The Republicans in the Arizona Legislature passed a budget that includes cuts to the State’s Medicaid program (AHCCCS) $385 million affecting 310,000 people. Peter Fine (CEO of Banner Health) reported on March 9th in the Arizona Republic on a survey released by ASU's W.P. Carey School of Business predicting 42,000 jobs lost – most of them high paying if these cuts were made.
On Monday the legislature was trying to pass tax cuts they HOPE will bring in an unspecified number of manufacturing jobs. It will cost Arizona as much as $942 million. Is there logic here somewhere? Loose 42,000 jobs and cost 310,000 people their healthcare while simultaneously hoping to get an unspecified number of jobs and winding up with a total of hundreds of millions more in budget deficit.
By the way they will also spend $8.3 million on a special election rather than raise the necessary taxes themselves.
c0199416-0346-436d-acef-104f0caccf6c|0|.0
Our apologies but we have had a major server crash and are having to rebuild everything from scratch on a new server. We expect the archives to be back up shortly. In the meantime, we will be able to continue our irregular posting schedule from this point forward. We appreciate your patience and indulgance.
d64e2bf3-e657-489b-9d38-2d68e08ac16d|0|.0
The conversation below occurred over a period of a few weeks, with an otherwise intelligent individual (We'll call him John Denier or John D. for short) who would obviously do anything to try and make himself believe that global warming was not a fact that we have to deal with.
I publish this transcript here in hopes that others can expand upon these arguments when faced with similar situations, as well as give me alternative, hopefully better ways of getting through to these people. Your comments are, as always, encouraged and appreciated.
This conversation started as an almost offhand comment he made at lunch about the "...big-lie that is global warming..." and continued into an email exchange. I suspect that the comment was intended to see if I would let him get away with it. As I have said in the past however, we have let the lies get away from us. We can no longer stand silently by while the right-wing nut-jobs propagate their deceit. It must be challenged wherever it is found, especially when the lies are said publicly.
My initial response to his assertion that it was all a "big-lie" was to ask for documentation, which he claimed existed, that showed that global warming was not our doing. He did not deny that there was much evidence that global warming was our fault; he just claimed there was plenty of evidence that "proves it isn't". The conversation continued in email...
- John D.
Jeff, here is just one of many… http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1176974192195090.xml&coll=1 I agree, we all need to do our part to help reduce our footprint on the earth, but to jump to catastrophic overreactions will not be helpful especially to the people living in developing countries. Peace. jd
- Jeff F.
Where is his study? Making unscientific jabs at legitimate research is not evidence; its conjecture, or worse, wishful thinking. Where is his research showing the absence of a correlation between humans and global warming? Besides, a "scientist" who is a vocal supporter of intelligent design (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I) has very little credibility with me. Please show me something based on research, not bought-and-paid-for opinion.
Remember, what I said was that "100% of published, peer-reviewed studies show that global warming exists and we are the cause." You have shown me nothing that in any way refutes that. A few self-published articles on the subject does not make one an expert, even if he or she works for a major University.
Making the planet unlivable would be far worse for people living in developing countries than any changes to environmental policy… Even minor changes to our environment, which have already happened, are causing very severe effects, in many cases involving people in those developing countries that you cite. If you really want to help them, help stop the drying-up of fresh water sources and the rising of the oceans that are going on right now. If you really want to help all of us, let's spend the little money we'll need to spend now on this problem before we have to spend orders-of-magnitude more in the future because we waited too long. An ounce of prevention…
Just because we can't quantify the effect that global warming will have, cannot mean we turn a blind-eye to the problem. It is real and we caused it. We need to fix it… Please keep trying…
- John D.
Jeff, when you have a full hour to available, please watch the following movie… http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170 This has the names, interviews, and commentary from the professors you want to discredit. As a matter of fact, several of the scientists/professors are a few of the first who were used by Margaret Thatcher's IPCC initiative to sway public into going nuclear (she forced the miners back to work- remember that? I do). Included is an interesting commentary from a co-founder of Greenpeace. Enjoy. jd
- Jeff F.
I'll be happy to watch the video, but I won't support your case for you, you need to do that for yourself. If you feel the video has pointed out one or more legitimate scientists with studies that support your assertions, do the research and state your case. I believe that what you will find, at first contact with any actual research, is that these people are nothing more than Roy Spencer who you previously referenced. These are people who are using good, unrelated work in the past to establish credentials for an invented counter-argument to a real problem so they can cash-in on the corporate payouts.
Understand something, it is very clear from your actions that you do not actually believe this garbage yourself. Do us all a favor and do the research, then try and support your case to yourself. If you do the groundwork, and you still feel the same way, then I'll be glad to look at it too. Convince yourself first, then convince me. What you'll find is that you can't convince yourself. You are a smart guy, you don't need me to play nanny for you.
- John D.
So what you're saying is I shouldn't watch anything unless it's coming from Al Gore. Additionally, schools that mandate watching his movie should not view the other side of the story? I guess the same is true with Michael Moore.
Come on Jeff, there are many previous scientist that were thought to have discovered this or that, while their peers disagreed with them only to find one side was completely wrong. So, why the hysteria to do one thing or another? Fear causes action which fuels budgets! Do you really trust governments that much? Have you ever worked for government?
Watch the movie and understand why it is so important the public is being fooled. I want you to see and hear the scientists. We can discuss after, if you want.
By the way, Roy Spencer is not in the movie.
- Jeff F.
I'm saying, do your own research. Don't believe a movie, don't believe Al Gore, don't believe the government, and don't believe me. Find out for yourself!
Question: Should people who say that the earth is flat get equal time in science class as those who believe the earth is round?
Before you say it is an invalid comparison, be prepared to support that argument. I'm prepared to support that it is a valid comparison, because that is the case I've been making all along… If you would only do the research for yourself you would know it too.
The corporations have much to gain by not spending any money to fix this problem and they are throwing all of their media influence behind the disinformation campaign trying to convince us that the problem isn't real. Who gains if the problem actually is real? You are asking me to not believe all legitimate scientists and instead believe the corporations and the media. No way, no how. I have done the research for myself and I know what is going on. If you look for yourself, you'll know too.
- John D.
I have always doubted on my own. I didn't need a movie. It's too convenient to blame the industrial world, especially the west and deprive the developing countries their right to develop. You and I, I am sure, agree on many things regarding the conservation and respectful uses of natural resources. However, I think scare tactics by a UN body cannot be trusted.
The movie confirmed what I had suspected. However, there are some things I didn't realize. Thatcher and Tri laterals want to enslave you and I. Bush is one of them. Greed is more important than our national health. But you already knew that, from a different prospective.
- Jeff F.
So let me get this straight, you are claiming that global warming is some kind of scam by the UN for some unknown, obviously nefarious purpose, utilizing scientists the world over who are completely distinct and gain nothing from it, and you deny that the corporations, who control (own) the mass media and who have much to lose if this threat is widely known and understood, are simply looking out for their own interests by telling us that it is fake.
It really sounds like you are saying "I know Global Warming is a fact, but I don't want to spend the money and time to do anything about it, and since I hate the UN, and they have issued warnings about the problem, I can just say I don't trust them and have an excuse for doing nothing. Then, when we really have to spend a lot more money down the road to fix a problem we could have prevented, we'll just blame the UN, saying it was their conservation efforts that prevented businesses from doing anything about it."
I certainly agree that it is greed that is at issue here. Corporations putting profit over the nation, the world, and the people who inhabit them is unfortunately, not a new concept.
- John D.
None of the scientists dispute the climate goes thru changes. The IPCC report has scientists' names on it who do not have anything to do with the report. They took upon themselves to add people for credibility. Watch the video, one scientist had to threaten to take legal action before they removed his name.
What it comes down to is this. Yes, we are experiencing climate change. No, CO2 is not the cause. The change in solar spots on the sun is the cause (studies show this). The amount of water vapor(clouds) in the atmosphere is what traps the heat. I saw a study on PBS where temps were compared before and after 9/11. Temps were up by a significant factor across the nation when all the planes where grounded. I'm sure you see the moisture clouds trailing aircraft at high altitudes.
CO2 levels trail the warming of the planet, it does not lead like Gore claims. See the historical records done by geological scientists (carbon dating). The source of CO2 is the oceans. Ocean temps response to environment factors takes hundreds even thousands of years to respond (i.e. level of CO2 release).
Bottom line – nothing we can do. It's a natural cycle.
Maybe I should start selling Global Warming apparel or lotion. I'll jump on the $$$ band wagon.
We should have lunch sometime to discuss.
- Jeff F.
Now we are starting to get somewhere…
You cite studies that show the following:
- The change in solar spots on the sun is the cause of global warming
- Air traffic has an impact on temperature
- CO2 increases are not a cause of global warming (but are actually a result of it?)
(If I have misstated any of these, please correct me)
Please show me these studies and let me see for myself (you'll forgive me if your claims are not enough to convince me). But first, you must read them for yourself and convince yourself of their validity. Watching a movie or show that mentions it is no substitute for actual research.
- John D.
Yes, sure. As soon as I have time. Very busy.
That, of course, was the end of the conversation. John D. has since moved-on, I guess looking for a place to infect where his lies go unchallenged.
a9058854-3bf7-479d-abf4-755f5de33a78|0|.0
In an opinion piece posted this morning on the website of the Greater Phoenix Jewish News, the editors, at least one of which has contributed to the Jim Pederson campaign, point out that U.S. policy in the Middle East has hurt American credibility in the region, and thus hurt Israel.
If the only issue for the American Jewish voter is what's truly best for Israel, then an absolute priority must be a strong U.S., with the diplomatic capital to promote change in the Middle East and help protect Israel from the hostile governments that surround her. Given that priority, the current administration is failing Israel, and Republican Jon Kyl, as one of the staunchest Bush supporters in the Senate, is a contributing factor.
The editorial continues stating that clearly, Israel is not and cannot be the only priority, even for American Jews. There are too many other important issues such as stem-cell research, the environment and immigration reform. On all of these and other issues, the paper’s editors state that Kyl’s positions are wrong for Arizona and the U.S.A, and thus, wrong for Israel.
Jews have a long, proud history in the U.S., grounded in our values and traditions, that has helped shape the nation's character. Are we really to turn our backs on that history and vote as if in some kind of myopic haze? Whatever happened to the rational approach that allows us to consider all the factors at work?
Whether you're choosing a U.S. senator based on what's best for Israel or what's best for the U.S., the answer is the same: Jim Pederson.
It is good to see the editors of the Greater Phoenix Jewish News come out strong in favor of Jim Pederson even at this late date. Of course, a good portion of the Jewish community in Arizona is made up of senior citizens, those who are most likely to have voted early, so I am unsure of how much affect this editorial will have, but I have to agree with the analysis completely; what is good for America is good for Israel, and Jim Pederson is good for America.
ab821d74-f66c-4664-bcb8-b3bf7fc73c0b|0|.0
In a press conference this morning, John Kerry blasted the President and Republicans for trying to divert attention away from the real issues and mischaracterize his statements:
…I apologize to no-one for my criticism of the President and his broken policy. If anyone owes our troops in the field an apology, it is the President and his failed teams, and the Republican majority of the congress that has been willing to rubber-stamp policies that have done injuries to our troops and their families.
What our troops deserve is a winning strategy. What they deserve is leadership that is up to the sacrifice that they are making.
They have a "stand still and lose" policy in Iraq, and a "cut and run" policy in Afghanistan.
I can’t help but think that if George W. Bush and his cronies in Congress like Jon Kyl and J.D. Hayworth put half as much effort into attacking our enemies like Osama bin Laden as they put into attacking our heroes like John Kerry, John Murtha, and Jim Webb; Osama would have been killed or captured by now. Republicans, having full control of the government, have failed to protect America and now we will see what can be accomplished when both parties share some of the power.
Under normal circumstances, I would say that there is no way to know, with a shift in power, that the incoming power structure will do a better job of protecting America or not, but this situation is an exception. I can state unequivocally, and with 100% confidence, that the Congress will do a much better job at defending this country than the Republicans have with full control. My reasoning for such confidence is simple; the job cannot be done worse than it has been over the last 6 years. We are now far less-safe and less-free than we were when President Bush took-over, and we are less-safe and less-free then we were on 9-11. The task ahead is difficult, but as long as the Democrats take control of at least one house of Congress, single-party rule will be over and reasonable compromises will have to be reached. The job of Congress to oversee the President will resume and the country will be both safer and freer for it.
644f4d8b-3fcb-4f99-8772-56f36fa44a5c|0|.0
President Bush's veto of the Stem Cell Research Bill yesterday was a reprehensible and indefensible act that once again put politics over people.
For those who haven’t heard me rant in person, remember the following:
* Animals have no rights
* Businesses have no rights
* Cloth has no rights
* Cells have no rights
That is correct; none of the above have any rights at all. Only people can have rights. For President Bush to put the "well-being" of groups of cells above that of millions of people worldwide whose lives could be saved or greatly improved by the results of stem-cell research is disgusting. That he would do it to pander to his political base and thus consolidate his power is morally indefensible.
7958cf1c-0ec0-4f7a-9055-653928114545|0|.0
In the recent Supreme Court ruling on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Arizona Senator John Kyl, along with South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, was called-out in the majority opinion of the court for his unprecedented and scandalous lies to that court. Justice Stevens, author of the opinion and an appointee of President Ford, wrote:
While statements attributed to the final bill’s two other sponsors, Senators Graham and Kyl, arguably contradict Senator Levin’s contention that the final version of the Act preserved jurisdiction over pending habeas cases…those statements appear to have been inserted into the Congressional Record after the Senate debate.
It is often the practice in Congress to insert items into the Congressional record to correct errors and oversights. There are three things that make this incident different, and truly contemptible:
- Kyl and Graham inserted a phony conversation into the record as if it actually happened, complete with interruptions and a check on how much time was left on the clock.
- The phony conversation contained assertions that were exactly the opposite of what was actually discussed in the Senate session. During the session, the Senate specifically removed an effective date from the act in order to preserve jurisdiction over pending habeas cases. Kyl and Graham’s phony conversation was intended to show that jurisdiction was not to be preserved.
- The falsified record was submitted to the Supreme Court as if it had actually happened in order to support the government’s claim that the act being discussed by Congress at that time was applicable to the Hamdan case, even though that case was already pending at the time the law was enacted.
Clearly, these acts were specific in their intent to deprive Mr. Hamdan, and thereby all of us, of our constitutional protections. My question then is a simple one, what is the penalty for lying to the Supreme Court? Former attorney Christy Hardin Smith states in her article on FireDogLake.com that Kyl and Graham “…should be facing state bar sanctions, and an ethics investigation in the Senate.” So far, I have not been able to get a hold of a human being at the State Bar of Arizona to answer my questions on this issue, but I will continue to try and will post an update when I am successful at reaching them.
21d6d8f6-af03-4560-a9a5-ed1d257e3482|0|.0
Categories: Bush
Posted by
AZNotes on
9/17/2005 7:10 AM |
Comments (1)
On Thursday, the President made a prime time speech about saving the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. He made several proposals that will require a great deal of money to rebuild the area but he made no mention how this would be funded. Already I hear Republicans saying there must be some “offsets”. I wonder who will be affected by these “offsets”, the middle class? There are several things he could do, he could reduce the cost of the Iraq war by bringing our military home, he could rescind the tax cuts he already gave the rich and he could prevent the repeal of the Estate Tax (a cost that would exceed $138 billion, according to Sen. John McCain).
The President spoke of a mix of government and private companies to do the rebuilding. I wonder if Halliburton or other politically connected companies are going to get no-bid contracts. Will the companies chosen pay living wages? The President has already suspended the Davis-Bacon act that would guarantee workers be paid at the prevailing rate for the area.
I also wonder how much money and how many lives could have been saved if the levees had been fixed instead of cutting the budget of the Army Corps of Engineers in order to give tax breaks to the rich.
14e4732f-f6db-4548-9721-359fc45d563a|0|.0
Categories: Media
Posted by
jefffire on
8/22/2004 8:20 AM |
Comments (0)
I often talk to people who are excited, for one reason or another, about the results of a particular online poll or another. I am not referring to scientific opinion polls conducted by Gallup, USA Today, and others. I am referring to the online polls that any webmaster can easily put up on his or her website, often asking the "question of the day". The people who comment on these polls, who are usually very intelligent and very well informed compared to the average American, realize that these are not scientific surveys, but are simply reflections of the opinions of those who chose to respond. Nonetheless, they feel relieved or angry, nervous or comforted by the results of these polls. They say "I know it is not scientific, but it is an indication of what people are thinking."
NO IT IS NOT!!!
It is very important for everyone to understand that the results of those polls mean that somewhere between 0% and 100% of people believe what was stated in the poll. That is it, some number between 0% and 100%. Nothing more can be taken from these surveys. MSNBC does a reasonably good job of explaining some of the science in layman's terms. But this article leads to an equally important question: If these surveys are unscientific, why are they included on "news" websites? Certainly these polls have there place on fan-club and non-news organizations websites. Why however, would something that is entirely not news, and not based on anything relating to fact, be included on a legitimate news organization's website?
The answer, in my mind, is an indicator of another sort, it is an indicator of how complacent and lazy we have allowed the news media to become. Rather than seeking out real news based on fact, these "reporters" put a meaningless online poll on the web, and then write a story about it, complete with caveats about it not being scientific. This is absolutely not to say that all reporters are like this, my complaint is that we allow any legitimate news source to get away with it. To pick on MSNBC (because I found the article linked to above on their website) the fact that they have something on their website that they feel needs to be explained as they did, should tell them that it doesn't belong on their site. Not that I would want them to not explain it, better that they explain the fact that it is based on nothing and might as well be completely made-up, it just shouldn't be there to begin with.
In the article linked above, MSNBC says "...MSNBC’s Live Votes are not intended to be a scientific sample of national opinion. Instead, they are part of the same interactive dialogue that takes place in our online chat sessions: a way to share your views on the news with MSNBC writers and editors and with your fellow users." These claims that these polls are somehow similar to allowing people to express their individual opinions in a chat room or discussion is pure garbage. These polls do not express individual opinion and by MSNBC's own admission, do not express any valid community opinion either. So what do they express?
These polls express only one thing, that 0% - 100% of people believe that true news sources would never allow their name to be associated with such non-newsworthy garbage.
dda54cee-4ec8-4606-8a2d-7ae96a5655e7|0|.0