> Hi Ray,
>
> I'm mulling over what you've written in this and the other message.
> Meanwhile I find it impossible to believe what you wrote in one paragraph:
As I said Keith,
If this is the Washington Post writer, shill for the Cato institute, an
institute founded on tax irresponsibility and for the purpose of getting
more money for an already impossibly rich family, the Koch Corporation, then
I stand by what I said. How do I know? I listen and I called him on the
phone and talked to him. The tax scams that he and others are pushing,
i.e. Flat Tax with deduction limits in the neighborhood of $3,000 per person
would destroy the Not-For-Profit sector in America and with no state
funding due to their "socialist paranoia" there wouldn't be a single large
ensemble in America short of amateur choruses, orchestras and Little Theater
Companies.
As for quotes, access the internet. There are plenty. For example: He
is a "Friend of Liberty" who isn't? Anyone who doesn't agree with him.
He graduated summa cum laude at Harvard, translate he was one heck of an
undergraduate but it stopped there. I work with two Harvard composers who
make little money and if Glassman had his way, would make less. They of
course are PhDs. And finally, he is a TV and Financial personality,
translate a member of the Corporate Media that calls itself an expert on
things like the environment and education and claims that any expert who
disagrees with them is a "Liberal." Translate "Great Devil." It is not
America that has helped but "American Business." So their loyalty is to
business purely and simply. They make fun of the old Soviet System but
they are happy top hire Soviet trained personel as superior to American
Schools and they obviously have never worked with Soviet Artists. The
Metropolitan Opera has and they hired one to replace James Levine. So
much for Socialist Mediocrity. Glassman is a pleasant fellow but he is
mediocre himself. A typical child of privledged education with "Airs" but
not much substance.
The second scam is a tax on sales as the substitute for the income tax.
Which means that those who can't afford the taxes would be hit the hardest.
Bevely Sills the CEO of Lincoln Center has said that even that cultural
institution could not survive such a thing. I have no respect for
racists, bigots or people unwilling to acknowledge their good fortune for
living in such a place as America and to pay the rent for living here.
That being said: His idea of the future of work is pure factory, there is
no room for orchestras, choruses or companies that provide music on the
internet to those functions. Of course they all deny it but the key is
that they won't fund it so it dies. They are all creeps and charlatans who
long to be aristocracy while hiding behind Jefferson and Jackson. That
should be the clue. Jefferson was a chamber musician who liked the power
over his slave women with a good dose of guilt and Jackson was a genocidist
who was directly responsible for the deaths of my great-great Grandparents.
If there had not been a liberal Doctor in Mississippi who took my
great-great grandfather with his 9 siblings in, this conversation would be a
solo coming only from the UK.
Remember that the ideal society of the Cato Institute is Kansas.
Actually I misrepresent him. I don't know where he stands at present, but
I read a lot of his stuff on the net just to see that I remembered rightly.
I did.
Meanwhile this editorial came out in the NYTimes today.
REH
JUL 19, 2001
Clueless on Global Warming
For the second time in six weeks, President Bush, having rejected the Kyoto
Protocol on climate change, is headed to Europe without a strategy on global
warming, an issue of deep concern to America's allies. European leaders will
try to use the forthcoming Group of Eight summit meeting of industrialized
nations in Genoa to persuade Mr. Bush to relax his opposition to Kyoto.
Meanwhile, environmental ministers from a wider array of countries will be
making the same case to Paula Dobriansky, the assistant secretary of state
representing the administration at climate change talks in Bonn. The
Europeans should not get their hopes up. Mr. Bush described Kyoto last month
as "fatally flawed" because it would damage the American economy, and he has
not changed his mind.
Ms. Dobriansky thus has the unfortunate distinction of being the first
American climate change negotiator with no negotiating position. For all its
flaws, the Kyoto Protocol represented an important consensus that the
harmful consequences of climate change could be averted only if the nations
of the world - with the richer countries taking the lead - agreed to
mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and the other gases thought to cause
the warming of the earth's atmosphere. The treaty is cumbersome and its
targets need refinement. But it outlined a plausible framework for action
for which Mr. Bush has provided no alternative except for a few measures
announced last week calling for further research. If Japan decides to ratify
the treaty, America's isolation will be complete.
Fortunately, there has been a reassuring surge of interest in global warming
on Capitol Hill. With the growing support of progressive voices in the
electric power industry, three senators with pivotal roles in energy
policy - Jim Jeffords of Vermont, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Jeff
Bingaman of New Mexico - are pushing legislation that would reduce emissions
of all four of the main pollutants from power plants, including carbon
dioxide. They have also promised that any energy legislation emerging from
the Senate will include serious money for energy efficiency and renewable
energy sources. In addition, two senators not normally thought of as
environmentalists - Ted Stevens of Alaska and Robert Byrd of West Virginia -
have proposed investments in new technologies aimed at producing cleaner
fuels and industrial processes.
Potentially the most important development, however, was a report from a
National Academy of Sciences panel recommending a sharp improvement in fuel
economy standards for cars and vehicles classed as light trucks, like the
popular but inefficient S.U.V.'s. The recommendations, disclosed in
Tuesday's Times by Keith Bradsher, are noteworthy because the panel was
dominated by industry representatives and because Mr. Bush has promised to
pay attention to its findings. Fuel economy standards have not been raised
in 17 years. Indeed, the average miles per gallon of the American fleet have
actually declined because of the popularity of S.U.V.'s and minivans.
Scientists believe that improving vehicle mileage would be the biggest
contribution America could make to cutting emissions of global warming
gases. Cars and light trucks consume about 40 percent of the oil used in the
United States and account for more than one-fifth of the carbon dioxide
emissions. The panel recommends that the fuel economy of all new vehicles be
raised as much as 11 miles per gallon over the next 10 years, a 40 percent
improvement over today's levels.
That is a more ambitious target than anything the automobile industry or Mr.
Bush has agreed to. Nevertheless, the recommendations will give a boost to
the Democrats and moderate Republicans who plan to introduce fuel economy
legislation, and it certainly puts the administration on the spot. Vice
President Dick Cheney, chastened by criticism of the administration's
resource-driven energy strategy, is now saying all sorts of nice things
about the need for conservation. The administration's response on fuel
economy will say much about whether he means what he says.
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information
