Danno

Seven or more posts on the same issue in the last few mniutes by a single poster smells like spam to me.
Moderators?

as expected. paul is one of us....he's all about free speech & he speecks his mind...some people around here don't really care for opposing views.

I do this every Friday, so you can chill and listen if you're bored.
If you love Hard Rock, tune in
http://listen.nuclearfridays.com (http://38.96.148.43:5118/listen.pls)
Playlist @ http://www.nuclearfridays.com/index2.html
and yes, it's me Been doing this for almost 5 years!

Maybe thats what steve really meant... that guy is a ####### for hi-lighting the ineffectiveness of wind mills.

But you never told us how many old dirty power plants (actually pretty clean) have been shut down in Denmark or other places.
Also, your new sig. photo claims Jesus preached "social justice" yet I have asked for a few examples and you quietly move on with no reply.
Now we all know Christ reached out to the poor and commands his followers to do so.... but where does he command us to force others to do so?

I am more concerned that you and your spouse have these secrets behind each others back.
You might not like her reaction but if she is the parent, she has a right (and roll) to play as well... and don't think this will be the last time you feel the need to keep something he does from MOM.
You may not agree with her style but you two caN WORK THAT OUT BEFORE CONFRONTING JR.
Most people I grew up with smoked including me, nearly all have quit so I don't see a kid smoking as the end of the world. In fact if your kid was fat I bet you would not even be as alarmed yet they situation is multiple times more likely to lead to an early death and reduced quality of life.
What I would be sure to do is... find out who he is hanging around, this crowd could introduce him to more than just cheap cigs.

I am more concerned that you and your spouse have these secrets behind each others back.
You might not like her reaction but if she is the parent, she has a right (and roll) to play as well... and don't think this will be the last time you feel the need to keep something he does from MOM.
You may not agree with her style but you two caN WORK THAT OUT BEFORE CONFRONTING JR.
Most people I grew up with smoked including me, nearly all have quit so I don't see a kid smoking as the end of the world. In fact if your kid was fat I bet you would not even be as alarmed yet they situation is multiple times more likely to lead to an early death and reduced quality of life.
What I would be sure to do is... find out who he is hanging around, this crowd could introduce him to more than just cheap cigs.

Clearly it's not to "help people" because every dollar spent on one person is one less to spend on another.
The truth is, these people are "predictable voters" and a growing demographic.
It's also a difficult give-away to fight even if you don't agree with it. Politics is all about parading some sad case before the camera and making the responsible person look like the grinch.

Clearly it's not to "help people" because every dollar spent on one person is one less to spend on another.
The truth is, these people are "predictable voters" and a growing demographic.
It's also a difficult give-away to fight even if you don't agree with it. Politics is all about parading some sad case before the camera and making the responsible person look like the grinch.

Should the spouse of a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE be involved in politic'in?
Justice's wife launches 'tea party' group
The nonprofit run by Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is likely to test notions of political impartiality for the court.
By Kathleen Hennessey
March 14, 2010
Reporting from Washington
As Virginia Thomas tells it in her soft-spoken, Midwestern cadence, the story of her involvement in the "tea party" movement is the tale of an average citizen in action.
"I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha, Neb., who just may have the chance to preserve liberty along with you and other people like you," she said at a recent panel discussion with tea party leaders in Washington. Thomas went on to count herself among those energized into action by President Obama's "hard-left agenda."
But Thomas is no ordinary activist.
She is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and she has launched a tea-party-linked group that could test the traditional notions of political impartiality for the court.

In January, Virginia Thomas created Liberty Central Inc., a nonprofit lobbying group whose website will organize activism around a set of conservative "core principles," she said.
The group plans to issue score cards for Congress members and be involved in the November election, although Thomas would not specify how. She said it would accept donations from various sources -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.
"I adore all the new citizen patriots who are rising up across this country," Thomas, who goes by Ginni, said on the panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "I have felt called to the front lines with you, with my fellow citizens, to preserve what made America great."
The move by Virginia Thomas, 52, into the front lines of politics stands in marked contrast to the rarefied culture of the nation's highest court, which normally prizes the appearance of nonpartisanship and a distance from the fisticuffs of the politics of the day.
Justice Thomas, 61, recently expressed sensitivity to such concerns, telling law students in Florida that he doesn't attend the State of the Union because it is "so partisan." Thomas, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush, has been a reliable conservative vote since he joined the court in 1991.
Experts say Virginia Thomas' work doesn't violate ethical rules for judges. But Liberty Central could give rise to conflicts of interest for her husband, they said, as it tests the norms for judicial spouses. The couple have been married since 1987.
"I think the American public expects the justices to be out of politics," said University of Texas law school professor Lucas A. "Scot" Powe, a court historian.
He said the expectations for spouses are far less clear. "I really don't know because we've never seen it," Powe said.
Under judicial rules, judges must curb political activity, but a spouse is free to engage.
"We expect the justice to make decisions uninfluenced by the political or legal preferences of his or her spouse," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics.
Virginia Thomas declined to comment in detail about her plans for LibertyCentral.org, which she said would fully launch in May. In a brief phone interview, she did not directly answer questions about whether she and her husband had discussed the effects her role might have on perceptions of his impartiality.
"I don't involve myself in litigation. Are you asking that because there's a different standard for conservatives? Did you ask Ed Rendell that question?" she said, referring to the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, who is married to a federal appellate court judge.
Virginia Thomas has long been a passionate voice for conservative views. She has worked for former Republican Rep. ####### Armey of Texas and for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with strong ties to the GOP.
In 2000, while at the Heritage Foundation, she was recruiting staff for a possible George W. Bush administration as her husband was hearing the case that would decide the election. When journalists reported her work, Thomas said she saw no conflict of interest and that she rarely discussed court matters with her husband.
"We have our separate professional lives," she said at the time.
In fall 2008, when Thomas joined Hillsdale College as an administrator, she called the school's Washington campus "the safest place for me to be when it comes to conflicts." Her new endeavor could signal a return from that shelter.
Although Liberty Central is a nonpartisan group, its website shows an affinity for conservative principles. Her biography notes that Thomas is a fan of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America."
"She is intrigued by Glenn Beck and listening carefully," the bio says.
As in her appearance at the panel discussion, the website does not mention Clarence Thomas.
The judicial code of conduct does require judges to separate themselves from their spouses' political activity. As a result, Marjorie Rendell, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has stayed away from political events, campaign rallies and debates in Pennsylvania. Her husband discussed such issues in his first campaign for governor.
Since then, Judge Rendell has sought the opinion of the judiciary's Committee on Codes of Conduct when a case presents a possible conflict of interest involving her husband's political office, she said.
Law professor Gillers said that Justice Thomas, too, should be on alert for possible conflicts, particularly those involving donors to his wife's nonprofit.
"There is opportunity for mischief if a company with a case before the court, or which it wants the court to accept, makes a substantial contribution to Liberty Central in the interim," he said.
Justice Thomas would be required to be aware of such contributions, Gillers said, adding that he believes Thomas should then disclose those facts and allow parties in the case to argue for recusal.
But it would be up to Justice Thomas to decide whether to recuse himself. He could not be reached for comment.
As a 501©(4) nonprofit, Liberty Central can raise unlimited amounts of corporate money and largely avoid disclosing its donors.
Because of a recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the group may also spend corporate money freely to advocate for or against candidates for office.
Justice Thomas was part of the 5-4 majority in that case.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-thomas14-2010mar14,0,6505384.story

When I saw the reviews on this movie I wanted to see it as the Bourne trilogy I thought was great. Then reports started coming out that it was more about a war with Bush than anything else.
How is it modern events seem to serve up ideal launching pads for great movies.. which Holly Wood never makes? Okay, I first noticed this with the passing on the Bill Clinton sex-N-Whitehouse themes that were never acted on, even though boring Nixon and Reagan flicks somehow were produced.
Here we have had two "made for movie" wars going on for years and only one passable movie has been made and that is Hurt Locker. Hurt Locker was ok but way over rated in my opinion.
Sooner or later I will see Green Zone, but after the word came out it was immersed in politics it did kinda dampen my desire to see it.
Has anyone seen Green Zone and what is your take?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
'Green Zone' marks a disappointing end to Hollywood's time in Iraq
March 14, 2010 | 1:04 pm
For better or worse, Hollywood is now done with Iraq.
"Green Zone" is the last drama set to be released by a major studio related to the Iraq war, and Hollywood is undoubtedly grateful for it after the picture, directed by Paul Greengrass and starring Matt Damon, opened to just $14.5 million domestically and $9.7 million overseas.
It's the latest in a string of flops that include "Body of Lies," "The Kingdom" and "Stop-Loss." Even "The Hurt Locker," while not a major disappointment given its low budget, is the lowest- grossing best picture Oscar winner in recent history.
Recognizing that worrisome history, Universal Pictures focused its marketing on Damon and Greengrass' popular collaboration on "The Bourne Supremacy" and "The Bourne Ultimatum," but was apparently unable to sell the movie based on its action elements.
"This picture has done better than most of today's modern war stories," said Nikki Rocco, Universal's domestic distribution president. "But we were hoping for better."
Universal and its financing partner, Relativity Media, spent about $100 million to produce "Green Zone" and tens of millions more to market the picture, meaning it will be a major money loser.
"Alice in Wonderland," meanwhile, is turning out to be not just a hit domestically, but a phenomenon overseas. Like "Avatar," the 3-D blockbuster is racking up foreign grosses significantly faster than in the U.S. and Canada.
While its domestic ticket sales fell 47%, international ticket sales dropped just 27% in the same territories where it started playing last weekend. Along with six new markets including India and Vietnam, "Alice in Wonderland" grossed $76 million internationally and $62 million domestically. It has yet to hit several major foreign countries such as France, China, Japan and Brazil.
In total, "Alice" has taken in $429 million worldwide and seems sure to end up grossing at least $750 million, making it a massive profit generator despite its sizable $200-million production cost.
However, it's very unlikely that "Alice" will play for as long as "Avatar," which just took in $23.6 million on its 13th weekend. DreamWorks Animation's "How to Train Your Dragon" will take a significant number of 3-D screens worldwide beginning March 26, followed a week later with the April 2 release of Warner Bros.' 3-D "Clash of the Titans."
For more on the weekend box office, including the openings of "She's Out of My League," "Remember Me," and "Our Family Wedding," see our initial box-office post.
Here are the top 10 movies at the domestic box office, according to studio estimates and Hollywood.com:
1. "Alice in Wonderland" (Disney): $62 million on its second weekend, down 47%. $76 million overseas in 48 foreign territories. Domestic total: $208.6 million. International total: $221 million.
2. "Green Zone" (Universal/Relativity): Opened to $14.5 million, $9.7 million overseas in 14 foreign territories.
3. "She's Out of My League" (Paramount/DreamWorks): Opened to $9.6 million.
4. "Remember Me" (Summit): Opened to $8.3 million.
5. "Shutter Island" (Paramount): $8.1 million on its fourth weekend, down 38%. Domestic total: $108 million.
6. "Our Family Wedding" (Fox Searchlight): Opened to $7.6 million.
7. "Avatar" (Fox/Dune/Ingenious): $6.6 million on its 13th weekend, down 19%. $17 million overseas in 69 foreign markets. Domestic total: $730.3 million. International total: $1.91 billion.
8. "Brooklyn's Finest" (Overture/Millennium): $4.3 million, down 68% on its second weekend. Domestic total: $21.4 million.
9. "Cop Out" (Warner Bros.): $4.2 million on its third weekend, down 54%. Domestic total: $39.4 million.
10. "The Crazies" (Overture/Participant/Imagenation): $3.7 million on its third weekend, down 48%. Domestic total: $33.4 million.
-- Ben Fritz

Clearly it's not to "help people" because every dollar spent on one person is one less to spend on another.
The truth is, these people are "predictable voters" and a growing demographic.
It's also a difficult give-away to fight even if you don't agree with it. Politics is all about parading some sad case before the camera and making the responsible person look like the grinch.

We have heard this "astroturf" charge made of the Tea Party right from the beginning, yet no one posts the names or proof.
I am not really involved myself enough to know if in fact they are paying people to attend or show up at events, if so, I got robbed as we went for free.
The only based charge I have heard was the high cost of the Tickets for the Convention in Nashville..... which that charge was that someone was trying to profiteer from it in a big way.
I think where your charge falls apart is evidenced by the lefthand not knowing what the right hand is doing among the many groups..... hardly a sign of being "organized or financed" by much of anyone to any great degree.
Spin it anyway you want, I doubt few people doubt the Tea party is the best example of a modern grassroots movement we have seen in decades.

Actually this founder of the Coffee groups has been busted as a volunteer in Baracks Presidential Campaign.
So much for the "grass roots" style movement they are trying to portray themselves as, in fact, are their any points that this group endorses which clash with the Obamas Agenda?

========================
CNN Omits 'Coffee Party' Founder's Past as Obama Volunteer
By Matthew Balan (Bio | Archive)
Wed, 03/03/2010 - 11:44 ET
John Roberts and Kiran Chetry omitted mentioning that Annabel Park, the founder of the so-called Coffee Party, worked as a volunteer for President Barack Obama's presidential campaign, during an interview on Wednesday's American Morning. The anchors also didn't mention Park's past work for the liberal New York Times.
Roberts and Chetry interviewed the Coffee Party USA founder at the bottom of the 8 am Eastern hour. After an initial question about the origin of the name, the two asked about the principles of the nascent movement and if health care "reform" was going to be a major issue for it. In her last question to Park, Chetry did ask if the Coffee Party had any ties to a political party: "[T]he tea party movement really, in some ways, has been a challenge to Republicans to move more toward fiscal conservative ideals. Are you aligned with a party? I mean, as we know, passing health care reform has been a huge goal of liberal Democrats for decades. Are you aligned with the Democrats, trying to get them more to move to the left when it comes to health care?"
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan...r#ixzz0i7nndFNK

When I saw the reviews on this movie I wanted to see it as the Bourne trilogy I thought was great. Then reports started coming out that it was more about a war with Bush than anything else.
How is it modern events seem to serve up ideal launching pads for great movies.. which Holly Wood never makes? Okay, I first noticed this with the passing on the Bill Clinton sex-N-Whitehouse themes that were never acted on, even though boring Nixon and Reagan flicks somehow were produced.
Here we have had two "made for movie" wars going on for years and only one passable movie has been made and that is Hurt Locker. Hurt Locker was ok but way over rated in my opinion.
Sooner or later I will see Green Zone, but after the word came out it was immersed in politics it did kinda dampen my desire to see it.
Has anyone seen Green Zone and what is your take?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
'Green Zone' marks a disappointing end to Hollywood's time in Iraq
March 14, 2010 | 1:04 pm
For better or worse, Hollywood is now done with Iraq.
"Green Zone" is the last drama set to be released by a major studio related to the Iraq war, and Hollywood is undoubtedly grateful for it after the picture, directed by Paul Greengrass and starring Matt Damon, opened to just $14.5 million domestically and $9.7 million overseas.
It's the latest in a string of flops that include "Body of Lies," "The Kingdom" and "Stop-Loss." Even "The Hurt Locker," while not a major disappointment given its low budget, is the lowest- grossing best picture Oscar winner in recent history.
Recognizing that worrisome history, Universal Pictures focused its marketing on Damon and Greengrass' popular collaboration on "The Bourne Supremacy" and "The Bourne Ultimatum," but was apparently unable to sell the movie based on its action elements.
"This picture has done better than most of today's modern war stories," said Nikki Rocco, Universal's domestic distribution president. "But we were hoping for better."
Universal and its financing partner, Relativity Media, spent about $100 million to produce "Green Zone" and tens of millions more to market the picture, meaning it will be a major money loser.
"Alice in Wonderland," meanwhile, is turning out to be not just a hit domestically, but a phenomenon overseas. Like "Avatar," the 3-D blockbuster is racking up foreign grosses significantly faster than in the U.S. and Canada.
While its domestic ticket sales fell 47%, international ticket sales dropped just 27% in the same territories where it started playing last weekend. Along with six new markets including India and Vietnam, "Alice in Wonderland" grossed $76 million internationally and $62 million domestically. It has yet to hit several major foreign countries such as France, China, Japan and Brazil.
In total, "Alice" has taken in $429 million worldwide and seems sure to end up grossing at least $750 million, making it a massive profit generator despite its sizable $200-million production cost.
However, it's very unlikely that "Alice" will play for as long as "Avatar," which just took in $23.6 million on its 13th weekend. DreamWorks Animation's "How to Train Your Dragon" will take a significant number of 3-D screens worldwide beginning March 26, followed a week later with the April 2 release of Warner Bros.' 3-D "Clash of the Titans."
For more on the weekend box office, including the openings of "She's Out of My League," "Remember Me," and "Our Family Wedding," see our initial box-office post.
Here are the top 10 movies at the domestic box office, according to studio estimates and Hollywood.com:
1. "Alice in Wonderland" (Disney): $62 million on its second weekend, down 47%. $76 million overseas in 48 foreign territories. Domestic total: $208.6 million. International total: $221 million.
2. "Green Zone" (Universal/Relativity): Opened to $14.5 million, $9.7 million overseas in 14 foreign territories.
3. "She's Out of My League" (Paramount/DreamWorks): Opened to $9.6 million.
4. "Remember Me" (Summit): Opened to $8.3 million.
5. "Shutter Island" (Paramount): $8.1 million on its fourth weekend, down 38%. Domestic total: $108 million.
6. "Our Family Wedding" (Fox Searchlight): Opened to $7.6 million.
7. "Avatar" (Fox/Dune/Ingenious): $6.6 million on its 13th weekend, down 19%. $17 million overseas in 69 foreign markets. Domestic total: $730.3 million. International total: $1.91 billion.
8. "Brooklyn's Finest" (Overture/Millennium): $4.3 million, down 68% on its second weekend. Domestic total: $21.4 million.
9. "Cop Out" (Warner Bros.): $4.2 million on its third weekend, down 54%. Domestic total: $39.4 million.
10. "The Crazies" (Overture/Participant/Imagenation): $3.7 million on its third weekend, down 48%. Domestic total: $33.4 million.
-- Ben Fritz

When I saw the reviews on this movie I wanted to see it as the Bourne trilogy I thought was great. Then reports started coming out that it was more about a war with Bush than anything else.
How is it modern events seem to serve up ideal launching pads for great movies.. which Holly Wood never makes? Okay, I first noticed this with the passing on the Bill Clinton sex-N-Whitehouse themes that were never acted on, even though boring Nixon and Reagan flicks somehow were produced.
Here we have had two "made for movie" wars going on for years and only one passable movie has been made and that is Hurt Locker. Hurt Locker was ok but way over rated in my opinion.
Sooner or later I will see Green Zone, but after the word came out it was immersed in politics it did kinda dampen my desire to see it.
Has anyone seen Green Zone and what is your take?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
'Green Zone' marks a disappointing end to Hollywood's time in Iraq
March 14, 2010 | 1:04 pm
For better or worse, Hollywood is now done with Iraq.
"Green Zone" is the last drama set to be released by a major studio related to the Iraq war, and Hollywood is undoubtedly grateful for it after the picture, directed by Paul Greengrass and starring Matt Damon, opened to just $14.5 million domestically and $9.7 million overseas.
It's the latest in a string of flops that include "Body of Lies," "The Kingdom" and "Stop-Loss." Even "The Hurt Locker," while not a major disappointment given its low budget, is the lowest- grossing best picture Oscar winner in recent history.
Recognizing that worrisome history, Universal Pictures focused its marketing on Damon and Greengrass' popular collaboration on "The Bourne Supremacy" and "The Bourne Ultimatum," but was apparently unable to sell the movie based on its action elements.
"This picture has done better than most of today's modern war stories," said Nikki Rocco, Universal's domestic distribution president. "But we were hoping for better."
Universal and its financing partner, Relativity Media, spent about $100 million to produce "Green Zone" and tens of millions more to market the picture, meaning it will be a major money loser.
"Alice in Wonderland," meanwhile, is turning out to be not just a hit domestically, but a phenomenon overseas. Like "Avatar," the 3-D blockbuster is racking up foreign grosses significantly faster than in the U.S. and Canada.
While its domestic ticket sales fell 47%, international ticket sales dropped just 27% in the same territories where it started playing last weekend. Along with six new markets including India and Vietnam, "Alice in Wonderland" grossed $76 million internationally and $62 million domestically. It has yet to hit several major foreign countries such as France, China, Japan and Brazil.
In total, "Alice" has taken in $429 million worldwide and seems sure to end up grossing at least $750 million, making it a massive profit generator despite its sizable $200-million production cost.
However, it's very unlikely that "Alice" will play for as long as "Avatar," which just took in $23.6 million on its 13th weekend. DreamWorks Animation's "How to Train Your Dragon" will take a significant number of 3-D screens worldwide beginning March 26, followed a week later with the April 2 release of Warner Bros.' 3-D "Clash of the Titans."
For more on the weekend box office, including the openings of "She's Out of My League," "Remember Me," and "Our Family Wedding," see our initial box-office post.
Here are the top 10 movies at the domestic box office, according to studio estimates and Hollywood.com:
1. "Alice in Wonderland" (Disney): $62 million on its second weekend, down 47%. $76 million overseas in 48 foreign territories. Domestic total: $208.6 million. International total: $221 million.
2. "Green Zone" (Universal/Relativity): Opened to $14.5 million, $9.7 million overseas in 14 foreign territories.
3. "She's Out of My League" (Paramount/DreamWorks): Opened to $9.6 million.
4. "Remember Me" (Summit): Opened to $8.3 million.
5. "Shutter Island" (Paramount): $8.1 million on its fourth weekend, down 38%. Domestic total: $108 million.
6. "Our Family Wedding" (Fox Searchlight): Opened to $7.6 million.
7. "Avatar" (Fox/Dune/Ingenious): $6.6 million on its 13th weekend, down 19%. $17 million overseas in 69 foreign markets. Domestic total: $730.3 million. International total: $1.91 billion.
8. "Brooklyn's Finest" (Overture/Millennium): $4.3 million, down 68% on its second weekend. Domestic total: $21.4 million.
9. "Cop Out" (Warner Bros.): $4.2 million on its third weekend, down 54%. Domestic total: $39.4 million.
10. "The Crazies" (Overture/Participant/Imagenation): $3.7 million on its third weekend, down 48%. Domestic total: $33.4 million.
-- Ben Fritz

Maybe thats what steve really meant... that guy is a ####### for hi-lighting the ineffectiveness of wind mills.

Maybe thats what steve really meant... that guy is a ####### for hi-lighting the ineffectiveness of wind mills.

Clearly it's not to "help people" because every dollar spent on one person is one less to spend on another.
The truth is, these people are "predictable voters" and a growing demographic.
It's also a difficult give-away to fight even if you don't agree with it. Politics is all about parading some sad case before the camera and making the responsible person look like the grinch.

Should the spouse of a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE be involved in politic'in?
Justice's wife launches 'tea party' group
The nonprofit run by Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is likely to test notions of political impartiality for the court.
By Kathleen Hennessey
March 14, 2010
Reporting from Washington
As Virginia Thomas tells it in her soft-spoken, Midwestern cadence, the story of her involvement in the "tea party" movement is the tale of an average citizen in action.
"I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha, Neb., who just may have the chance to preserve liberty along with you and other people like you," she said at a recent panel discussion with tea party leaders in Washington. Thomas went on to count herself among those energized into action by President Obama's "hard-left agenda."
But Thomas is no ordinary activist.
She is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and she has launched a tea-party-linked group that could test the traditional notions of political impartiality for the court.

In January, Virginia Thomas created Liberty Central Inc., a nonprofit lobbying group whose website will organize activism around a set of conservative "core principles," she said.
The group plans to issue score cards for Congress members and be involved in the November election, although Thomas would not specify how. She said it would accept donations from various sources -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.
"I adore all the new citizen patriots who are rising up across this country," Thomas, who goes by Ginni, said on the panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "I have felt called to the front lines with you, with my fellow citizens, to preserve what made America great."
The move by Virginia Thomas, 52, into the front lines of politics stands in marked contrast to the rarefied culture of the nation's highest court, which normally prizes the appearance of nonpartisanship and a distance from the fisticuffs of the politics of the day.
Justice Thomas, 61, recently expressed sensitivity to such concerns, telling law students in Florida that he doesn't attend the State of the Union because it is "so partisan." Thomas, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush, has been a reliable conservative vote since he joined the court in 1991.
Experts say Virginia Thomas' work doesn't violate ethical rules for judges. But Liberty Central could give rise to conflicts of interest for her husband, they said, as it tests the norms for judicial spouses. The couple have been married since 1987.
"I think the American public expects the justices to be out of politics," said University of Texas law school professor Lucas A. "Scot" Powe, a court historian.
He said the expectations for spouses are far less clear. "I really don't know because we've never seen it," Powe said.
Under judicial rules, judges must curb political activity, but a spouse is free to engage.
"We expect the justice to make decisions uninfluenced by the political or legal preferences of his or her spouse," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics.
Virginia Thomas declined to comment in detail about her plans for LibertyCentral.org, which she said would fully launch in May. In a brief phone interview, she did not directly answer questions about whether she and her husband had discussed the effects her role might have on perceptions of his impartiality.
"I don't involve myself in litigation. Are you asking that because there's a different standard for conservatives? Did you ask Ed Rendell that question?" she said, referring to the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, who is married to a federal appellate court judge.
Virginia Thomas has long been a passionate voice for conservative views. She has worked for former Republican Rep. ####### Armey of Texas and for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with strong ties to the GOP.
In 2000, while at the Heritage Foundation, she was recruiting staff for a possible George W. Bush administration as her husband was hearing the case that would decide the election. When journalists reported her work, Thomas said she saw no conflict of interest and that she rarely discussed court matters with her husband.
"We have our separate professional lives," she said at the time.
In fall 2008, when Thomas joined Hillsdale College as an administrator, she called the school's Washington campus "the safest place for me to be when it comes to conflicts." Her new endeavor could signal a return from that shelter.
Although Liberty Central is a nonpartisan group, its website shows an affinity for conservative principles. Her biography notes that Thomas is a fan of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America."
"She is intrigued by Glenn Beck and listening carefully," the bio says.
As in her appearance at the panel discussion, the website does not mention Clarence Thomas.
The judicial code of conduct does require judges to separate themselves from their spouses' political activity. As a result, Marjorie Rendell, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has stayed away from political events, campaign rallies and debates in Pennsylvania. Her husband discussed such issues in his first campaign for governor.
Since then, Judge Rendell has sought the opinion of the judiciary's Committee on Codes of Conduct when a case presents a possible conflict of interest involving her husband's political office, she said.
Law professor Gillers said that Justice Thomas, too, should be on alert for possible conflicts, particularly those involving donors to his wife's nonprofit.
"There is opportunity for mischief if a company with a case before the court, or which it wants the court to accept, makes a substantial contribution to Liberty Central in the interim," he said.
Justice Thomas would be required to be aware of such contributions, Gillers said, adding that he believes Thomas should then disclose those facts and allow parties in the case to argue for recusal.
But it would be up to Justice Thomas to decide whether to recuse himself. He could not be reached for comment.
As a 501©(4) nonprofit, Liberty Central can raise unlimited amounts of corporate money and largely avoid disclosing its donors.
Because of a recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the group may also spend corporate money freely to advocate for or against candidates for office.
Justice Thomas was part of the 5-4 majority in that case.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-thomas14-2010mar14,0,6505384.story

But you never told us how many old dirty power plants (actually pretty clean) have been shut down in Denmark or other places.
Also, your new sig. photo claims Jesus preached "social justice" yet I have asked for a few examples and you quietly move on with no reply.
Now we all know Christ reached out to the poor and commands his followers to do so.... but where does he command us to force others to do so?

Wind power is a complete disaster
Posted: April 08, 2009, 7:29 PM by NP Editor
wind power, Michael J. Trebilcock
By Michael J. Trebilcock
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0hoYhsrBS
There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.
Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.

Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”
The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 — compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”
The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, “Wasting Money on Climate Change,” that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.
Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.
The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government’s promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.
A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?
In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.
Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).
This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.
Financial Post
Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario government’s legislative committee On Bill 150.
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0iDuS7MCu
The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

But you never told us how many old dirty power plants (actually pretty clean) have been shut down in Denmark or other places.
Also, your new sig. photo claims Jesus preached "social justice" yet I have asked for a few examples and you quietly move on with no reply.
Now we all know Christ reached out to the poor and commands his followers to do so.... but where does he command us to force others to do so?

Wind power is a complete disaster
Posted: April 08, 2009, 7:29 PM by NP Editor
wind power, Michael J. Trebilcock
By Michael J. Trebilcock
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0hoYhsrBS
There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.
Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.

Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”
The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 — compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”
The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, “Wasting Money on Climate Change,” that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.
Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.
The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government’s promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.
A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?
In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.
Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).
This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.
Financial Post
Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario government’s legislative committee On Bill 150.
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0iDuS7MCu
The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Wind power is a complete disaster
Posted: April 08, 2009, 7:29 PM by NP Editor
wind power, Michael J. Trebilcock
By Michael J. Trebilcock
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0hoYhsrBS
There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.
Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.

Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”
The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 — compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”
The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, “Wasting Money on Climate Change,” that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.
Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.
The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government’s promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.
A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?
In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.
Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).
This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.
Financial Post
Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario government’s legislative committee On Bill 150.
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx#ixzz0iDuS7MCu
The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.