Implications of Republican sweep, part II

[daveklepper]

Having the equipment in good shape and the trained people to handle mass movement troops or other people within short notice in any emergency.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

What would make Amtrak interesting to the president in terms of national security?

(Hope the president or his advisors read the answer)

Junctionfan, This really deserves to be a thread of its own - Roy

[Junctionfan]

What would make Amtrak interesting to the president in terms of national security?

(Hope the president or his advisors read the answer)

[espeefoamer]

[#ditto] [#ditto] [#ditto] [#ditto] [#ditto] [#ditto] [#ditto] [#ditto] [#ditto] [#ditto]

[daveklepper]

The important goal should be to keep and improve passengers service and railroads in general. Debates are useful in that they provide some guidence as to what will work to that end. How to influence the President is a good question. Possibly the best approachmight be through a pro-rail Republican senator who otherwise agrees with Bush's agenda.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The interesting thing about the Jones Act debate is those who support continuation are the ones who have the monopoly power over U.S. coastal shipping. Obviously, they'll say anything to keep their market unintruded by others, even to the point of defying current economic logic.

The ones who want to ditch the Jones Act are those who are currently being undermined by it.

Since the latter represent a far larger segment of the economy, it should be obvious to anyone that repeal of the Jones Act would result in a net economic gain. However, some will continue to defy logic......

Politics isn't logical, in case you haven't noticed...

LC

On that point, I wholeheartedly agree.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

I still think the only argument that will really work with Bush is national defense.

That sounds like a plan; who will argue that Bush is doing a good job?

BTW- Even though we will have to agree to disagree on the Kyoto Protocol I guess, it has been a pleasure for so far to debate it with you. Thankyou.[:)]

On to the next subject....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The interesting thing about the Jones Act debate is those who support continuation are the ones who have the monopoly power over U.S. coastal shipping. Obviously, they'll say anything to keep their market unintruded by others, even to the point of defying current economic logic.

The ones who want to ditch the Jones Act are those who are currently being undermined by it.

Since the latter represent a far larger segment of the economy, it should be obvious to anyone that repeal of the Jones Act would result in a net economic gain. However, some will continue to defy logic......

Politics isn't logical, in case you haven't noticed...

LC

[daveklepper]

I still think the only argument that will really work with Bush is national defense.

[PNWRMNM]

Junction,

Yes it is all "just a natural occurrance". The natural occurrance is that climate has swung several identifiable times between "ice ages" when your home was burried in ice and warm periods, like now, when it is not. That being true, the burden of proof is on the global warming crowd to demonstrate that recent (last 100 years or so) warming is something different than the underlying warming trend, which has been underway for the last 15,000 years or so. This is a tall order since they are trying to identify a small change in a complex system and the geologic data shows broad trends only. There is also the little problem that science can not explain these big shifts in climate, all of which happened before mankind started burning coal. When chicken little says the sky is falling, you would be wise to make your own check of the sky before running for cover.

The issue of the ozone hole is different. The chemistry of that one seems reasonably clear. Do not confuse global warming with the ozone hole. They are not the same thing.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Junction,

...
I would advise you to remember that these scientists are not disinterested observers, they get paid to raise alarms and argue.

Yes, this is quite clear. Global warming isn't the problem, scientists are!

Gary,

It is ironic that you can't even see the reality in your own sarcastic retort.

Global warming isn't a problem, the global warming hysteria is.

[Anonymous]

The interesting thing about the Jones Act debate is those who support continuation are the ones who have the monopoly power over U.S. coastal shipping. Obviously, they'll say anything to keep their market unintruded by others, even to the point of defying current economic logic.

The ones who want to ditch the Jones Act are those who are currently being undermined by it.

Since the latter represent a far larger segment of the economy, it should be obvious to anyone that repeal of the Jones Act would result in a net economic gain. However, some will continue to defy logic......

[Anonymous]

Here's a quote from your own link FM...
<<
Mr. CLEMENT. Or less. Mr. Chairman, the coastwise laws of the United States go back almost 200 years. This U.S. restriction is not unique. Virtually every nation restricts its domestic transportation system to its own citizens.

Today's hearing is really about jobs—jobs for U.S. citizens employed in our domestic shipping industry, jobs for U.S. citizens employed by our Nation's shipyards, and jobs for U.S. citizens employed in our domestic trucking and rail industries who should not have to compete for those jobs.

Our immigration laws do not allow foreigners to take land-based jobs from U.S. citizens and taxpayers. This should not be allowed in our domestic water transportation system and industries, either.

Yes, it may be possible to maybe decrease the cost of transportation to other industries, but if we follow that slippery slope, shouldn't we also allow our manufacturers in the United States to employ low-cost wage-earners from Third World countries? Shouldn't we eliminate all of our minimum wage and health and safety laws?

The United States has been a world leader in improving work place standards. Through international agreements, we're trying to bring the rest of the world up to a level of safety and health. Those who would have us repeal the Jones Act would have us go in the opposite direction. Instead of bringing everyone up to the highest level of safety, they would have us all sink to the lowest common denominator—lowest wages, lowest benefits, and lowest safety standards.

The attacks over the past 18 months on the Jones Act have done nothing but make investors nervous. Oil companies are hesitant to sign 5-year charters for tankers. Bankers are hesitant to issue mortgage on tankers without these long-term charters unless the Government guarantees the mortgage.
>>
Sounds strikingly familiar to my and Mark's earlier links. Seems as though there are strong arguments that have kept the Jones Act in place. I don't see any new justification for eliminating it...

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

Junction,

...
I would advise you to remember that these scientists are not disinterested observers, they get paid to raise alarms and argue.

Yes, this is quite clear. Global warming isn't the problem, scientists are!

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM
.

The proponents of global warming first need to explain these massive historical changes in climate before they can begin to impute much of anything to our puny efforts. To the best of my knowledge they have yet to clear that first hurdle.

I would advise you to remember that these scientists are not disinterested observers, they get paid to raise alarms and argue. Politicians grab power, and our freedoms, in the name of solving problems, many of which would work themselves out far better if the politicians left them alone. Politicians can not leave even a potential problem alone because their power comes from the problems. The more problems politicians can make, the more they can fix, the more power they have. Lust for power is what makes most politicians run.

Mac

A much clearer explanation than mine.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

FM-

The following is an excerpt from the document in Mark Hemphill's post above that apparently you didn't bother to read. I doubt the WTO wants to take up arms against 50+ countries including the U.S.

LC
<<
Is the Jones Act uniquely American or do other nations have similar laws?

The concept of Cabotage is common to virtually all nations with a Merchant Marine. Nearly 50 countries throughout the world have laws similar to the Jones Act.
>>

The above from:

http://www.lcaships.com/jones.html#anchor1

As loathe as I am to get into yet another "links" war, here goes:

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw104-66.000/hpw104-66_0.HTM

Some decisive quotes regarding the true costs of the Jones Act:

"In many of our markets, Jones Act qualified ships are simply not available, not timely, not the right vessel, or just too expensive."

"Americans own the third-largest fleet in the world, some 1,190 ships, but the Jones Act prohibits nearly 90 percent of these ships, these American-owned ships, from trading in the United States. "

"The Jones Act, which reduces the number of ships available, increases the cost not only of ships, but truck and rail, since it shifts cargo and reduces their direct competition, costs Americans billions each year in lost production, foregone competitiveness, sales lost to foreign competitors. Tens of thousands of Americans lose their jobs in steel, autos, agriculture, timber, mining, and energy#8212;all jobs effectively exported overseas to cheap foreign labor."

"In California, American President Lines has a substantial operation in the 10th District of California. When they wanted to enter the Jones Act trade in Hawaii, a billion-dollar trade, Sea-Land and Matson Navigation Company, who will testify later, and which enjoy, respectively, a 32 and 68 percent market share, kept them out."

"Currently 75 percent of food aid shipments must be transported on U.S.-flag vessels. The companies that operate U.S.-flag vessels routinely charge the Federal Government from 100 to 300 percent over market rates to transport the Government cargoes."

"There is something wrong with a law when American livestock farmers in one region of the country cannot get water transportation access to American grain grown elsewhere. For some ports, like the Great Lakes, Jones Act vessels are just not available for bulk transportation; thus, Mr. Coble, in your District you can't access grain from that region by water. They are, however#8212;your farmers, other farmers#8212;free to purchase grain from Canada or Argentina, our competitors, again creating loss of sales and American jobs. It makes no sense for a cattle producer in Hawaii#8212;they can ship their cattle for processing cheaper than they can to the mainland. U.S. processing jobs are lost. Our potato producers on Long Island are kept out of the market in Puerto Rico because Canada can underprice them with cheaper shipping costs."

And so on and so on.....

Of course, the current U.S. carriers will argue the opposite, that Jones Act repeal was cause massive economic headaches (kind of sounds similar to the crap'n'bull lament of U.S. railroads' opposition to any kind of open access!)

If you want to read the last attempt to reform U.S. maritime shipping laws, here's a link to the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998:

http://www.americanshipper.com/Shipping_Act_1998.htm

It is interesting that the inclusion of "antitrust immunity" keeps the caveats of the Jones Act in place. What really stands out is that the Jones Act provisions may actually be inhibiting new U.S. flagged carriers from entering markets already monopolized by existing U.S. carriers.

What you will see in the next round of maritime deregulation is a watered down version of Jones Act reform, including allowing foreign flagged vessels to carry cargo between U.S. ports if it is part of a larger triangulation move that includes docking at a foreign port. This may mean that non-U.S. carriers can transport Alaskan cargo to the West Coast, as long as the ship stops off at a Canadian port and "reclassifies" the cargo there.

Also, as an aside, you can expect another attempt by congress to fold the Federal Maritime Commission into the STB, as fiscal belt tightening comes into fruition during a second Bu***erm.

[Anonymous]

FM-

The following is an excerpt from the document in Mark Hemphill's post above that apparently you didn't bother to read. I doubt the WTO wants to take up arms against 50+ countries including the U.S.

LC
<<
Is the Jones Act uniquely American or do other nations have similar laws?

The concept of Cabotage is common to virtually all nations with a Merchant Marine. Nearly 50 countries throughout the world have laws similar to the Jones Act.
>>

The above from:

http://www.lcaships.com/jones.html#anchor1

[Junctionfan]

I almost forgot;

When they say that we only produce 0.17% greenhouse effect, does that mean directly (breathing and air pollution etc)? What about indirectly say from the chemicals emitted do something to upset the natural output of greenhouse gases so it produces more than it should?

[Junctionfan]

It's not hysteria, it is a kick in the butt to start to improve our life styles so we don't destroy the ozone level. Is this Holocene a result of the direct sun radiation on the polar ice caps or is this just a natural occurance?

[PNWRMNM]

Junction,

Your concern about glabal warming verges on hysteria. Geologists call the current time period the Holocene, which means "hot time". 15,000 years ago virtually all of your country was covered by continental ice sheets. It took a substantial and sustained increase in average temperature to melt all that ice, and man sure did not do it. In fact, there have been several identifiable cycles of ice ages and warm times identified by geologists.

The proponents of global warming first need to explain these massive historical changes in climate before they can begin to impute much of anything to our puny efforts. To the best of my knowledge they have yet to clear that first hurdle.

I would advise you to remember that these scientists are not disinterested observers, they get paid to raise alarms and argue. Politicians grab power, and our freedoms, in the name of solving problems, many of which would work themselves out far better if the politicians left them alone. Politicians can not leave even a potential problem alone because their power comes from the problems. The more problems politicians can make, the more they can fix, the more power they have. Lust for power is what makes most politicians run.

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Another prediction: Look for the Jones Act to be eliminated. This action would have a huge impact on rail operations, as it would allow foreign flagged ships to sail between U.S. ports. It might make Alaskan coals price competitive with PRB coals in coastal coal consumer markets. Also could take some north-south trade away from the railroads on the East Coast.

What a bunch of BUNK. The usual FM drivel. FM, get with the program. The Congressional support for a repeal of the Jones Act doesn't exist, even with a Republican majority in both Houses and a Republican President...

What is your source of information for this unfettered speculation???

LC

Yes it is speculation. That is why it is a prediction. Speculation is part of prediction.

You forget that the Alaskan congressional delegation supports repeal of the Jones Act, and their members are in key positions to introduce such legislation. The opposition to repeal of the Jones Act would comes primarly from the blue states, and last time I checked they lost influence in the last election. I also don't believe they'd go to the extreme of fillibustering a Jones Act repeal or revision as part of a general transportation legislation.

Again, I will go out on a limb and predict that repeal or revision of the Jones Act will be acted on in the next four years.

No. Generally a prediction is based upon some fact or facts and is not mere speculation.

I sincerely doubt Sen. Stevens or the rest of the Alaskan delegation has enough pull to overcome the opposition to repeal of the Jones Act. Further, as our native Merchant Marine is so tied to our military I think you will find there is a lot more support for the Jones Act than you realize. I would suggest you read the last link in my post above carefully. It indicates that the Marine Cabotage Task Force (MCTF) founded to oppose efforts to repeal the Jones Act included over 400 companies and organizations including shipping companies, barge companies, shipyards, industry associations, labor organizations, defense industry groups and others. Also, you should be aware that there is a significant support for U.S. flag shipping in the entire Great Lakes area and along the east coast. I would expect that there is likely additional support elsewhere.

Further, the last time efforts were made in the Congress to seek a repeal of the Jones Act, not a single cosponsor could be found for the legislation, Democrat or Republican. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your position. I hardly see this as a Democratic issue. It is likely to be a jobs issue and I doubt anyone wants to endorse giving U.S. jobs to foreign companies, that would be political suicide given the current outsourcing issues. Jobs are just as important to red and blue states.

I'll look forward to sawing off that limb, if you're still here in 4 years...

LC

I'll ignore the thinly disguised personal threat for now, and just leave you with this:

The Jones Act flies in the face of the trend toward free trade, which by the way is the largest job growth faction in the industrial sector. Eliminating the Jones Act would allow Alaskan crude to be delivered to West Coast ports at lower cost, which usually translates to lower prices at the pump. Right now it is cheaper to ship Alaskan oil to Japan than it is to ship it to West Coast refineries, even though it is roughly the same distance, and this is soley due to the restrictions of the Jones Act. Alaskan coals could become price competitive with U.S. coals as well.

Eliminating the Jones Act would create more jobs, not "outsource" them. What jobs may be lost for U.S. flagged carriers (not a done deal at that) would be more than offset by increased job opportunities at U.S. port and inland production. All the Jones Act has done is make it cheaper for foreign manufacturers to ship product to U.S. ports than for their counterparts in the U.S. who might otherwise use coastal shipping options. Or consider U.S. semi-finished products, which are cheaper to ship to a foreign port for final assembly than to a U.S. final assembly facility. Transport costs can be a deciding factor in determining where and how production is finalized.

Most U.S. economists, free trade advocates, even some labor unions whose members would benefit would like to see the Jones Act eliminated or revised, and logic would dictate that it will happen sooner rather than later (or never). In this day and age of free trade agreements, the Jones Act is an anachronism, akin to the Smoot-Hawley tariff. It may even violate WTO rules, and it's possible that it's eventual demise may come about as a result of a WTO ruling.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan
[
Than why is it a concern? Why should I believe your source of information over the hundreds if not thousands of well known scientists and highly respected research agencies that depend on their integrity? What makes your sources more credible than the sources I have seen?

That is how they earn their living. Actually proponets of global warming put out a petition signed by "concerned scientists". A check found tha few of them were actually scientist. While many had Doctorates they were in Literature, Political science, Psychology, etc. not hard science.

In your defence: I did some searches on the web and see that there is a lot about global warming and its relarionship to the ozone hole. Some quite technical. I did not take the time to follow the chemistry involved. I asume it is basically correct and that the earths temperature does affect the ozone hole.

However, I agree with futuremodel on the importance of mankinds activities in relation to climate change. We have information on past climate from a number of sources. Among them: historical records, archaeogy , anthropology, fossil plants, etc. The earth has been both warmer and cooler in the past without a runaway greenhouse effect and our output of greenhouse gases and incidently "ozone destroying fluorocarbons" too is puny compared to the natural sources.

This does not mean that energy efficiency, reducing the output of greenhous gases, reducing pollution, and finding way to tread more lightly on the environment are wrong or unnecessary. It just means that we should not panic and destroy the economy of the US or any other country to do it. It is necessary to make informed decisions.

There is also the dispute is between conservatives, who believe in a society based on individual responsibility and decision making, and liberals who do not trust the people and want a society where a supposedly benolevent elite make the decisions. If you don't believe me, see what the liberal press and columnists have said saying about the people of the "red states" since the election.

The liberals push central control to save the world. The conservatives believe the the sum of individulal decisions by informed people is a better way. Compare the the pollution and the wealth in the old eastern block countries, who suffered under 40+ years of extreem central control, with the west. It appears that now despite many problems they are starting to prosper.

[Junctionfan]

What is the Jones Act in laments terms?

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Andrew,

You need to be more concise in your arguments. We're not talking about ozone. We're not saying that pollution should not be reduced. All we are saying is look at the facts regarding man's true contribution to the greenhouse effect, and then make sure you keep the greenhouse effect in it's proper place in relation to solar and orbital variations. Since man's contribution of CO2 only amounts to 0.17% of the total greenhouse effect, it should be quite evident to all concerned that not only is that 0.17% insignificant to the entire greenhouse gas effect, it is even insignificant in relation to the extreme climate variance that has occured for eons. Since Kyoto only calls for a 7% reduction in man made CO2, it will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the total greenhouse effect, therefore it is legislation that should have been rejected. The greenhouse effect itself is a distant third to solar and orbital variations in it's effects on climate variations.

Those of you who still cling to the global warming theories need to open your minds and take into account all the relevent variables regarding global climate change.

Than why is it a concern? Why should I believe your source of information over the hundreds if not thousands of well known scientists and highly respected research agencies that depend on their integrity? What makes your sources more credible than the sources I have seen?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Another prediction: Look for the Jones Act to be eliminated. This action would have a huge impact on rail operations, as it would allow foreign flagged ships to sail between U.S. ports. It might make Alaskan coals price competitive with PRB coals in coastal coal consumer markets. Also could take some north-south trade away from the railroads on the East Coast.

What a bunch of BUNK. The usual FM drivel. FM, get with the program. The Congressional support for a repeal of the Jones Act doesn't exist, even with a Republican majority in both Houses and a Republican President...

What is your source of information for this unfettered speculation???

LC

Yes it is speculation. That is why it is a prediction. Speculation is part of prediction.

You forget that the Alaskan congressional delegation supports repeal of the Jones Act, and their members are in key positions to introduce such legislation. The opposition to repeal of the Jones Act would comes primarly from the blue states, and last time I checked they lost influence in the last election. I also don't believe they'd go to the extreme of fillibustering a Jones Act repeal or revision as part of a general transportation legislation.

Again, I will go out on a limb and predict that repeal or revision of the Jones Act will be acted on in the next four years.

No. Generally a prediction is based upon some fact or facts and is not mere speculation.

I sincerely doubt Sen. Stevens or the rest of the Alaskan delegation has enough pull to overcome the opposition to repeal of the Jones Act. Further, as our native Merchant Marine is so tied to our military I think you will find there is a lot more support for the Jones Act than you realize. I would suggest you read the last link in my post above carefully. It indicates that the Marine Cabotage Task Force (MCTF) founded to oppose efforts to repeal the Jones Act included over 400 companies and organizations including shipping companies, barge companies, shipyards, industry associations, labor organizations, defense industry groups and others. Also, you should be aware that there is a significant support for U.S. flag shipping in the entire Great Lakes area and along the east coast. I would expect that there is likely additional support elsewhere.

Further, the last time efforts were made in the Congress to seek a repeal of the Jones Act, not a single cosponsor could be found for the legislation, Democrat or Republican. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your position. I hardly see this as a Democratic issue. It is likely to be a jobs issue and I doubt anyone wants to endorse giving U.S. jobs to foreign companies, that would be political suicide given the current outsourcing issues. Jobs are just as important to red and blue states.

I'll look forward to sawing off that limb, if you're still here in 4 years...

LC

[Anonymous]

Andrew,

You need to be more concise in your arguments. We're not talking about ozone. We're not saying that pollution should not be reduced. All we are saying is look at the facts regarding man's true contribution to the greenhouse effect, and then make sure you keep the greenhouse effect in it's proper place in relation to solar and orbital variations. Since man's contribution of CO2 only amounts to 0.17% of the total greenhouse effect, it should be quite evident to all concerned that not only is that 0.17% insignificant to the entire greenhouse gas effect, it is even insignificant in relation to the extreme climate variance that has occured for eons. Since Kyoto only calls for a 7% reduction in man made CO2, it will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the total greenhouse effect, therefore it is legislation that should have been rejected. The greenhouse effect itself is a distant third to solar and orbital variations in it's effects on climate variations.

Those of you who still cling to the global warming theories need to open your minds and take into account all the relevent variables regarding global climate change.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Another prediction: Look for the Jones Act to be eliminated. This action would have a huge impact on rail operations, as it would allow foreign flagged ships to sail between U.S. ports. It might make Alaskan coals price competitive with PRB coals in coastal coal consumer markets. Also could take some north-south trade away from the railroads on the East Coast.

What a bunch of BUNK. The usual FM drivel. FM, get with the program. The Congressional support for a repeal of the Jones Act doesn't exist, even with a Republican majority in both Houses and a Republican President...

What is your source of information for this unfettered speculation???

LC

Yes it is speculation. That is why it is a prediction. Speculation is part of prediction.

You forget that the Alaskan congressional delegation supports repeal of the Jones Act, and their members are in key positions to introduce such legislation. The opposition to repeal of the Jones Act would comes primarly from the blue states, and last time I checked they lost influence in the last election. I also don't believe they'd go to the extreme of fillibustering a Jones Act repeal or revision as part of a general transportation legislation.

Again, I will go out on a limb and predict that repeal or revision of the Jones Act will be acted on in the next four years.

[Junctionfan]

How the heck can you not tell me that the pollution is not increasing our global warming? Did you learn nothing from the reports about CFCs and that it was chewing up the ozone levels?

Would you not agree that natural global warming is different than unnatural global warming? There is a difference. Natural is what is supposed to happen and unnatural is what our stupid species is doing to our habitat by upsetting the balance of nature. As there is a cause, there is an effect and clearly we are causing and effecting the environment to a degree that it is causing us harm. Look at the amount of smog we have. Look at the amount of trees we cut down. Look at the amount of industries and chemical accidents we have done. Look at the effects of nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere that has been done. There is absolutely no logical arguement that I will believe that says that this is screwing up the balance.

What do scientists have to gain by lying or misrepresenting the facts? I trust scientists with doctorates and experience in their field. The fact that so many scientists are saying this and continue to say this and nations one by one are signing the Kyoto Protocol should clue you into the fact that they might have something here. I believe this as firmly as it can be that the fossil fuel giants and their cronies are the ones disputing this because they know it could hurt them in the wallet. You know those same poor oil exectutives who are taking you and I to the cleaners at the pumps?, They are laughing and laughing at the U.S and Australia plus a few others because they know they that they have fooled you all. They want you to believe this so they come up with some spin and find some folk who will preach it perhaps, just so they can protect their bottom-line. It's the same song and dance that we have heard when the tabacco companies said that cigarettes don't cause cancer. Remember that one? The spins are enough to cause motion sickness but in the end the truth comes out and BAM.....the poor executives then turn around and go on that they didn't know and are sorry. (Like we are to believe that). What about asbestos? What about PCBs? What about a whole lot of other stuff and practices we don't use or do anymore?

This whole nonsense about we are not causing big enough problems with Global Warming is a crock. Would you like it to get worse? What constitutes as "time to take action" phase? When it's too late? The scientists in my opinion are say that look this is what will likely to happen if we don't to this and that at certain times. They are saying that if we act now, we won't be forced to when it's too late. They are basically shocking and scaring us into something that could come to be but not necessary if we start to act. The Kyoto Protocol is a first step attempt to get going on the repair process. If something doesn't seem to work that bring forth amendments or ask for clarity or do something. This is not something that can be dismissed so lightly and a large amount of nations are going for it regardless of what the U.S and others are doing and saying. The signing on to the Kyoto Protocol is growing, come on board my friends to the south and ride the clean air train.

[:)]

[Anonymous]

Check out these links concerning the last time a repeal of the Jones Act was tried...

http://www.amo-union.org/Newspaper/Morgue/7-2001/Sections/News/smith.htm

http://www.amo-union.org/Newspaper/Morgue/9-2001/Sections/News/jonesact.htm

http://www.lcaships.com/JANEWS.HTM

http://www.mctf.com/hibills.htm

LC