destruction
-
Posts
925 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by destruction
-
-
Do you need a scooby snack little fella?
How tolerant of you?
LOL
<<<---Scooby snack. -
would you like some cheese w/ that.............................
you really don't count, do you?
Keep up the GREAT work Scooter! You truley are a gem!!!! God bless you, Junior!
-
Bush approval rating at 40 percent
Majority disapprove of the handling of Katrina, Iraq
Monday, September 19, 2005; Posted: 8:23 p.m. EDT (00:23 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's vow to rebuild the Gulf Coast did little to help his standing with the public, only 40 percent of whom now approve of his performance in office, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.
Just 41 percent of the 818 adults polled between Friday and Monday said they approved of Bush's handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, while 57 percent disapproved.
And support for his management of the war in Iraq has dropped to 32 percent, with 67 percent telling pollsters they disapproved of how Bush is prosecuting the conflict.
The survey had a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Fifty-nine percent said they considered the 2003 invasion of Iraq a mistake. That figure is the highest recorded in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
Only 39 percent said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. Sixty-three percent said they wanted to see some or all U.S. troops withdrawn from that country.
Just 35 percent of those polled approved of Bush's handling of the economy, with 63 percent saying they disapproved.
Bush's overall job approval number was 40 percent, with 58 percent of those surveyed telling pollsters they disapproved of his performance in office. It is the second time his approval rating has hit that low a mark.
His personal qualities hit fresh lows: Only 49 percent called him a strong and decisive leader, down from 54 percent in July and 51 percent in August. Just 42 percent said he cares about people like themselves, and 47 percent called him honest and trustworthy.
By contrast, 51 percent did not consider him strong and decisive, 50 percent would not call him honest and 56 percent said he didn't care about people like them.
The poll did contain one bright spot for Bush, as 60 percent of those surveyed supported the confirmation of John Roberts, his pick for chief justice of the United States. Just 26 percent opposed Roberts' confirmation, while 14 percent had no opinion.
New Orleans speech
In a nationally televised speech Thursday from New Orleans' Jackson Square, Bush pledged to put the full might and money of the federal government behind the rebuilding of the hurricane-stricken region
He also vowed to find out what went wrong during the disaster response so that it never happens again.
He said the federal government will cover the "great majority" of the costs of reconstruction, estimated at $150 billion and up.
And he conceded that the response to the disaster overwhelmed "every level of government" in the days following the hurricane.
But only 25 percent of those polled said they had great confidence in his administration's ability to rebuild the city and other Gulf Coast communities battered by Katrina, which slammed ashore August 29.
Another 43 percent said they had a moderate amount of confidence in the administration, 21 percent said they had little confidence and 10 percent said they had none.
Nearly 900 deaths have been blamed on Katrina, which struck near the Louisiana-Mississippi state line.
The chaotic response and sharp criticism of federal authorities prompted the resignation of Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown and raised fears that the federal response to a major terrorist attack would be equally disorganized.
Fifty percent of those polled said they feared the federal government would spend too much on reconstruction.
Forty-five percent said Americans should make "major sacrifices" to pay for the effort, but only 20 percent said they would be willing to make those sacrifices themselves.
Seventeen percent said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to support reconstruction efforts, and 15 percent favored financing the cost with more deficit spending. Six percent said they would pay for reconstruction efforts with cuts in domestic spending.
War spending
Fifty-four percent told pollsters they would cut spending for the war in Iraq to pay for disaster relief.
Thirty percent favored a full U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and slightly more -- 33 percent -- said they would support a partial withdrawal.
Only 26 percent said they wanted to keep the number of troops at the current level of 138,000, and 8 percent said they wanted to see more troops deployed there.
A U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003 based on the contention that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was concealing weapons of mass destruction in violation of U.N. resolutions and could have provided those weapons to terrorists.
No such weapons were found after Saddam's ouster, though a U.S. probe found Baghdad concealed some weapons-related research from U.N. inspectors.
Nearly 1,900 U.S. troops and an estimated tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed since the invasion.
The Bush administration now says U.S. troops are needed to secure the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq.
-
F-ing republicans...Make me sick....
What are we gonna do now? Oh my God! What are we gonna do???
waaah,,,wahhhhhwaaaahh,,
Damn those terrorist! Damn Mother Nature! Damn Bush! Damn the democrats,,,,ooopp..that last one was a mistake,,,i mean,,,damn Bush! Damn Republicans,,,,,,,
wwwhhaaaaaaahhhhhhhh--
mama,,mama.,,,mama!!!!!!!
I hate this world, I hate Bush and I hate myself......There's no place like home,,there's no place like home.........todo? is that you?
LOL...
U guys are friggin' pathetic!
Get a grip! Get a hold of yourself man! Did you get sand in your clit or something!!
Act like a man for crying out loud!
LOL
-
*Mental note. Demonstrate in DC this weekend.*
-
-
Actually,,,its "KOOMBAYA"...but I,,,,ah fugetaboutit...
I'm all love maaaan! Can't hang w/ descruxchun....he's all hate...
If you've read my previous posts,,you'll see that I'm taking a break from bringing perspective to this board.
I thought I'd do as the others do....When in Rome, right?
So, as someone once said. What better way to illustrate absurdity than by being JUST AS ABSURD........
destruction is a goon and a tool. All he knows is Bush is the devil. (Somebody clue him into the fact that Bush can't run for another term...)....
Now, where was I? Oh yeah,,,
DESTRUCTION WAS SAYING :"the sky is falling, the sky is falling......my pussy hurts, my tits are sore,,,my brown eye is throbbing......somebody get me some granola,,,QUICK! LOL
I am sorry that the sixth grade writing level was too hard for you dr. irrolgic. I am also sorry that you could not get the education you deserve to be able to properly converse with regular people. You might want to get someone who can spell to write a letter to your representative and ask for education reform.
-
no shit. and as the article says, cases like that usually get thrown out of court anyhow so, what's the diff??? Like I didn't know this???
-
Those are the very words of those who get owned. Remarkable.
-
September 18th, 2005 3:34 pm
Army recruiting protesters face federal trial
Group that poured blood to protest Iraq war looking at serious charges.
By Michelle York / Alameda Times-Star
They wanted the fresh recruits, the ones they believed had been seduced by video games and government lies, to see the blood and think about those destined to shed it: the Iraqi people and American soldiers. They refused to leave and prayed while they waited to be arrested.
Jesus of Nazareth inspired them, they said, as did their parents and several well-known Vietnam-era protesters, including the brothers Daniel and Philip Berrigan.
In an unusual move, the protesters are now facing federal prosecution and harsher potential penalties after a jury deadlocked in state court. "It's a clear attempt to raise the stakes for those contemplating civil disobedience around the country," said William P. Quigley, a law professor at Loyola University who is a friend of the defendants and their legal adviser.
The group — which calls itself the St. Patrick's Four because the protest took place on St. Patrick's Day in 2003 — faces charges including damaging government property and conspiracy to impede an officer of the United States. Their trial is set to begin Monday in federal court in Binghamton.
The case did not automatically end up in federal court. The protesters were first charged with felony criminal mischief in Tompkins County, which includes Lansing, the Ithaca suburb where the protest took place.
The District Attorney there, George M. Dentes, offered a plea bargain under which members of the group would receive no jail time if they pleaded guilty to a reduced charge. The protesters — Daniel J. Burns, 45; Clare T. Grady, 46; her sister, Teresa B. Grady, 40; and Peter J. De Mott, 58 — refused. "Millions of people all over the world were saying the war would be a mistake and would result in a large loss of human life," De Mott said. "We were a part of that."
All have some experience with the workings of the criminal justice system stemming from previous arrests. They opted to take the case to trial, acting as their own lawyers. "They wanted a soapbox," Dentes said.
During the April 2004 trial, Tompkins County Judge John Sherman allowed the protesters to explain their motivations, and to testify at length that they felt compelled because of their political and religious beliefs. "The moment I learned of that, I knew it was a hopeless case," Dentes said. "This case was about damaging government property. It was preposterous that the trial was not about whether they broke the law — they completely admitted they did — but a philosophical debate about the war."
During the weeklong trial, the defendants also spoke at length about their lives. Teresa and Clare Grady grew up going to the trials of their activist parents. Most notably, their father, John Grady, was among the Camden 28, a group of protesters who were acquitted of stealing and destroying draft records from a federal building in New Jersey in 1971. The acquittal was a major victory for antiwar protesters after five years of draft-record scuffles.
De Mott is a former Vietnam veteran and a seminary student who testified that he was gradually moved to become an activist after he left the military.
Burns is the son of a former mayor of Binghamton, whose family was also involved in antiwar protests.
The jury deadlocked, with nine members voting for acquittal. Dentes said he believed that the protesters had gotten away with a crime, that the outcome created "a system for chaos" and that the spattering of blood had been potentially dangerous. But fearing a similar outcome if he retried the case, he referred it to federal authorities.
If convicted, the protesters would face up to six years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Miroslav Lovric, the prosecutor in the case, did not return repeated phone calls for comment.
As with the state trial, the outcome in the federal case will most likely be determined by how much leeway the judge gives the defendants to explain their state of mind, Quigley said. "There's a network of lawyers who are worried this case will set a precedent" and nonviolent protesters across the country will now be charged with federal conspiracy, he said.
The judge will also determine how much the jury will learn of their arrest records. In 1984, Clare Grady was convicted of charges similar to those she faces today when she was among a disarmament group called Plowshares that hammered and poured blood on a B-52 bomber at Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, N.Y. She served 15 months in prison. De Mott has been in and out of jail since 1979 for civil disobedience. He cannot remember the exact number of times he has been arrested, but said he usually "rounds it off to two dozen."
All are members of the Catholic Worker movement, an activist group that encourages civil disobedience, and they model themselves on the Berrigan brothers, two priests who were among the most aggressive and recognized protesters of the 1960s and 1970s.
"We understand protests and people exercising their right to free speech, but when it comes to the point of interrupting the operations of the recruiting stations, it's unacceptable," said S. Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Recruiting Headquarters in Fort Knox.
Generally, Americans are reluctant to send protesters to prison for such actions, said Lawrence S. Wittner, a history professor at State University of New York at Albany who studies peace movements and public opinion. "It's part of the tradition of nonviolent resistance in the United States, and it doesn't just date back to the civil rights movement and Vietnam," he said, "but to the Quakers and to Henry David Thoreau, who refused to pay taxes to show his resistance to the Mexican War."
The St. Patrick's Four has a better chance for an acquittal or a hung jury today than shortly after their arrest, he said, because of increasing unfavorable opinions over the war.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/news/ci_3040534
"Civil disobedience is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Monday, September 19th, 2005
See You in D.C.
A message from Cindy Sheehan
So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.(MLK, Jr. Aug. 28, 1963, I Have a Dream speech)What Bush's Katrina shows once again is that my son died for nothing. If you listen to Bush – and fewer and fewer are, thank goodness -- we are in Iraq in part due to 9/11. All our president has been talking about has been protecting this country since 9/11. That's why people voted for him in the last election. Katrina shows it's all as sham, a fraud, a disaster as large as Katrina itself.
Hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of innocent lives wasted later what have we achieved? Nothing. Casey died for nothing and Bush says others have to die for those that have died already.
Enough, George! What is disgusting is not, as the first lady says, criticism of you, but rather the crimes you've committed against this country and our sons and daughters. Stop hiding behind your twisted idea of God and stop destroying this country.
This week I arrive in Washington DC to begin my Vigil at the White House just like I did in Texas. But this time I'll be joined by Katrina victims as well. In your America we are all victims. The failed bookends of your Presidency are Iraq and Katrina.
It is time for all of us to stand up and be counted: to show the media, Congress, and this inept, corrupt, and criminal administration that we mean business. It is time to get off of our collective behinds to show the people who are running our country into oblivion that we will stand for it no longer. We want our country back and we want our nation's young people back home, safe and sound, on our shores to help protect America. That it is time for a change in our country's "leadership." That we will never go away until our dreams are reality.
We have so-called leaders in our country who are waiting for the correct "politically expedient" time to speak up and out against the occupation of Iraq. It is no sweat for our politicos to wait for the right time, because not one of them has a child in harm's way. I don't care if the politician is a Democrat or a Republican, this is not about politics. Being a strong leader to guide our country out of the quagmire and mistake of Iraq will require people of courage and determination to stand up and say: "I don't care if I win the next election, people are dying in Iraq everyday and families are being decimated." We as the 62% of Americans who want our troops to begin coming home will follow such a leader down the difficult, but oh so rewarding, path of peace with justice.
It is no longer time for the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. It never has been the time for that. Our "now" is so fiercely urgent. Like my daughter, Carly, wrote in the last verse of her "A Nation Rocked to Sleep" poem:
Have you ever heard the sound of a Nation Being Rocked to Sleep?Our leaders want to keep us numb so the pain won't be too deep,But if we the people allow them to continue, another mother will weep,Have you heard the sound of a Nation Being Rocked to Sleep?Wake up: See you in DC on the 24th.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169469,00.html
Poll: Bush Rating at Record Low
Thursday, September 15, 2005
By Dana Blanton
NEW YORK — Two weeks after Hurricane Katrina (search) made landfall on Louisiana, a new FOX News poll finds that Americans think hurricane relief should be President George W. Bush’s top domestic priority right now — outdistancing several other hot button issues, including the economy and gas prices. Bush’s approval rating has taken a hit since the hurricane and now sits at the lowest level of his presidency. The bright side of Katrina: A majority of the public thinks the hurricane will ultimately make the country stronger and most believe that Americans are pulling together more now than they have for previous disasters.
The poll finds that helping those affected by the hurricane should be the number one item on the president’s domestic to-do list. From a list of seven issue areas, a plurality (27 percent) says hurricane relief should be the top priority for Bush right now, the economy comes in second (17 percent), followed closely by homeland security (14 percent) and gas prices (10 percent). No other issue receives double-digit support, though at 9 percent health care comes closest — edging out Social Security (8 percent) and education (5 percent).
Today, 41 percent of voters approve and 51 percent disapprove of President Bush’s performance, which is the lowest job rating he has received in a FOX News poll. The president’s approval rating is down 4 percentage points from two weeks ago (45 percent, August 30-31), around the time the magnitude of Katrina’s damage was becoming clear. Before the hurricane, 47 percent approved and 44 percent disapproved (July 26-27).
For most of Bush’s presidency, approval among his party faithful has not only been well above 80 percent, but also for a significant amount of time above 90 percent. The average approval rating for his presidency among Republicans is 90 percent; today 81 percent approve. Bush’s approval rating has gone into single digits among Democrats, coming in at 8 percent in this week’s poll. For independents, 30 percent approve.
Opinion Dynamics Corporation conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News on September 13-14.
Ratings for Congress have actually improved slightly since Hurricane Katrina. Two weeks ago, 28 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved of the job Congress is doing (August 30-31). Today, 34 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove.
Last week Sen. Hillary Clinton (search), D-N.Y., called for an independent commission to investigate the government’s response to the catastrophe. By 46 percent to 32 percent voters think Clinton’s request was politically motivated rather than sincere. In addition, more than twice as many respondents think Democrats (40 percent) are trying to use the hurricane for political gain than think Republicans are (15 percent), though one in five think both sides are.
Voters are somewhat more likely to blame state and local governments in Louisiana and Mississippi than the federal government for the problems responding to Hurricane Katrina. Forty-two percent say the state and local governments are more responsible, while 29 percent say the federal government and 19 percent say "both." Earlier this week President Bush said, "To the extent the federal government didn’t fully do its job right, I take responsibility," and yesterday Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco (search) made a similar comment.
If a disaster were to strike in their area, clear majorities say their state (62 percent) and local (62 percent) officials are prepared to handle it. An even higher number — 71 percent — say their family is prepared.
Many Americans (57 percent) support people being forced to leave their homes during a mandatory evacuation, with less than half as many (25 percent) in support of allowing people to stay no matter what. If given one or two days notice of a potential disaster, the poll finds hardly any Americans (5 percent) say they would stay put, as fully 83 percent say they would evacuate.
"These figures show a common problem in survey research," comments Opinion Dynamics Chairman John Gorman. "People have faith in their own government and their own behavior, but are ready to fault others. While hurricane alerts will probably get more respect for the next couple of years, human nature being what it is, we can expect that history will repeat itself, if not on the scale of Katrina, sooner rather than later."
At 33 percent, hurricanes top the list of natural disasters most likely to keep people from living in a certain area of the country, followed by earthquakes (26 percent), tornadoes (14 percent) and floods (12 percent).
Some blame global warming for Katrina’s extraordinary strength (22 percent), however more than half (56 percent) think the storm’s power was more likely a random act of nature. A sizable 40 percent minority believes natural disasters are messages from a higher being, but just over half disagree (51 percent).
Though opinion is sharply divided, a slim plurality of Americans say they are more concerned about a natural disaster (36 percent) than about a terrorist attack (34 percent) happening in their area. Twenty-one percent say neither threat concerns them.
Nearly half think the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks will have a greater, long-term affect on the country, while 28 percent think Hurricane Katrina will and 21 percent think both equally.
A few positive highlights: A majority (56 percent) thinks that in the future New Orleans will come back better than it was before, 61 percent think Hurricane Katrina will ultimately make the country stronger and 71 percent say they feel like Americans are pulling together more in response to Katrina than they have for previous disasters.
An overwhelming 86 percent say they have prayed for the victims and 73 percent say they have donated money to a relief organization. Moreover, a sizable majority is confident (21 percent "very" and 47 percent "somewhat") the donated funds are reaching those in need.
The hurricane has spurred another kind of action as well, as almost four in 10 say that since Katrina they have taken steps to prepare their family for an emergency.
Gas Prices
On the issue of gas prices, almost all Americans say they are taking action: 85 percent say they have tried to conserve gasoline, including over half that say they have tried to conserve "a lot."
The poll finds that a 57-percent majority supports suspending the federal gasoline tax until gas prices come down.
Who controls prices anyway? Without the aid of being read a list, just over a third (36 percent) say they think domestic oil producers have the most control over gas prices, while roughly equal numbers think the government (13 percent), OPEC (12 percent) and the president (10 percent). Only 5 percent think consumers control prices.
Even so, two-thirds say they would "seriously be willing" to join a nation-wide movement to cut gasoline consumption by 10 percent to get the attention of oil producers.
-
Capitalizing on Katrina
By Amanda Griscom Little
Salon.com
Saturday 17 September 2005
Republican lawmakers are using hurricane relief as an excuse to roll back environmental protections.Hurricane Katrina has triggered a whirlwind of new energy proposals in Congress - some gratifying to environmental activists, most galling.
The long-awaited energy bill that President Bush gleefully signed into law a mere month ago started looking sadly outdated when viewed against a backdrop of slackened oil production along the Gulf Coast, crippled refineries, gasoline shortages and soaring prices at the pump.
On Sept. 6, the day Congress reconvened after its summer recess, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee penned an uncharacteristically conservation-minded letter to the White House: "We would encourage you to make the federal government the leader in [fuel-conservation] efforts by instructing all federal agencies to curtail discretionary vehicle travel," the 22 committee members unanimously exhorted, "to accelerate procurement of high-efficiency or alternatively fueled vehicles, and to take other measures to conserve gasoline, aviation, and diesel fuel use by the federal government, except where needed to support essential functions and missions."
Then, Pete Domenici, Republican from New Mexico and chair of the Senate Energy Committee, made headlines when he declared that it was time for lawmakers to consider slapping stricter miles-per-gallon standards on auto manufacturers, mere weeks after pushing though an energy bill that was notably empty of fuel-economy requirements. "I believe we must take another look at CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] standards," Domenici said. Other conservative Republicans in the Senate, including Lindsay Graham, R-N.C., and Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, have also starting talking about revisiting CAFE standards.
Next the bug moved to the House. On Wednesday of this week, a coalition of 10 Republicans and eight Democrats introduced a House bill calling for an 8-mile-per-gallon increase in the average fuel economy of automakers' fleets over a decade - from the current 25 mpg to 33. It's largely the same measure that was proposed - and rejected - as an amendment to the energy bill earlier this year.
Proponents of stronger fuel-economy standards are happy to see the issue gaining more traction, but they're not holding their breath. Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming and energy program, predicts that the House bill stands little chance of passing. "You'd be able to knock me over with a feather if it did," he said.
Plenty of other energy-related proposals look to have better prospects, but they're largely of the "pillage and plunder" variety, according to Becker. "We're basically seeing all the bad stuff industry advocates couldn't squeeze onto the energy bill reemerge in these post-Katrina proposals," he said.
Katrina exposed the extreme vulnerability of US oil infrastructure, but instead of pushing for a more diversified energy system that would make good use of renewables and enhance long-term energy security, many Republicans want to perpetuate the fossil-fuel-based status quo.
On Tuesday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, announced that he and Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, have a whole new energy bill in mind - "We are working on one as we speak," he said at a press conference - that would not only open up protected areas, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to oil and gas drilling, but also fast-track the environmental review process required to obtain permits for building new oil refineries.
Said Barton the previous week, "If there is a silver lining in this tragic situation, it may be that our country understands how fragile our energy sector is ... We can't just get our oil and gas from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and the Gulf of Mexico. We need to diversify our domestic oil resources."
Despite warming up to the idea of tighter fuel-economy rules, Ted Stevens is thinking along the very same lines: "ANWR will have greater support than it would have had before Katrina," he told the Anchorage Daily News. "I would say woe onto him or her who really opposes the actions that are going to be necessary to restore our energy pattern."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has expressed his intention to fast-track energy legislation this fall, according to Becker. "I heard from a Senate office there will be a new energy bill that Frist will try to move through Congress quickly in the coming weeks by taking it straight to a vote on the Senate floor, without having hearings first." Becker predicts that the bill will "seize on Katrina to expand domestic fossil-fuel production" and possibly attempt to lift the moratorium on oil drilling on Florida's outer continental shelf. If there is a CAFE component, says Becker, "it will act merely as window dressing to gussy up a massive handout to industry."
As for the Arctic Refuge, Frist already has that covered: Last Monday, he reiterated plans to complete a budget reconciliation bill by Oct. 26, which will include a proposal to lift the ban on drilling in the refuge. Only 51 votes will be needed because reconciliation bills are exempt from filibusters.
Still other environment-threatening proposals dropped from the pre-Katrina energy bill are making a comeback, including liability protection for producers of the gasoline additive MTBE and measures that would expedite the construction of new pipelines and terminals for liquefied natural gas. Oil lobbyists are also requesting tax relief and rollbacks on the US EPA's hard-won low-sulfur standards for diesel fuel used by trucks and buses, which are set to go into effect in 2006.
Kevin Curtis, vice president of National Environmental Trust, said the frenzy of new energy-related proposals reveals just how myopic the energy bill really was. "It's just astounding that not a month after the Republican leaders in Congress set into motion their much-ballyhooed 10-year plan to chart the course of America's energy future, the whole thing has been turned on its head," he said. "America can already look back and marvel that its supposedly forward-looking 'energy-security' plan couldn't stand the test of one hurricane."
Amanda Griscom Little is a columnist for Grist Magazine. Her articles on energy, technology and the environment have appeared in publications ranging from Rolling Stone to the New York Times Magazine.
-
Friday, September 16th, 2005
New Orleans Police Harass Independent Journalist
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD
As President Bush says he'll rebuild New Orleans, we speak with Hip Hop activist and independent journalist Rosa Clemente about the crackdown in the shelters. She describes being harassed by a New Orleans police officer while doing interviews at a Red Cross shelter. [includes rush transcript] Yesterday evening President Bush addressed the nation from the devastated city of New Orleans. He spoke in Jackson Square, in the heart of the French Quarter and said that the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina will be one of the largest reconstruction projects the world has ever seen. He also acknowledged that the government failed to respond adequately to the disaster. African Americans have been particularly angered by the government response to the disaster, with an overwhelming majority telling pollsters they believe help would have come quicker if so many of the people stranded had not been poor and black. Bush seemed to be responding to those charges by mentioning the role of persistent poverty in the region.
- President Bush, primetime address from New Orleans, September 15, 2005.
President Bush faced the nation at a vulnerable point in his presidency. Most Americans disapprove of his handling of Katrina, and his job-approval rating is at the lowest point of his presidency. In his speech, Bush promised to review the government response and cooperate in a Congressional investigation into what went wrong. He also said that a disaster on the scale of Katrina requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces.
- President Bush, primetime address from New Orleans, September 15, 2005.
We speak with activist Rosa Clemente who recently returned from New Orleans.
- Rosa Clemente, a Malcolm X Fellow for the Institute of the Black World and an organizer with the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement. She just returned from New Orleans.
- For more go to: RosaClemente.com
RUSH TRANSCRIPT This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: Yesterday evening President Bush addressed the nation from the devastated city of New Orleans. He spoke in Jackson Square, in the heart of the French Quarter and said that the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina will be one of the largest reconstruction projects the world has ever seen. He also acknowledged that the government failed to respond adequately to the disaster. African Americans have been particularly angered by the government response to the disaster, with an overwhelming majority telling pollsters they believe help would have come quicker if so many of the people stranded had not been poor and black. Bush seemed to be responding to those charges by mentioning the role of persistent poverty in the region.
GEORGE W. BUSH:When communities are rebuilt, they must be even better and stronger than before the storm. Within the Gulf region are some of the most beautiful and historic places in America. As all of us saw on television, there's also some deep, persistent poverty in this region, as well. That poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality. When the streets are rebuilt, there should be many new businesses, including minority-owned businesses, along those streets. When the houses are rebuilt, more families should own, not rent, those houses. When the regional economy revives, local people should be prepared for the jobs being created. Americans want the Gulf Coast not just to survive, but to thrive; not just to cope, but to overcome. We want evacuees to come home, for the best of reasons -- because they have a real chance at a better life in a place they love.AMY GOODMAN: President Bush speaking in New Orleans. He faced the nation at a vulnerable point in his presidency. Most Americans disapprove of his handling of the hurricane, and his job approval rating is at the lowest point of his presidency. In his speech, Bush promised to review the government response and cooperate in a congressional investigation into what went wrong. He also said a disaster on the scale of Katrina requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces.
GEORGE W. BUSH:I also want to know all the facts about the government response to Hurricane Katrina. The storm involved a massive flood, a major supply and security operation, and an evacuation order affecting more than a million people. It was not a normal hurricane -- and the normal disaster relief system was not equal to it. Many of the men and women of the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the United States military, the National Guard, Homeland Security, and state and local governments performed skillfully under the worst conditions. Yet the system, at every level of government, was not well-coordinated, and was overwhelmed in the first few days. It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces -- the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice. Four years after the frightening experience of September the 11th, Americans have every right to expect a more effective response in a time of emergency. When the federal government fails to meet such an obligation, I as President, am responsible for the problem, and for the solution.AMY GOODMAN: President Bush speaking on Thursday from New Orleans. We're now joined by Rosa Clemente. She’s a Malcolm X fellow for the Institute of the Black World and an organizer with the Malcolm X Grass Roots Movement. She just drove in from New Orleans. Welcome to Democracy Now!.
ROSA CLEMENTE: Thanks for having me, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, you had quite an experience for the brief time you were there. Talk about why you were there and what happened?
ROSA CLEMENTE: I felt I needed to go, particularly as a younger person of color. I think this is a watershed moment for particularly black and people of African descent in America, and I wanted to be there. I didn't want it to be filtered through anyone's eyes but my own and my partner who went down with me, Brad Young. And it's just – It was my duty to be there, to be able to report back particularly to the hip hop generation, and I was also very upset at the low, low numbers of people of color, journalists, that I saw on the ground. The only ones I really saw were folks from CNN and mainstream media, and as I'm a proud member of alternative and progressive media here in New York, it was my duty to be there.
AMY GOODMAN: So, what happened when you went, particularly to look at the shelters? You went where, to the –
ROSA CLEMENTE: Well, first we went to New Orleans, and actually, we went to the Convention Center and, you know, just saw real estate speculators there and Blackwater mercenaries protecting property and didn't realize that the Marriott and the Wyndham hotel were across the Convention Center and began to ask the question: Why weren't those hotels taken over as eminent domain? That's the question I have. If someone can take my private property for – to build a highway or a medical facility, why were these hotels not opened to let these people not languish in what can only be described as a living hell. And to see the militarization. We then went to Algiers and spent the day with Malik Rahim. We could not leave because of the curfew, and that was a first experience for me. It was an experience to have an M-16 pointed at my car and from –
AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean?
ROSA CLEMENTE: When we got on I-10 West, we went to a military checkpoint, and when we pulled up, three of the National Guards just had M-16's pointed at the front of the car, and the side door and the side door, the two front doors. Then we went to the next military checkpoint, and they told us we could not go in at all. We snuck in and we got on Canal Street and we worked our way through that whole area. We then went to Algiers again to spend the day with Malik Rahim and also see the levee, and see what’s going on with that and to see the amazing work that Malik Rahim and Indymedia folks are doing by setting up a command center. It was amazing to be there to see that being built.
AMY GOODMAN: And I encourage people to go to our website, Democracynow.org. We also went with Malik, a community organizer in the Algiers neighborhood, right to the health center which was around the corner. It's closed, the Arthur Monday Health Center. But in the driveway has been a dead body for two weeks. And as he was telling us that he has told every level of authority, concerned about disease, the disrespect to the bodies, been there since the day of the hurricane, every level of that authority drove by, and we went up to them and asked them, “There's a dead body here, will you be picking it up?†Louisiana State Police, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Army, the First Cav, the Department of Homeland Security, an ambulance drove by, and yet this has been going on for two weeks.
ROSA CLEMENTE: Yeah. I mean, I think the one thing that struck me was the smell, when I realized that it's the smell of death in the air of New Orleans, and that was just shocking because I have only kind of seen that on TV, right, and when people make that face, but – and we saw things that looked like body parts, but of course, I just couldn't look – but it didn't look – it looked like human body parts that had been mutilated in the garbage cans behind the Convention Center. As of Monday, when we looked in the Convention Center, you could see the remnants of everything, and just – it's just horrific just to see that. So, Malik had told us about that that dead body that I think was finally picked up.
AMY GOODMAN: Oh, really? Well that would have been in the last few days. Talk about the shelter where people who have been evacuated are staying, where you tried to document?
ROSA CLEMENTE: Yeah. We then went to the Baton Rouge River Center, which is the largest shelter in Louisiana, seven miles away from Governor Blanco's mansion. She has not visited there. We were asking residents, “How many times has the Governor come here to visit?†They said, “Not one time.†There's about four thousand people in that shelter. It's supposed to be, “one of the best-run American Red Cross shelters.†It can only be described as a prison. Everyone we talked to in there said it was a prison-like facility. Well, you have to go through metal detectors to get in. There's a curfew. When we did get in there and had registered earlier with the Red Cross as media, we were then stopped – the National Guard let us in, and us being someone that was traveling with us, a lawyer, and the videographer, Brad Young.
When we got in there, the National Guard let us in, but then the Baton Rouge Police Department said something to the National Guard and the National Guard said, “You can't come in. You're not media.†“What do you mean, I'm not media. Here's my press pass.†“Well, you're not the media I know.†And I said, “Who I do talk to?†And they said, “An American Red Cross volunteer.†They sent someone over and the American Red Cross volunteer said, “You're over time. Interviews can only happen up until 6:00 p.m.†I said, “I called the Red Cross and in fact, I see CNN in here with a camera. So, what's going on?†So, we were audio – you know, I was – I had my mini disc on and Brad had his camera on and then the – it was the Baton Rouge Police officer who said, “Turn your equipment off.†We said, “We're not turning our equipment off until we're told by someone from the American Red Cross. You don't run this shelter. You are here to enforce the law.†He said, “I'm here to do whatever I want. Turn it off.†We refused to. He then grabbed Brad, threw him over the table, and pulled out the handcuffs and went to arrest him.
Something ensued in that point. I was not watching. I was more mini-discing the kind of chaos because then the people coming in started to kind of stop and say, “What's going on? Why can't they videotape?†People were noticing, “Well, they're the only black people here. Why are you not stopping those other people on the corner, right here, the CNN crew?†And Brad got escorted out along with the lawyer that was with me. I was left there. The officers said, “I want your tape.†“Why do you want my tape?†He said, “Because you said my name into the tape.†I said, “Your name is public information.†He said, “You're slandering me, give me your tape.†He went to grab my mini disc and I backed up, and he said, “You're under arrest.†I said, “Am I being detained?†He said, “No, you're under arrest.†He then begins to call for his backup, backup, and I said, “Well what are you going to do?†He goes, “Come over here.†I said, “You are going to have to grab me and you are going to have to physically – you are going to have to put handcuffs on me.†He said, “Give me your mini disc; I'm not going to ask you again.†So, I popped the tape out. I put it in my pants and I handed him the mini disc. I said “Here's the mini disc. You didn't ask for the tape. If you want the tape, you have to strip search me in public.†He called for backup again. I said, “Am I under arrest?†“You're under arrest.†“Can I leave?†“You're under arrest.†The Lieutenant came with three other people, I guess more superior to him, and they whispered, had a little conversation. The Lieutenant goes, who are you with? I said “I'm here with Pacifica – I'm a reporter with Pacifica radio. I'm also corresponding for many – the Bev Smith Showâ€, and I gave him the rundown. He said, “Let me see your press credentials.†I showed it to him. He said, “On behalf of the Baton Rouge Police Department, Miss Clemente, we apologize. You're free to go.â€
We then went outside and stayed until curfew, which is 10 p.m. and got amazing interviews with some young men who actually said “I'd rather be in prison because at least in prison, I have information.†When we asked them what that meant, what it meant is that they're not – they don't get papers. For four thousand people, there's only three TVs. For four thousand people there's only three computers. They can only go on the computer not to access websites but to download FEMA forms. Then they download these FEMA forms, but many people are illiterate. There's no one there to help them. There were no Spanish language translators although there's a sizable Latino population in there. There's a Filipino and Vietnamese population, and no translators for them. So they have other people kind of looking out for them. You know, they are giving kids – the Church of Scientology is the biggest organization in there. There was about forty of them. What they do is every hour they go and give kids lollipops and little juices, and potato chips. We asked the young men “What kind of food are you getting?†They get a bagel and orange juice in the morning. They get a peanut butter and jelly sandwich during the day, and they get ravioli with some type of white sauce, a scoop of corn and a piece of bread. Some of the young men are not allowed to wear sneakers because if they're already labeled as a, quote, “gang memberâ€, they're not allowing them to wear sneakers. They have to wear what we call “prison slippersâ€. I mean, just – Amy, it just goes on and on and on.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, if people want to see your reports, you can go to Rosa's website at rosaclemente.com. Rosa, thanks for being with us.
ROSA CLEMENTE: Amy, thank you so much for having me.
To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.
- President Bush, primetime address from New Orleans, September 15, 2005.
-
Experts say global warming is causing stronger hurricanes
By Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer
WASHINGTON — The number of hurricanes in the most powerful categories — like Katrina and Andrew — has increased sharply over the past few decades, according to a new analysis sure to stir debate over whether global warming is worsening these deadly storms.
Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane while in the Gulf of Mexico, but made landfall as a Category 4.
NOAA
While studies have not found an overall increase in tropical systems worldwide, the number of storms reaching categories 4 and 5 grew from about 11 per year in the 1970s to 18 per year since 1990, according to a report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
Peter J. Webster of the Georgia Institute of Technology said it's the warm water vapor from the oceans that drives tropical storms, and as the water gets warmer the amount of evaporation increases, providing more fuel for the tempests. Between 1970 and 2004 the average sea surface temperature in the tropics rose nearly 1°F.
Co-author Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said the researchers can't say rising sea-surface temperatures caused Hurricane Katrina. But their study shows the potential for more Katrina-like events to occur, he said.
Katrina was a category 5 storm at sea and was category 4 when it made landfall. The increase in storms they found is for category 4 and 5. Category 4 storms have wind speeds of 131 mph to 155 mph and Category 5 is for storms with sustained winds of 156 mph and over. (Related graphic: Saffir-Simpson scale of hurricane intensity.)
Co-author Judith Curry of Georgia Tech said the team is confident that the measured increase in sea surface temperatures is associated with global warming, adding that the increase in category 4 and 5 storms "certainly has an element that global warming is contributing to."
There is a natural variability of the climate and some would interpret the changing number of storms to be part of that variability, Holland said. But the variability in the past has been over 10-year periods, and this is sustained over 30 years.
Webster added that sea surface temperatures "are rising everywhere in the tropics and that is not connected to any natural variability we know."
In their analysis of hurricanes — known as typhoons or cyclones in other parts of the world — the researchers counted 16 category 4 and 5 storms in the Atlantic-Caribbean-Gulf of Mexico in 1975-1989. This increased to 25 in the 1990-2004 period.
In the eastern Pacific the increase was from 36 to 49 storms and it went from 85 to 116 in the western Pacific. In the southwest Pacific the increase was from 10 to 22 powerful storms, while the total went from one to seven in the north Indian Ocean and from 23 to 50 in the south Indian Ocean.
Kerry Emanuel, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reported in August in the journal Nature that hurricanes in both the Atlantic and Pacific have increased in duration and intensity since the 1970s. (Related story: Global warming fueling nastier storms, expert says.)
While the new study looks at the problem differently, "we are clearly seeing the same signal in the data," Emanuel said.
But other researchers were cautious.
Christopher Landsea, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division in Miami, questioned the data showing an increase in major storms, saying the estimates of the wind speed in storms in the 1970s may not be accurate.
The study looked at storms worldwide, and "for most of the world there was no way to determine objectively what the winds were in 1970," he said. The techniques used today were invented later and infrared satellite studies weren't available until the 1980s, Landsea said.
The Atlantic-Caribbean-Gulf of Mexico region is the best monitored in the world and that region had the smallest increase, he noted.
"This really highlights the need to go back and get all the original data ... and reanalyze the storms with today's techniques," Landsea said in a telephone interview. "These are billion dollar questions and we need to better answer them."
Holland agreed there have been changes in the observing system since the 1970s but noted the increase has been steady over the period, "it didn't just kick in when the new measurement methods kicked in."
The fact that the trend is smaller in the Atlantic basin is beside the point, he added, because it has gone up as there well.
"The end result is that there is no doubt that there is a substantial increase here," Holland said.
Roger Pielke, director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said the report "reinforces the view that we should pay even greater attention to preparing for the inevitability of future intense hurricanes striking vulnerable locations around the world. In the context of ever-growing coastal development, the costs of hurricanes are going to continue to escalate."
Neither Emanuel, Landsea nor Pielke was part of Webster's research team.
Webster's research was funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2005-09-15-globalwarming-hurricanes_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
-
Calling dr. logic
-
but photoshop was used in the posting of that picture.... http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001137642
Wow. If brains were gasoline, you wouldn't have enough to run a piss ant's go-kart around the inside of a donut.
Once he saw what it said, Hershorn decided the note was interesting and worth publishing. The white parts of the picture were overexposed, so a Reuters processor used Photoshop to burn down the note. This is a standard practice for news photos, Hershorn says, and the picture was not manipulated in any other way.
"Hershorn says, and the picture was not manipulated in any other way."
Is this what you did not want to say?
So they did use photoshop. So what? All the news agencies use it now. Even the news mags use it.
They used photoshop to burn down the the white parts of the picture that was over-exposed to better show what he wrote on the note. That's it. Not to add or subtract an image or even make it look like he wrote that. He actually did write that. There is nothing in your article that says he did not, nor does your article say the photo was manipulated and in any way and does not say it is fake. I read your article entirely. Show me where it does say it was manipulated. Show me where it says the photo is fake and if it does, I'll ask bigpoops to delete all my posts.
Not only Reuters uses this practice. AP does it and so does many major newspapers as well as news mags. It's common practice now. In the old days they used to use a chemical known as toner to tone down overexposed images but with computer technology they can do it with programs now.
Nice attempt to twist the facts. All you did was prove the point that the photo is genuine, so how does your own size 11 fit in your own mouth? Just because Reuters used photoshop to tone down the over-exposed parts does not mean the photo is fake. Again, THEY TONED DOWN THE OVER-EXPOSED PARTS TO SHOW WHAT HE ACTUALLY WROTE. THEY DID NOT MANIPULATE IT IN ANY WAY. YOUR ARTICLE DOES NOT SAY IT WAS MANIPULATED. IT DOES NOT SAY THE PHOTO IS FAKE. They are a legit and reliable news agency. If it was fake, they would have refused to release it.
Try again.
-
seek help!
you can keep your head in the sand, at your own peril.
Never knew you were a NewsMax hater....LOL
Look @ how angry NewMax and Fox get you....
Imagine conservatives watching/hearing ABC,CBS,NBC,PBS,NPR,CNN,MSNBC....
lol
enjoy,,,hate monger....LOL
http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/12/blancocnndaybreak/
http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/09/12/blancocnndaybreak/
Blanco admits blowing it
by David Benzion | 09/14/2005 3:47 pm
Extraordinary footage, captured off a satellite feed in-between interviews, of Louisiana Gov. Blanco admitting that she blew the job of calling in Federal troops. [Hat-tip: LGF, footage courtesy Political Teen]
Kudos to CNN for running with it.
http://lonestartimes.com/2005/09/14/blanco-admits-blowing-it/
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050914-115653-8272r.htm
http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showthread.php?t=281794
BURN!
-
http://bbs.clubplanet.com/showpost.php?p=2828544&postcount=7
Cuban American or German American? WHich one is it??
sip sip ang MALEKIN titiko, mogago!skipsy skila tora, putana muskila!
listen Scooter, I can garundamntee you when it comes to "culture" you ain't got shit on me. I am an Army brat born in Germany, 8 yr. miltary veteran, so, I've lived in several countries abroad and get it.
You on the other hand..........................
ah,,,fugedabout'it bitch,,u'r funny! c'mon,,gimme more! i want more!!
LOL LOL LOL LOL
Translation:
I want to have gay sex with youMieux vaut etre bien dans sa tete que mal dans ton cul (means. Sorry, I cannot accept your proposition of gay sex)
Anyhow...
Va te faire enculer
Ta mere suce des ours dans la foret
Faut péter dans l'eau pour faire des bulles
Tu es fils d'un gay et d'une pute
Sais-tu combien de temps ta mère prend pour chier? Neuf mois!
Ta mere suce le penis d'animaux pour l'argent
Ta mere suce des queues devant le prisu
Tu preferais pas baiser un cadavre ?
Je t'emmerde
Here...
Essaye cette manoeuvre: Prendre 50-60 pas en arrière. Prendre plusieurs souffles profonds. Sprinter en avant à toute vitesse. Faire un triple saut périlleux en l'air et disparaître dans ton propre cul.
(Try this maneuver: Take 50-60 paces backwards. Take several deep breaths. Sprint forward at full speed. Do a triple summersault through the air, and disappear up your own ass.)
Because...
Si les cerveaux étaient de l'essence, vouz ne seraient pas suffisants pour faire tourner un kart de fourmis à l'intérieur d'un beignet.
(If brains were gasoline, you wouldn't have enough to run a piss ant's go-kart around the inside of a donut.)
In closing...
Ta gueule
Sale pute
Retournez à la pute qui t'a accouchée
(Go back to the whore who gave you birth)
-
Political teen. HAH!! Man you're reaching.
Blanco has already been cleared according to the congressional report.
Page 11.
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/crskatrinarept91205.pdf
Keep slitting your own wrist with that razor blade. I can see your blood dripping from here.
-
-
Bigpoops ......you are stretching
YANKEES SUCK!
-
Dini muetter isch so fett, sie bruucht e landcharte um ihre fuz z'finde!
Chasch mer am arsch läcke
Blas mi
Huerä
-
Maybe he needed a place to hide so he can smoke his.........................
crack pipe?
Those are the very words of those who get owned. Remarkable.
Experts say global warming is causing stronger hurricanes
in Useless Blabber
Posted
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q3
Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998. Linear trends can vary greatly depending on the period over which they are computed. Temperature trends in the lower troposphere (between about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) from 1979 to the present, the period for which Satellite Microwave Sounding Unit data exist, are small and may be unrepresentative of longer term trends and trends closer to the surface. Furthermore, there are small unresolved differences between radiosonde and satellite observations of tropospheric temperatures, though both data sources show slight warming trends. If one calculates trends beginning with the commencement of radiosonde data in the 1950s, there is a slight greater warming in the record due to increases in the 1970s. There are statistical and physical reasons (e.g., short record lengths, the transient differential effects of volcanic activity and El Niño, and boundary layer effects) for expecting differences between recent trends in surface and lower tropospheric temperatures, but the exact causes for the differences are still under investigation (see National Research Council report "Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change").
An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the atmosphere because the increased "blanketing" effect in the lower atmosphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data, but is larger in the radiosonde data.
Relatively cool surface and tropospheric temperatures, and a relatively warmer lower stratosphere, were observed in 1992 and 1993, following the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The warming reappeared in 1994. A dramatic global warming, at least partly associated with the record El Niño, took place in 1998. This warming episode is reflected from the surface to the top of the troposphere.
There has been a general, but not global, tendency toward reduced diurnal temperature range (DTR), (the difference between high and low daily temperatures) over about 50% of the global land mass since the middle of the 20th century. Cloud cover has increased in many of the areas with reduced diurnal temperature range. The overall positive trend for maximum daily temperature over the period of study (1950-93) is 0.1°C/decade, whereas the trend for daily minimum temperatures is 0.2°C/decade. This results in a negative trend in the DTR of -0.1°C/decade
Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth. Evidence such as changes in glacier length is useful since it not only provides qualitative support for existing meteorological data, but glaciers often exist in places too remote to support meteorological stations, the records of glacial advance and retreat often extend back further than weather station records, and glaciers are usually at much higher alititudes that weather stations allowing us more insight into temperature changes higher in the atmosphere.
Large-scale measurements of sea-ice have only been possible since the satellite era, but through looking at a number of different satellite estimates, it has been determined that Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 1996 at a rate of -2.8 +/- 0.3%/decade. Although this seems to correspond to a general increase in temperature over the same period, there are lots of quasi-cyclic atmospheric dynamics (for example the Arctic Oscillation) which may also influence the extent and thickness of sea-ice in the Arctic. Sea-ice in the Antarctic has shown very little trend over the same period, or even a slight increase since 1979. Though extending the Antarctic sea-ice record back in time is more difficult due to the lack of direct observations in this part of the world.