



That'd never happen. 



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The Constitution also provides that if the candidates for President and Vice President come from the same state, the electors from that state cannot vote for both. This might result in the Vice Presidential candidate receiving insufficiently many electoral votes for election even if the Presidential candidate is elected. In practice, this requirement is easily circumvented by having the Vice President change the state of residency as was done by Dick Cheney who changed his legal residency from Texas to Wyoming in order to serve as Vice President for George W. Bush.



Kennedy would never survive ourside of Mass...


----------



## Oakley (Apr 5, 2004)

the8re said:
			
		

> Kennedy would never survive ourside of Mass...


He's been in Washington FORTY-TWO YEARS. Hello, Mr. EatRE? 
Senator Edward Kennedy is a COMMITTED PATRIOT. You, sir, are really not qualified to shine his shoes, much less criticize him. Sorry.  :roll:


----------



## coberg (Apr 6, 2004)

*WOW!*



			
				Oakley said:
			
		

> He's been in Washington FORTY-TWO YEARS. Hello, Mr. EatRE?
> Senator Edward Kennedy is a COMMITTED PATRIOT. You, sir, are really not qualified to shine his shoes, much less criticize him. Sorry.  :roll:



WOW!  That was a little harsh... take things a little personally?


----------



## MtnMagic (Apr 6, 2004)

BTW Oakley: 
For the record, it reads as theater. 
You seem to be from Mass? 
 :argue:


----------



## Bumpsis (Apr 6, 2004)

*Re: Bush is the anti-Christ*



			
				Greg said:
			
		

> coberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ChileMass (Apr 6, 2004)

The Clinton-istas didn't/couldn't ratify the Kyoto treaty either........the oil companies are that powerful, whether you are a donkey or elephant......

W is a bad joke - no doubt.  But Kerry is just as beholden to special interests.....


----------



## smitty77 (Apr 7, 2004)

Oakley said:
			
		

> Senator Edward Kennedy is a COMMITTED PATRIOT.



Yes, he should be committed, a long time ago to an institution far away.
As for a Patriot, he's old enough to have signed the Declaration of Independence, so I'll buy that one.
Everyone wants to change the way things are done in Washington, yet they put buffoons like this into office for 4 decades.  Like it or not, guys like him are part of the problem.

BTW, I'm from Mass, born and (in)bred.  I can't really say I'm happy with our chosen representatives in Washington, but at least the people made the choice, as misguided as some of them are.


----------



## noreaster (Apr 13, 2004)

I will be voting for Kerry.  I support our troops in Iraq.  I think those guys and gals over there are doing a great job.  I am pissed off about being lied to about WMDs.  Now that were over there the troops in IRAQ are doing a great job trying to bring peace.   

That said there is no doubt that the USA is far worse off now then when Bush started.  Unemployment is at all time high.  Corporate CEOs walking around free after stealing billions of dollars.  Economy is far worse.   World opinion of United States is at an all time low.  Health care is getting worse.  Federal long term energy plans doesn't  go far enough (too much big oil influence).  Protection of the environment does not exist.   Thanks to the patriot act our civil liberties are at an all time low.  

Last I am sad to say 1000s died under George W Bush watch in 911. The commander and chiefs primary job is to protect us.  He failed. If he were commander of a Navy ship that got destroyed he would be fired immediately. 

I think its time to give someone else a try.  We need some new leaderhip in the white house.  The odds are good Kerry can't be any worse than 4 more years of Bush and I would give  favorable odds that Kerry and a new white house team will do a better job than the current Bush team.


----------



## Greg (Apr 13, 2004)

noreaster said:
			
		

> I am pissed off about being lied to about WMDs.


My opinion is the world is a much better place without Saddam Hussein. He wasn't complying with UN resolutions and there is no doubt he had WMD. The bigger question is "where are they"?



			
				noreaster said:
			
		

> Unemployment is at all time high.


Wrong. The current rate is 5.7%, far from an "all time high". In fact it's just about at the same level it was when Clinton was running for re-election in the spring of 1996.  :roll: 



			
				noreaster said:
			
		

> Economy is far worse.


Bush's policies didn't go into effect until after 9/11 so in essense he inherited a downward-trending Clinton/Gore economy. The fact that the economy has recovered after such a devistating attack is pretty impressive in my opinion.



			
				noreaster said:
			
		

> World opinion of United States is at an all time low.


I think people are becoming complacent with the threat of more terrorism. Quite frankly, I don't care what the world opinion of the U.S. is. We were attacked and one of the primary issues is continuing the fight on terrorism. I don't have any confidence Kerry could do it better.



			
				noreaster said:
			
		

> Federal long term energy plans doesn't  go far enough (too much big oil influence).


So let's look to this continent for oil. Oh yes, I forgot...the environment. Anyone who owns and drives an automobile or uses oil to heat their home shouldn't complain about this country's dependency on it.



			
				noreaster said:
			
		

> Thanks to the patriot act our civil liberties are at an all time low.


Complacency again. I'll gladly hand over some civil liberties if I don't ever have to make a decision between jumping to my death or dying in a burning skyscraper.



			
				noreaster said:
			
		

> Last I am sad to say 1000s died under George W Bush watch in 911.


I very rarely share my politicial views here, but this comment is so ridiculous I felt compelled to respond. Are you saying President Bush is responsible for 9/11?



			
				noreaster said:
			
		

> I think its time to give someone else a try.  We need some new leaderhip in the white house.  The odds are good Kerry can't be any worse than 4 more years of Bush and I would give  favorable odds that Kerry and a new white house team will do a better job than the current Bush team.


The future stability of this country is riding on this election. Betting that Kerry won't "be any worse than Bush" is not a strong argument to not re-elect Bush.


----------



## Stephen (Apr 13, 2004)

Greg said:
			
		

> noreaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I heard on the radio yesterday that the only reason Kerry can give voters for voting for him is: "Vote for Kerry, the lesser of two evils." That's essentially his entire message.

I look at messages like noreaster's and laugh. Weren't conservatives once accused of being unable to think for themselves? And yet every liberal argument is based on vitriole and sound bites.

"lied to about WMDs": If this is true, then you can't vote for Kerry... he said they were there too.

"Economy is far worse"- and how have you personally suffered in this economy? I see you are still affording ski tix...
EDIT, and I see that this just came out today: Retail Sales Up 1.8% in March

"World opinion"- it's not hatred... it's jealousy!

"Health care is getting worse"- while the average age of death increases.

"Energy plans"- and when was the last time you had an outage due to lack of supply (as opposed to weather or a faulty switch)?

"Protection of the environment non-existent"- tell that to my brother who can't cut down the trees in his yard because he abuts a protected area.

'Civil liberties are at an all time low"- and there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil for almost 3 years. And they've tried. How many times has the govermnet subpoenaed library books... NONE. How many times has Democrat prosectors violated Florida law by absconding medical records without following proper filings as required by Florida law? TWICE. Another thing, you critisize Bush (see below) because 9/11 happened on his watch, then complain about the fact the administration is protecting you from future attacks by watching other people (I doubt you make the short list for terrorism alerts) more closely. So which do you want, government protection, or government laissez-faire? Which do  you think ultimately results in the higher quality of life?

"1000s died under George Bush's watch"- thanks to the Clinton holdovers in the administration. The only thing I fault Bush for is not wiping the city clean of the holdover scum hacks, like he had to do in the Oval Office (ok, that was a little vitriolic, but hey, Clinton was a slob).

"He failed"- To quote Dr. Rice: "We have to get it right 100% of the time, they only need to succeed once." The biggest event that allowed September 11 to happen was the great Patriot Ted Kennedy in the 60's opening up our borders wider than a whore's legs (ugly picture, but I feel that repulsed by the destruction of our country at the invitation of the Democrats).

"Kerry will do a better job"- Forget the hype, look at the voting record. Just what in his voting record gives you any confidence that Kerry would be any better at national defense? His record is so bad, that they say he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (one of Clinton's pet projects) simply because it had the word Defense in it.

-Stephen


----------



## Jaytrek57 (Apr 13, 2004)

> Complacency again. I'll gladly hand over some civil liberties if I don't ever have to make a decision between jumping to my death or dying in a burning skyscraper.



Dangerous. What happens when some of those liberties, in your eyes, do not concern the "fight on terrorism", but the government thinks they do? Again...IMHO...dangerous. 

I voted for Bush the first time. I will not this time around. His “joking” at a press dinner a few weeks ago about not being able to find WMD did it for me…complete with pictures of him looking under desks in the oval office. Inappropriate IMHO. There are other issues that concern me as well…but again this seal the deal.

As a former military person, I will always support the troops. However, the troops are not soldiering now in Iraq…they are policing…and that is a huge difference IMHO.


----------



## Greg (Apr 13, 2004)

Jaytrek57 said:
			
		

> > Complacency again. I'll gladly hand over some civil liberties if I don't ever have to make a decision between jumping to my death or dying in a burning skyscraper.
> 
> 
> 
> Dangerous. What happens when some of those liberties, in your eyes, do not concern the "fight on terrorism", but the government thinks they do? Again...IMHO...dangerous.


I partially agree. However, in terms of protecting us from terrorism, what is the alternative?


----------



## jjmcgo (Apr 13, 2004)

Good observation, Jaytrek, on the difference between a military operation and a policing job. 

As for presidential impact on the environment, it looks like it comes down to which Yale-educated Boston Brahmin, living off his ancestors' rape of the land beginning 100-200 years ago, will be better.
They both look like they'd like to convert any wilderness mountain for a ski resort.
The Democrats talk big on the environment but as another poster noted, Clinton didn't sign Kyoto either and there were some incredible logging contracts given out during his term. I remember a Japanese company got a subsidized deal in which the return to the U.S. was less than the cost of the labor to cut the trees.
Our politicians are heavily compromised before they ever near the national stage. Expect no great practical change. Both parties will cut services and raise fees. Both will send logging rights on public land. Both will offer tax advantages to their supporters.

"The art of politics is getting money from the rich and votes from the poor under the guise of protecting one from the other." -- Oscar Wilde


----------



## smitty77 (Apr 13, 2004)

noreaster said:
			
		

> Federal long term energy plans doesn't  go far enough (too much big oil influence).


This may be so, but ask John Kerry how he would go about solving this.  He's a big champoin for reducing our dependency on oil, but your everyday automobile is not the problem.  I work for a liquid asphalt supplier (the oil they use to make blacktop) and if you knew how much we consume in diesel for the transport units you would crap a gold brick.  Trucking and electricity production is where the dependency comes from, mostly for industrial services that the public demands.  And the US doesn't just import fuel.  Liquid asphalt is the "bottom of the oil barrel" so to speak.  Basically a very lightly refined crude oil.  Every time you want a road paved the liquid comes from overseas.  Some quick math gives the following:
2000 tons of mix per mile for a two lane road
110 tons of which is liquid asphalt.  The rest is rocks and sand.
This translates to approximately 27,500 gallons of liquid asphalt PER MILE.  This is four truck tanker loads that needs to be trucked from a seaside refinery/storage yard halfway across New England.  During the summer, most asphalt plants go through at least double this amount every day.



			
				noreaster said:
			
		

> Last I am sad to say 1000s died under George W Bush watch in 911.


Actually, your good friend Clinton was fortunate enough it didn't happen under his.  The same nuts tried to topple the same buildings in '93, only they didn't use enough bang.  Why didn't he do something for another 7 YEARS?!?!?!?!?!  I would say Clinton is responsible for this mess, if we're pointing fingers.



			
				noreaster said:
			
		

> The odds are good Kerry can't be any worse...


Actually, the odds are Kerry can be much worse as he hasn't solidly held any position on any issue in this campaign.  The man doesn't know if he's coming or going.

I'd blow some more holes in your expert analysis of the sate of the union, but I must get back to work.
Smitty


----------



## Jaytrek57 (Apr 13, 2004)

> I partially agree. However, in terms of protecting us from terrorism, what is the alternative?



Wish I had the magic answer for that Greg. I think vigilance and trusting in our (USA) form of government, our way of life, is essential. Also putting teeth to EXISTING laws is critical.

Logically prioritizing perhaps? Example, Are you more likely to be killed by a handgun wielded by an American or terrorist act committed by a foreigner? Who can say…but statistics would support the first.

If at the end of this year you were to read that 10,000+ Americans were killed by terrorist actions I think we all would be outraged and justifiably so.  Yet in this country, every year, we lose that number and more to handgun violence…where’s the outrage? Where’s the calling of civil liberties to be suspended?

Not to compare one form of death to the other…just the way we as Americans…”prioritize” those deaths.

Sorry to rant…I don’t mean to. I support a person’s right to defend themselves…I just use this as an example.

God I need coffee!!!


----------



## noreaster (Apr 13, 2004)

Most of  you are as opinionated as I am.   I like that.  I may not agree with it but I like it.  I feel honored that Greg the Forum Founder chose to pick my opinions apart line by line.  I still haven’t changed my opinion but I do feel honored.  

I will end with one more comment.  If you have read anything at all about the Patriot Act and feel that it is 100 percent justified, then I maintain you don’t have a lot of respect for all  the freedoms Americans have been fighting  for the past 200+ years.  That is very sad indeed.


----------



## SilentCal (Apr 14, 2004)

Niether Bush nor Kerry really impress me.  But I believe Bush was classless when he was joking around about WMD.  You should never joke about something in which soldiers are dying trying to justify.  True Saddam needed to be ousted for what he had done but I fear we have been drawn into something we will not be getting out of very easily.  Do you really think this handover of Power on June 30th will start anything positive?   Don't we learn from our past mistakes?   Wasn't there another placed called Vietnam that we fumbled the ball in.  I think our #1 goal from September 11th should have been to capture or kill Bin Laden and  destroy the Al-Quada network.   These were the people who directly plotted and killed Americans.    Clinton and Bush are both to blame and we need to pull our heads out of our rears and quit fighting amongst ourselves.    Will either candidate do this?   Unlikely, in my eyes.


Can't we all just vote for Free Beer   :beer: [/quote]


----------



## noreaster (Apr 16, 2004)

In case your wondering I consider my views just to the right of center.   I use to be a Republican but they have gone way to far to the right and just don't care about the people in the middle.  Most Democrats are way to far to the left.  So what is a middle person like me to do.  A Democrat president and republican senate/house of rep sounds like the best mix to me.  The other way around is my 2nd choice.  An all Republican controlled government is just way to much big corporate control.   An all democrat controlled government also has its problems.   

Look I told you my opinion.  I don’t expect you to agree with it.  You have to forum your own opinions.  I will recommend you read more, listen to National Public Radio on the way to work, and listen to the other side on conservative talk radio stations.  Look around and talk to people you don’t know. Listening to the news on TV is becoming more and more a complete waste of time. TV news spends to much time on stuff I just don’t think are very important in the grand scheme of things. Why doesn’t TV news talk about the fact the Patriot Act has now made it legal for the Federal government to take an American citizen (possibly your child or parent), lock them away for years with no access to a lawyer, legal system,  or there relatives.  There is not a damn thing anyone can do about it.   Its now the law.  I am sorry this is not the America I grew up with or my anestors grew up with. Another interesting question you may want to research is why are Public Librarians concerned with the Patriot Act.  Another,  find out how many copies of the Patriot Act were distributed when congress was asked to vote on it.  

I think everyone should be knowledgeable about political issues that have a BIG impact on future generations (our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren, ….) . Patriot Act is one example that will have a big impact on future generations.   Energy plan is another.  Are these the only ones?  Absolutely not.  This information can be found on the internet .gov sites with google.com. Look I am no expert on this stuff but I have at least read about these topics.  Please read before you vote.


----------



## Stephen (Apr 16, 2004)

uphillklimber said:
			
		

> *(1)*Why doesn’t TV news talk about the fact the Patriot Act has now made it legal for the Federal government to take an American citizen (possibly your child or parent), lock them away for years with no access to a lawyer, legal system, or there relatives. There is not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Its now the law.


Q: Does the USA PATRIOT Act authorize detention of people as enemy combatants?
A: No. Enemy combatant status, which essentially permits detention of enemy soldiers during hostilities, as opposed to detention under the criminal justice system, pre-dates 9/11, and was approved by the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Enemy combatant status was used to detain a U.S. citizen who attempted sabotage during World War II. Nothing in the USA PATRIOT Act addresses enemy combatants. 


			
				uphillklimber said:
			
		

> * (2)*Another interesting question you may want to research is why are Public Librarians concerned with the Patriot Act.



Q: Is the government using the authority of the USA PATRIOT Act to compile watch lists based the books ordinary citizens check out of the library?
A: No. Section 215 permits the government to obtain "tangible things" from third parties in foreign intelligence investigations. Although the USA PATRIOT Act does not mention libraries, this section could be applied to library records as business records. Under previous law, government agents had the ability to access business records, including library records, with a grand jury subpoena in criminal cases. Section 215 now allows such requests in foreign intelligence cases. An important protection provides that Section 215 may not be used against U.S. persons (citizens or permanent resident aliens) solely based on activities protected by the First Amendment. In practice, these requests are made only as to specific individuals who are already the target of an investigation. This provision includes a safeguard that provides that government agents must seek a court order for the records, based on a certification from a high-ranking FBI official (Assistant Special Agent in Charge or higher) that the records sought are for "an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." An additional safeguard requires the Department of Justice to report its use of this provision to Congress every six months. 



			
				uphillklimber said:
			
		

> *(3)*Another, find out how many copies of the Patriot Act were distributed when congress was asked to vote on it.



Couldn't find anything in Google on this one.

A couple others thrown in for good measure:

Q: Is the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional?
A: No provision of the USA PATRIOT Act has been held unconstitutional by any court in the country.

Q: What are some of the reasons critics oppose the USA PATRIOT Act?
A: First, the USA PATRIOT Act appears to have become a short-hand label for all aspects of the war on terrorism. Critics have incorrectly attributed to the USA PATRIOT Act a number of anti-terrorism initiatives that have nothing to do with the Act. For example, the USA PATRIOT Act does not address such issues as enemy combatants, military tribunals, closed immigration hearings, or monitoring of attorney-client communications. A number of newspapers nationally and within the Eastern District of Michigan recently reported on claims of civil rights abuses by government employees, but incorrectly attributed the abuses to the USA PATRIOT Act. In fact, the report was required by one of the USA PATRIOT Act's many safeguards. Section 1001 directs the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General ("OIG") to process and investigate complaints alleging abuses of civil rights by Department of Justice employees. The USA PATRIOT Act is not the basis of the complaints cited in the OIG report; it is the mechanism for investigating the complaints. 

Second, it seems that many critics are unaware of the investigative tools that were available to law enforcement before the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted. Instead, they incorrectly assume that these tools were created by the USA PATRIOT Act. For example, roving wiretaps were permissible in criminal cases before the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted. The USA PATRIOT Act simply extended this tool to foreign intelligence cases. Similarly, investigators were able to obtain library records with a grand jury subpoena in criminal cases long before the USA PATRIOT Act was enacted. The USA PATRIOT Act simply extended this ability to foreign intelligence cases, and added some protections, such requiring a court order, prohibiting the investigation of a U.S. person based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment, and requiring the government to report the use of this provision to Congress. As another example, the foreign intelligence surveillance court was not, as is sometimes assumed, created by the USA PATRIOT Act; it has existed since 1978. Moreover, the court was created to prevent government wiretap abuses by creating judicial oversight in foreign intelligence cases. 

These inaccuracies and false assumptions perpetuate the myth that the USA PATRIOT Act violates constitutional rights. Instead, it provides tools to assist law enforcement in combating terrorism, while preserving the constitutional rights that make America worth protecting. 



All Q/As from the EDMI Counter Terrorism page


----------



## Stephen (Apr 16, 2004)

uphillklimber said:
			
		

> Stephen, I was quoting Noreaster with those 3 questions. I do appreciate you answering those claims. I would still like to hear from noreaster answering about those three statements.



Doh!



			
				uphillklimber said:
			
		

> For future clarity, just how do I use the quotation feature?????? I have tried several times and seem only to quote the entire post.



Here is how the above message looks:


```
[quote="uphillklimber"]Stephen, I was quoting Noreaster with those 3 questions. I do appreciate you answering those claims. I would still like to hear from noreaster answering about those three statements.[/quote]

Doh!

[quote="uphillklimber"]For future clarity, just how do I use the quotation feature?????? I have tried several times and seem only to quote the entire post.[/quote]
```

When you hit quote, it quotes the whole message by default. If you want to add comments in between quotes, then add the quote tags to each section.

-Stephen


----------



## skican (Apr 16, 2004)

If Tim McVeigh were my kid I would have wished the government to lock him away before he killed all those innocent people.  :evil: 
We did not have the threat of terrorism when we were kids like we have now. The world changed on 9/11. I think we are all aware of that  I... like everyone else here in the US hopes that will never happen again. 
What are your suggestions for change Noreaster? What would you do if you were president? 
I am just thankful that I was born in this country and I am proud of my president and yes, I do have family serving in Iraq! You could always move to Canada if you don't like it here or run for office and make a difference. If you can....
Think I am going to log off and go drink to my country. A martini sounds nice right now cause I have had it with politics for the day. Hope Greg is having a good time. Wish I were there with him jammin.  :beer: 

Proud American!


----------



## Stephen (Apr 16, 2004)

I'm going to celebrate this great country by geocaching tonight and most of tomorrow as well! Gonna enjoy God's creation while the wife and kids are away!

-Stephen


----------



## noreaster (Apr 16, 2004)

Stephan,  excellent post. I truly enjoyed reading your post.  Great job. I mean that.  

Stephan's   comment
Q: Is the USA PATRIOT Act unconstitutional? 
A: No provision of the USA PATRIOT Act has been held unconstitutional by any court in the country.

This is definitly true.  It is also true this is not proof one way or the other.  Its too early to tell if the Patriot Act is or is not unconstitutional.  There are many different views on this subject and the jury hasn’t even been picked.  The fact that there virtually no debate when the Patriot Act was passed means it may not stand the test of time. 

Since Stephan posted some of  the view from the right I will post some views from the left.  Like I said my personal views  are in the middle.  Are the views from the radical right correct?   Are the views from the radical left correct.  Or is it possible the truth lies somewhere in-between, which means you must formulate your own opinion.  The truth is out there. The great thing about our country is we all get to decide.  

BTW My ancestors imigrated to the Americas in the 1630s from England. I have a great deal of respect for the millions of people that gave there lives to give us all the right to debate and vote.  

Another view point on Patriot Act -----

Just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate, Congress passed the USA PATIOT Act. Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement and threaten the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect. For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.  
The Department of Justice is expected to introduce a sequel, dubbed PATRIOT II, that would further erode key freedoms and liberties of every American.
The ____ and many allies on the left and right believe that before giving law enforcement new powers, Congress must first re-examine provisions of the first PATRIOT Act to ensure that is in alignment with key constitutional protections.

Source --> 
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207


----------



## Bumpsis (Apr 19, 2004)

uphillclimber, why don't you ask ACLU?
From the tone of your comment it looks like you have a problem with the varacity of their statement in regards to the Patriot Act.

And in case you doubt that the feds can now (due to Patriot Act) throw a US citizen in jail and deny him his legal rights just look as to what originally happened to Jose Padilla. Just keep in mind that what he did or intended to do is a separate matter from that of having been stripped of his legal rights.


----------



## Bumpsis (Apr 19, 2004)

ChileMass said:
			
		

> The Clinton-istas didn't/couldn't ratify the Kyoto treaty either........the oil companies are that powerful, whether you are a donkey or elephant......
> 
> .



I realize that the discussion has gone in another direction, but I thought it would be good to tie up some loose ends here on the topic of pollution.
It wasn't Clinton who didn't/couldn't ratify the Kyoto treaty, it was the Senat's job to ratify it. Clinton was all for Kyoto, but the Senat wouldn't ratify it. Gee,  who was in control of the Senat then, any one remember?
Oh, what in the world is a Clintonista?


----------



## Bumpsis (Apr 19, 2004)

uphillklimber said:
			
		

> So the big SUV's are polluters??? And the the Humvee, mentioned by name?  I am pretty sensitive to vehicle exhaust, but the following is very un scientific: In the cold days of winter, I can easily tell when I am behind a diesel vehicle. I can hardly breathe in my car, and have to turn off the outside air to continue breathing. Yesterday, I was behind a 1978 VW bug, in 45 degree weather. I had to slow down and let the bug get away from me, it stunk so bad. Yet when I am behind a Humvee. or other big SUV, for that matter, I don't need to roll up my windows and turn off the outside air and let them drive away from me.
> 
> If, in fact they are polluters........actually, everything does, to some extent. Shucks, I pollute, just by breathing.... Let's quantify things here a little bit. What are the current government regulations for exhaust emissions for cars? for SUV's? What are they for diesel trucks (18 wheelers), and what were they, say, back in 1978, when that VW bug was produced?
> 
> ...



I'm afarid that your mind isn't very inquring for inquring minds ususally find facts for themselves, especially when it comes to issues that seem to matter to them, like being sensitive to diesel exhaust.
But perhaps I can point you in the right direction. The America Lung Association is a fairly well informed organization, so I suggest to look them up.
As to the issue of choking on exhaust from a '70's VW, well, duh, that's the main reason why there have been regulations put into effect so we wouldn't have to breathe  quite so many pollutants. So even the modern SUV is  a bit cleaner than a 4 cylinder car from the 70's. The main reason why you were chocking on the Bug's exhaust was probably becuse it's an old engine that was burning oil, in addition to being originally dirty and even new they spewed out lots of partially burned carbohydrates.

Now, here's the shocking new for you: Yes Virginia, SUV ARE polluters and big ones at that. Gee, I hope your were sitting down for that one.

If you actually go to the trouble of looking up the regulations, you'll find that an SUV (and other "light" trucks) are permitted to emit up to 175% more Nitrogen Oxide, CO2 and other  pollutants (small pariculate matter, hydrocarbons) than sedans.
I won't go into the chemistry of car exhaust but perhaps the easiest way to see how all these figures stack up, have a look at a new car sticker from a sedan and a truck based SUV (i.e. Explorer, Navigator, Tahoe, Durango etc.)
and compare the smog index figures. The differences are very substantial.

And if you're are at all concerned about the quality of the air you breathe and the Bush politics in this arena, look up the lead artice from NY Times Magzine (from April 4, 2004). If you avail yourself of all that info (focus on facts rather than opinions) and still remain unconvinced that the Bush Administration has sold our right to breathe healthy air for political contributions, you have your head in the sand, and that's not terribly inquring.


----------



## ChileMass (Apr 19, 2004)

uphillklimber said:
			
		

> > ChileMass wrote:
> > The Clinton-istas didn't/couldn't ratify the Kyoto treaty either........the oil companies are that powerful, whether you are a donkey or elephant......
> >
> > .
> ...



I wasn't blaming just "one man in the White House".  The problem was with the Kyoto treaty itself in the first place.  In 1994 the Kyoto treaty would have singled out the US as the primary environmental "bad guy" and the US was in position to get hurt - badly - by onerous international regulation that many other polluters (France, UK, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, others) were not required to live by.  The Clinton administration (led by Al Gore) brought this bogus legislation home to Washington, and to this day (re:  this thread) people are surprised the US Congress killed it after very little discussion.  Note that both Democrats and Republicans voted against this bill, which would have placed US companies at a distinct competitive disavantage and created a precedent where internatoinal regulatory and legislative bodies can target the US for special treatment and get away with it.  No matter what your politics, economic freedom and a level playing field (global economy) are very good ideas and worth protecting.  Living in a world where Bulgaria or India can order Detroit to make cleaner (and more expensive)cars is not a situation we want to find ourselves in.  AND - before you start throwing things at me - I bit my lip and actually voted for Al Gore 4 years ago.  Unfortunately, I will likely have to vote for W this election because the  Dems are so weak and don't realize that it's not 1969 any more.......

And - "Clintonistas" is the term coined by P.J. O'Rourke in 1993 as a goof on Bill and Hillary and their pals.  I thought it was funny.  If there's anyone out there that wants a good political laugh, read some P.J.........


----------



## Bumpsis (Apr 19, 2004)

*trip to a library*

uphillclimber, 
Not everything can be easily googled. You seem to be suffieciently interested in the subject so I do suggest a trip to your local library.
Books written on the subject of automotive emission and its regulation do contain original source citations, so you can get at the actual numbers without the author's conclusions and biases. Having a computer in front of you is great but sometimes it still is more efficent to actually look in the library.
One specific book I'd suggest is "High and Mighty" by Keith Bradsher.
Another good source of information, as prevuiously suggested, check in with your local chapter of the American Lung Association. They have reams of studies and reserach done on the subject.
There really is a lot of easily obtainable data out there which clearly documnets the amounts of the most offending compounds that we spew out of our tailpipes and their significance to our health and enviromental wellbeing.

Air pollution is just one aspect of SUVs which I find deeply disturbing. The other aspect is that these vehicles are very lethal in accidents. Again, I'm limiting my coments to the truc based SUVs. Paradoxically these SUVs are quite deadly to their drivers as well (look up The New Yorker, Jan 12, '04).

And because the auto industry has made a super job of convincing people that driving these trucks is the grandest, hippiest and safest experience you can have, the everyday driving has become needlessly more dangerous and unhealthy.

SPECIFIC NUMBERS: Ok, so here are some quick numbers I pulled off the web:
Over the distance of 125,000 miles, a Ford Excursion will get an average of 13 mpg and emit 134 tons of carbon dioxide.
Ford Taurus (6 cylinder), will get over the same distance 23 mpg and throw off 74 tons of CO2. Now, these are just numbers for CO2.
A deeper look will tell you about Nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxiodes, carbon monoxide, various organic compounds and particulate matter (colloidal particles present in exhaust linked to respiratory dieseases).

Good luck in your information hunt.


----------



## ChileMass (Apr 20, 2004)

Bob - no problems at all - no offense taken now or before -   

On my side, I just like to point out I am also in favor of effective environmental legislation, but that it's always a trade-off with competing priorities.....


----------



## Bumpsis (Apr 20, 2004)

uphillklimber said:
			
		

> It would seem, to me anyways, that the simple solution is to make more fuel efficient vehicles, and I still believe Detroit needs to be called to task to do this. As I stated before, there are 2 vehicles in my driveway. Approximately the same weight (within 200 lbs. of each other), approximately the same performance, speed power, horsepower, acceleration. Yet the car is subject to more stringent guidelines than the truck, and thus gets better mileage, which equates to less emissions. I am required by my job to provide a truck, and it's a decent truck. But I am just frosted every time I go to the pumps. Why can't my truck get the mileage the car gets???? I know Detroit can do it. Sigh......



uphillkilimber, you make a good point. Detroit needs to be more accountable but they won't be if they don't have to. The industry spend a ton of money on lobbists and politicians so they wouldn't have to.

Back when the the CAFE standards were established, they worked really hard to make sure that there is a loophole in emission, milage and crash safety regulations big enough to drive a truck through, literally. A "light" truck to be specific, so they could turn a truck into a "regular" passanger vehicle. It's substantially cheaper to build a truck/SUV than a regulation adhering sedan, thus the profit margins are HUGE.
As a consequence, our enviroment is a smoggier place and the road travel more hazardous for everyone.
I really don't have anything against light trucks per se if they are used by people who  need them for work or some other really important reason where a sedan/station wagon or minivan just would't do the job. There is a nich which these vehicles really fit well.

I'm just convinced though that majority of people who buy an  SUV really would do just fine with another automotive choice if they just gave it a bit of a thought.
For the sake of full disclosure, I do drive a Dodge Minivan for work (have to haul quite a bit of equpmnent arround) and that's not a very clean vehicle either. Not quite as dirty as an SUV but it's in that range. Better milage and less deadly though - I thought I offer that in my defense.


----------



## threecy (Apr 20, 2004)

WMDs - Let's get one thing straight with the WMDs - they certainly were there, the question is where are they now.  I don't have any problems with Bush's joke press conference/slide show, I found it rather amusing.  Our military isn't just there for WMDs.  If we could have stopped Hitler before 1941, do you think we should have?  Saddam Hussein had slaughtered tens of thousands, many through the use of (dun dun dun) WMDs.

Don't forget our troops who came home sick from the first Gulf War due to his biological weapons.

Also don't forget Saddam Hussein violated the cease-fire the UN "enforced" 17 times.

UN - We cannot rely on the UN anymore - it is corrupt.  Why did France vote against the Iraq resolution before Iraq did?  Oil for Food.  A HUGE scandal that isn't getting ANY coverage from the liberal press, despite SENATE hearings that are showing TRUE CORRUPTION on the part of France, Russia, UN officials, and the former Iraqi government.  Billions of dollars!  Russia/France are now trying to block an independent investigation!

Bush Responsible For 911 - How is Bush responsible for 9-11 when Clinton was OFFERED bin Laden on over 3 different occasions (Clinton admitted to this also) from Sudan?  Clinton says there wasn't any reason - lest he forget the embassy bombings, USS Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing, and Black hawk down.  Richard Clarke, by the way, is a partisan opportunist lying through his teeth.

Economy - is the strongest its been since the crash at the end of the Clinton administration.  The unemployment rate is lower than the average rate of the 70s, 80s, and 90s.  500K+ jobs have been created in the past 3 months of this "jobless recovery," one of the best quarters in recent history.  The average hourly wage has increased nearly a dime in the past 5 months as well.

Oil - we shan't tap our reserves to keep the "high" prices low - Kerry is misleading us with his "misery index" "gas prices" and "deficit" - he uses current dollars, not time adjusted.  The 1981 avg. gas price is ~2.80 in current dollars.  The deficit is certainly high (even Roosevelt had a deficit in the Great Depression), but not an all-time high.  The misery index, Kerry's new statistic, actually shows that we are better off than under most of Clinton's term!

I don't think Bush is an idiot at all - he certainly doesn't have a politician's public speaking ability, however.  He tries to speak in simple terms so that all Americans, as well as foreigners who know broken English, can understand.  He has to be very careful about what he says, as bad word choice will be front page in the disgustingly liberal press (many major publications met in private with Kerry working on strategies a few months back - imagine if Bush did this?  Scandal!).  I think Bush is quite intelligent and is a lot smarter than most people think.  Its amazing how people can draw conclusions just on his public speaking ability - when he doesn't think the camera is there, he speaks very well, for instance.


----------



## John S (Apr 20, 2004)

Am I missing something here?  


125,000 miles / 13 MPG = 9615 gallons of gas

134 tons CO2 x 2000 pounds per ton = 268,000 pounds CO2

268,000 pounds CO2 / 9615 gallons of gas = 27.87 pounds CO2 per gallon of gas


A gallon of gas only weighs about five and a half pounds.


Something doesn't add up.  Am I misreading the information?  Is it really possible that my individual contribution to pollution is measured in tons?


----------



## MtnMagic (Apr 20, 2004)

The stats seem a bit high. Soon we'll not be able to breathe. 

Better stats: Each acre of forest produces oxygen for 16 people.

I am certain that a gallon of gas weighs about 8 pounds. Water weights 8.3 pounds per gallon.


----------



## Bumpsis (Apr 20, 2004)

Jeez !!! Lazyness seems to be common denominator here. Everybody wants either the primary sources or ready given answers. What happend to looking stuf up for yourself, ha? :wink: 

Yes John S, you are missing something here. Essentially what you need to know is a bit of high school chemistry - sorry, I don't mean to sound condescending, really. Everybody is quite polite on this board so I'll play nice too.
Gasoline has various carbohydrons in it, but the primary one we're burning is Octane, C8H18. The process of combustion grabs a moleculem of oxygen form the air and adds it to the carbons released for Octane.
The balanced equation looks like this:
2C8H18 + 17O2= 16CO2 + 18H2O
short cut: 1 gallon of gas gives off 3.7 lbs of CO2.
(for full explanation of the above short cut, DO look up a chem. book)

I might have been off a bit on my original posting but I'm sill in the general ballpark. 
9,615 gallons of gasoline will generate 177 tons (YES, TONS) of CO2.


----------



## MtnMagic (Apr 20, 2004)

Ah, very well explained, the equation is balanced!

If you wish to check out all the stat's try this megasite:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/toxics.htm and check the fact sheets. 
_________________
Now in pdf format!


----------



## Bumpsis (Apr 21, 2004)

*Corrections*

Good call uphillklimber,
I do stand corrected. My original shortcut calculation of 3.7 lb of CO2 per gallon is incorrect, so your math of total CO2 generated by 9,615 gallons of gas would be correct if it were not for my mistake.

In fact, one gallon of gasoline generates 18 lb of CO2.
So let's go through the numbers:
2 moles of octane generates 16 moles of CO2, that's from the previous equation: 2 C8H18 + 17 O2= 16 CO2 + 18 H2O
one mole of Octane = 114g
one mole of CO2 = 704g
one gallon of gas = 2650g of octane
so if 2 x 114g octane generates 16 x 44g of CO2
one gallon of gas generates 8,182.4g or 8.18kg of CO2
at 2.2lb to a kilo, that's 17.99 lb
Thus, if one gallon generates 18lb of CO2 then 9615 gallons comes to 173,070lb of CO2. At 2000lb per ton, so we're at 86.5 tons of CO2 generated by the SUV over 125,000 miles.

Granted, I was not careful  enough and have not gone through the equation carefully in my original statement, but the main point I was making that a light truck or an SUV will put out significantly more pollution out the tail pipe than a more rigorously regulated sedan.
I hope that this clears the confusion a bit and puts  the issue of emissons in some perspective.


----------



## noreaster (Apr 21, 2004)

One of the top stories today on NPR http://www.wamc.org was on "Bush Urges Retaining Patriot Act" from Buffalo, NY. I credit NPR for  presenting information from BOTH sides of the issue.  Note this news story may be archived later in the week. 

My personal view is that hearing view points from both sides of an issue is important for Democracy.  This facilitates people forming their own opinion.


----------



## Bumpsis (Apr 21, 2004)

man! It took me a good long while to dig all this up - and you made me do it!!

I know, the concept that a 2 weigt units can create 16 weight units of something else is quite counter intuitive. The trick that chemistry of combustion does here is that you're grabbing a lot of oxygen from "outside" the reaction. 
You'll notice that the number of carbons on both sides of the equation is equal: 2x 8 (2 C8 ) = 16 CO2, sixteen carbons in 2 molecules of Octane and 16 Carbons in that many molecules of CO2.
It's the oxygen that adds the weight and it's the oxygen that gets added for combustion to occur.

Now, maybe somebody can explain to me a concept that I never got: electromagnetic fields or why peolple vote ( as in political elections) against their own interests.


----------



## Stephen (Apr 21, 2004)

Well, let's see here.

I have 3 kids, I'll throw them in the back of the car. No, wait! The government has seen fit to require them to be in child seats until they are 8! Hmmm. I can fit 2 in the back seat, and one in the front... oops, can't put one in the front. I guess I gotta get a new car.

Oh, wait, a Ford Explorer pumps out 134 tons of CO2 over 124,000 miles (http://www.idontcareaboutair.com/facts/emissions.shtml). I guess I'll have to buy another car, and we can just take two cars for the kids, my wife will drive one Ford Taurus (74 tons) and I'll drive the other. 

So, our kids are safe, and we're plowing out 148 tons of CO2. Certainly much better than the 134 tons that an SUV will put out. Of course, we're not as safe as we would be if we were in an SUV ("SUVs weighing more than 5,000 pounds accounted for 92 deaths per million registered vehicles, whereas the smaller cars accounted for 249 deaths per million registered vehicles." http://www.uwire.com/content/topops031004002.html) but that's alright, we're doing this for the environment.

-Stephen


----------



## John S (Apr 21, 2004)

“It's the oxygen that adds the weight and it's the oxygen that gets added for combustion to occur.”

Ah, my missing link.  I forgot about the oxygen coming in.  I should have remembered that since I replaced the air filter in my car just the other day.

Thanks, Bumpsis.  Mystery ended.


----------



## Stephen (Apr 21, 2004)

It also explains how a 2 bedroom apartment, upon moving, suddenly consumes a three bedroom house! 

-Stephen


----------



## jjmcgo (Apr 27, 2004)

The intelligence dispensed in this forum is what makes it so outstanding. This has been a great discussion with the chemistry lesson.

One of my elementary school teachers gave us a rhyme that's helped me figure weights when away from scales. A pint a pound, the world around." That's pretty close to the weight of a gallon of gas (8.3 lbs), according to Magic Mountain.

I wrote about a two-foot political rant that addressed a number of points on this thread, then realized I go into the woods and up the hills to get away from that crap. So I deleted it. Think what you want, I say to you!


----------



## MtnMagic (Apr 27, 2004)

Feel free to add political rants on a subject that calls for it! That's what makes the world go around ...and this board. We too have that up North and you would have to travel as far away as the North Pole to avoid it. You just may find it there, too.
___________________
Welcome to the boards!


----------



## skican (Apr 30, 2004)

Update on Iraq Efforts

(This is from a National Guardsman from Denison, Iowa - back on leave)

As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I
wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They
have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened.

I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two
week leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing
something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would
pass this on to you.

This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently: (Please
share it with your friends and compare it to the version that your paper
is producing)!!

-Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time
ever in Iraq.
-Over 400,000 kids have up to date immunizations.
-Over 1500 schools have been renovated and ridded of the weapons that
were stored there so education can occur.
-The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off loaded from
ships faster.
-School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
-The country had it's first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
-The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the
war -100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed compared to 35%
before the war.
-Elections are taking place in every major city and city councils are in
place.
-Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
-Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
-Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
-Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with
US soldiers.
-Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
-Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to
prevent the spread of germs.
-An interim constitution has been signed.
-Girls are allowed to attend school for the first time ever in Iraq.
-Text books that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first
time in 30 years.

Don't believe for one-second that these people do not want us there.

I have met many many people from Iraq that want us there and in a bad
way.
They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about but they hope
their children will.

We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to
dispute me on these facts.

So If you happen to run into John Kerry, be sure to give him my email
address and send him to Denison, Iowa. This soldier will set him
straight.

If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding
has been portrayed, email this to a friend and let them know there are
good things happening.

Ray Reynolds, SFC
Iowa Army National Guard
234th Signal Battalion


----------



## Stephen (Apr 30, 2004)

Yup, this is a real one:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/reynolds.asp


----------



## noreaster (May 1, 2004)

Stephen said:
			
		

> Yup, this is a real one:
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/reynolds.asp



More information found on the link from Snopes to http://www.orwelliantimes.com/2004/04/26.html 

This morning (Monday) I spoke with Lt. Col. Gregory O. Hapgood, the Public Affairs Officer for the Iowa National Guard. He told me that Sgt. Ray Reynolds exists. Lt. Col. Hapgood told me that he received an email this morning from Sgt. Reynolds which confirmed Sgt. Reynolds wrote the email. While we talked about the contents of the email, I did not confirm that every word in the email I received was written by Sgt. Reynolds. Nonetheless, for the most part, the email appears to be an authenticate communication from one of our soldiers.

Contrary to the information in the email I received, Sgt. Reynolds is not a medic. He does communications work. In fact, the 234th Signal Battalion's "mission is to provide wide area communications support in a theater of operations."[*] Sgt. Reynolds' civilian job is as a police officer.

Lt. Col. Hapgood told me these were Sgt. Reynolds' sources for the information in the email:

USAID Fact Sheet 
Influential Iraqis 
The Police Chief of Baghdad 
While the email appears to provide some truthful information, it is replete with misinformation. I don't have time to check each representation in the email, but here's an overview:

Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations 
This is interesting. A lot of kids have been immunized in Iraq. In fact, last year the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) "25 million doses of vaccines to Iraq to help prevent the spread of polio, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, measles, and tuberculosis -- considered the main killers of children in developing countries."[*] At the time, UNICEF spokesman Gordon Weiss explained that the children of Iraq would need several stages of repeated immunizations for the immunizations to be effective:

"Iraq is in a particularly delicate stage at the moment -- postwar, with a lot of the health system having broken down and a lot of the water systems having broken down, as well. So children are more than ever this year vulnerable to water-borne diseases. Usually you don't vaccinate just once, you vaccinate a number of times in order to have the vaccinations work."[*]

Here's what the Fact Sheet says:

"USAID has partnered with UNICEF, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Abt Associates to support health program in Iraq. Since the end of the war, USAID has vaccinated three million Iraqi children under the age of five, administered tetanus vaccine to more than 700,000 pregnant women, and by April 30, 2004 the USAID mission will have provided updated vaccinations to 90 percent of pregnant women and children under five years of age."

Hmmm. UNICEF said that 3 1/2 million Iraqi children were vaccinated last year. Does this mean that the vaccination program is not being pursued as much as last year? I don't know.

I also don't know where the 400,000 number came from. Last year, Iraq had approximately 4.2 million children in Iraq under the age of five. If fewer than 10% of young Iraqi children have up-to-date immunizations out of the millions who have been on an immunization schedule and are exposed, that would seem to be a serious failure.

That being said, hundred of thousands of immunized children has got to be a good thing.

The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August. 
Nonsense. First, there's nothing in the Fact Sheet about oil. Iraq is presently exporting approximately 1.9 million barrels of oil a day, or under 60 million barrels per month. And that's going to be difficult to maintain. You probably already know that insurgent attacks have been limiting the exports.[*] In August -- the supposed 2 billion barrel month -- Iraq was expecting to export fewer than 1.2 million barrels a day, about 37 million barrels for the month.[*]

Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time
ever in Iraq. 
Here's what the Fact Sheet says:

"Iraq has 13 major wastewater facilities. Baghdad's three facilities are currently inoperable and comprise three quarters of the nation's sewage treatment capacity. Raw waste flows directly into the Tigris River. In the rest of the country, most wastewater treatment facilities were only partly operational before the conflict, and a shortage of electricity, parts, and chemicals has exacerbated the situation and only a few wastewater treatment plants are operational. Iraq's 140 major water treatment facilities operate at about 65 percent of the pre-war level of three billion liters a day."

Water does appear to be getting to a lot more people. But, apparently, at a price. A witness from Basra last month claimed:

"The [water] plant seems to be working well . . . This plant is up and going and provides water for a huge number of people. Someone is constructing a new plant to expand so that there is drinking water. I have not met anyone here yet despite the poverty who is not buying drinking water."[*]

The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war. 
Not true. According to the Fact Sheet, on March 11, 2004, power peaked at approximately 92% of "the pre-conflict generating level". ABC reports that power generation is off since last October and is averaging somewhere around pre-conflict generation.[*]

100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war. 
Not true. The Fact Sheet provides no information about this. But, the Washington Post on March 5, 2004 reported[*]:

"Health Minister Khudair Fadhil Abbas said about 90 percent of the hospitals and clinics have been brought back to the same poor conditions as before the war but that the others will take more time to reach even that low level."

Here are the first few paragraphs from the article:

"The stout woman, covered from head to toe in a black abaya, shuffled into the crowded hospital. She went straight to the emergency room and opened her robe to reveal a tiny baby wrapped in fuzzy blankets. The boy had been born prematurely, and the family was afraid he was going to die.

Uday Abdul Ridha took a quick look and shook his head. The physician put his hands on the woman's shoulders in sympathy, but his words were blunt. "I'm sorry," he said. "We cannot help you. We don't have an incubator, and even if we did, we are short on oxygen. Please try another hospital."

Scenes like this one at the Pediatric Teaching Hospital in Baghdad's Iskan neighborhood have become common in Iraq in recent months, as the health care system has been hit by a critical shortage of basic medications and equipment. Babies die of simple infections because they can't get the proper antibiotics. Surgeries are delayed because there is no oxygen. And patients in critical condition are turned away because there isn't enough equipment."

Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place. 
False. In June, 2003, US authorities put a halt to local elections. We installed mayors and administrators of our choosing.[*]

Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets. 
I don't know how many Iraqi police are on duty, given widespread desertions.[*] But, we know how many police are in the New York Police Department -- 39,110.[*] According to the 2000 Census, NY City had a population of more than 8 million and covered an area of 320 square miles.[*] According to 1993 estimates, the population of Iraq is about 19,435,000.[*] Iraq is about the size of California, approximately 171,000 square miles.[*]

Though New York, like any other big city, can be dangerous at times, armed insurgents aren't blowing people up daily. New York has about 1 police officer for every 205 residents. Iraq -- which does have armed insurgents blowing people up daily -- has about 1 police officer for every 324 citizens.

Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever. 
Not true. The Fact Sheet says that before we invaded 1.2 million Iraqis had "subscribed to landline telephone service." As of March 9, 2004, "104,680 subscribers to the Iraqi landline phone network were reconnected." Repairs have reconnected some form of telephone service between Baghdad and 20 other cities.

Girls are allowed to attend school. 
True, but not because of the invasion. Girls were allowed to attend school during Saddam's rule. Between 1997-2000 82% as many girls attended primary school as did boys. 62% as many girls attended high school as did boys, during the same period.[*] 

The email is not informative, but disinformation. It's propaganda. While he did not cite any particular rule, Lt. Col. Hapgood said that members of the force are not to take a politically partisan stance in any communications they use in which they identify themselves as members of the force.  Lt. Col. Hapgood, in essence, also said that it was improper for Sgt. Reynolds to attack Senator Kerry in his email.

Thanks to Andrew Lazarus for his comment at dailyKos[*] for some fact checking leads.[*]

UPDATE:  Apparently, Lt. Col. Hapgood misinformed me about Sgt. Reynolds' civilian job.  He's not a cop.  He's a firefighter.  This is how Sgt. Reynolds responds to inquiries about his message:

"I did write it and I am in Kuwait now on my way home. I wrote it while at home because I felt that too many people were exploiting the violence in Iraq to sell papers and gain votes. Sometimes the silent majority need to be awakened to respond to the bad things in our world. I am passionate about our President's decision and support this rebuilding whole heartedly...Yes legit..I am a fire fighter in Denison, Iowa and to verify, call Mike McKinnon of the Denison Iowa fire department."

Too bad that the Sergeant's passion got ahead of his control of the facts.

Thanks to Snopes.com for the additional information.[*]


----------



## NH_Mtn_Hiker (May 1, 2004)

In another email, Ray Reynolds claimed that he got much of his information from the USAID fact sheet.
http://www.usaid.gov/press/factsheets/2004/fs040318.html
It's a shame much of his information contradicts the fact sheet.

Here's a few specific points.
1)  "4.5 million people have clean drinking water".  That's Great, but what about the other 19-20 million people.
2)  "400,000 kids have up to date immunizations".  I'm assuming he's referring to the UNICEF immunizations (more than 20 million in Irag).  These immunizations have been going on for years and did not require US military intervention.
3)  "Girls are allowed to attend school for the first time ever in Irag."  This is a blatant lie.  The following is from the fact sheet:  "Before the 1990s, Iraq had one of the best education systems in the Middle East, with universal primary school enrollment and high rates of literacy among women. A decade later, tight central government control had resulted in buildings that were rarely if ever maintained, teachers who were poorly paid and ill-trained, and shortages of basic equipment and schoolbooks. School enrollment for all ages had declined precipitously."

EDIT  If I hadn't taken so long doing the research for for this post I might have noticed the above post.


----------



## skican (May 3, 2004)

Maybe you all should fly over and help administer doses or train policeman or teach or volunteer to do whatever you can. You all have way too much time on your hands. What he perseives? Gimme a break! Being from a Military family with members currently over there and a Dad who was in Nam, I just thought a little good news in light of all the bad news is a welcome change versus the bad news we are hit with morning, noon, and night! I never thought to check the validity of the letter.   

Stupid mistake, my apologies.


----------



## sansyn (May 6, 2004)

*the picture*



			
				uphillklimber said:
			
		

> I don't know how to post the pic, but I have it saved in my e-mail. If anyone wants it, I'll send it out. Send me your e-mail and i'll send it to you.



Hey...  Will you send me the pic?  My email is Sandiw@synnex.com.  Thanks!


----------



## Stephen (May 6, 2004)

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/05/06/loc_moment06.html


----------



## Starter Jackets Rule! (May 24, 2004)

Stephen said:
			
		

> I posted something similar to this on the AMC board...
> 
> If you've followed any of my postings, you know that I've been somewhat antagonistic in my views...
> 
> ...


What are you stoned??????
Better for thr envirment?
Yeah right!
Hey pass that dubbie this way.... :beer:


----------



## MtnMagic (May 24, 2004)

Ohmygoshgolly! Everyone has their ideas. 
__________________
Thanks for your thoughts!


----------



## Greg (May 24, 2004)

Starter Jackets Rule! said:
			
		

> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The funny thing is nobody caught on as to why Stephen initially made this post. _Hint: check the start date of this thread._


----------



## MtnMagic (May 24, 2004)

Of course I caught on that day. 

That's why I added my vp Cheney routine.
_________________
Long Trail, please !!


----------

