Michael Graham gets climate change wrong, again.

Here we go again.

WTKK radio personality, right wing-nut and climate change denier Michael Graham has posted another poorly written hack job on climate change. Graham borrows heavily from equally poor piece from Fortune Magazine. Graham's own interpretation and spin on this make a bad article even worse. The premise is basically that John Christy,( one of less-than-half-dozen credible climate scientists who either deny anthropogenic climate change (man made global warming) or think it's not going to be as bad as we think) destroyed Jame Hansen in recent congressional testimony. Actually, Christy's own words and published commentary show that he does believe man is warming the climate and that greenhouse gases are contributing to the warming. Christy seems to put more emphasis on land use changes than most scientists and continues to make bad analysis of satellite data.

What I find interesting is the horrible spin Graham puts on this:
"Unlike most alleged journalism on climate change, this is an interview with an actual climatologist (John Christy) as opposed to some politically active biologist/geologist/etc. who is speaking outside his field."

This statement is laughable because it actually turns climate change denial on it's head. Usually it's the anti-global warming crowd that churns out unqualified "scientists" to attack the truth. I'm not sure who Graham is talking about here but most of the scientists I've seen or read about in the media are actual climate researchers. Graham continues with: "He noticed that Hansen--Al Gore's stooge--wasn't just wrong about increased temperatures, he was ridiculously wrong."
What's really interesting here is that John Christy, who is a respected climatologist but one who is at odds with about 98% of the climatologists in the world is treated with deference, Graham (and his minions who post to his blog) claims to have a "real" scientists while James Hansen, arguably the most respected climatologist in the US, winner of numerous honors and a climatologist who has been published more often than most scientists, is Al Gore's "stooge". This subjective bullshit would be laughable if it were not for the fact that Graham actually has an audience. The worst part of this is that Hansen's climate model predictions actually turned out to be quite good as a 2005 analysis pointed out. The book Censoring Science is a must read for anyone who really wants some insight into James Hansen.

Graham goes on to claim that glaciers are not a problem:

"On glaciers:

Ice melts. Glaciers are always calving. This is what ice does. If ice did not melt, we'd have an ice-covered planet. The fact is that the ice cover is growing in the southern hemisphere even as the ice cover is more or less shrinking in the northern hemisphere. As you and I are talking today, global sea ice coverage is about 400,000 square kilometers above the long-term average - which means that the surplus in the Antarctic is greater than the deficit in the Arctic.

WHAT? I don't know who's more confused. Graham or Christy. Glaciers, "ice cover" and sea ice are all different things. Christy is really talking out of his ass here and Graham is eating it all up. Glaciers are losing mass at a rate twice as fast as they normally do and that rate of loss is increasing. The long term outlook for glaciers is bad and the likely results; raising sea levels and a loss of fresh water storage are a direct threat to human life. As far as the ice cover in the south "making up" for loss in the Arctic, it would be wise to look at the Antarctic in it's entirety before making pronouncements about an entire continent.

Graham then moves into a critique of "Al Gore's" proposed solution to global warming (I thought it was President Obama's): "The problem is that the solutions being offered don't provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe. Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050. That's basically the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020. Now I'm all in favor of nuclear energy, but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn't even notice it."

Excuse me but I thought we were talking about climate science, not policy decisions. This is the typical "kitchen sink" tactic at work, insist that the science is flawed AND attack to solution. Forget for a moment the utter lack of reason in this, Christy/Graham are also flat out wrong. They wrongly assume that only the US will move aggressively to curb GHG emissions, something that simply isn't going to happen. This is a favorite new argument, one that is getting more traction than it deserves. Stabilizing the climate is both possible and necessary.

Graham concludes with a link to this story, actually using it as "evidence" that global warming theory is in trouble. I wonder if he actually read the article as it points out that likely sea level rise if the West Antarctic ice shelf collapsed would be "only" 3 meters instead of the projected 6 meters though the article notes that such a massive shift would actually shift the earths rotational axis. You're right Michael, nothing to worry about.

Once again, Michael Graham has made people dumber. Why does this man still have a microphone in front of him?

The Boston Phoenix - decadent?

Tom Duggan and I have e-mail arguments on a regular basis. Often they are well reasoned debates about issues that both Tom and I have deep, heartfelt disagreements on. Sometimes they are superficial, occasionally they degenerate into glorified pissing contests. An unwritten understanding we've had over the years is that exchanges we have over private email stay, for the most part, private. I also believe that regardless of how heated an argument gets the first one to attack the other person (instead of the persons position or ideas) loses. Our recent exchange over the Boston Phoenix is one that Tom saw fit to drag into the public arena on his weekly radio program, "Paying Attention" on WCAP.

The argument started after I linked 2 articles from the Phoenix to my Facebook page. Tom's comments basically stated that the Phoenix was a decadent, left wing newspaper and that the National Enquirer provided better news coverage. One need only do a Google search on the Phoenix to learn that is has won dozens of awards for its news coverage and provides some of the best coverage of the arts, entertainment and media in the Boston area as well as first rate reporting. It was the paper that broke the clergy sex abuse scandal and while it is an alternative paper complete with an "Adult" section, it is hardly decadent.

For the sake of argument, lets take a look at this weeks Phoenix; For starters YES there is an adult section - let's put that aside for a moment (Tom claims it's pornographic, well see about that). Hmmm front page, coverage of the struggling Rose Art Museum and the possibility that Brandies University may sell it (Page 29), snippets about stories inside on film, music, the Dali Lama in Foxboro. Nothing decadent here...it must be inside. A full page ad for the House of Blues, we will see many full and half page ads throughout the paper for local clubs, concert venues, museums, theaters, etc.

We find extensive coverage of the troubles at the Boston Globe, the Dali Lama's visit to Massachusetts and holding court at Gillette stadium, MIT's media lab and the latest breakthroughs in music technology, a story on Dewaun Parker a graduate of Berkley (school of music) and his work with Dr. Dre (THAT must be the decadent stuff), a review of newly released films including Angels and Daemons, reviews of local theater action including Grey Gardens-the Musical. Local restaurant reviews, club listings, sports, Pretty tame stuff, on the back page there is an interview with former adult film star Sasha Grey, but not because she is a porn star, but because she is attempting to cross over into mainstream films. To say that the National Enquirer is a better source of journalistic excellence is, at best, a bad joke.

The letters-to-the-Editor are both supportive and critical of the Phoenix's recent editorial urging that Jay Severin not be allowed to return to the airwaves on WTKK (that was one of the pieces I linked to Facebook that started all of this). The editorial takes former Vice President Dick Cheney to task for defending torture and working the cable news show circuit attacking President Obama. The Phoenix is a liberal-left paper to be sure and it makes no bones about it but it is tame by most standards. In 2000 the Phoenix endorsed Al Gore over Ralph Nader for president, hardly a left wing position.

Now on to that "pornographic" Adult section. The cover model this week actually looks less "slutty" than usual, pretty, curvy, quite healthy, rather "normal"and sporting a bikini, she is about as pornographic as a sears catalog photo. The ads run the gambit from telephone "chat" lines to escort services, every taste can be catered to; gay, strait, transgendered and every flavor and combination imaginable. There are ads from adult bookstores in the area and mail order paraphernalia is easily available. The pictures that accompany the ad are provocative, titillating and appropriately blocked out in the right spots. They are suggestive and surely not suitable for kids or adolescents but they are also clearly NOT pornographic. There are no graphic depictions of sex, no frontal nudity, nothing that crosses the line into porn. One thing Tom and I both know well is what porn looks like, believe me, this isn't it.

The Phoenix is niche paper. It's liberal editorially, covers news and events from an alternative or progressive vantage point. It covers the arts, entertainment, academia, the club scene. It is in the same vein of the Village Voice and like the Voice, is quite honest about what it is (and is not). Comparing it to the Globe or (laughingly) the Valley Patriot or the Enquirer is pointless. Several things should be obvious; The Phoenix is very good at what it does, the quality of it's journalism is excellent, it is far from pornographic and it is not "decadent".

The Boston Phoenix - decadent?

Nature editorial on climate change.

Published in the latest edition of Nature, one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world.

*************************************************************************
EDITORIAL

Time to act

Without a solid commitment from the world’s leaders, innovative
ways to combat climate change are likely to come to nothing.

It is not too late yet — but we may be very close. The 500 billion tonnes of carbon
that humans have added to the atmosphere lie heavily on the world, and the burden
swells by at least 9 billion tonnes a year (see page 1117). If present trends continue,
humankind will have emitted a trillion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere well
before 2050, and that could be enough to push the planet into the danger zone. And
there is no reason to think that the pressure will stop then. The coal seams and tar
sands of the world hold enough carbon for humankind to emit another trillion tonnes
— and the apocalyptic scenarios extend from there (see page 1104).
Nations urgently need to cut their output of carbon dioxide. The difficulty of that
task is manifest: emissions have continued to rise despite almost two decades of rhetoric,
diplomacy and action on the matter. But that unhappy fact should not be taken
as a licence for fatalism. Governments have a wide range of pollution-cutting tools
at their command, most notably tradable permit regimes, taxes on fuels, regulations
on power generation and energy efficiency, and subsidies for renewable energy and
improved technologies. These tools can work if applied seriously — so citizens around
the world must demand that seriousness from their leaders, both within their individual
nations and in the international framework that will be discussed at the United
Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.

As essential as it is, however, simply agreeing to cut emissions will not be enough.
The fossil fuels burned up so far have already committed the world to a serious amount
of climate change, even if carbon emissions were somehow
to cease overnight (see page 1091). And given the
current economic turmoil, the wherewithal to adapt
to these changes is in short supply, especially among
the world’s poor nations. Adaptation measures will be
needed in rich and poor countries alike — but those that
have grown wealthy through the past emission of carbon
have a moral duty to help those now threatened by that
legacy (see page 1102).

The latest scientific research suggests that even a complete halt to carbon pollution
would not bring the world’s temperatures down substantially for several centuries.
If further research reveals that a prolonged period of elevated temperatures would
endanger the polar ice sheets, or otherwise destabilize the Earth system, nations may
have to contemplate actively removing CO2
from the atmosphere. Indeed, the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is already developing scenarios
for the idea that long-term safety may require sucking up carbon, and various innovators
and entrepreneurs are developing technologies that might be able to accomplish
that feat (see page 1094). At the moment, those technologies seem ruinously expensive
and technically difficult. But if the very steep learning curve can be climbed, then the
benefits will be great.

More radical still is the possibility of cooling the planet through some kind of ‘geoengineering’
that would dim the incoming sunlight (see page 1097). The effects of
such approaches are much more worrying than those of capturing carbon from the air,
however. The cooling from geoengineering would not exactly balance the warming
from greenhouse gases, which would cause complications even if the technology itself
was feasible — something for which the evidence has been circumstantial, at best.
But discussions about the possibilities offered by geoengineering could also lull the
world’s leaders into complacency — if they lead them to believe that the technology

“Even a complete halt
to carbon pollution
would not bring the
world’s temperatures
down substantially
for several centuries.”

1www.nature.com/nature Vol 458 | Issue no. 7242 | 30 April 2009
© 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

The response to "Torture"

My blog is linked to my Facebook page and not surprisingly, "Torture" got a pretty strong response from Tom Duggan and friends. I couldn't make this up folks...The comments are below.

*****************************

Tom Duggan at 7:09am April 28

how out of touch can one person be. Of course, most people can agree that torture is BAD... DUH... (MMMMKAY) but the harsh reality is you have to get your hands dirty when fighting for survival or you DON'T. You are clearly an extremist... never torture for any reason, no matter what.... is just not realistic if you want to live in the real world. ... Read MoreOne terrorist had to be water boarded more than 180 times before he FINALLY gave up the information that was used to prevent another terrorist attack. Since he DIDN'T give up the info after being water boarded 179 times what makes you pacifists believe asking "pretty please with a cherry" is going to work? I am so tired of hearing how "we need to have the moral high ground". Why do we need a moral high ground? And who do we need it with? The terrorists? THEIR moral high ground is cutting off the heads of Jews with a pen knife as slowly as they can to honor ALLAH. The only moral high ground we need to is KILL them and ill them all. SAD!

Tennis Lilly at 7:17am April 28

Thank you Tom, you just made my point. YOU my friend are a perfect example of how morally confused and cowardly this country has gotten.

DOn't you see Tom? It doen't matter what THEY would do. It doesn't matter if one OF THEM talked (by the way, more useful intelligence on the so-called Second 911 was gained from non-coercive means than torture... Read More). It doesn't even matter if doing what's right costs lives. That price, in fact, is the whole point. This isn't about pacifism (I am not a pacifist as you well know).

If we don't stay true to the values that make this country great then America is just another place and we are just another collection of people.

Tom Duggan at 7:26am April 28

Yeah you're right Tennis, it IS morally cowardice to want to SURVIVE and be willing to kick the shit out of a Muslim satan worshiper who's mission is to slowly rape and torture YOUR family. You sissy pacifists would rather see more dead Americans (including your own family) than hurt a terrorists FEELINGS or make him uncomfortable. How many ... Read Moreterrorist scum bags were tortured? FOUR? EIGHT? yeah that's a symbol of an America as a country gone Awry! (NOT!). THE REAL symbol of Americans being out of touch with the very serious dangers we face personally and as a people is that there is more outcry over four or eight HARDENED Muslim terrorists who took American lives and are in on the plot to take more than protecting American lives. YOUR QUOTE>>>> "It dosn't even matter if doing what's right costs lives. That price, in fact, is the whole point." YES, Yes it DOES matter, it matters to ME, My family and MY COUNTRY. Waterboard them, shove hot taco sauce up their noses, do WHATEVER it takes!

Tom Duggan at 7:29am April 28

YOu want to pay for YOUR pacifist sissy ideology with the blood and lives of Americans and to ME THAT is the moral confusion ... and BY THE WAY.... you know who you have yon your side on this one? ALL THE TERRORISTS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS! ... wait.... I just got a call from Bin Laden ..... he said he wants to thank YOU and all the anti war, pacifist pussies in America for making THEIR job of KILLING us THAT MUCH EASIER!

Timothy Utley at 8:23am April 28

I think Bin Laden would actually like to thank anyone who makes it easier for him to enlist other terrorist. I bet he LOVED that the USA tortured ... it helps to build the kind of anger that his kind thrive on.

Tom, instead of calling people "sissies", which is laughable, why not just accept that many people believe that what we teach our children actually works on a bigger picture too: that taking a higher ground has it's own higher rewards. that violence only brings more violence.

Maybe, just maybe Tom, it's YOUR fucked up ideology that breeds terrorism by the very acceptance of such aggressive global tactics, which is certainly not limited to a few cases of torture. ... Read More

To be fair, I do not know you, so pardon me sir, .... but it kind of pisses me off for you to label people as "sissies" simply because they do not believe violence is going to accomplish what I think we all want: a peaceful world.

Tom Duggan at 8:31am April 28

I bet what Bin Laden loved MORE than the FOUR OR EIGHT Muslim terrorists being waterboarded (not tortured)is all the AMERICANS who are spreading pictures around the world of ABU gharab making america look bad, all the ostritches who advocate open borders, all sissies who say DON"T TORTURE the terrorists and all the IDIOTS currently in this ... Read Moreadministration who are making their lives easier by exposing our methods of extracting information. What breeds terrorism is NOT our response to it, How utterly backwards. To say a RESPONSE to terrorism CAUSES terrorism holds no water if you EVEN HAVE A CLUE about what your talking about. Prior to 911 we weren't responding AT ALL to terrorist attacks (COLE, african embassies etc) and THEY STILL FORMED, PLANNED AND ATTACKED. REality is a BITCH isn't it? The proplem with you sissies is that it is SAFER for you to fight against OUR government as if WE are the bad guys than it is to fight against REAL bad guys becasue that requires FACING DANGER and ...
Tom Duggan at 8:33am April 28

....GETTING YOUR HANDS DIRTY.... and sissies NEVER like to do either of those things, they would rather run around attacking the people FIGHTING the bad guys, trying micromanage the manner in which they provide such protection from such bad guys because they just aren't MAN enough to fight REAL EVIL.

Trina Hofreiter at 8:34am April 28

Torture's wrong, no matter who does it. Thanks for the post, Tennis! :-)

Tom Duggan at 8:39am April 28

It is a SAd but true reality, people like you want to sanitize the language used when discussing Muslim Terrorists, you want to call the 911 ATTACKS a "disaster" as if it was a tornado, you want to CODDLE hardened Muslim soldiers (and FREE THEM) who have no soul and worst of all you want to pay for all that self gratifying DOGMA with American blood... Read More so YOU can all FEEEL better about what moral high ground you stand on...... Well I have news for all your regressives, the only high ground you will end up on with that philosophy is Saint MAry's cometary. I only pray someone I care about doesn't end up there too because some spoiled American ostritch was too much of a wuss to fight back and didn't have the stomach to be a real man and do what needed to be done.

................AH now I feel better!

Tom Duggan at 8:42am April 28

Trina, is torture ALWAYS wrong for ANY reason no matter what?

Barbara Ann at 3:12pm April 28

Torture is wrong in any case I don't care what you say. And when there is retaliation for occurances of torture and more people are killed is it still justified? Blah. there are other ways. got to be.

Tom Duggan at 5:59pm April 28

What "OTHER WAYS" would you have employed for the guy who was still holdingh out after being water boarded 179 times? Offer him a gift certificte to chuckie cheese? THe sad reality is these are dangerous people involved in very dangerous and catastrophic activities and if our military or CIA has to resort to interrogation methods that make decent ... Read Morepeople squirm, then so be it, unless those "decent" people want to come up with a BETTER way that yeilds the same information in the same (or less) amount of time. This isn't POLITICS or criminal justice we ar etalking about it is war, a war that was declared on you me and every one we know by millions of Right Wing Muslim religious fascists. Sometimes in the real world you have to make a decision between TWO bad choices, debating and ponrificating and having a sub committee meeting to find "another way" only gives killers more time to kill.

Barbara Ann at 7:11pm April 28So they water boarded the guy 179 times. That's 179 times they tortured him.. Hmmm....doesn't seem to be working

Tennis Lilly at 9:30pm April 28

So Tom...I'm not sure but if I am interpreting your purely emotional, adolescent, insulting poorly formed rant correctly, you disagree with my position that torture is wrong. Would that be correct?

I'm not sure because once you went down the road of ad homonym* attacks and insults you sounded more like Ann Coulter.

* That means personal attacks – it’s Latin.

Tom Duggan at 10:19pm April 28

Hey BARB, on teh 180TH time IT DID WORK THAT IS MY POINT!
Tom Duggan at 10:22pm April 28I am disagreeing with your position that we should NEVER torture. When our national security and our very lives are at stake NOTHING should be off the table. THAT is my position, it is just too bad that some americans are SO spoiled and SO comefortable and completely out of touch with the dangers of the real world that they see OUR government as the biggest threat to humanity instead of the Muslim terrorists and those who support them

Tennis Lilly at 7:05am April 29

See...that wasn't so hard now was it?

Tennis Lilly at 7:16am April 29

And MY point is that we ARE spoiled and fat and lazy and privileged. And because we think we are entitled to these things, that we are better than everyone for no other reason than where we are born without understanding what it MEANS to be an American, we have fallen into the trap, the trap set by people like YOU Tom, that if our physical safety ... Read Moreis at risk, anything goes. That may be an understandable instinctive (and purely emotional) reaction from an individual under attack, but it is NOT an appropriate policy position for the greatest democracy to take. By standing firm on such an important moral question, we are defending the IDEA of America.
Tennis Lilly at 7:17am April 29

The IDEA of America is what matters, not the physical place or the collection of individuals. The IDEA of America is stronger than any weapon and it can’t be killed by any terrorist. It’s the IDEA of America is what give hope to people, it’s what leads when others only follow, it’s what sets a standard for civilized behavior. The only people who can destroy America are Americans, not by failing to torture our enemies, but by failing to BE Americans.

Barbara Ann at 9:19am April 29

Oh no Tommy, I see the dangers of the real world very very clearly. Torture is one of them. another is the twisted logic you use to justify its use. Talk about spoiled!

Tom Duggan at 9:27am April 29

Tennis says>>> "The IDEA of America is what matters, not the physical place or the collection of individuals."
THis explains why you are for open borders not defending our country against threats foreign or domestic and are MORE concerned with the safety and comfort of Terrorists over Americans.

Tom Duggan at 9:32am April 29

Oh and Barb, with all due respect, if you think the point makes no sense when the point is that a guy had to be waterboarded 180 times before he gave up information that DID IN FACT save American lives from another terrorist attack ....then I really don't think you ever will.

You and Tennis, with all due respect, are so extreme in your IDEOLOGY ... Read Moreand your "IDEAS" that facts, real world dangers and ACTUAL events don't seem to matter. As long as you all fFEEL good about yourselves and can tell YOURSELVES you have a MORAL HIGH GROUND, Ameirican lives mean nothing.

Truman interned the Japanese to keep us safe, Lincoln suspended Habeus Coorpus etc. While it is true anyone willing ot give up a little liberty for a little security ends up with neither, those who are willing to give up a little liberty for A LOT Of security Survive long enough to have these kinds of silly debates about waterboarding four terrorists.

Tom Duggan at 11:02am April 29

That is called MORAL RELATIVISM and you have exhibited it perfectly on this posting. For example it is NOT ok to punch someone in the face because you don't LIKE them, (one instance) but it IS OK to punch someone in the face if they have a gun to someone else's head to take the gun away (ANOTHER INSTANCE). To YOU there is no difference, punching ... Read Moresomeone in the face is WRONG... ALWAYS WRONG, No matter what (which by definition is extreme) And NO circumstance will ever change that in your opinion (which you are perfectly entitled to) . But EVEN MURDER has exceptions depending on circumstance, I just think you are putting your head in the sand if you are so extreme in your position as to NOT be able to distinguish situations of HAVING to do something BAD to accomplish a greater good. You must be in college! LOL

Jimi Carter at 11:11am April 29

Question - What the hell do you smoke and/or drink Tennis because I would love some.. it puts you in such a La-La land that it must be wonderful to live as a 'Child' while you try to be a functioning adult.

Are you honestly stating for the world to read that if there came a time when your family's life was at stake and the ONLY way you could gain information that would SAVE their lives was to 'pour water over the head of a hooded man' - you wouldn't do this? Do you care SO LITTLE about the lives of Americans?

As someone who prides himself on being 'Intelligent' and/or 'Compassionate' you would sacrifice innocent people in order to avoid a vile human from having to listen to 'Loud' music or go without sleep for hours... ... Read More

Are you OK? No, I mean are you actually understanding that the PIGS who wish to destroy.. not simply hurt... but WIPE OUT American and Israel... could CARE LESS about our "Morale Standing"..

Wake Up!

Jimi Carter at 11:14am April 29

Ms. Barbara - you need to realize who were are fighting and why they HATE . not dislike.. but HATE US!... Obama's America that 'does not Torture' will not prevent them from attempting to Kill us...
Jimi Carter at 11:17am April 29

I'm sorry ... actually Tennis you're correct... why don't we simply all commit suicide in America.. this way the Terrorists (oh that's right in Obama's America there are no Terrorists) can simply take over and we never have to worry about possibly stubbing their toes... or farting in their direction...
Jimi Carter at 11:31am April 29

Tennis wrote: The IDEA of America is what matters, not the physical place or the collection of individuals. The IDEA of America is stronger than any weapon and it can... Read More’t be killed by any terrorist.

You are seriously losing your perspective! Dude where else in this world is the 'Idea' of America' taking shape? UM.. NO WHERE! So once we are done... and with the big O in charge.. it's becoming more sooner than later.. once we are DONE.. there will be no more "Idea of America".. that's what makes us unique.. and why so many Legal Immigrants and unfortunately.. ILLEGAL SCUMBAGS want to be here and not where they are presently living. Does this not make sense to you?
Tom Duggan at 11:32am April 29

FINALLY a little help on the subject! In Tennis' world Conservatives and Republicans are MORE of a threat to this country than Terrorists ("I'm sorry DISAFFECTED YOUTHS), those who try to STOP the terrorists are the target of their disdain and protests, nations who live, breathe, eat and sleep to subvert our government and our culture and destroy ... Read Moreus from within and from outside the country are dismissed as INCAPABLE of doing anything to harm us. BUT Don't worry when the Taliban or AL Quaida finally DO take over America Tennis and his cohorts can try to advocate for issues like GAY MARRIAGE, ABORTION, ETc. .... Oh yeah, they wont be able to because if they are ALIVE at that point anyone who even tries to publicly REVEAL their homosexuality will be castrated and then their family killed slowly in a vat of acid while they watch. Amazing how the CATHOLICS and Christians in this country are the RIGHT WING RADICAL ENEMIES of America to so called "progressives" but Muslims, THEY"RE THE BEST!

Tom Duggan at 11:44am April 29

You are fighting for the aid and comfort (and RELEASE!) of terrorists who killed American soldiers, plotted and had a hand in 911, shot at and planted bombs in the way of our troops (I KNOW YOU SUPPORT THE TROOPS!) and to tie the hands of those woh put their lives on the line to protect US>

I, on the other hand am fighting people like YOU who ... Read Moreput our troops lives in jeopardy, want to hand cuff our government from protecting our families and are more outraged by FOUR Muslim Terrorists being water boarded than those who commit REAL acts of terror against US.

I think that covers it
Barbara Ann at 11:34am April 29I do realize who and what we are fighting; do you
Tom Duggan at 11:44am April 29

You are fighting for the aid and comfort (and RELEASE!) of terrorists who killed American soldiers, plotted and had a hand in 911, shot at and planted bombs in the way of our troops (I KNOW YOU SUPPORT THE TROOPS!) and to tie the hands of those woh put their lives on the line to protect US>

I, on the other hand am fighting people like YOU who ... Read Moreput our troops lives in jeopardy, want to hand cuff our government from protecting our families and are more outraged by FOUR Muslim Terrorists being water boarded than those who commit REAL acts of terror against US.

I think that covers it
Jimi Carter at 11:56am April 29

Tom is so-right! Radical Islam has no place for 'tolerance' or 'accepting' of 'other cultures'.... They HATE us! And with the Big O in charge.. They are not going to 'Fear' us.. so

Congratulations!
Tom Duggan at 2:05pm April 29

When millions of people vow the extinction of an entire race of people and an entire country of people I would say FEAR is a NATURAL and IMPORTANT human response, if we did not FEAR teh Nazi's taking over the globe we never would have fought them, if we did't FEAR criminals killing us or raping our children we wouldn't hire police officers. I am ... Read Moreunsure what this FEAR comment is suppose to mean. When there is something to FEAR should we all seek a "HIGHER MORAL GROUND" and refuse to react and let others destroy us?

Tom Duggan at 2:11pm April 29

Oh and speaking of SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS.. for the record, I DO watch Fox News (which regressive hate because they are one of the few news sources not controlled by the left) I also watch CNN, MSNBC (though not often), PBS, NPR, and every other news station and source I can. I also read the Globe, the Herald, Wall Street Journal, the New York ... Read MoreTimes, The Eagle TRibune, Rumbo, Siglo 21, El Plantea, The Manchester Union Leader and listen to SEVERAL different news radio stations.... and your point is.............???????????????

Tom Duggan at 2:14pm April 29

And as a side note, I just HAVE to know... how old are you Barbara? I know Tennis is in his 40's so he has no excuse for thinking like an out of touch teen ager who despises authority and thinks our government is the bad guy but I am curious about you.
Tennis Lilly at 4:49am April 30

Tom and Jimi...I am so completely blown away by the moral relativism that the two of you have displayed. Where in Gods name did either one of you allegedly educated men go to school? The utter lack of logic, of reason, of FACTS supporting the purely emotional "arguments" the two of you have made is incredible. I mean really, seriously, these are ... Read Moresome of the worst arguments I've ever read, you're all over the place..crime? immigration? those subjects aren't mentioned anywhere and the continued personal attacks are off the wall guys. Both of you take your Ritalin please. Clearly neither one of you actually read the piece in it's entirety or if you did, failed to understand it.
Tennis Lilly at 4:58am April 30

I've said nothing about NOT defending the country from our enemies, I understand very well that we are at war and that we have enemies, I DO support our service men and women (the phrase "the Troops" is insulting and objectifies them) and I have friends and close family members who have served in Iraq so do NOT lecture me Tom. As for these absurd ... Read Morearguments; "what is your daughter was locked in a box BLAH BLAH BLAH" culled right from high school critical thinking class, you cal ALWAYS concoct a situation where an individual would be compelled to do something clearly immoral to protect themselves or their loved ones, I would do the same thing anyone else would in a situation like that. The 2 differences are; A. Unlike Tom I wouldn't call myself a hero and brag about it and B. I understand the difference between a justifiable, but purely emotional and still immoral act on the part of an individual, and the officially sanctioned intentional conduct of a nation.
Tennis Lilly at 5:09am April 30

The sum of the argument here seems to be that the ends justifies the means. Sorry boys, it doesn't. Torture doesn't work, claims that it does are bullshit. And even if it did, it's still wrong. And when Tom brings up the internment of the Japanese ( by Roosevelt, not Truman) and the suspension of Habeus Corpus, the overwhelming majority of ... Read Morehistorians, legal experts and most Americans, agree that both of those acts were shameful, unnecessary and reactionary. Those who sacrifice freedom for safety get none and deserve neither. When we condone torture out of fear (and that is CLEARLY what both of you are filled with) for "those people", the "pigs" terrorists" "islamo-fascists" etc. we open the door for it to be used on whomever the next "evil doer" is. That could be any one of us.

I think the two of you have done a fine job of making my points (and embarrassing yourselves in the process). Thanks
Tennis Lilly at 5:10am April 30

It's ok Barbara...they just don't get it. try talking to them about global warming...it's even worse.

Jimi Carter at 8:35am May 1

final comment/question... even if you could 'save' innocent lives as a result of 'having someone endure loud music' or 'deprive them of sleep' or 'waterboarding' - you are stating publicly that neither of you would do that? you would allow innocent people to DIE so that you could beat your chest and claim the 'higher morale ground'? is this correct?
Tennis Lilly at 7:51pm May 1

I am saying torture is wrong and we shouldn't do it. I don't consider loud music or sleep deprivation torture but waterboarding clearly is. If I were in the position to make the decision, the answer would be no, I would not authorize torture. Clear enough for you?
Jimi Carter at 8:28pm May 1

That's very troubling Tennis. I'm not even suggesting in the slightest that you would 'kill' and or 'mame' an individual only 'scare' them so much that they would revel information that could/would save 'innocent' lives. Yet, you wouldn't even do that to save someone?

You believe that Tom and I use a thought process " culled from 'high school ... Read Morecritical thinking class" - Yet your statements are that of a 'child' who's afraid of the 'boogie man' and 'shakes' when 'bigger children' yell at him. Why have you no will to 'Live' and/or at least help a fellow human who may be in danger?

It doesn't make you a better person to sacrifice the life of an innocent person in order to claim to your enemy 'Nah Nah at least we don't torture'...

Tennis Lilly at 9:31pm May 1

Jimi...I don't think you've read anything that I've written. Torture, and that is what I am talking about, is illegal and immoral. Waterboarding isn't a fucking prank, it's not meant to "scare" someone, it's not "dunking someone in water"
, it's controlled drowning. That it MAY, under some concocted, extreme situation provide information that MAY save lives doesn't make torture moral or legal. MY statements are that of a child? Are you serious?