Amazon.com Widgets

« The Details | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Tuesday »

V.P.

What does the Vice President do?




Quicktime Video .75 MB | Duration: '30
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Real Time w/Bill Maher
More Bill Maher video here
Get Bill Maher: Victory Begins at Home DVD

 

Comments

Well, Palin at least is qualified for that last item...

Well, Palin at least is qualified for that last item...

While Governor of Alaska, Palin has moved to oppose polar bears becoming a protected species, in spite of the fact that thir habitat is threatened by global warming. Which is accelerated by the human addiction to burning oil.

What's Alaska's largest industry?

I think she'd score on Bill's #2, as well.

While Governor of Alaska, Palin has moved to oppose polar bears becoming a protected species, in spite of the fact that thir habitat is threatened by global warming. Which is accelerated by the human addiction to burning oil.

What's Alaska's largest industry?

I think she'd score on Bill's #2, as well.

Something's wrong with moveable type posting.

Just don't ever repost something. it will always actually post it unless you get the error that you are not signed in.

Palin does not believe that global warming is manmade.

"Palin at least is qualified for that last item..."

Huntin', Track(-er), Shootin', Trig(-ger), Lurin' 'em in,Pipe(r), playing the flute? (or: a whistle specially designed for duck calling, goose calling and a wide variety of animal calling), P(r)istol, Willow (a snare is a trap made from a loop of wire, and a flexible willow branch),

straight outta the sub-rube suburbs of Anchorage, really the way we should all live. Not on Wall-E Street. Clearly there has been terminal brain drain, when her ilk (Criss-chins, etc.) are the only ones left on the land.

Almost. She's originally from Ted country. Kaczynskiya Zemlya.

The other night, when this was on, I was channel-surfing and it occurred to me that I hadn't watched this show in a while. I hesitated, thinking "Jesus, I hope it's not another episode where Janeane Garofalo rants about her paranoia while showing more of her tattoos", noting that all the guests were Democrats and liberal talking heads, but thought "hey, I'll give it a chance". First thing I see? Bill childishly mocking the completely honest and open question of "What would I, as the VP, do?" So naturally I didn't catch the rest of it.

Which is accelerated by the human addiction to burning oil.

Right, because Al Gore told you so! The fact that mankind generates less than 3% of atmospheric CO2 ... the fact that we can literally do nothing about global warming ... the fact that we're crazily focusing on this hysteria-driven cause rather than actual, solvable problems ... ah, never mind.

But you should read Palin's article on the polar bear subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05palin.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Okay, Calligraph - Fair comments.
1) From watching the video, I agree the comment was not meant in the tone it is now being taken. Personally, I think she was trying to deflect the questions, since she wasn't ready to talk about it. That said - I've been headhunted for positions and, if I said that --used that type of phrasing -- about the job I was after (and this show was being broadcast so, hopefully she's shrewd enough to realize it is going out there), I would not get the job - guaranteed. Even if I explained, of course, I know what the position does - and it varies from company to company so I wanted to impress on everyone I only would be taking the position if, etc. They would just think I hadn't done MY due diligence - part of your job coming into a position (this isn't your first afterschool job) - and I promise you, I would not get the job.

2) No - not because Al Gore told us so - because he had facts and figures from a large numer of credible, quality scientists to back his statements up. Am I supposed to believe he's wrong because YOU say so? Link to your sources of information please to make your case.

3) Best of all, Palin's op ed. First, she disagrees with YOU on global warming. Any comment on that?

Now - to her polar bear decision.

My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts.
So the state officials reviewed others. She does not name one of them or quote any of their information. Yet, she uses the name of The Center for Biological Diversity - who she disagrees with - twice.

And, this is interesting:

But the Endangered Species Act is not the correct tool to address climate change — the act itself actually prohibits any consideration of broader issues.
What does this mean? I'd like to know more.

She needs to start quoting some facts and figures and include some people outside the federal and state government. (I'm assuming you're aware of some of the non-scientific activities the government has interjected into the scientific information that gets distributed. How about some unbiased experts?)

You know - nothing would make me happier than to hear polar bears are better off then we've been lead to believe. That would be great. And, I'm willing to hear the facts from someone I find credible. That would be good news!

But - you know what I think is more likely going on..... I think Palin is in bed with oil and the endangered species act is one way big oil can't stop some of the efforts to stop global warming so they desperately want to put the brakes on this. Alaska has been doing very well since oil prices have gone up. That means these two years Palin has been in office have been good financial years for them. I think THAT'S her first concern and not the lives of the magnificent animal that is part of our ecosystem - and very possible a bellwether of the danger that you are already resigned to. (Even if you believed it was inevitable.just give it up? Not a great way to show the resilience and ingenuity of mankind.)

4) NY Times? We've all been waiting to learn what the trustworthy conservative sources are that shape your beliefs. I KNOW you don't like the NY Times so what gives?

That said - I've been headhunted for positions and, if I said that --used that type of phrasing

It's virtually impossible to separate one's partisan parsing of her statement from its actual intent, or to analogize it to an everyday scenario. Most of us probably make such goofs on a daily basis but have the fortune to not have our every utterance filmed, then played back out of context and in the worst possible light (think of Dean's barbaric yawp).

The funny thing about this is - and I'm not by any means the kind of smug jackass who rants on and on about 'stupid Americans' - but most people don't know what the VP does. That's largely because the VP does pretty much nothing, the reason it's not exactly the most coveted role in government. It was basically created as a 'second place prize' and a good way to keep tabs on your best enemy, and has only evolved as a mostly useless position. Has someone's choice for VP ever swayed your alignment? Heck, I can't even remember who Kerry chose four years ago.

No - not because Al Gore told us so - because he had facts and figures from a large numer of credible, quality scientists to back his statements up.

Gore's crime - besides general hypocrisy - is conflation. His film, when he's not whining about losing, mostly documents things we can prove to be true: ice is melting, so on and so forth. He then conflates those facts with the theory of mankind causing them - completely disregarding natural warming, disregarding mankind's small contribution to the CO2 table. And worst of all, he pitches it as a problem we could easily fix if we just cared as much as he does.

There's just too much there to even remotely touch on it all. But I will point out that if you haven't noticed, the tables have begun to turn on this whole argument. For years we've heard that "no scientist disagrees", well, lots of scientists have stepped up to disagree. Study groups and focus teams have practically begged the UN to stop hammering on 'global warming' and start focusing on issues that can actually be fixed.

What does this mean? I'd like to know more. We've all been waiting to learn what the trustworthy conservative sources are that shape your beliefs.

As with global warming, I'm just surprised that you don't research more. It may astonish you to learn that I don't read 'conservative sources'. I do make it my goal to learn as much as possible about a subject before just believing somebody about it, and I also understand that 'liberal sources' are just as likely to fabricate or twist information as a 'conservative source' would be, so you have to balance things out.

As for the ESA: there are numerous criticisms of this act, ranging from the broad criticism of how badly the government sucks at doing most things to the very specific criticism of the ESA not actually ever saving a single species. Ever. The much-ballyhooed spotted owl situation is perhaps the most laughable: after having hippies raise a hysteria over their impending doom we found out that the damn things survive perfectly in new growth forest. Whales made a resurgence because modern society largely does not need blubber, so we naturally stopped hunting them; the ESA had no effect whatsoever.

However there are many documented cases of the ESA being abused to give coveted land to businesses over individuals, or to seize land from private holders. But as far as protective legislation goes, it's right up there with the massive 'success' of banning DDT. It's an example of the very reason I broke from 'liberal thinking': it's more about feeling good than doing good. Look at me, I protect Endangered Species! And I don't even have to lift a finger!

Seems to me a person who prides themselves on being learned would, you know, try to find fault with their position. Maybe investigate claims against it, if for no other reason than to pursue due diligence.

I think Palin is in bed with oil and the endangered species act is one way big oil can't stop some of the efforts to stop global warming so they desperately want to put the brakes on this.

Frankly, your position reeks of paranoid delusion. Evil big oil wants 'global warming' to continue? Ah, those evil oil companies and auto-makers. If only they took some of their blood profits and invested them in alternative energy or hybrids ... oh, wait, they're the only entities doing that? The Prius was actually invented by an evil car manufacturer? Chevron alone invested $10 billion this year in alternative energy studies and infrastructure?

Seriously, how much of your money goes into alternative energy? Are you quitting your job to build windmills? One evil oil company has invested 10 billion times more than you in the subject about which you claim to be passionate - wouldn't that make you evil?

Right, because Al Gore told you so! The fact that mankind generates less than 3% of atmospheric CO2 ... the fact that we can literally do nothing about global warming ... the fact that we're crazily focusing on this hysteria-driven cause rather than actual, solvable problems ... ah, never mind.

Never mind, eh - well, that's the only advice you've dispensed worth taking. The 4th IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) flatly contradicts your ridiculous "facts". From the summary for policy makers:

p. 2: Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas ... The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 – 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960 – 2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates.

p. 2-3: The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions increased from an average of 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8] 5 GtC (23.5 [22.0 to 25.0] GtCO2) per year in the 1990s, to 7.2 [6.9 to 7.5] GtC (26.4 [25.3 to 27.5] GtCO2) per year in 2000–2005 (2004 and 2005 data are interim estimates). Carbon dioxide emissions associated with land-use change are estimated to be 1.6 [0.5 to 2.7] GtC (5.9 [1.8 to 9.9] GtCO2) per year over the 1990s, although these estimates have a large uncertainty.

p. 4: The global atmospheric concentration of methane has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 715 ppb to 1732 ppb in the early 1990s, and is 1774 ppb in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of methane in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb) as determined from ice cores. Growth rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. It is very likely6 that the observed increase in methane concentration is due to anthropogenic activities, predominantly agriculture and fossil fuel use, but relative contributions from different source types are not well determined.

The full report is available at the link I gave. Al Gore told you so because, unlike morons like you calligraph, Al Gore pays attentions to people who gather real data for a living instead of pulling it out of their ass.

The Federalist Papers, yaaaay! Sign me up, Norm.

Gore's crime - besides general hypocrisy - is conflation….His film, when he's not whining about losing, mostly documents things we can prove to be true: ice is melting, so on and so forth. He then conflates those facts with the theory of mankind causing them - completely disregarding natural warming, disregarding mankind's small contribution to the CO2 table.

From the primary literature - I can provide the original literature references if you like:

Over the past 600,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have fluctuated between 180 ppmv and 300 ppmv. The ~7500 year period between starting about 130,000 years ago and ending about 127,500 years ago shows the fastest change in atmospheric CO2 level in that 600,000 year period – CO2 level increased from about 190 ppmv to 270 ppmv in that 7500 year time span. In other words, the most rapid CO2 concentration increase in the 600,000 years before the industrial era was a little more than 1 ppmv per 100 years. In the 46 year time span from 1958 to 2004, the seasonally averaged CO2 levels increased from about 315 ppmv to 377 ppmv (there is a very regular sinusoidal seasonal variation of with a ~ 6 ppmv amplitude). Therefore, in the past 46 years, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than 1 ppmv each year.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing more than 100 times faster now than anytime before the industrial era. If you think that these increases are not anthropegenic, you’re out of your mind. As usual, calligraph, your crime is that of spewing bullshit.

Gore's crime - besides general hypocrisy - is conflation….His film, when he's not whining about losing, mostly documents things we can prove to be true: ice is melting, so on and so forth. He then conflates those facts with the theory of mankind causing them - completely disregarding natural warming, disregarding mankind's small contribution to the CO2 table.

From the primary literature - I can provide the original literature references if you like:

Over the past 600,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have fluctuated between 180 ppmv and 300 ppmv. The ~7500 year period between starting about 130,000 years ago and ending about 127,500 years ago shows the fastest change in atmospheric CO2 level in that 600,000 year period – CO2 level increased from about 190 ppmv to 270 ppmv in that 7500 year time span. In other words, the most rapid CO2 concentration increase in the 600,000 years before the industrial era was a little more than 1 ppmv per 100 years. In the 46 year time span from 1958 to 2004, the seasonally averaged CO2 levels increased from about 315 ppmv to 377 ppmv (there is a very regular sinusoidal seasonal variation of with a ~ 6 ppmv amplitude). Therefore, in the past 46 years, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than 1 ppmv each year.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing more than 100 times faster now than anytime before the industrial era. If you think that these increases are not anthropegenic, you’re out of your mind. As usual, calligraph, your crime is that of spewing bullshit.

Gore's crime - besides general hypocrisy - is conflation….His film, when he's not whining about losing, mostly documents things we can prove to be true: ice is melting, so on and so forth. He then conflates those facts with the theory of mankind causing them - completely disregarding natural warming, disregarding mankind's small contribution to the CO2 table.

Information from the primary literature )(see ice core data at Science, 310, 1313-1317, (2005); and current CO2 data at the link given below)

Over the past 600,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have fluctuated between 180 ppmv and 300 ppmv. The ~7500 year period between about 130,000 years ago and ending about 127,500 years ago shows the fastest change in atmospheric CO2 level in that 600,000 year period – the CO2 level increased from about 190 ppmv to 270 ppmv in that 7500 year time span. In other words, the most rapid CO2 concentration increase in the 600,000 years before the industrial era was a little more than 1 ppmv per 100 years. ">http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/"> In the 46 year time span from 1958 to 2004, the seasonally averaged CO2 levels increased from about 315 ppmv to 377 ppmv (there is a very regular sinusoidal seasonal variation with a ~ 6 ppmv amplitude). Therefore, in the past 46 years, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than 1 ppmv each year.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing more than 100 times faster now than anytime before the industrial era. If you think that these increases are not anthropogenic, you’re out of your mind. As usual, calligraph, your crime is that of spewing totally inaccurate bullshit.

Gore's crime - besides general hypocrisy - is conflation….His film, when he's not whining about losing, mostly documents things we can prove to be true: ice is melting, so on and so forth. He then conflates those facts with the theory of mankind causing them - completely disregarding natural warming, disregarding mankind's small contribution to the CO2 table.

Information from the primary literature )(see ice core data at Science, 310, 1313-1317, (2005); and current CO2 data at the link given below)

Over the past 600,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have fluctuated between 180 ppmv and 300 ppmv. The ~7500 year period between about 130,000 years ago and ending about 127,500 years ago shows the fastest change in atmospheric CO2 level in that 600,000 year period – the CO2 level increased from about 190 ppmv to 270 ppmv in that 7500 year time span. In other words, the most rapid CO2 concentration increase in the 600,000 years before the industrial era was a little more than 1 ppmv per 100 years. ">http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/"> In the 46 year time span from 1958 to 2004, the seasonally averaged CO2 levels increased from about 315 ppmv to 377 ppmv (there is a very regular sinusoidal seasonal variation with a ~ 6 ppmv amplitude). Therefore, in the past 46 years, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than 1 ppmv each year.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing more than 100 times faster now than anytime before the industrial era. If you think that these increases are not anthropogenic, you’re out of your mind. As usual, calligraph, your crime is that of spewing totally inaccurate bullshit.

Wanna learn 'bout the republic. Gimme.

Calligraph - Really? I said I didn't have a problem with what she said... "Personally, I think she was trying to deflect the questions, since she wasn't ready to talk about it." I thought it was a harmless side step. You think that's partisan parsing? Huh...okay.

I agree we usually have the luxury of not having our gaffes on an everyday basis --- that's one reason I would never want to run for VP. But, if I did (and apparently, that might not be as absurd a possibility as I once would've thought), I would expect that to change. Part of the territory. Good point about Dean - one overmiked yell on tape and he is no longer a viable candidate. Let's see if this will do the same for Palin.

Whether most people know what a VP does or not, I believe the person who is going to take the office is supposed to look into it. You think I have to do more preparation for a marketing position than the person running for VP?

Kerry chose Edwards - I'm surprised you don't remember that.

Tim highlighted a lot of Gore stuff for you. I know you'll be checking that out. Nice to have facts, isn't it?

As far as saying we heard no scientists disagreed - actually - I heard a lot about some scientists disagreeing. I think they were the same two that believe in Intelligent Design.

I don't even know where you're getting your stuff on the ESA. Start with the Bald Eagle - that would've been really embarrassing, wouldn't it, to have killed them off. (BTW - DDT played no small part in bringing them close to the brink but I suppose you are in the Tom DeLay - former exterminator - camp on that as you are in the Bush camp on the ESA).

Big Oil.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070801442.html I know, what planet are they planning on living on....right? I'm with you on that Calligraph. It's crazy.

As far as how great our cars are, it was in 2001 that Cheney put off the raising of the CAFE standards - even longer than Ford requested. Instead of encouraging America to go after good gas mileage, we went after SUV's and Japan got the Prius. The American auto industry now gets to play a game of catch-up when we could've been leaders.

Gore's crime - besides general hypocrisy - is conflation….His film, when he's not whining about losing, mostly documents things we can prove to be true: ice is melting, so on and so forth. He then conflates those facts with the theory of mankind causing them - completely disregarding natural warming, disregarding mankind's small contribution to the CO2 table.

Information from the primary literature: (see ice core data at Science, 310, 1313-1317, (2005); and current CO2 data at the link given below)

Over the past 600,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have fluctuated between 180 ppmv and 300 ppmv. The ~7500 year period between about 130,000 years ago and ending about 127,500 years ago shows the fastest change in atmospheric CO2 level in that 600,000 year period – the CO2 level increased from about 190 ppmv to 270 ppmv in that 7500 year time span. In other words, the most rapid CO2 concentration increase in the 600,000 years before the industrial era was a little more than 1 ppmv per 100 years. In the 46 year time span from 1958 to 2004, the seasonally averaged CO2 levels increased from about 315 ppmv to 377 ppmv (there is a very regular sinusoidal seasonal variation with a ~ 6 ppmv amplitude). Therefore, in the past 46 years, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than 1 ppmv each year.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing more than 100 times faster now than anytime before the industrial era. If you think that these increases are not anthropogenic, you’re out of your mind. As usual, calligraph, your crime is that of spewing totally inaccurate bullshit.

Federalist Papers - Yes Please!

I would like to be in the lottery for The Fed Papers, Norm.

Thanks for the chance.

Palin does not believe that global warming is manmade.

Yes! Someone with a common sense! She got my vote.

Except there's that Mccain guy...

This is why I stopped watching Colbert. He never lets anyone speak. He needs to go back to the Daily Show and pick up some more pointers.

P.S. Davinci was a not a believer. He just made alot of money painting fairy tales.

the tables have begun to turn on this whole argument. For years we've heard that "no scientist disagrees", well, lots of scientists have stepped up to disagree.

Bullshit. It's not like in 1978 every scientist got together and said "know what? Let's say global warming is real", and everyone voted "aye!" and it became some sort of universal "truth" that now "brave scientists" are coming out to refute.

And your arguement that "Evil big oil wants 'global warming' to continue?" is not what was said. That's your "balanced" understanding of the left's arguement?

Saying that cigarette companies are against restriction of their industry isn't saying they are Pro lung Cancer. It's saying that they want to sell their product without "government interference", even if their product is shown to be harmful. Same goes for oil companies. They don't hate the environment, they just want to sell their commodity.

Don't be so silly to suggest that oil companies hate the environment, they just don't want restriction on their industry.

Comments seem to have, um, broken, and not the Multiple post Moveable Type problem.. like, cross-threading comments and wrong thread comments... Hmmm.

We all know Gov. Palin was the wrong choice for the right...It seems that Terry Trippany over at News Busters feels McCain's ill-advised decision is Barack Obama's fault.

Gee, I wonder if Peggy Noonan will be invited to McCain's election night headquarters?

Hey - This is nice. Obama went over 50% over the first time in the polls.... http://www.gallup.com/poll/109960/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Hits-50-First-Time.aspx

Sorry - not over - 50%. And, I was trying to comment on the first post... :)

Oh man, you have to love open mic broadcasts!!! Find out what people REALLY think. I love this one almost as much as the Jesse Jackson one.

Although in this one you can't see Jesse's arm do that 'pull' thing when he says he's going to cut Obama's nuts off.

Did Noonan say what I think she said? If I interpret correctly, she is saying Republicans can't run on merit, because they don't have any, and it's all bullshit anyway.

Tim, normally I'd read well-sourced, thorough, fact-based comments like yours above, appreciated them, and move on, having nothing to add to a case you've made much better than I ever could. Still, I just wanted to drop a quick thank you, given the level of research and informative detail you've taken the effort to provide. I know, I know, maybe all in a day's work for a practicing scientist, perhaps, but for non-scientists like me, immensely appreciated.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives