About the hold-up in the Sandy relief bill/pork-fest
Liberals’ new favorite Republican is Chris Christie, the New Jersey governor who this week slammed House Republicans for delaying action on a bill with aid for those affected by Hurricane Sandy. (They’ll be back to hating him the next time he goes on an anti-union rant or some such.) As I’ve said before, the real problem lies with those who lard up such bills with extra spending because they know those pet projects have a better chance of passing when attached to such an urgent measure.
Apparently that can be clear even to a politician in the storm-ravaged area, as long as that politician is not a moderate Republican running for re-election in a blue state. From Politicker.com:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who previously declined to slam House Speaker John Boehner over Congress’ stalled Hurricane Sandy aid, took his argument to the next level this morning and suggested federal lawmakers are partially to blame for the delay in the vote on the package because they insert “things that are totally extraneous” into bills such as this. Although Mr. Bloomberg didn’t specify the extraneous problem items, the legislation has been criticized by Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan for being “packed with funding for unrelated items, such as commercial fisheries in American Samoa and roof repair of museums in Washington, D.C.”
“There’s this ‘Christmas Tree effect’ where legislators put in their favorite bills and tack them onto something. The [Obama] administration does that, that’s why you have an omnibus bill — to force everybody to vote for things that would never stand up in the light of day if they were individual,” Mr. Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show with John Gambling. “I’m sympathetic. Yelling and screaming at [Mr. Boehner] is just not my style. It may be effective, it may not be. Everybody’s got to make their own decisions. I think the legislative leaders who criticize and those in the Legislature should stop and think, they do exactly the same thing in terms of ladling on things that are totally extraneous but it’s the only way they get them through.”
Exactly. Those who help wreck the legislative process shouldn’t complain when they find the legislative process is a wreck.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
686 comments Add your comment
MarkV
January 5th, 2013
3:05 pm
td @ 2:15 pm
“Actually, most of the “greenhouse effect” is due to water vapor, which makes one wonder why the EPA hasn’t designated H2O a harmful pollutant that they must regulate.”
This argument shows most clearly the incredible ignorance of those who make it. Yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. And where does that excess of water in the atmosphere come from? From the greenhouse effect of CO2, which increases the global temperatures and increases the evaporation of water from bodies of water on earth.
“Meteorologist Brian Sussman’s calculations in his book “Climategate” show humanity’s share of the greenhouse effect as .9 of 1 percent.”
And all those hundreds of climatologist are wrong?
What I find most disheartening (unless I am in the usual optimistic mode) is this horrendous combination of ignorance and arrogance of the deniers among the public, and noticeably on the blog. Some list here all those little bits of information, both true and false, they think support their viewpoint, while others just stick to their politically-colored “beliefs.” Those former apparently belief that those hundreds of stupid climatologists, who overwhelmingly have expressed their conclusion that there is global warming and the activity of mankind is mainly responsible for it, were just unaware of that information and did not take it into consideration. Why, these people here are so much smarter than the professionals!
There is always uncertainty in science, especially when it comes to predictions. There can be and there is a rational debate about scientists about the accuracy and reliability of the models predicting the future. There is, and should be a rational debate among both scientists and non-scientists about what is the best way to deal with the fact of climate change. But the deniers are people who just have the dark-age mentality that should have no place in the society today.
getalife
January 5th, 2013
3:19 pm
They had to add pork to get the gop to pass it.
Cut that spending cons.
td
January 5th, 2013
3:23 pm
MarkV
January 5th, 2013
3:05 pm
What are you a climatologist? How do you know which side of this debate is correct?
You and others on this blog have said to evidence and I provided a little bit from scientist that say that man plays a very small or no role at all in global warming. I have also read research that suggest that this warming period is a natural flow of earth or the sun effect or even what the earths temperatures should be considering we are coming out of a mini ice age.
Can you prove that there is no validity in these other theories? Now if you want to become more believable the science should get out of the game of being funded by foundations and governments that think the only solution is for a world wide carbon tax (of coarse controlled by them or the UN).
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 5th, 2013
3:26 pm
Now if you want to become more believable the science should get out of the game of being funded by…
…the Koch brothers.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
January 5th, 2013
3:32 pm
test
JamVet
January 5th, 2013
3:36 pm
Now if you want to become more believable
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Coming from YOU?????????
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
January 5th, 2013
3:40 pm
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
January 5th, 2013
3:41 pm
Jamvet above post for you, since you said no one had posted a link to scientist changing their mind.
JamVet
January 5th, 2013
3:44 pm
…since you said no one had posted a link to scientist changing their mind.
Liar.
And grow up.
Or don’t.
MarkV
January 5th, 2013
3:47 pm
td @ 3:23 pm
“What are you a climatologist? How do you know which side of this debate is correct? “
“Can you prove that there is no validity in these other theories?”
Neither, but at least I understand the basic science of it. Unlike people like those who claim that CO2 cannot be a pollutant because we breathe it out and plants use it in photosynthesis.
You and your ilk argue that the overwhelming number of professional scientists are wrong, because what they say is inconvenient to your political views. I can just as well ask you: Do you know if Einstein’s theory of relativity is correct? Do you believe what scientists say about other planets? You have not been there. Do you believe that sun rays cause skin cancer? How do you know that? Etc, etc. There are “deniers” in just every field of science. Those of us, who are not specialists in any given field, accept the consensus of specialists as the best evidence there is.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
January 5th, 2013
3:50 pm
But the deniers are people who just have the dark-age mentality that should have no place in the society today.
Your opinion, mine is that people who depend on group think, rather than their own are often gullible. Why are more scientist believers than deniers, well follow the money. It is hard to get a government grant to disprove a government approved myth.
MarkV
January 5th, 2013
3:55 pm
Rafe Hollister @ 3:50 pm
“ Why are more scientist believers than deniers, well follow the money. It is hard to get a government grant to disprove a government approved myth.”
The usual insulting argument, not worth even responding to.
Big Daddy
January 5th, 2013
3:58 pm
I guess the top execs at Chevron, BP, Mobil, Shell are liberals seeing that their respective companies all say it is real and they are spending huge amounts of money regarding solutions……
How about Richard Muller who was once funded by global deniers (Koch Bros) who now says the real bs is the deniers and it is real….
The list is countless but it isn’t really occurring… Just asked those who thought Romney was going to win… Yes the CONNED and DUPED
Big Daddy
January 5th, 2013
4:01 pm
Rafe
Don’t be such a simpleton
Show were big oil scientists re getting grant for global warming
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:02 pm
“You incompetent neocons are a work of art.”
Jam vet is a loser plain and simple.
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:04 pm
“And grow up.”
Jam vet, you calling someone else a liar is laughable. You come on jays and kyles blog everyday and name call like a drunken moron.
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:05 pm
Kyle,
Why do you care what these left wing losers think of you? These folks have no life or a job so their only lot in life is to troll on blogs.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
January 5th, 2013
4:07 pm
“If you’re playing a poker game and you look around the table and and can’t tell who the sucker is, it’s you.”
Paul Newman
If the shoe fits!
Big Daddy
January 5th, 2013
4:10 pm
Rafe
Can you show were all scientists worldwide who work for both private and public entities receive grants just because they believe in global warming?
Do scientists who are skeptical ever get any grants? Can you show that?
I know that doesn’t fit the talking points you have been fed, but you need more than hyperbole and rhetoric
You know this to be true, but you can’t help it… Its ok little buddy… It is ok
Big Daddy
January 5th, 2013
4:12 pm
Rafe
Yes you wear those shoes so well…
And have for years
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:12 pm
It’s hilarious that left wingers om this blog actually think they know anything about science.
JamVet
January 5th, 2013
4:13 pm
The chronic prevarication for Rafe and the mystery meats here has gotten so bad that they cannot even stop themselves from doing it anymore.
Misquotes, misrepresentations and misstatements. All intentional and all because their “arguments” are that pitiful.
Thirty four national academies of science. Thirty four!
Do you cons even know who they are? Do you understand the very first thing about their track records and the scientific work that they have been involved with, for a LONG time? Do you have any idea just how laughable your denial voices are in comparison?
And those institutions/bastions of scientific knowledge are but one facet of the huge and respected – by intelligent people – scientific community that is in consensus about this topic.
You cons have nothing. But comedic value…
td
January 5th, 2013
4:14 pm
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, told Britain’s Daily Telegraph that he has been the target of five death threats since openly questioning the man-causes-global-warming doctrine.
“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor.
“I can tolerate being called a skeptic because all scientists should be skeptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.”
“calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust”
Wonder who this sounds like on this blog? MarkV must be a climatologist receiving some of this large grant money to keep the unproven science going.
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:16 pm
Jam vet, what scientific field do you work in and what degree do you hold?
Answer: you never went to college
Please STFU and get a life.
td
January 5th, 2013
4:17 pm
“Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees [with global warming],” said Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist. “Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”
The global warming camp often wags its collective finger at dissenting scientists, demonizing them as allies of big energy conglomerates. But skeptics such as James Spann, a meteorologist in Alabama, claim they have been unfairly criticized and, in truth, the only the people cashing in are those who peddle the global warming orthodoxy.
“Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon … Nothing wrong with making money at all. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.”
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:18 pm
“Do you cons even know who they are? Do you understand the very first thing about their track records and the scientific work that they have been involved with, for a LONG time? Do you have any idea just how laughable your denial voices are in comparison?”
Jam, you ignorant buffoon. You know nothing about science or climate change. The fact that you pretend to know anything is laughable.
td
January 5th, 2013
4:18 pm
Even some long-time environmentalists bemoan their peers’ addiction to the almighty dollar. David Crowe, founder and former president of the Alberta Greens political party in Canada, said he has stopped funding environmental organizations whose focus is climate change.
“There is a lot of evidence that the activity often called science, and the scientists who practice this activity (as opposed to those few who have a monk-like dedication to the scientific method), are not trustworthy. Peer review is a bankrupt process . . . It is lousy at detecting fraud, but very good at suppressing innovative thought.
“Financial conflicts of interest are frequent and rarely disclosed. Scientists often fall into the trap of focusing on their next grant rather than what important questions need to be asked (including questioning their own assumptions and biases).”
Big Daddy
January 5th, 2013
4:18 pm
tt
What does big oil say about climate change?
Don’t be scared… Look it up
Try chevron… First
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 5th, 2013
4:18 pm
Do you understand the very first thing about their track records and the scientific work that they have been involved with, for a LONG time?
Yeah, most of it was faked.
td
January 5th, 2013
4:19 pm
All the above quotes come from the following article:
http://www.examiner.com/article/peddling-global-warming-fears-puts-big-money-pockets-of-climate-researchers
Towncrier
January 5th, 2013
4:19 pm
“You and your ilk argue that the overwhelming number of professional scientists are wrong, because what they say is inconvenient to your political views. I can just as well ask you: Do you know if Einstein’s theory of relativity is correct? Do you believe what scientists say about other planets? You have not been there. Do you believe that sun rays cause skin cancer? How do you know that?”
The problem I see with many liberal’s “scientific” positions are that they are not really all that “scientific”. Not much of what is now purported or theorized to be true by scientists has been fairly and constantly validated using the scientific method. Validation is the key. And that can only happen when variables or factors are isolated in such a way that they can be no doubt as to a causal relationship. And yet, despite this very real limitation on what can really be “known” scientifically, people have tended to make a god of science (a phenomenon called scientism) whereby almost all “scientific” claims are put on the same footing (as if throwing on a white lab coat suddenly makes someone “truthful” in their claims). If a scientific claim cannot be unequivocally validated by obtaining the exact same result, through testing or observation, it simply cannot be “known” to be true. Social psychology is simply not on the same footing as chemistry. It probably never will be.
As to how widely a scientific belief may be held and even parroted as fact, despite not really being proven as described above, one only has to look at Darwin’s theory of evolution. His theory really hangs on the occurrence of what is called “speciation”. But that is the very thing that remains unproven – even after a century and a half. And yet, many, many people believe it to be not just true but factual. Why is that? Good question. But that is a topic for another day.
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:20 pm
Jam vet isn’t a scientist but he likes to play one on AJC.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 5th, 2013
4:22 pm
shove it – jamvet is trying to get this blog shut down so that he can go over to kookman’s blog and thump his chest. You’re helping him out.
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:23 pm
Aesop, good to know. I’m just trying to call him out as the liar that he is. Not yring to get the blog shut down.
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:24 pm
Btw, I’m over on book mans blog making fun of him.
JamVet
January 5th, 2013
4:24 pm
Twink meltdown.
The guy who is so immature that he actually tries to frame the debate about anthropogenic climate change around his and my credentials.
Yeah, most of it was faked.
Which perfectly demonstrates the magnitude of modern Republican ignorance.
Or as it is becoming widely known, willful stupidity…
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
January 5th, 2013
4:26 pm
shove – Kyle doesn’t tolerate personal attacks or name calling. Other than that, ridicule away.
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:27 pm
“The guy who is so immature that he actually tries to frame the debate about anthropogenic climate change around his and my credentials.”
I never claimed to know anything about climate scamming. You do. I just like calling you out as a liar for pretending to be a scientist.
JamVet
January 5th, 2013
4:27 pm
Good work, A.
I guess you don’t want anyone moving in on your job, huh?
LOL…
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:28 pm
Aesop, great point. I’ll gladly mock the guy for his lies and hypocrisy.
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:29 pm
Jam, what sucks worse? Knowing I’m not getting banned or me slamming you as a liar?
Towncrier
January 5th, 2013
4:31 pm
“shove it – jamvet is trying to get this blog shut down so that he can go over to kookman’s blog and thump his chest. You’re helping him out.”
Well, I am not sure he is trying to do that. JV is primarily a flamer – many if most of his posts are incendiary. He almost seem to revel in that sort of thing. He has made some good points from time to time, but most of the time it’s something akin to:
“Republicans/Cons/GOP are insane, moronic, foolish, archaic, racist, hateful, terroristic and fill in the blank.”
He really seems to prefer attacking people to debating with them. So, he too, will be the target of future satire.
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:31 pm
“Which perfectly demonstrates the magnitude of modern Republican ignorance.”
Jam likes to lump people into categories. Nazis were good at doing that. Guess jam is a Nazi.
Big Daddy
January 5th, 2013
4:32 pm
Towncrier
Are the scientists who work for BP, Chevron, Mobil, Shell all “liberal scientists”?
How do you define “liberal scientist”? Anyone that has a differing narrative then you? If so, does the mean they are wrong and what is your credentials besides a differing opinion?
Some of you cons would have thought the earth was flat
getalife
January 5th, 2013
4:32 pm
twinkie will be banned.
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:33 pm
Crier, jam is the biggest hypocrite that ever graced the pages of the AJC blogosphere. The fact that this clown has the balls to call others “trolls” etc is ridiculous.
getalife
January 5th, 2013
4:34 pm
Stay the course and not cut gop pork and then cry about it.
You will keep losing which is great for our country.
shove it
January 5th, 2013
4:34 pm
Getalife will lose his food stamps before I ever get banned.
JamVet
January 5th, 2013
4:34 pm
Then quit pretending to be a high school graduate and we’ll call it even, twink.
getalife
January 5th, 2013
4:35 pm
twinkie,
Never used food stamps.
Have you?