Tom Reed Time Lord

who
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.–Martin Luther King Jr.

Que Sera, Sera; Whatever Will Be, Will Be; The Future’s not ours to See–Jay Livingston and Ray Evans

Join us today and help us continue fighting for jobs and the future!–Tom Reed

Feb 10, 2014 (Corning Leader) — U.S. Rep. Tom Reed said Monday that while the debt ceiling is something that needs to be addressed, he’s expecting something in return for voting to raise it. … He said the one thing he can’t support is maintaining the status quo.

The Status Quo is. Unless one is a Time Lord, whatever the Status Quo is, it is beyond our ability to change. Yet Tom Reed repeatedly offers to change it. What he likely means is that he would change the arc of history so that it bends toward something, but what? He never mentions justice. Here are some possibilities he has supported:

  • Government Shutdown
  • Slashed funding for vital programs
  • Lower taxes for the rich and super-rich
  • Laissez-faire for business
  • Despoil the environment
  • Ridicule climate change
  • Low wages
  • Perpetuate an underclass of undocumented immigrants
  • Reduced funding for social safety net

doris dayThe future would be unfamiliar if these were accomplished, but not in a way people living in the future likely would appreciate.

Grinch[1]The future will come. Whether Rep. Reed fights for it, against it, or does nothing, the future won’t be delayed or denied. The Grinch found out that he couldn’t stop Christmas from coming. Tom should recognize that the future doesn’t need him to fight for it. Rather than fight, Tom might better work toward a brighter future with liberty and justice for all.

 

© William Hungerford – September 2014

https://newny23rd.com/2014/02/11/tom-reed-on-the-status-quo/

 

 

 

Advertisements

About whungerford

* Contributor at NewNY23rd.com where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in 2014, Congress, Political, Reed's Views and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Tom Reed Time Lord

  1. Anne says:

    Many of Reed’s public comments and stances do seem rather science fiction-inspired, don’t they? Nicely done piece, William.

  2. whungerford says:

    Anne, thank you for your kind comment. When Tom says he is “fighting for the future,” I suppose he hopes that we will assume he wants what we want.

  3. James Skaley says:

    Unfortunately, Tom Reed denies what science indicates is our future in global warming if we continue the carbon polluting actions that he advocates. He has voted at least three times to restrict funds to monitor global warming (if we don’t monitor–we can continue to have deniability) and he gets substantial funds from the gas and oil industry to continue to oppose any EPA restrictions on emissions. Much of the business community now recognize humans are responsible for much of global warming and that if left to Congr. Reed and his cohort we are going to have the cost of hundreds of billions in lost agriculture production, storm damage and higher electrical costs–that assessment comes directly from Hank Paulson, former GOP Secretary of the Treasury who understands risk. Reed’s votes and actions in Congress will leave a nation at risk and our children and grandchildren will have to bear the costs.

  4. whungerford says:

    $138,800 from the oil and gas industry according to Open Secrets.
    https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00030949

  5. BOB McGILL says:

    this is the dumbest thing you have writen so far, like the future can’t be changed, how stupid. And the global warming monitoring has been done for the last 200 years or more, we do have detailed records of the weather and these records show no proof of any long term drastic change. It is a fact that there are fluctuations caused by a number of natural events such as sun spots, but no warming. Acutally the planet is cooling.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/…/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling- claim-scientists.html‎Similar
    Sep 8, 2013 … No, actually we’re cooling, claim scientists … increase in the ice cap, leading
    experts to predict a period of global cooling. … Earth News » …
    http://www.forbes.com/…/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/‎CachedSimilar
    May 31, 2012 … Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling … occurred roughly every
    10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm‎Similar
    No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. …..
    Actually, as shown in this oscillating anomaly, this rise in temperature is similar to

    http://www.climatedepot.com/…/forget-the-temperature-plateau-earth-undergoing- global-cooling-since-2002-climate-scientist-dr-judith-curry-attentio…‎CachedSimilar
    Jun 15, 2013 … Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! …. Renowned Norwegian solar
    expert warns temps may ‘actually fall in the course of a 50-year …
    isthereglobalcooling.com/‎CachedSimilar
    April ’13 Russian scientists say Earth will cool until 2050 and temperatures will …
    Does anyone really believe that global warming causes global cooling? As the …

  6. whungerford says:

    Thanks for the compliment Bob. I’m glad you think I have reached a new height.

    Bob, what do you think Tom means when he says he fights for the future and against the status quo?

  7. James Skaley says:

    It is obvious that Mr. McGill chooses to believe in myths rather than the evidence. Unfortunately the links that he cites are no longer active so its hard to repute point by point his citations. So, here are some real citations below: I would also suggest he read Risky Business–the economic risks of climate change….http://riskybusiness.org/

    This link polls scientists and science publications—there is no longer credible debate that humans are largely the cause of global warming:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

    This link shows the rise of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases is well beyond the levels of any rise in over 400,000 years using air samples from trapped bubbles in ice cores:
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Certain facts about Earth’s climate are not in dispute:
    _ The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
    Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

    This link is the myth buster showing evidence that sun spot activity and related myths to deny global warming are just not credible when viewed against actual facts:
    http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts.asp

  8. BOB McGILL says:

    but you didn’t finish reading your own links—
    Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne

    Last updated on 1 August 2013 by gpwayne. View Archives
    Printable Version | Offline PDF Version | Link to this page

    Related Arguments•Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
    •Naomi Oreskes’ study on consensus was flawed
    •IPCC is alarmist

  9. BOB McGILL says:

    mashable.com/2014/06/25/climate-change-myths/‎Cached
    By Andrew Freedman Jun 25, 2014. When it comes to climate change, there are many misconceptions, distortions, outright lies and memes circulating online.

  10. BOB McGILL says:

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

    so lets turn the world upside down till we find out the truth 🙂

  11. James Skaley says:

    Your point being??? You might have a different point of view if you lived in the Maldives just a few feet above sea level. Of course there are bogus views on the internet–such as the one you cited previously. Try looking at real data instead of commentary—there is plenty to look at in the citations I cited. If you are trying to defend Congr Reed’s votes against funding for climate monitoring and EPA regs–you aren’t making a convincing case. The fact that greenhouse gases are at record levels and have been rising more or less steadily since the industrial revolution points to humanity’s influence–releasing all that carbon by burning coal and more recently oil–prior to that humans largely burned wood–a renewable resource. As populations continue to expand, countries need to expand their renewable technologies and move away from carbon based fuels–even China has now recognized that fact by reducing coal production and moving as quickly as they can toward solar and wind. The fact being we waste a substantial portion of energy we produce—so investing in energy conservation not only makes economic sense, but would go some distance in reducing our need for carbon-based fuels. Its clear that Mr. Reed’s views are influenced by the amount of campaign contributions he receives from oil and gas. I would hope you might spend a little more time reading other sources to get your information.

  12. BOB McGILL says:

    better yet let’s stop all human activity till we find a better way
    Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not “Green”
    by Robert L. Bradley Jr

    Robert L. Bradley Jr. is president of the Institute for Energy Research in Houston, Texas, the author of the two-volume Oil, Gas, and Government: The U.S. Experience, and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Inst

    A multi-billion-dollar government crusade to promote renewable energy for electricity generation, now in its third decade, has resulted in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. Even improved new generation renewable capacity is, on average, twice as expensive as new capacity from the most economical fossil-fuel alternative and triple the cost of surplus electricity. Solar power for bulk generation is substantially more uneconomic than the average; biomass, hydroelectric power, and geothermal projects are less uneconomic. Wind power is the closest to the double-triple rule.
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

  13. whungerford says:

    Bob, the idea that articles you dig up are like aces in a bridge hand is false. The number of articles you find has no bearing on truth. You might better argue yourself than echo the false ideas of others.

  14. James Skaley says:

    You finally reveal your sources. This volume that you reference was authored in 1997–so the data is still older than that–It was also published by the CATO institute a group that was originally founded by one of the Koch brothers–whose wealth largely came from the oil industry–so not only are your facts out of date, and probably biased–you suggest that we should never invest in newer technology–all of which initially cost more but over time give us more prosperity. Much of the higher cost of electricity is due to a poorly functioning electrical grid that needs a major investment. A recent (2013) study found that 43% of the consumer costs since 2002 is due to increased costs to maintain a poorly functioning grid. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-power-grid-costs-rise-service-slips. If your source had been correct utilities wouldn’t be investing today in solar farms and wind farms to reduce their carbon footprint and bring down their costs. There is no free lunch and increasing carbon/greenhouse gases is a cost that we’ll forward to our children and grandchildren. I would encourage you to take a longer view else you advocate a much bleaker future for the next generation.

  15. BOB McGILL says:

    e360.yale.edu/feature/on_the_road…germany…coal/2769/‎Cached
    May 29, 2014 … Put simply, there needs to be a back-up for when the sun doesn’t shine and the
    winds don’t blow. Otherwise the lights go out. Germany is the …

    http://www.forbes.com/…/germanys-energy-goes-kaput-threatening-economic- stability/‎CachedSimilar
    Dec 30, 2013 … The German energy company Steag says its 725-megawatt coal plant is just the
    beginning of coal’s German comeback, as the country has

    http://www.bloomberg.com/…/spain-suspends-subsidies-for-new-renewable-energy -plants.html‎CachedSimilar
    Jan 27, 2012 … Spain halted subsidies for renewable energy projects to help curb its budget … by the state that reached 24 billion euros ($31 billion) at the end of 2011. …
    Abengoa SA, a Spanish engineering firm specializing in solar mirrors

    you are doing the same thing I’m doing, posting stuff off the internet. However I have been following environmental issues for 50 years,and it seems I am more up to date than you think..

  16. BOB McGILL says:

    New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.

    NOAA data show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 2.67 parts per million in 2012, to 395 ppm. The jump was the second highest since 1959, when scientists began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

    Global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all. Global warming activists are having a difficult time explaining the ongoing disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

  17. BOB McGILL says:

    thats what they said in 1800 when they first started looking at CO2 levels, thats right, this issue has been around for over 200 years !

  18. BOB McGILL says:

    http://www.realco2.de/‎CachedSimilar
    The real history of CO2 gas analysis. … 1 Atmospheric CO2 background level 1826 – 1960. … CO2 background level and the sea surface temperature (SST) ….
    1: coherence around 8-14 years in 1860-90, 1940 and >1980; 2. coherence around … around 1916-1970 at 14-32 years (6,2+18,6 years = lunar nodal cycle),
    CO2 …

    How do you explain the drop between 1940 and 1950 ?
    http://www.realco2.de/

  19. solodm says:

    The author of this article states “My work had been published by several journals and had been presented at national and international meetings. In literature we can find more than 200 000 directly measured CO2 data since 1800 from which I have estimated the annual CO2 background averages since 1826 to 1960, the end of the measurements by chemical methods.
    The operative word being ” estimated”.
    More serious now in fact is the huge rise in methane gas.
    http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s