adam was desperate for a companion, so he said, "God, please send me a companion, someone i can share my life with", and God said, "It will cost you an arm and a leg", to which Adam replied, "What can I get for a rib?", so Eve shows up, and God called down, "Adam, where is Eve?"
"She's down at the beach, bathing in the ocean."
"OH, that's just great", said God, "Now the fish will smell like that for centuries!"

Uh, UG didn't comment on the secret service - tw did.

Example not relevant. His targets are different. The response, because the targets are different, would be radically different. Double standard? "Powers that be" does not care. Hate for one unique part of government gets a very severe response - once they find it. One example does not make a trend. That example implies violence against a much less significant target. What axeman84 has posted is significantly different to the 'powers that be'.

How? Bush is a government offical, the guy was talking about assassinating Bush too.

i was refering to a post by UG, not tw....thank you

this is the silliness i was responding to
 

:eyebrow:

Perhaps I could have said all that with just an :eyebrow:, but I wanted to be more specific.

At any rate, the motivation to try assassination diminishes week by week, and it was always the province of the dullard Left anyway. Bill Clinton gave as much if not more reason to get people muttering about assassination -- and there was no muttering, despite his many sins against the Constitution, in especial the Bill of Rights, which his Administration repeatedly found inconvenient. Comes of having your political instincts formed in what amounted to a one-party state, the state being Arkansas.

But the Right, being made up of almost nothing but people more mature than those of the Left, did not noise assassination about. The Left had better take a lesson, the blowhards.

UG, you are even dumber than I thought.
I've explained how bush has torn up every amendment he can touch EXCEPT the second. Explain to me how clinton went anywhere near any amendment but the second.

Trouble is, son, that your explanations don't wash.

Ever heard of the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994? Abused the Fourth as well as the Second. You could look it up.

Trespassing upon the Second was merely his chiefest symptom -- and it's the lethal one, indicative of a complete anticonstitutionalism. The most reliable source, I think, for a listing of Clinton's sins would be the "anti-Clinton bookshelf" of various books published by Regnery Publishing, Incorporated. I could be no more complete, thorough, or eloquent, than they were. Quite a few of these books sold well enough to venture into best-sellerdom. For a couple of examples, try Boy Clinton or Year of the Rat.

Hee hee. Regnery Publishing, the single largest customer of Regnery Publishing, a reliable source. Amusing.

I just posted a thread about BushCo. forcing the National Park Service to carry a book stating that the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's Flood.

Then I tried not to stick a pin in my eye.

But the prez says it's not global warming, it's global climate change.. no reason to be afeared...Hey look, a terrorist!

From here and many other places.

From the NY Times of 9 Feb 2007: Notice where science does not promote the advancement of mankind. Not in the US and for good reason. Big price? Well the International Space Station was only supposed to cost $8 billion and has already cost on the order of $80 billion. ISS still does no science but is promoted by an MBA president. $6.7 billion for actually doing science research? By comparison, that price is a discount. Meanwhile George Jr will send a man to Mars only to promote his legacy at hundreds of $billions - screw science. To do so, George Jr is stripping the 10% of NASA's budget that acutally does science.

Whereas the transistor was the future for baby boomers, quantum physics is the future of this latest generation. But thanks to a mental midget and a dictatorship party of extremists, science is being driven from the United States.

How can you tell where science is fleeing to? Even in a science once dominated by Americans, advance physics must be done elsewhere. The fusion reactor (ITER) will probably be in Europe. CERN (France and Switzerland) will soon have a working Large Hadron Collider. And now an International Linear Collider is publicly proposed where? With so much fear and dictators advocating Fatherland security, then international science conferences remain outside America. Even when defining the next generation WiFi (now known as 802.11n), at the last minute American 'we fear' security banned most of the Chinese experts as a threat to national security. The message is clear to science. Clearly those Chinese were going to steal secrets of DisneyWorld.

Quantum physics moves to where peope instead want to advance mankind. This is where new jobs will be created. But science is too complex for brown shirts - so dumb as to not even ask simple questions such as, "When do we go after bin Laden". Quantum physics? Instead god will give it to us? And so science and the new jobs must go elsewhere. Another tribute to the MBA president and those brown shirts who blindly support him. This is what happens when some actually thing Fox is News or Rush 'tells it like it is'.

Sending a human to Mars is probably the most pointless thing we can do right now.

Activist Lawsuit: God Guilty of Malicious Climate Change
By Jon Quixote
2/5/2007, 2:20 pm




Fight against climate change has taken a new dimension Monday as a new legal defense group, Spiritual Lawyers Against Natural Disasters (SLAND), initiated international class-action litigation against God for the environmental destruction and Global Warming that has resulted from acts that He has caused to occur. "For many years enviro-activists, spearheaded by Al Gore and financed by trial lawyers, have been pointing to human greed, oil industries, and Western capitalism-based societies as the main causes of Global Warming," said SLAND lead attorney and Executive Director, Peacedove Handwring at a press conference. "While all these factors are a fine cause for international insurance litigation, the primary culprit of climate change that is more powerful and more difficult to deal with, has so far escaped attention of our lawyers. That culprit is God."

Mt. St. Helens: May 18, 1980 was the day that produced more "greenhouse gasses" than any single event in human history.



In that 24-hour period, more toxic pollutants were spewed into the Earth's biosphere than any single day, week, month or year before or since.



And it had absolutely nothing to do with humans

"Over thousands of years, God has been producing so-called 'natural disasters' that have caused many times more pollution and carbon-dioxide emissions than anything man could even conceive," P. Handwring explained. "Yet He has been effectively absolved from any responsibility from our current plight. With the advent of The SLANDers, the free pass afforded to God is going to come to a decisive end."




Pressed for specifics, Ms. Handwring provided some compelling examples to support her claims:

"May 18, 1980 was the day that produced more global-warming emissions than any single event in human history. In that 24-hour period, more toxic pollutants were spewed into the Earth's biosphere than any single day, week, month or year before or since. And it had absolutely nothing to do with humans: it was the eruption of the volcano known as Mt. St. Helens in Washington.

"We in the progressive environmental movement had little to say about this, because most policy experts and scientists dismissed this as a 'natural disaster.' But who is ultimately responsible for supposedly 'natural disasters' such as this? Only one person: God.



"Furthermore, as we allege in our federal complaint, God has been singularly responsible for the repeated ice ages that have plagued the Earth since He supposedly created it, each of which was followed by periods of global warming. We consider it eminently unfair that during these unnatural temperature cycles, so many species could not adapt and went extinct. After all - who is He to play... God!?"

Responding to critics who claim that the SLANDers are pursuing a legal dead-end by suing God, Ms. Handwring said: "It is beyond dispute that we in the progressive community have mastered the art of using the law, schools and public news media to advance anti-industrial, anti-freedom, anti-capitalist, and anti-human perceptions and values. But while we have focused on factories and automobiles and the like, we've allowed God - the most grievous violator of our right to a clean environment - to not face the responsibility or consequences for the fact that He has been the primary cause of Global Warming.

"Consider other supposedly 'natural disasters' that also contribute more to global warming than humans ever could. Lightning strikes a forest and it goes up in flames, belching clouds of toxic materials into the atmosphere. Until now, we chalked it up to a 'random occurrence.' But who is really responsible? That's right - God.

"We at SLAND are now going to marshal and focus our legal skills, and all the resources at our avail, to expose this travesty, and to finally hold God accountable, both in a court of law, and in the so-called 'court of public opinion.' Then, and only then, will we be able to deal with the real cause of so many needless deaths of humans, animals and plants," Handwring said.

The first stage of SLANDers' campaign will be massive public demonstrations by the most notorious enviro-activists who have protested throughout the world over the past 40 years. Ms. Handwring's convincing PowerPoint presentation gave the assembled journalists a preview of what may be coming to a park, shopping mall, or public school near you:



As of this time, God was unavailable for comment. One of God's spokesmen, St. Ernest, however, issued the following statement: "While God certainly respects Ms. Handwring and her fellow attorneys at SLAND, at the moment He is too busy trying to deal with the insanity of religious wars occurring throughout the world to respond to her accusations as fully as He'd like. We are, however, in receipt of the SLANDers' discovery motions, and will be responding to them at our earliest opportunity. And although we aren't sure which court would have jurisdiction in such a cosmic matter, God is eagerly looking forward to defending both Himself and human freedom against SLANDers' allegations.

Sorry for jumping in here late. Ronny Reagan sent me an e-mail on this. I've been completely focused on sending Bush a sign through Barney.


ANYWAY.......


This whole climate thing is my doing, yes. It's part of the deal. It's a cycle.

Sure, I know that the pro climate change people need a new tool for extracting money out of the western world and forcing them to "change their evil ways", but see this for what it is. A scam.

Ah shit, I gotta go. My firearm proximity alarm just went off for Cheney.

Just remember, I love you all and that you aren't nearly as smart as you all believe.

Hugs,

God

So what? The findings that come out of these research projects will be published quickly. That's how these researchers get their woody, by being published and recognized by their peers. They don't expect the general public to understand, no less appreciate, what they discover.

Like many things the transistor was invented here. Hooray for us. But who made the most money and provided the most jobs from it? Sushi anyone? ;)

Because the transistor was invented here, also came most electronics jobs in ... America. For example, who made and mass produced the first semiconductor switch - ESS1? AT&T. Where was it first installed? Succasunna NJ. What made it possible? The transistor was developed in NJ. These switches were/are so massive - created so many jobs - that very few companies existed in the world to manufacturer them. AT&T, Siemens, Northern Telecom, Alcatel (?), and ... I forget the fifth ... Stromberg?

Also created was a massive electronics industry on Long Island that later moved to Silicon Valley, Texas, etc. Why did AT&T begin losing market share? Well, in part because they were only interested in telephony. Also in part because their chief innovator, Jack Morton, stifled development of the Integrated Circuit. So who got all the IC jobs? Where were all digital ICs and standard architectures for those ICs developed? CMOS ICs that is now standard in all computers were pioneered and manufacturered just down Route 22 in RCA, Somerville NJ. Just down the road from where the transistor was invented.

In the US, basic research resulted in whole new and massive industries. Jobs and wealth created because the transistor was invented here. So successful as a result that even a European inventor of the transistor (who was six months late) had to come to America to continue his innovations (which I believe then resulted in the early LEDs – again more American jobs).

When basic research goes elsewhere, well, who is the world leader in robots? Who is the world leader in automotive power systems? In each case, they do the basic research - therefore jobs and wealth follow.

So where do the jobs for quantum physics get created? Not in nations that spurn innovation?

Meanwhile America even graduates fewer innovators making America an importer of engineers - just like oil. That is the attitude of this administration that has also cut back significantly on basic research for life sciences. Either you go be an MBA, or go overseas to innovate.

But don't worry. Be happy. We were number one! That cheer is not heard in football stadiums.

And then it all went to Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, China, etc. Seems they did quite well on our inventions, why couldn't we do well on theirs? :confused:

It's a sharp instrument for letting the flatus out of the Left's balloons, and its editions frequently are found on the best-seller list, even though it's a tiny little outfit.

HM, you'd have more brain than any other monkey no matter how cheerful were you to start reading their material, instead of that pooh-poohing monkey talk you indulge in when you have no real nor cogent rebuttal. Chatterchatterchatter, swing from tree branch, throw poo. Your ideology, sir, makes you very stupid, very absurd, whereas mine enlightens me from week to week if not day to day.

Hey, don't diss the Taiwanese electronics industry - without it, how would I get my motherboard sent to the factory, fixed/replaced, and returned in a week?

Yes as globalization does. They now make all the diodes, varistors, transistors, capacitors, and other commodities that have low profit and minimal technology. Meanwhile, when transistors were high tech, those jobs were created adjacent to where basic research discovered that technology.

Same applies to quantum physics. Where innovation occurs is where best jobs will appear. Of course, America can wait for those products to become commodities. Then we too will eventually have those jobs. That is what xoxoxoBruce is saying.

Who has best jobs making microprocessors? Same location where hafnium, strained silicon, and 45 nm transistors were implemented due to basic research. Best jobs created adjacent to the innovation. So where are all those profitable Taiwan microprocessors?

Bruce do you really believe they can do the research and we will then have the jobs? That is exactly what my MBA friends were telling me in the 1970s (even quoting from a magazine for MBAs called CEO). They waited for others to create new products - and then would clone those innovations. Therefore, their companies no longer exist. MBAs believe innovation costs too much. You are advocating the same mentality that destroyed their jobs.

The future lies in quantum physics. Where must such basic research go? It is leaving the US because somehow MBAs will instead create all the new jobs. That is the bottom line of what xoxoxoBruce has posted.

We exported the auto industry why? Because American innovation sat stifled for 20 years. We exported the tire industry because American tire manufaturers stifled the radial tire for 30 years. These are the lessons of history. Jobs (and new markets, wealth, strength, etc) go to where innovation occurs.

It seems the Oriental/South Asia industry was successful because they didn't stifle, but jumped on to new technology (regardless of patents and intellectual property rights?) quickly. Are you saying this is no longer possible or we can't compete in that type of market?

As an outsider to the whole electronics thing, what I saw was "we" spent a whole lot of time and money coming up with all this electronic gear only to have it vacate the US and make a bunch of money for others. But that's just a one consumer's perception. I'm sure there's much more to it... the inside poop, if you will.

I don't know, that's why I asked. :confused:

On a side note, I notice a lot of people using Junkscience.com as a reference. I appreciate contrary views, so I am glad sites like this exist. I did notice one interesting thing. The site had a few links debating whether global warming should be taught in schools, I couldn't find any discussion of Creationism.

I haven't looked through all of the archives, but I would like to believe that they took a stand on the issue.

Isn't that the organization set up to defend corporations that make dangerous or unhealthy products? I don't think creationism is likely to come up.

From ABC News of 10 Jul 2007: Who here was denying that the White House lawyers routinely rewrote science reports? How many hundreds have to make this testimony before those few extremists acknowledge the closest thing we have to evil.

How much more anti-American was the George Jr administration? They will even pardon Libby for intentionally obstructing criminal investigations. After all. Nothing wrong with that when 800 people - the overwhelming majority innocent - are even tortured in Guantanamo.

What is the new symbol of America? Statue of Liberty or Abu Ghraid? Perverting Science for the Benefit of Politics? Situation normal to wacko extremists. After all, their political agenda is more important than the advancement of mankind. Screw the Surgeon General. Even keeping perscription drug prices high - stifling free market competition - is good for more campaign contributions. Science is not a big contributer to legalized bribery. (How many scientists have a brief case with $1million they can accidentally leave in the White House?)

Better is for science to be vetted by White House lawyers - just like any dicatorship where political officiers must approve everything. Coincidence or damning similarity?

Tw, have you ever wanted democracy to actually win?

You aren't brave enough to answer this question.

Urbane Guerrilla, have you ever wanted science and human knowledge to win?

This country was built on the freedom to innovate. Science and technology are part of that. Previous presidents have supported the advancement of human knowledge. Bush actively suppresses the advancement of human knowledge. Read all the examples in the 200+ posts in this thread. Bush hates science. After all, he's said that God talks to him. Why would you need science when God talks to you?

Your hatred of tw is consuming you to the point where you make no sense. Read the damn thread. What does it have to do with hating democracy? This is a thread about how Bush suppresses science. There are many examples. You can't argue against it. It's fact at this point.

Glatt, have you never noticed that hating democracy and speaking against its success and propagation throughout the world is a constant theme in tw's posts? I have. Here's just one more of his attempts to attack humanity's cause. It is execrable and it must not be endured, but avenged.

Frankly, the most that the Administration could do is to delay things a bit -- or else insist that if stem cell research is done, it will not be done on a Federal dime. This does not strike me as a huge thing, really.

Nor would I be in any hurry at all to say Bush hates technology -- because of the ones who are running up and down saying he does; these are people whose views I don't much trust -- on anything.

So if I read that correctly, you're saying that the Administration does stifle science and innovation, but they're not any good at it so it's okay?

No, Fobble, I'm saying their power to do so is at its most sharply limited, and that therefore one shouldn't overdo the concern.

But effectiveness aside, is it right or wrong for the administration (any administration) to stifle science and innovation? Personally, I'm able to make value judgments without overdoing anything.

Some, it appears, are not.

No, stifling innovation is not good.

Smashing fascist regimes and replacing them with democracies is too good to pass up. Now you know why I voted for Bush twice and do not have regrets.

We get it. You hate tw.

But in this thread, he and others have provided many examples of Bush stifling science.

You probably missed it because it was in a tw post, but the former surgeon general said under oath "Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried."

Glatt, the same complaint about the previous Administrations was made at this same testimony -- C. Everett Koop and David Satcher, one each Republican and Democratic Administration figures, both complained of pressure from the White House and the effect it had on them. Jocelyn Elders could have made the same complaint, I should think.

I didn't happen to be speaking of tw in post #209, but of the grumbling herd of crazed anti-Republicans.

It's time to point out that the effect of a hostility to spending Federal cash on embryonic stem-cell research is going to be limited. It's limited in time -- until January 2008 most likely; it's limited in scope -- blastocysts are not the only source of stem cells as you well know, and other stem cell sources are not under interdict for Federal funding, and last I heard the other sources were showing even more potential.

Sooo, I don't give much weight to the anti-Republicans' exercises in propaganda and other intellectual dishonesty. You could look this kind of stuff up. How does it feel to have been played so?

Yes, and that was mentioned in this thread three years ago too. What's different about Bush is how widespread it is. It's not just stem cell research, it's everything. EPA air quality, logging policy, sex ed, ANWR wildlife maps, & global warming are just a few examples. I'm not going to repost everything from this thread that has already been cited as an example, but go back and read the thread from the beginning. There are a lot of nails in this coffin.

And now, for something *completely* different:
 

Just kidding! More of the same!

And...

Hehehe... Bush's Attack Dog. Nice. This administration gets full marks for effectiveness, thoroughness, creativity, etc. in accomplishing their mission. Unfortunately, their mission seems to be promoting business interests at every turn. By itself this is not a bad thing. But there is no balance, no long term consciousness beyond the present political term, unless you consider the future lobbying opportunities being earned.

And worst of all is the utter disregard for our laws. To flout our rules, to ignore the rest of the constituency, to sidestep the process to achieve the desired result..ugh. Effective. But wrong.

[Quote BigV]And worst of all is the utter disregard for our laws. To flout our rules, to ignore the rest of the constituency, to sidestep the process to achieve the desired result..ugh. Effective. But wrong.[/quote]

Politics as usual - very distressing. At least it is/was/will be rectified

ym65--it is not politics as usual. It is politics on crack, on steroids, cartoon politics. I find actions like this tantamount to redefining words, rewriting the rules of arithmetic. It is dangerous. How can we know about the truth about the world if inconvenient facts are simply discarded? You can believe what you want, me too. I don't really care how thoroughly private citizen A or lobby organization B does their fact checking.

But our government is charged with serving all of us. When they cavalierly, no, cravenly change the conclusions to suit their pre-established goals, it does great harm in three ways:

First, it is simply a lie. A Big Lie. A lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".*

Second, it reduces the government's (already low) credibility. That wellspring of goodwill is replenished so slowly, that such a profligate waste should be a crime, injuring the public trust today and the citizens of tomorrow.

Second, it corrodes everyone's confidence in Science's ability to discover and express objective truth, and to do so in a verifiable way, that leaves room for the possibility of integrating new knowledge.

This is an attack on the very foundation of knowledge. they would rather be able to define any conclusion they present as truth. A Wolf in Science's clothing if you will. After Science has been eviscerated. They'll trade on the memory of science's reputation for articulating objective truth. But it will be all hollow inside, filled only with lies.







* Unattributed to avoid violating Godwin's Law.

BigV - I did not mean to make light of it, but this is certainly not the first administration to do this, nor will it be the last. I hate that it is happening as much as you apparently do, but it seems to be a too familiar situation that has been repeated for far too long. Those in power serve themselves their reelections, getting more power/money... Serving their constituents or the American people has been nothing more than a byproduct. Simply put, Change is required.

That is F'd up. That woman should go to prison.

Hey, has the Mercenary finally seen the light at the end of the tunnel?

You mean the oncoming train???

It is for this administration.

When people try to justify Bush by pointing to actions of previous administrations, it usually turns out to be some combination of less common, less serious, and/or severely regretted after the fact.

A disturbing trend that seems to be boosted by this tendency is the apologia for historical tragedies like McCarthyism and Japanese internment.

I re-read this thread (fascinating!) and didn't see an entry for this latest bit of business > conservation + law. Apparently, Dick Cheney is guilty too.
Honestly, I find this last sentence so droll, that I can't read it without cracking up.

This story highlights the same Julie MacDonald malfeasance we've recently discussed. Further reading led me to this article:

There are no surprises here. Cheney's "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" business over everything else mentality, his exquisitely tuned political sense, not to mention his 800 pound gorilla political mojo. My problem is that I don't feel like Cheney's playing for my team, team USA. He's freakin' Meadowlark Lemon for the Business Brawlers. Un-freakin-believable talent and skillz, wearing the other team's colors.

Look, I'm no anarchist. Yay capitalism. But I value our country's welfare above the welfare of a given business, or even a given business sector. I don't see that from him. In the spirit of this thread, in this example, the move he puts on the poor saps from Team USA is the ol razzle dazzle, fake to the center--blocked by the Endangered Species Act, spin to the outside directly into the defense of the scientific community's inpenetrable block, (pay attention, here's the tricky trick part) HEY! Look! It's some other scientists! and while everybody looks in the other (mis)direction, he passes to the 19th ranked official at the Interior Department for the easy tip in. Score: farmers and ranchers: 2, fish: -77,000, respect for the law: shut out!, science: taken away on a stretcher and out for the rest of the season. The other side of the stadium goes wild! At halftime, they all stampede down to the gift shop to show their appreciation and allegiance.

I don't think it's too much to ask that our elected government officials respect the laws of our nation. Do you?

The White House performs some minor edits on a CDC climate report.

Eight of fourteen pages that were peer reviewed by scientists were suddenly and miraculously found to be unscientific by White House lawyers. Apparently god is talking to this White House.

Normally it would just be a mistake. But when criminal activity - that would make Nixon proud - is so routine, then why not have FEMA fake a press conference.

Anything from the George Jr adminstration is a lie until otherwise proven from honest (independent) sources. White House lawyers are still better scientists? Yes, when the president talks to god. No, that is not even a joke. Only this president is told what to do by god - and admits it.

Fish don't vote.... or donate.

Is anyone surprised at this shit anymore?

Bush ignores a unanimous recommendation by the scientific advisory panel at the EPA, which is also supported by the American Lung Association, and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies to reduce ozone levels in the air to 60 parts per billion. Instead he embraces the requests of industry lobbyists and sets the level at 75 parts per billion.

What's the difference between 60 and 75? Well the article doesn't say, but the difference between 70 and 75 is 2,100 extra dead each year.

That's right, Bush is killing well over 2,100 Americans a year so he can side with the lobbyists.

Honestly, I'm not even sure this is siding with the lobbyists. I think he (or more likely whoever he appointed at the EPA, I bet this never even got to Bush's desk) glanced at the papers, saw one wanted 70 and one wanted 80--and said, "Great, 75, now let's go home." Apathy in a soon-to-end administration can be even more powerful than earning/repaying favors.

Apathy? Hardly. Cheney's agenda is to 'fix' us. Same 'apathy' that seven years ago declared arsenic in drinking water as acceptable - when the universal scientific consensus was otherwise. Nothing has changed. Cheney is still imposing that same political agenda. His agenda is to save America even by making the presidency a dictatorship. The agenda - not the presidency - has long been Cheney's objective. Same agenda also wanted any excuse for war with Iran; even in this past year.

That's reasonable if we are talking about two different lobbying groups, but these were government scientists whose advise he is supposed to value, and they didn't say 70, they said that he should consider 60, and go no higher than 70.

So you have 60 on one end, and 80 on the other, and he went with 75, which was well above the upper limit his science advisers gave him. His own agency says it will result in thousands more deaths each year than the other choice. I guess he doesn't value that figure either.

JUST ASKING - What is the cost differential between say 65 or 70 and 75? Are any of these reasonable limits? Are they reachable, enforceable? Would the mean a loss of jobs or industry.... whatever? Would we have to completely retool and refurbish factories & whatnot?

I imagine that's the tune the lobbyists were singing. The article doesn't discuss that, so I don't know the costs.

Do some research and let us know. Make sure to include the health care costs of the dying people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031202362.html
$2B to $19B. That's some nice estimatin' there EPA

Even northern New Hampshire has a number of 70. I bet 60 is a dream. It looks like it has never been reached, anywhere; the dotted line is the previous "limit" of 84. Looks like there is a lot of play around that word "limit". It doesn't appear to mean what we think it does anyway.

I remember the shitty air we had in Philly summers in the late 80s. It is definitely better now.

http://cellar.org/2008/ozonenumbers.gif

Via: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ozone.html

California set its limit at 70 three years ago

Heritage Foundation (yeah I know) takes the opposite side. Interesting point, for some time, conditions that are actually too clean have been implicated in asthma:

They also note that ground-level ozone has the same protective effect against UV radiation as upper-level, so reducing ground-level ozone will increase skin cancer rates. Interesting.

Damn, UT. Thanks for looking all that up. I saw the article you linked to this morning, but didn't have a chance to read it.

So according to the EPA, either this rule change will easily pay for itself with lower health care costs, or it won't at all.

The real question is, what are each of you doing to reduce ozone levels?