Manatees paddle to warm water to escape Fla. chill

Dec 30, 2010 By TAMARA LUSH , Associated Press
Manatees congregate in a canal where discharge from a nearby Florida Power & Light plant warms the water in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Tuesday, Dec. 28, 2010. Overnight temperatures in South Florida were in the 30s. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)

(AP) -- People aren't the only ones in Florida who don't like cold weather. Manatees - those giant aquatic mammals with the flat, paddle-shaped tails - are swimming out of the chilly Gulf of Mexico waters and into warmer springs and power plant discharge canals. On Tuesday, more than 300 manatees floated in the outflow of Tampa Electric's Big Bend Power Station.

"It's like a warm bathtub for them," said Wendy Anastasiou, an environmental specialist at the power station's manatee viewing center. "They come in here and hang out and loll around."

Cold weather can weaken manatees' immune systems and eventually kill them. State officials said 2010 has been a deadly year for the beloved animals: between Jan. 1 and Dec. 17, 246 manatees died from so-called "cold stress." During the same time period in 2009, only 55 manatees died from the cold. In 2008, only 22 manatees succumbed to chilly temperatures.

Manatee deaths documented from Jan. 1 through Dec. 5 are nearly double the five-year average for that time period, according to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission statistics.

"Obviously we're very concerned as an agency about the unusually high number of manatee deaths this year," said Wendy Quigley, a spokeswoman with the state-run Research Institute in St. Petersburg.

A total of 699 manatees were found dead between Jan. 1 and Dec. 5; state officials say it's likely the cold temperatures also contributed to many of the 203 deaths in the "undetermined" category and the 68 deaths of manatees whose bodies could not be recovered.

Quigley noted that the statistics don't even include this week's cold snap, which sent temperatures plummeting into the 30s in parts of South Florida overnight and into the teens in the central part of the state.

Tampa Bay and Gulf water temperatures are hovering around 50 degrees, said Anastasiou. When the water dips below 68, manatees seek warmer waters - usually springs or the power plant discharge canals. The water temperature in the power plant's Big Bend canal ranges from about 65-75 degrees, Anastasiou said. Even though they're huge animals, manatees are very cold sensitive.

"They're not blubbery mammals. They're very lean mammals," Anastasiou said. "They need the warmth. They need a warm place to go."

The herbivores will brave the to forage for sea grass but will sometimes stay in the warm canal without eating for days.

Adult manatees can weigh up to 1,200 pounds and grow to be 10 feet long. During the warmer months, manatees leave Florida and can be found as far west as Texas and as far north as Massachusetts - although sightings along the Gulf Coast and near the Carolinas are also common.

During last year's cold snap, some 329 manatees congregated at the Tampa Electric power station. In Broward County on Tuesday, some 50 manatees gathered in the outfall of a Florida Power and Light plant.

State officials are also warning boaters to slow down and be on the lookout for manatees in the warmer, shallow water, where the mammals can fall victim to boat propellers. Hundreds have been spotted in local waters, state wildlife officials said.

Officials say most of the manatees were in the warmer waters near Florida Power and Light's power plants. However, some small groups were spotted in the Intracoastal Waterway.

Meanwhile Tuesday in coastal Mobile, Ala., a 700-pound manatee died during a rescue attempt.

Ruth Carmichael, head of the manatee program at the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, said she and a team from the Mobile Sighting Network wrapped the animal in warm towels when they were called Saturday to a Mobile Bay beach.

Carmichael said rescuers used a stretcher made of car towing straps to move the manatee onto a trailer, and had hoped to haul the animal to the Institute of Marine Mammal Studies in Gulfport, Miss.

The young male was supposed to have migrated to waters about two months ago, though it was unclear if the animal died because of chilly conditions, Carmichael said.

Explore further: Sex? It all started 385 million years ago (w/ Video)

4 /5 (5 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Florida's cold snap disaster for tropical wildlife

Jan 09, 2010

Iguanas dropping from trees, manatees huddling around waters warmed by power plants and marine turtles being whisked away to shelters -- Florida's unusual cold snap is a deadly one for tropical wildlife.

Government to remap manatee habitat

Sep 30, 2009

It has been more than 30 years since federal wildlife managers formally mapped the places where endangered manatee live in Florida. On Tuesday, they acknowledged it's probably time for an update.

Gulf of Mexico dolphin deaths reported

Nov 08, 2005

Scientists concerned by bottlenose dolphin deaths in the Gulf of Mexico have reportedly asked for the marine mammal equivalent of a disaster declaration.

Recommended for you

'Red effect' sparks interest in female monkeys

Oct 17, 2014

Recent studies showed that the color red tends increase our attraction toward others, feelings of jealousy, and even reaction times. Now, new research shows that female monkeys also respond to the color red, ...

Roads negatively affect frogs and toads, study finds

Oct 17, 2014

The development of roads has a significant negative and pervasive effect on frog and toad populations, according to a new study conducted by a team of researchers that included undergraduate students and ...

All in a flap: Seychelles fears foreign bird invader

Oct 17, 2014

It was just a feather: but in the tropical paradise of the Seychelles, the discovery of parakeet plumage has put environmentalists in a flutter, with a foreign invading bird threatening the national parrot.

Amphibians being wiped out by emerging viruses

Oct 16, 2014

Scientists tracing the real-time impact of viruses in the wild have found that entire amphibian communities are being killed off by closely related viruses introduced to mountainous areas of northern Spain.

User comments : 76

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

A2G
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2010
Maybe Al Gore should worry more about the Manatee that are really dying instead of the Polar Bears that aren't? I guess they aren't cute enough.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2010
What was not mentioned is there are power plants that are off-line meaning there are no greenhouse gases and no warm water for the manatees.
Therefore, an off-line power plant is required by the govt to keep the water warm anyway at rate payer's expense.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2010
What was not mentioned is there are power plants that are off-line meaning there are no greenhouse gases and no warm water for the manatees.
Therefore, an off-line power plant is required by the govt to keep the water warm anyway at rate payer's expense.
What nonsense.
geokstr
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2010
Save the manatees!

Build a thousand more power plants.
El_Nose
4 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2010
@ryggesogn2 and Skeptic

ryggesogn2 is right -- FPL does keep power plants on that are not necessary strictly to discharge warm water in the winter for manatees. THis is common knowledge in South FL where I live in Palm Beach.

ryggesogn2 i gave you a 5 to offset the 1 someone gave you.

Its a true statement that i did not believe until I asked an FPL worker in the area.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2010
@ryggesogn2 and Skeptic

ryggesogn2 is right -- FPL does keep power plants on that are not necessary strictly to discharge warm water in the winter for manatees. This is common knowledge in South FL where I live in Palm Beach.

ryggesogn2 i gave you a 5 to offset the 1 someone gave you.

Its a true statement that i did not believe until I asked an FPL worker in the area.

That's unbelievable. I'm going to have to do a little research to affirm this as it is highly doubtful and in line with the sort of ridiculousness I see getting pumped out of blog and FOX outlets.
http:/www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2010/december/179539/Florida-Power-and-Light-customers-foot-bill-for-manatee-heating-system

Looks like you gents may be correct, at least in part.

What an utterly ridiculous waste of resources and money.

Marjon, for potentially the first time ever, I apologize, you were right and I was not.
StandingBear
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2010
for your information sports fans, take it from an old Florida resident:
Manatees are very good for tourism. Many folks come thousands of miles just to see the animal oft mistaken for a 'mermaid'. They are a value to the state and our nation, and if I were still a 'ratepayer' resident would gladly pay a little more on my stupid electric bill just to save them. Its keeping all those perks for overseas oil tycoons that I do not want to pay for but have no choice in that.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2010
What an utterly ridiculous waste of resources and money.

But you still advocate for and support the regulatory state that creates such insanity.
Its no wonder the enviro-nuts are crazy. They demand the end of burning fossil fuels to stop global warming and then turn around and mandate the burning of fossil fuels to warm sea water that is too cold (because of global warming) for the manatees.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2010
But you still advocate for and support the regulatory state that creates such insanity.
Uh, no, no I don't.
Its no wonder the enviro-nuts are crazy. They demand the end of burning fossil fuels to stop global warming and then turn around and mandate the burning of fossil fuels to warm sea water that is too cold (because of global warming) for the manatees.
Because burning crap we dig out of the earth is a better idea than using nuclear.....

Are you really that dumb? One of the few times I state that you're correct, and you decide to try to capitalize on it by stating that I think we should return to the 1700's? Utterly foolish.

Marjon, I want to move forward, which is probably why you call me a "progressive". You want to stagnate and stay in the situation we're in. I want to move forward. It is your ignorance, and your ignorance alone that binds us in this discourse. Grow up, or go away.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2010
Uh, no, no I don't.

You support FCC control of the internet.
I want to move forward,

To what? Socialism?
I want the govt to get out of the way of entrepreneurs and let the free market create opportunities and solve problems. You can't support this because you can't accept that free markets even exist.
'Progressives' used to call themselves 'liberals' before they called themselves socialist. The terms are in quotes because they are really 'newspeak'.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2010
for your information sports fans, take it from an old Florida resident:
Manatees are very good for tourism. Many folks come thousands of miles just to see the animal oft mistaken for a 'mermaid'. They are a value to the state and our nation, and if I were still a 'ratepayer' resident would gladly pay a little more on my stupid electric bill just to save them. Its keeping all those perks for overseas oil tycoons that I do not want to pay for but have no choice in that.

Why must ratepayers support the manatees? Why doesn't the state use its tourist tax revenue it they are such a resource? Or, even better, why not create a charity to keep the manatees from freezing during this 'global warming' crisis?
I do wonder how natural this is for the manatees. Maybe they would be better off being relocated to a warmer climate. Climate has forced species to adapt or die since life began.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 30, 2010
I want to move forward.

SH claimed to be a populist. The past election is a great example of a populist revolt led by tea parties across the country. SH attacks tea parties.
I wonder what 'populist' means to SH and what does 'forward' mean.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2010
You support FCC control of the internet.
Net neutrality is not control. It is anti-trust legislation.
I want the govt to get out of the way of entrepreneurs and let the free market create opportunities and solve problems. You can't support this because you can't accept that free markets even exist.
Because they don't, they never have, just as anarchy doesn't exist. There are always constraining rules of commerce, even in transactions between two individuals.
SH claimed to be a populist. The past election is a great example of a populist revolt led by tea parties across the country. SH attacks tea parties.
The TEA party is fascist, not populist.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2010
What an utterly ridiculous waste of resources and money.

But you still advocate for and support the regulatory state that creates such insanity.
Its no wonder the enviro-nuts are crazy. They demand the end of burning fossil fuels to stop global warming and then turn around and mandate the burning of fossil fuels to warm sea water that is too cold (because of global warming) for the manatees.


You act as if supporting some regulations implies you support and agree with all regulations. He is free to support every single regulation except one if he so chooses. There is no regulation about accepting all or nothing.
trekgeek1
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2010

The TEA party is fascist, not populist.


You got that right. They rally under the flag of "don't let government control us" as if they are some sort of libertarians. If given enough power, they will pass legislation to ban gay marriage, abortions, and criminalize adultery. They are nothing more than radical Christian fanatics hiding under the American flag for cover.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2010
Net neutrality is not control. It is anti-trust legislation.

What legislation? Three democrat commissioners vote to control the internet, 2 Republicans oppose. Commissioners are not elected. Congress, elected officials, opposed the FCC decree.
There are always constraining rules of commerce, even in transactions between two individuals.

Of course there are. But they need not be imposed by a coercive state. Coercive state rules are the only ones supported by SH.
Two people died in NYC because the city failed to clear the street of snow. The city won't be held liable. No city official will be fired. The city can't be sued.
If a private company was responsible to clear the streets, they could be sued. Because of such an incentive, the private company would have much greater incentive than a mayor and union workers that can't be sued or fired for failure causing death.

Fascists are socialists. Tea party members are NOT socialists.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2010
The tyrants in the homosexual marriage campaign are the 'progressives'.
'Liberal' judges impose homosexual marriage on MA and the 'liberal' legislature deny the citizens the right to vote on the issue.
CA citizens vote to define and are denied by 'liberal' judges.
As Fascists are socialists, the true fascists are the homosexuals imposing their view by judicial fiat.
Because of this tactic, it will not be long before Mormons and Muslims must be allowed to have more than one wife based upon a stronger case of religious freedom.
You anti-religious folks had better start having more children or you will follow the example set by the Shakers.

Back to the point of the story. Why should rate payers keep the manatees from freezing? Why not 'society'?
But they should not be freezing according to AGWites.
Surely manatees have experienced such conditions in the past. Human interference keeps the weak manatees alive passing on that weakness.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2010
The tyrants in the homosexual marriage campaign are the 'progressives'.
So enforcing non-discrimination is tyrannical?
'Liberal' judges impose homosexual marriage on MA and the 'liberal' legislature deny the citizens the right to vote on the issue.
How about we take a vote on your right to be Christian. That sound ok to you? It's not ok to me, but that's what you're suggesting. You're suggesting that a majority should be allowed to take away your rights and freedoms.
Because of this tactic, it will not be long before Mormons and Muslims must be allowed to have more than one wife based upon a stronger case of religious freedom.
No, the only freedom in regard to religion in the Constitution is freedom from religion and freedom from religious influence in government.

Why would you suggest we vote away peoples' rights if you weren't a fascist?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2010
Homosexuals have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals: they can marry someone of the opposite sex of a defined age. Only one spouse at a time.
Of course SH ignores the part, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

These folks don't sound like fascists to me:
"AFP-Michigan is a statewide organization of 50,000 activists committed to strengthening our constitutional government, establishing fiscal restraint, and giving taxpayers greater control over government. "
"History has shown that a free market will create an economic engine that will employ workers and raise everyone’s standard of living. Michigan must reverse its policies of over-taxation and over-regulation by removing unnecessary barriers to entrepreneurship and opportunity by sparking citizen involvement in the regulatory process early on in order to reduce red tape. "
http://www.michiganafp.com/about/

Reducing red tape, THAT'S what SH opposes!
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2010
"Selfish Sanitation Department bosses from the snow-slammed outer boroughs ordered their drivers to snarl the blizzard cleanup to protest budget cuts -- a disastrous move that turned streets into a minefield for emergency-services vehicles, The Post has learned.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/sanit_filthy_snow_slow_mo_qH57MZwC53QKOJlekSSDJK

Who will be fired for this?
trekgeek1
4 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2010
The tyrants in the homosexual marriage campaign are the 'progressives'.
'Liberal' judges impose homosexual marriage on MA and the 'liberal' legislature deny the citizens the right to vote on the issue.
CA citizens vote to define and are denied by 'liberal' judges.
As Fascists are socialists, the true fascists are the homosexuals imposing their view by judicial fiat.
Because of this tactic, it will not be long before Mormons and Muslims must be allowed to have more than one wife based upon a stronger case of religious freedom.



Oops, your true colors are showing. Hate homosexuals, fear Muslims and Mormons forcing their practices on society through legislation, BUT still favor banning gay marriage and abortions through that same legislation because the bible said so .HYPOCRITE!!!!!Here's an idea, support the separation of church and state, and you don't have to worry about Muslims and Mormons.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2010
Of course SH ignores the part, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
So a rastafarian can smoke a joint out front of a Federal court house now? Nope. Can female circumcision be freely practiced in the US? Nope. Freedom from religion, freedom of private thought. That's all you have when it comes to religion. You do not get a priviledge or the ability to tell anyone else what to do. You should be thankful, freedom from religion prevents bullshit like Sharia from becomming doctrine in the US.
AFP-Michigan is a statewide organization of 50,000 activists committed to strengthening our constitutional government
Would that be why they've decided to not attend CPAC simply because the Gay conservative group GOProud was extended an invitation? Pure bigotry.

Just like "Americans for Prosperity", you selectively read what you want to believe and don't actually read the text of the document you claim to worship and defend.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2010
Conservatism is a big, big tent. This conversation just goes to show you, there are many types of conservatives. Some are libertarians, who believe in the basic freedoms and constitutional principles. Some are religious nutbags, like Marjon, who talk a good game about liberty to appease the libertarians, but when their true inner motivation comes out, the Constitution is simple toilet paper to them. They think rights can be taken away because their majority demands it, and if you even think twice about questioning them on it, they'll accuse you of persecuting them and state that you're affecting their liberty.

The only liberty you espouse is the liberty you're taking in your interpretation of the founding documents.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2010
Because homosexual marriage was forced upon states by courts, the preferred method of 'progressives', Muslims and Mormons will have more legitimacy to demand the govt end discrimination against them.
If the govt grants privilege to marriage, then the govt must define the term and the rationale. States around the country have done by passing constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman.
My preference is for the govt to end any recognition of marriage. How many 'progressives' support this?

SH and his 'progressives' have no difficulty taking the rights of people to keep the wealth they earn.

It would be interesting to hear why SH thinks heating water for manatees is wrong.
I think its wrong because the govt is forcing FPL ratepayers to fund it.
"ensuring a flow of warm water for the animals throughout the winter is also required by the state permit and the federal regulations linked to construction of the new plant. "
News-Journal
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2010
@geek: How typical to accuse other of hate.
I have noticed 'progressives' are quick to accuse others of hate when they oppose the 'progressive' agenda.
Why bother with debate?
I submit 'progressives' who are quick to accuse others of hate are projecting their own emotions onto others.

Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2010
Because homosexual marriage was forced upon states by courts, the preferred method of 'progressives'
First, nothing was forced on the states. Equality is Constitutional, barring someone from marriage is discrimination, which is unconstitutional.
If the govt grants privilege to marriage, then the govt must define the term and the rationale. States around the country have done by passing constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman.
Which is unconstitutional and being overturned by the courts for illegality.
SH and his 'progressives' have no difficulty taking the rights of people to keep the wealth they earn.
You do not have a right to wealth.

Marjon, you make a lot of false pronouncements in a public forum attempting to mischaracterize others who don't agree with you.

That's bearing false witness. How about you practice what you preach?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2010
You do not have a right to wealth.

People don't have the right to keep the wealth they create and earn? All the wealth they create and earn are really owned by the feudal lord (the state)? Or such wealth belongs to 'society' and can be taken by the majority mob?
First, nothing was forced on the states.

It was in MA. People in MA were not allowed to vote on the issue.
If marriage is a right then no state license should be needed to exercise that right.

Still waiting to hear why SH thinks heating water for manatees is stupid.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2010
Marjon, you make a lot of false pronouncements in a public forum attempting to mischaracterize others who don't agree with you.

What false pronouncements?
Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2010
It was in MA. People in MA were not allowed to vote on the issue.
If marriage is a right then no state license should be needed to exercise that right.
Marriage is not a right. Discrimination is illegal, that is the point. Please do try to discern between the two in future conversation.
People don't have the right to keep the wealth they create and earn?
No, they don't.
All the wealth they create and earn are really owned by the feudal lord (the state)?
No.
Or such wealth belongs to 'society' and can be taken by the majority mob?
No.

If you believe that charity is a social obligation, you cede your right to your wealth. If you feel that tithing or donating to a church is an obligation then you have ceded your right to wealth. If you feel there is an obligation to pay your taxes, you have ceded your right to wealth. So the question here is, do you think you have a right to wealth?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2010
Discrimination is illegal,

Then children can marry or Muslims can have more that one wife.
If marriage is defined as the legal union one man and one woman, where is the discrimination against homosexuals?

SH states that people do not have the right and obligation to be responsible for the wealth they create. Sounds quite socialistic.

SH still has not stated why he thinks forcing FPL to keep manatees warm is stupid.
If you feel that tithing or donating to a church is an obligation then you have ceded your right to wealth.

How? Obligation is not coercion. 'Should' is not the same is 'must'.
Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2010
Then children can marry or Muslims can have more that one wife.
Children are not adults, as such they are not able to engage in a financial contract.
If marriage is defined as the legal union one man and one woman, where is the discrimination against homosexuals?
Marriage is not defined as such at a Federal level. The "one man, one woman" argument has a religious basis, meaning it is unconstitutional.
How? Obligation is not coercion. 'Should' is not the same is 'must'.
'Priviledge' is not the same as 'right'. You have an obligation to pay taxes in the United States. That means you do not have a right to wealth.
SH still has not stated why he thinks forcing FPL to keep manatees warm is stupid.
How I feel about it is irrelevant. There is that matter of law involved here. I may think it's stupid to write someone a ticket for traveling 1 mile over the speed limit, but that doesn't change the law regardless of how I feel about it.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2010
How I feel about it is irrelevant. There is that matter of law involved here.

Always the statist.
Laws can be changed you know. Having some 'feeling' about stupid laws is the first step in changing stupid laws.
Is that why the tea parties threaten you so? They want to change laws?
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2010
How I feel about it is irrelevant. There is that matter of law involved here.
Always the statist.
You mean Republican. The rule of law is the underlying basis of a Republic.
Laws can be changed you know.
Yes they can. In some cases they should be. This particular one is in need of examination.
Having some 'feeling' about stupid laws is the first step in changing stupid laws.
No, the first step in changing a law is finding a basis on which to change the law.
Is that why the tea parties threaten you so? They want to change laws?
It's not that they want to change the laws, it's what they want to change the laws to.

Hitler took power through changing the laws on immigration, social benefit, and by siding with big business in market regulation. Sound familiar?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2010
Sound familiar?

It should sound familiar to the 'progressives' as that is what they ARE doing.
If you support the law, why not enforce the laws on immigration as AZ is trying to do?
When the govt selectively enforces laws, it weakens ALL laws.
That is what Giuliani demonstrated in NYC.

siding with big business in market regulation.

That is precisely what you support. Big businesses love govt regulations because they can better control them than their customers and competition in the market.
That is the way it has been from the beginning of the 'progressive' era when the major meat packers supported regulations to stifle competitors.

For what its worth I support opening the immigration door to all. Let's allow more Indians, Filipinos, Europeans, Chinese, ... into the US.

Hitler used force to take power. He did not 'side' with business. He FORCED them to comply or die. A typical statist.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2010
"A close study of Roosevelt's legacy and that of Progressive legislation and regulation, however, yields a far different understanding and shows that the experience with meat—big business calling in big government for protection—was a recurring theme. Roosevelt expanded Washington's power often with the aim and the effect of helping the fattest of the fat cats. "
"U.S. Steel saw itself as a vulnerable giant threatened by the boisterous free market, and Gary's failed efforts at rationalizing the industry left only one line of defense. "Having failed in the realm of economics," Kolko writes, "the efforts of the United States Steel group were to be shifted to politics." "
"Two years later, Gary echoed this sentiment before a congressional committee: "I believe we must come to enforced publicity and governmental control . . . even as to prices." "
www. cato.org/research/articles/cpr28n4-1.html
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2010
Hitler used force to take power. He did not 'side' with business. He FORCED them to comply or die. A typical statist.
I would strongly suggest you educate yourself further on this issue. Perhaps you'll see your error.
www. cato.org/research/articles/cpr28n4-1.html
Unfortunately CATO doesn't support your viewpoints outside of the portions you quotemine.

Do you know that CATO supports an increase in taxes to slow government spending?
Niskanen recently analyzed data from 1981 to 2005 and found...."no sign that deficits have ever acted as a constraint on spending." To the contrary: judging by the last twenty-five years (plenty of time for a fair test), a tax cut of 1 percent of the GDP increases the rate of spending growth by about 0.15 percent of the GDP a year. A comparable tax hike reduces spending growth by the same amount.
As for the statements on Roosevelt, he was quite the corporatist. Broken up the unions for big business. Bought and paid, much like the GOP
geokstr
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2010
Equality is Constitutional...

Equality UNDER THE LAW is constitutional, NOT equality of outcomes. Please select the one you believe in. I'll bet it's the latter.
You do not have a right to wealth.

Again you are just stating your preference. Of course no one has the "right" to be wealthy, or everyone would be rich, by law. But under your definition, apparently all "wealth" belongs to the state, not those who created or earned it.

These are two of the primary tenets of C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-M, based on the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" dogma preached by St Karl of Marx. But then I'm just stating the obvious about your belief system.

I'm sure that you also believe you will be a member of the nomenklatura when the state controls all, so that you will be more equal than the proletariat. That's how it always works in Animal Farms so beloved on the left.

Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2010
Equality UNDER THE LAW is constitutional, NOT equality of outcomes. Please select the one you believe in. I'll bet it's the latter.
No, it'd be the former. Marjon appears to be arguing for the latter.
Again you are just stating your preference. Of course no one has the "right" to be wealthy, or everyone would be rich, by law. But under your definition, apparently all "wealth" belongs to the state, not those who created or earned it.
That is not what I'm saying. You do not have a right to wealth. You can have it taken away under multiple circumstances. If you had a right to personal wealth, you could not be compelled to pay taxes.
These are two of the primary tenets of C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-M
Actually the lack of right to wealth under taxation was outlined by Rothbard and Mises. Marx argued that there was no such entity as commercial wealth and that all production was needs based. You might want to look that up and ensure you're arguing the correct points.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2010
Has anyone else on this site ever realize that SH is morally just as evil as Hitler, and basicly supports all sorts of crimes against humanity, whether he admits it or not?

This guy can't seem to tell the truth about anything. The bill of rights does not forbid "religion" you evil lying, baby killing bastard.

Regarding religion, it specifically says "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So eat it, you liar.

Once again, I catch you telling blatant lies which is obvious to anyone who cares to know the truth about a matter.

What is your purpose here, other than to be a full-time deceiver?

And yeah, abortion should be BANNED in any case except specifically to save the life of the woman. Killing a baby just because YOU and "mom and dad" don't give a damn about it is called MURDER.

If you support abortion you are a murderer.

People like SH are just as bad a holocaust deniers, and really worse, because they directly support and participate in the murdering.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2010
Bought and paid, much like the GOP

Based upon data, it appears the democrats are well compensated for their 'services'.
"Top Industries Giving to Members of Congress, 2010 Cycle"
www. opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2010


Of the 50 'industries' listed, only 14 Republicans are the top recipients.
Real estate, securities and insurance top recipient is a D, Schumer.
Computers and Internet, a D, Murray.

trekgeek1
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2010
@geek: How typical to accuse other of hate.
I have noticed 'progressives' are quick to accuse others of hate when they oppose the 'progressive' agenda.
Why bother with debate?
I submit 'progressives' who are quick to accuse others of hate are projecting their own emotions onto others.



It is because your objections to progressive legislation results in the oppression of others freedoms and equality. I hate when they oppose progressive ideas because that opposition serves to tell people who they can marry, or what they can do with their bodies. The conservative agenda consists of fearing government infringement on rights, while using that government to infringe on peoples rights. It's contradictory. And FYI, I hate plenty too. I hate people with your viewpoints. I'm not bound by an ancient text to love my neighbor. I hate stupid ideas and stupid hypocritical people.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2010
I hate stupid ideas and stupid hypocritical people.
Then you must hate yourself.
tell people who they can marry,

If you are going to demand that I must support tax breaks or special legal treatment to people who are married then I and everyone effected must have a vote in defining marriage. Or, end any special legal distinction for 'marriage'.

Why aren't you concerned by govt infringement upon your rights and the rights of all taxpayers to keep the wealth they earn?
brazen
4 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2010
Somebody said that the manatees are good for the state of FL and I can attest to that. I've been down to Crystal Springs to scuba dive with the estic beasts a couple times. I have friends that make the trip every single year. BEST STORY: My dad's girlfriend found one that followed her everywhere. We got back on the boat and she said "Yeah they love it when you rub their blowholes!" ... (Silent pause for a moment) and then somebody says "Manatees don't have blowholes! haha.

The power plant thing does sound silly. It may be true but my thought is that these creatures have been there for hundreds or thousands of years before any power plants existed. What up wit dat?
brazen
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2010
Somebody said that the manatees are good for the state of FL and I can attest to that. I've been down to Crystal Springs to scuba dive with the estic beasts a couple times. I have friends that make the trip every single year. BEST STORY: My dad's girlfriend found one that followed her everywhere. We got back on the boat and she said "Yeah they love it when you rub their blowholes!" ... (Silent pause for a moment) and then somebody says "Manatees don't have blowholes! haha.

The power plant thing does sound silly. It may be true but my thought is that these creatures have been there for hundreds or thousands of years before any power plants existed. What up wit dat?
geokstr
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2010
You do not have a right to wealth...If you had a right to personal wealth, you could not be compelled to pay taxes.

Then why not just have us all be serfs of the government and have the state tell us how much "each according to his needs" is? I can guarantee you that the politically connected and the politically correct will be deemed to "need" more than the proles. That's already happening.

Of course, this is the mindset of the left. All wealth belongs to the Collective, not the individuals who create it.

The constitution, and the 16th amendment, authorize the government to collect taxes to perform certain fairly specific "enumerated" duties, which has been interpreted by leftlings to mean anything and everything they choose, constitutional limits be damned. Obama himself says the constitution is flawed because it doesn't specifically allow redistribution of "wealth".

We had a revolution once before over this. Maybe it's time for another one.
trekgeek1
3 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2010
Then you must hate yourself.

Ooh, a second grade burn. Ouch.

If you are going to demand that I must support tax breaks or special legal treatment to people who are married then I and everyone effected must have a vote in defining marriage. Or, end any special legal distinction for 'marriage'.


I didn't say you shouldn't have a vote, I am saying that you are voting in favor of oppression and inequality.

Why aren't you concerned by govt infringement upon your rights and the rights of all taxpayers to keep the wealth they earn?


What exactly guarantees you that right? I'm not concerned because I know the money they take from me maintains the infrastructure I use and helps support the lower classes that we all stand on to succeed in life. A healthy and happy lower class leads to national prosperity. In short, my parents taught me to share and help others who are less fortunate.
trekgeek1
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2010

Of course, this is the mindset of the left. All wealth belongs to the Collective, not the individuals who create it.


I'm sorry, did I miss the part where the government owns all your stuff. Hmmmm, that hasn't reached CA yet. I know that some of my money is taken in taxes, but I didn't realize that all of it belongs to them. Idiot.

The constitution, and the 16th amendment, authorize the government to collect taxes to perform certain fairly specific "enumerated" duties, which has been interpreted by leftlings to mean anything and everything they choose, constitutional limits be damned. Obama himself says the constitution is flawed..

Where did he say that and in what context? The constitution is flawed, that's why we have
amendments. Funny though, the right does the same to the first amendment.

We had a revolution once before over this. Maybe it's time for another one.


Over what? You have representation and aren't a slave.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2010
Has anyone else on this site ever realize that SH is morally just as evil as Hitler, and basicly supports all sorts of crimes against humanity, whether he admits it or not?
That's a very serious and unkind accusation.
This guy can't seem to tell the truth about anything. The bill of rights does not forbid "religion" you evil lying, baby killing bastard.
And I never said it did. I'd strongly suggest you apologize.
Regarding religion, it specifically says "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So eat it, you liar.
Which would be where I said freedom of private thought.
And yeah, abortion should be BANNED in any case except specifically to save the life of the woman. Killing a baby just because YOU and "mom and dad" don't give a damn about it is called MURDER.
Your attempt to get a rise out of me certainly won't work. Your statements are quite sad and telling of your personality. By the way, calling me a holocaust denier, very, very rude. Apologize please.
geokstr
1 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2010
I'm sorry, did I miss the part where the government owns all your stuff.

Read for comprehension much? I said that is the mindset of the left, not that they had already achieved that lofty goal. But they'll keep trying.

The whole attitude that tax cuts are costs to the government is endemic of their attitude, that they are deigning to allow us to keep more of what we earned.
Where did he say that and in what context?

In a radio interview in 2001. I am having trouble adding links to these comments, so you can just google something to the effect of "obama 2001 interview redistribution of wealth" and listen to it yourself.
Over what? You have representation and aren't a slave.

That's a matter of opinion. Progressives in both parties have made "representation" meaningless over the last several decades, giving us a choice of left and left-lite.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2010

That's a matter of opinion. Progressives in both parties have made "representation" meaningless over the last several decades, giving us a choice of left and left-lite.


Left-lite? If conservatives today are left-lite then I'm jumping ship and heading for Japan before the real conservatives show up. They have a population shortage so they'll be glad to see me.

And yeah, abortion should be BANNED in any case except specifically to save the life of the woman. Killing a baby just because YOU and "mom and dad" don't give a damn about it is called MURDER.


Yeah, and if you don't support abortion for rape and incest you favor forcing an innocent women to watch as her body transforms to suit the needs of her attacker. How vulgar and cruel of you. You disgust me, and I mean that whole heartedly.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2010
Read for comprehension much? I said that is the mindset of the left, not that they had already achieved that lofty goal. But they'll keep trying.


So your claim is that 50 percent of Americans want to give up their belongings and submit to the state? Is that the stance you want to go with? I'd advise you to think about it for a minute.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2010
Who would have thought that manatees would be so controversial.
Howhot
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2011
!!! FREE FOR ALL !!!

@ryggesogn2: Happy new year. Having said that I hope you would return the favor as a gentleman of the art of debate. Agreed?

"Then you must hate yourself."

Nuff Said.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2011
I know the money they take from me maintains the infrastructure I use and helps support the lower classes that we all stand on to succeed in life.

You really don't 'know' much.
Roads and bridges ae falling apart.
Nearly all taxes, local and federal, pay for 'entitlements' and retirements.
geokstr
1 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2011
I said that is the mindset of the left, not that they had already achieved that lofty goal. But they'll keep trying.

So your claim is that 50 percent of Americans want to give up their belongings and submit to the state? Is that the stance you want to go with? I'd advise you to think about it for a minute.

No. Nice spin, but no cigar.

Since 50% of the US pay no federal income taxes, there's a good chunk of your Democratic constituency buried in there. They're not giving up anything, but they certainly are all in favor of taking other peoples' money and giving it to themselves. It's the left's version of "charity".

But the golden goose can only get strangled so long, and the left has almost killed it.

Margaret Thatcher said it well - "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

The Euro-Socialist states are collapsing as we speak, and we're not far behind.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2011
Since 50% of the US pay no taxes, there's a good chunk of your Democratic constituency buried in there.
There's a good chunk of your Republican constituency as well. You're talking the under employed, the retired, the injured veterans also in that 50%. When you say the golden goose has been strangled, I think you're not looking at the real picture. We've ceded the wealth of the nation to a select few in the upper class, and they don't want to share it with the people who earn it for them. I'm not saying these people are lazy, or evil, or underserving. I'm saying they have an obligation, and they've dropped the ball on sheppherding the rest of us to prosperity. There is a lot of senseless greed and decadence, and it's a cancer to society. That has to be reigned in, in very small ways until a proper balance for the middle class exists. We can't focus on the poor, or the rich. We need sacrifice, at all levels, not just the lower ones.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2011
You really don't 'know' much.
Roads and bridges ae falling apart.
Nearly all taxes, local and federal, pay for 'entitlements' and retirements.
Yes, they are, like medicare for the elderly. Social security for the injured and retired, and the VA for our national guardians who sacrifice for us. There's some fraud, and that must be taken care of, but none of these programs are failures. We've been robbed by corporate interest. If you can't see that, I can't make you see it.
geokstr
1 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2011
Left-lite? If conservatives today are left-lite then I'm jumping ship and heading for Japan before the real conservatives show up.

It hasn't been conservatives running the Republican ship since the 1980's. George Bush was no conservative, and his base fought him on many major issues, notably out-of-control spending, amnesty for Undocumented Future Democratic Voters of Aztlan, Drugs for Geezers, No Whatever Left Behind, S-CHIP, etc, ad nauseum. He has even admitted his disdain for conservatives.

I've often wondered why the left hated him so much, given that he was the best big government-loving Republican Democrats could have hoped for. If it wasn't for the Middle East wars and Roberts/Alito, he was their boy.

Must have been that hanging chad crap from 2000, that was proven to have been another algore hoax by the NY Times/WaPo recount.

Oh, and BTW, don't let the proverbial door hit you in the proverbial ass on your way to Japan, which is also on the verge of fiscal collapse.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2011
We've been robbed by corporate interest.

With the full support of the federal government.
SH demands MORE federal regulations, more power for the federal govt which the corporate interests LIKE because those regulations enable those corporate interests to control politicians and unelected regulatory bureaucrats.
geokstr
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2011
Yes, they are, like medicare for the elderly. Social security for the injured and retired, and the VA for our national guardians who sacrifice for us. There's some fraud, and that must be taken care of, but none of these programs are failures. We've been robbed by corporate interest. If you can't see that, I can't make you see it.

SOME fraud????

Like SIXTY BILLION a year, the estimate of that right-wing conspiracy show, "60 minutes", just in Medicare. This doesn't include Medicaid, which is probably worse as a percentage, nor FICA, which is riddled with phony ADD/ADHD claims.

And all three are Ponzi schemes. There is NOTHING in the Orwellian-named "lockboxes" except IOU's from ourselves and China that have to be paid out of current taxes, because the Progressives in both parties have been robbing them for 50 years. FICA is in the red this year already.

We are b.r.o.k.e, thanks to the philosophy of the Religion of Leftism.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2011
"Venezuelans worried on Friday that a second devaluation of their currency in 12 months would make life even harder as the socialist government of President Hugo Chavez struggled to turn the economy around.

Already suffering one of the world's highest inflation rates and the only major Latin American economy still in recession after the global financial crisis, they fear the New Year devaluation could hit their livelihoods more.

"It is a blow against the pockets of the workers, against the poorest people," said Robinson Calua, a 50-year-old security guard in downtown Caracas.

Officials say the devaluation announced on Thursday will increase spending ..." Reuters

Sounds like the same tripe we hear form US govt.
geokstr
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2011
Yeah, and if you don't support abortion for rape and incest you favor forcing an innocent women to watch as her body transforms to suit the needs of her attacker. How vulgar and cruel of you. You disgust me, and I mean that whole heartedly.

Talk about disgusting. And I double down on your "wholeheartedness" about it.

I happily support abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother (not the phony "psychological health" BS).

You should read your own side's stats on abortion. Less than 5% of abortions are due to rape, incest and the mother's life, even including the health BS. The rest are for convenience and as a cover for irresponsibility, because it was too hard to keep the zipper up and/or the legs crossed.

Abortion has been used as nothing more than the contraceptive of last resort, and its biggest supporters are men, who now, for a mere $400 (or soon even "free" under ObamaCare) can have all the nooky they want without consequences.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2011
Ooh, a second grade burn. Ouch.

Let's examine the evidence.
Most of the 'progressives' here are anti-human life as they support and promote abortion on demand, euthanasia and state imposed population control to 'save the planet'. Most of these same 'progressives' support the theories of evolution.
Now if they did not despise their species, including themselves, why are they so anti-human life?

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2011
"...one of the basic, principled differences between the right and the left: Conservatives still look to our country’s founding documents to guide their political and legislative agendas and the left just does what they want and then tries to force it through because working within the confines of the Constitution is just “too hard.”

http:/ /bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/12/30/which-part-of-the-constitution-is-confusing-ezra/
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2011


I happily support abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother (not the phony "psychological health" BS).

You should read your own side's stats on abortion. Less than 5% of abortions are due to rape, incest and the mother's life, even including the health BS. The rest are for convenience and as a cover for irresponsibility, because it was too hard to keep the zipper up and/or the legs crossed.


I never said rape was prevalent. I said rape and incest should always be valid reasons for an abortion. There are pro-lifers who favor abortion under no circumstance whatsoever. That was the extent of that point. As far as abortions go for people who couldn't keep it in their pants, I'd rather have adults having babies when they can afford them and raise them properly. When you force accidental pregnancies to go full term, you are forcing individuals who may not have the time or money to raise children who will be poor and leech off our social programs.
DamienS
5 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2011
Most of the 'progressives' here are anti-human life as they support and promote abortion on demand, euthanasia and state imposed population control to 'save the planet'

By progressive, I take it you mean the opposite of neocon fundamentalists?
Abortion - certainly should be widely available to women who chose not to have children, for whatever reason. It's their decision and no one's else.
Euthanasia - again, should be an available option, provided the scheme is well thought out and administered.
State imposed pop control - I'm not sure that too many people are clamoring for this or why you included it in your diatribe. Though it is an argument for curbing the spread of ignorant fanatics...
Most of these same 'progressives' support the theories of evolution.

There aren't various theories, just one core framework, and it isn't even a theory in the way you and your creationist brethren continually and willfully try to misrepresent. It's as much a fact as is gravity.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2011
By progressive, I take it you mean the opposite of neocon fundamentalists?

'Progressives' used to call themselves 'liberals' but they are all socialists.
State imposed pop control - I'm not sure that too many people are clamoring for this

Pay attention.

It's as much a fact as is gravity.

It's called the theory of gravity and much is quite unknown. Evolution IS a theory just as is gravity.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2011
It's called the theory of gravity and much is quite unknown. Evolution IS a theory just as is gravity.
And Cell theory, and atomic theory, and multiple other things that are fact, are classed as a theory in science. This is a hollow argument and you would serve yourself well to know better than to use it. A Scientific theory is a statement of classification for a multitude of observations. Problem for you is evolution isn't only The Scientific Theory of Evolution, it is also a fact. We've observed it in nature and in a lab. There are more historians who doubt the holocaust than biologists who deny evolution, try to digest that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2011
How does non-living matter evolve into living matter?

How is gravity created?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2011
How does non-living matter evolve into living matter?
That is abiogenesis, not evolution. There are mutiple hypotheses for abiogenesis, no theories as of yet.
How is gravity created?
Presence of mass warping the geometry of spacetime according to the Theory of General Relativity.
DamienS
5 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2011
evolution isn't only The Scientific Theory of Evolution, it is also a fact. We've observed it in nature and in a lab.

Not only that, but the same principles are used 'artificially' by computers to solve otherwise intractable problems - they're called genetic or evolutionary algorithms. The principle is so useful, it even works cybernetically!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2011
That is abiogenesis, not evolution. There are mutiple hypotheses for abiogenesis, no theories as of yet.

So, science still has no idea living matter evolves from non-living matter.
Right, evolution is a fact.
DamienS
5 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2011
So, science still has no idea living matter evolves from non-living matter.

Science has had that idea for quite some while now - you have no clue. Also, as SH has already pointed out, the process is called abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is the process that becomes dominant after abiogenesis - you have no clue.
Right, evolution is a fact.

So you're getting a clue? If you really do want to get a clue, have a read of this (though I know you won't):
www dot americanscientist dot org/issues/pub/the-origin-of-life
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2011
That is abiogenesis, not evolution. There are mutiple hypotheses for abiogenesis, no theories as of yet.

So, science still has no idea living matter evolves from non-living matter.
Right, evolution is a fact.

No, they have multiple ideas, jsut nothing that can be considered 95% or more accurate within observations. Evolution is a fact. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is a fact because we've seen it in the lab and in nature, it is a theory because all statements within science are constrained as theory.
geokstr
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2011
It's called the theory of gravity and much is quite unknown.

WHY and HOW gravity works are theories. That gravity EXISTS is a fact. Unless you want to try to disprove it sometime by jumping off something very high.
El_Nose
not rated yet Jan 04, 2011
All this discussion on a manatee article -- PETA should have sponsered this one