Posted on 03/21/2007 7:07:45 AM PDT by yoe
The following release was posted Tuesday night to the web log of Senator James Inhofe:
From behind the scenes on Capitol Hill: Former Vice President Al Gore, despite being given major preferential treatment, has violated the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee’s (EPW) hearing rules.
Gore first demanded to be granted an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement to the Senate EPW Committee for Wednesday’s (March 21) global warming hearing scheduled for 2:30 pm ET.
The GOP minority on the EPW committee agreed to the 30 minute opening statement.
But then Gore demanded a waiver of the EPW committee’s 48 hour rule that requires all witnesses before EPW to submit their testimony in advance. The GOP minority on the EPW committee then agreed to waive the 48 hour rule in favor of allowing Gore to submit his testimony 24 hours before the hearing.
But in a breaking news development on Capitol Hill, the former Vice President has violated the new 24 hour deadline extension by failing to submit his testimony – even with the new time extension granted to Gore.
As of 8pm ET Tuesday evening, the testimony still has not been received by EPW, a clear violation of committee rules.
The word on Capitol Hill says not to expect Gore’s testimony to the Senate EPW committee until Wednesday (March 21) - the day of the hearing.
It appears that Gore does not believe the same rules apply to him that apply to every other Senate EPW witness.
This wasn't really the thread for a serious discussion of parenting. IT was supposed to be funny.
A serious discussion of how to train your children to obey their parents? sorry, just don't want to get into that here.
Can't we just keep making fun of Al Gore?
Hahahahahaha. Now we know where your children learned that duck and delay behavior from, Charles.
You're right. This is funny.
Are you on some new medication that may be affecting your behavior?
Climate fluctuates. Temperatures and CO2 levels have varied greatly without human contribution over millions of years. So, obviously, there are major forces other than human activities at work. Ignoring these other forces and implying that some Kyoto-type intervention will resolve unwanted climate change seems ill-conceived.
The tip-off that Gore's case is weak is his insistence that climate change is a "moral issue" rather than a scientific one. The implication is that it is human influence that is BAD in and of itself. And that stopping this BAD behavior is the important objective. The other side of this idea is that natural climate change would be okay.
The "natural = good and unnatural = bad" notion is simplistic and, in my opinion, idiotic. The civilization we currently enjoy is highly unnatural. Yet, virtually every human being (even so-called "greens") strives to enjoy the benefits it provides.
If the climate is changing in unfavorable ways what does it matter whether the cause is natural or unnatural or some combination? Wouldn't preventing the unfavorable change by the most efficient means be the most sensible policy?
Suppose a comet were projected to collide with the Earth. This would be a 100% natural event. Does that mean it's okay? No action needed? Or should we try to avert the collision by unnatural means?
What we need to come to grips with is that, absent any human action, the climate will change. If we want to ameliorate, offset or avert this change we need to think about effective methods of trying to accomplish this. Effective methods are going to have to go beyond the minuscule impacts to be achieved by the Kyoto protocol approach of reducing human-caused emissions. The fact that such effective methods are not part of Al Gore's prescription is pretty convincing evidence that it is control of humans rather than control of climate that is his real agenda.
Whether the BBC program was "right" in every regard isn't the issue. It presents a different interpretation of the data than Al Gore does. In my opinion, it persuasively refutes the idea that controlling CO2 emissions will be sufficient to prevent climate change. The issue then is whether there is something else that can (or should--not everyone agrees that warmer would be worse than cooler) be done to deal with this change. Since there is no evidence that Gore understands the magnitude of the issue, it is clear that following his advice would be the wrong course to take.
How right you are! Al Gore was probably too busy watching American Idol to get his testimony turned in on time.
He went from being the nation's Music Czar to being the nation's Weather Czar. It is about the power and not about the issues.
I'll get back to you as soon as I finish eating my lunch.
savedbygrace was right. Generally, if your wife gives a command, and the children ignore it, the proper response is to enforce the command, not laugh about it.
But that wouldn't make a very funny dialog, would it.
I'm not saying the dialog was contrived, just that there were other aspects to it that weren't necessary for the humor, and that would involve a serious discussion unrelated to the topic.
I didn't want though to leave the impression I was in disagreement with savedbygrace.
Ah, now I understand. Thank you.
What an arrogant b'tard he is. AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
You've answered your own question...
(If it persists, CUT the plugs off!)
Probably just fedup with offspring hostility and rebellion.
-PJ
For punishment, my mom used to pull out two or three tubes from th TV before she left for work, and take them with her.
Tubes? In TVs? How old is THAT?
Be aware that it is at the chairman's discretion to waive the 48 hour rule. In other words, it's all up to Barbara Boxer, therefore no rule was violated.
HEMMER: I'm hearing differently, Senator. I'm hearing that everybody hands their stuff in on time. Is that not the case?
BOXER: Well, I have the names of four witnesses -- if you want to give me -- I can come back after the break and read it right to you, the four Republican witnesses who never did --
http://www.foxnews.com/americasnewsroom/
Boxer is the chairfool ... and you expect some legal authority to be invoked? Democrats are their own law.
"be aware that is at the chairman's discretion to waive the 48 hour rule. In other words, it's all up to Barbara Boxer, therefore no rule was violated."
ok, but the statement issued by Inhofe's office implies the--their words--"Republican minority" agreed to an extension (or contraction?) of the 48 hour deadline to a 24 hour deadline, and also agreed to the expanded opening statement.
So if Boxer has ultimate say about opening statements, time limits, blah blah blah and she can rule the Committee with an iron fist---"rules" be damned...
Why would Inhofe credit himself for abiding the first two of Gore's attempts at 'misbehavin' towards the Senate Rules until he protested the last one?
Three strikes your out? Third piggy house--the one of brick? Third bowl of Bear's porridge (Just Tastes Right!)?
And this rule was created under the Republican congress.
At least the late 60's
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.