Tony K’s got something to say

The Washington Post reports this morning that the office of the Vice President edited testimony on climate change before its submission–isn’t this illegal (or did those rules change while I was sleeping)?

Members of Vice President Cheney’s staff censored congressional testimony by a top federal official about health threats posed by global warming, a former Environmental Protection Agency official said yesterday.

In a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), former EPA deputy associate administrator Jason K. Burnett said an official from Cheney’s office ordered last October that six pages be edited out of the testimony of Julie L. Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gerberding had planned to say that the “CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern.”

Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the administration sought the changes for fear that Gerberding’s testimony could trigger new controls under the Clean Air Act that would regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from burning fossil fuels. The White House has opposed mandatory limits and has insisted that voluntary measures and increased research are the best ways to address the issue.

Where is the NY Times on this? Does anyone have an opinion (or is angry) about this?

E-mail SPAM, comment SPAM, in a can SPAM, I hate SPAM

Anyway…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7148671.stm read this article from the BBC, I saw it on Yahoo news too, and enjoy…

My friend, Sarah Jane Hise, has been following the Global development agendas, or lack thereof in the presidential debates on the Center for Global Development’s Blog. So far it looks like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both developed platforms on Global Development issues. Of course there is a shout out to John Edwards as being the first to discuss development issues.

Maybe I missed it, but where are any Republican candidates on this issue?  With all the talk about national security and international crises how can we miss one of the most important factors in our safety–the well being of others.  Personally, it bothers me that we have to reduce the efffort of helping people in need to a security debate–but that’s what grabs attention–so be grabbed and think about it.  If people are happy (in general terms) not starving, have access to health care and sanitation, access to education and jobs–do you think they are going to feel hatred and a desire to attack you?  In general, or say the theory goes no.

So why is doing the right thing (for all the right reasons)–investing a sustainable ling term development plan to alleviate extreme poverty–so hard to talk about?

Check out Mr. T’s World of Warcraft commercial on Youtube, simply awesome…

I pity the gamer that mess with T!

This is a pretty good account (login mat be required) of where things stand with the “top 3″ Dems in the race.  What I would like to know is–what it will take to get Bill Richardson up in the ranks of the media darling elites.

Change is needed–but just noting we need change is not making change.

Bush-bashing is not enough. Unless one of the Democratic candidates finds the courage to step up and offer a vision of an American future so compelling that voters head to the polls with a sense of excitement and great expectation, the Republican Party could once again capture the White House (despite its awful performance over the past eight years) with its patented mixture of snake oil and demagoguery.

The G.O.P. game plan is already being pieced together. The White House hopes to inoculate Republican candidates on the Iraq war issue by bringing home a significant number of combat troops in the middle of the general election. And the demagogic issue of choice for 2008 is immigration.

The Willie Horton ugliness of 1988 will be like nothing compared with the concerted attack to be unleashed by the G.O.P. on illegal immigrants next year.

The Democrats will have to figure out a way to counter that with an appeal to the better angels of our nature, and that will require courage.

The need to offer an honest vision that is almost electric in its intensity is especially important for Senators Clinton and Obama. Both have to rally enough voters to overcome deep wells of prejudice in this society. That can’t be done by referencing a résumé, or in a nine-second response to a question from Wolf Blitzer.

The American public, tired of war and economically insecure, longs for a leader who will tell the truth and offer a way out of the current morass.

A Democrat can win with a realistic plan for exiting Iraq and, more important, a full-blown economic strategy that addresses the growing anxiety over the fading American dream.

This debilitating anxiety is fed by an uncertain job market; by the housing crisis and the humongous debt that is smothering the middle class; by the long-term erosion of health and pension benefits; by the increasing cost of higher education; and so forth.

It is this spreading anxiety that makes it so easy for the demagogues to gin up the rage against foreigners.

A Democrat who makes a believable case that these problems can be dealt with effectively — and who asks the public to roll up its sleeves and join in such an effort — can win.

But that’s not what we’re getting. Not so far. And maybe it’s not necessary. Maybe the economy will be so bad next year that a Democrat will win in any event. But that’s not the kind of tea you want to hang your hat on.

http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/rooms_ideas/ckl/default.html

Seriously, give it a shot