Peter_Puget

Not really similar. Tuition is not airfare. Anyway to help you out here is the audit report. link See page 12. Total airfare exp: `$60k. This is more than likely not student airfare but airfare for the admins. since they are called program overhead.

link

LOL hey I posted it as a quote and told you to google..two points Actually I was going to find the original stuff but lost interest not really my thing

Ah go google! And you are of course another data point unless you're not cruisin' CC.com late on a Friday....don't ask whyI am on.

figured I might as well psot this link

Good Read!

..here's a real investment for you! Invest!

This quote by the head of the Coomie party in Britain sums up western communism perfectly: Said to Poet Stephen Spender when he went to the Spanish Civil War: "...go and get killed; we need a Byron in the movement."

1 -J_B is just being silly in his response to myy last post in this thread ==> sums it up! 2 - Energy independence come close to demagoguery I was sad to see it emphasized by many otherwise respectable types. By the way Canada is out largest supplier - why aren’t we worried aboot them! 3 - Subsidies? Sugar industry is a perfect example of tax payers and customers getting ripped off! Just say no. 4 - I first got coodies when I was 3 years old! 5 - Here's an article for Jim - link Haven't read it but I printed it off.

What do you mean by “honest?” Do you think some ratings are purposefully incorrect? It seems that ratings are such imprecise creatures that we should expect a wide range of experiences for a given rating.

Whoops here is a link: here

of other illegals! Will this impact immigration? Will undocumented workers start to be hired further up the food chain? Free minds, free markets!

my understanding is that much of what has been done thus far consists of less energy consumption which is a win-win proposition; however, emission reductions demand investing in R&D and retooling which in some industries will result in unfair competiton (at least in the short term) if some companies do what they are supposed to do (reduce emissions) while others go to Tombouctou to avoid emission control. case in point is the cement industry which contributes huge quantities of C02, the technology to reduce emissions exists but everybody is scared of being priced out of the market by those who'll relocate to Wasteland, Inc. if some firms reduce external costs (environmental damage, public health, etc ...) by decreasing pollution it doesn't make sense that those who do nothing keep passing the buck to the public and be rewarded by capturing a higher market share for being bad public citizens. the only way to ensure fair competition and reach emission caps, imo, is regulation and/or some kind of carbon tax (you can go to tombouctou if you want but we'll charge you for external cost you cause). moreover, we don't have 20years to start facing the problem so waiting for the dinosaurs to wake up isn't something we can afford. these are some of the reasons but they are others. So I guess what you are saying is that your earlier comment (re leaner meaner) turns out not to be correct after all. I will agree with that. There will be costs imposed in any soulution. Cost in general are very difficult to quantify. First of all we need to calculate the value of the heating effect we avoid. This is very much in dispute. Doesn't the study first shown here project a less significant human impact that ones created just a few years ago? At what point do we have the knowledge to make a good choice? In any event your suggestion of a tax on output is moving closer to a better solution than say the idiotic Kyoto targets.

likely scenario if we sit on our hands and do not invest in alternative sources of energy to minimize fighting over the last bit of cheap oil. the choice isn't between millions dying from rapid global warming versus millions dying from the economy tanking, but how do we avoid the coming crises (climate and peak oil) that'll result from business as ususal. there is no real evidence for emissions caps resulting in poor economic performance. a number of corporations and nations have already significantly reduced their energy use and emission release: they are leaner and more successful. If a firm/country adopts measures making them more efficient than competing firms they will enjoy higher profits and attract capital with ease compared to their competitors who will of course be driven out of business if they do not change. The market rewards those who adapt well and ignores those who do not. Why bother with official standards if those who have adapted them before the fact voluntarily are leaner and more successful?

Opera doesn't support things like document.selection and the document.execCommand and document.designMode interfaces in javascript. DOM

I believe that price controls may have been at work in the 70's! By the way at one point I wokred for a Chinese electronics manufacturer and have witnessed poor Chinese travleing across the country in hope of getting a manufacturing job. If the Chinese experienced a significant drop in demand for their products I bet they would have a very difficult situation with thousands if not millions of unemployable workers to deal with. If any of you truly believe that Bush went to war over oil then just imagine what the Chinese would might do to solve their problem.....

That's right. Car's are more efficient at 70mph. GO DOG! GO!

it'll certainly have an impact but in which direction? if the fossil fools have their way, shale oil and tar sands will then be mined (which will result in much greater emissions due to greater energetic cost of extraction and processing) and we'll revert to coal (with the expected attending results if the energy industry is not regulated). Currently getting the oil out of those sources is currently very expensive. How long will it take to create sufficient refineries and transportation services to meet world wide demand? If your assertion regarding oil depletion is correct, my prediction of a large increase in the price gas and related products is much more likely to come true than anything but the most general of weather predictions. What really is being considered is an induced recession. A recession of unknown length and severity. If the US economy tanks the third world would suffer as well. What would be the consequences of such a recession? Who knows? At the very least thousands probably millions would die as a result of reduction in health services. Didn’t the last significant world wide recession proceed WWII?

Why did gasoline consumption grow so rapidly during the early years of the 55 MPH speed limit -- and why did it plunge when speed limits returned to local control? J_B can do an analysis on the impact of recessions of gas utilization. They seem to be a big player. I wonder why he hasn’t mentioned the imminent decline in world wide oil production. (search on his user name for posts predicting this.) Certainly that the absolute slow down and soon decline of oil supplies coupled with an ever increasing world wide hunger for oil will have an impact.

Attachment #1

In a geologic sense 100k is very short as well.

Short of time but I am somewhat confused as to “spin”. The IPCC report mentioned near the end of the article contains this: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” —IPCC report Those wishing to control people through taxation would benefit from this little write-up. link

Are those the only two options? I believe that I was complaining of bias long before I ever heard of Mr. Clinton.

Must have been busy I missed this. By the way I have posted at least two serious studies of media bias. Here is one somewhat related. Go Selkirk!