OK, New Thread And The Next Big Thing
Carbon offsets? How about cigarette offsets - every pack you smoke funds a smoking reduction program statistically demonstrated to persuade one smoker to quit.
Obviously this is a complement to the existing cigarette taxes meant to pay for smoker's ed, and obviously Barack Obama will like this idea. And every Hollywood mogul ought to like cigarette offsets specifically, or "sin offsets" generally. Indulgences, 21st century style.
OK, on to the Libby case...

Funny you should mention cigarette offsets, our British representative, Mr. PUK, should have a proposal which will interest you in a few minutes--He's on the phone to our Nigerian banker at the moment.
Posted by: clarice | March 01, 2007 at 09:57 PM
I suppose you know that AlGore owns a company that deals in Carbon offsets?
I think I should start one. What a crock. The ultimate Panzi scheme, looks to me like.
Posted by: Pofarmer | March 01, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Is that a banker from Niger or Nigeria?
Posted by: Ralph L. | March 01, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Nigeria. But if it's Niger you want, our representative Mr. Odala PUK, in Niamey is busy trading yellowcake offsets. I can take a message for him.
Posted by: clarice | March 01, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Yes indeed,You buy you cigarettes in the normal way,but never take delivery of the,our third world offsetter will be smoking them for you.This is how Clarice was perfectly content in court,she was safe in the knowledge her cigarettes were being smoked in an low carbon environment.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 01, 2007 at 10:08 PM
They're rebroadcasting John Bolton on CSPAN2 right now.
Posted by: Ralph L. | March 01, 2007 at 10:11 PM
DO NOT BE TAKEN IN BY THOSE OTHER CARBON OFFSET SCAMS!
You need Chants' AMWAY Approved Multi-Level Marketing Carbon Offset Scam!
Chants. The Scam you can trust.
Posted by: Chants | March 01, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Marlboros are 2 bucks a pack here in old Mexico...can I be of assistance? We could have the smokes bought at US prices but then ship them from Mexico for offset smoking in low carbon locations
warehouse space is cheap too
Posted by: windansea | March 01, 2007 at 10:16 PM
With a heavy heart, I am withdrawing predictions #11 and 11A.
Posted by: Other Tom | March 01, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Pofarmer
He really has ownership in one? Yes, it is indeed a Ponzi-Scheme!
I am for the Cigarette off-sets for Restaurants and Bars! Also, Trans-fat Off-sets!
Posted by: ordi | March 01, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Cig offsets for airplanes!!
Posted by: SunnyDay | March 01, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Other Tom!
Say it isn't so!!
(What were predictions 11 and 11A again?)
Posted by: centralcal | March 01, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Heh. I boldly predict Offsets will shortly replace - Is, is.
Posted by: Enlightened | March 01, 2007 at 10:22 PM
How would you do illicit sex offsets? Castration? Long term lesbian relationships?
Posted by: Ralph L. | March 01, 2007 at 10:25 PM
I think the carbon credit bubble already burst.
Yesterday I saw a sad lady with a sidewalk table stand selling Blublocker sunglasses, Herbalife, and carbon credits.
Posted by: Javani | March 01, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Earn Eco-Salvation the Quick and Easy Iowahawk Way
Posted by: Extraneus | March 01, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Mrs. Clinton's campaign has announced that Mr. Clinton, a.k.a. B.J. did not rape, molest, or harrass anybody because had purchaed sexual offsets. Juanitta Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Monica Lewinsky could not be reached for comments.
Posted by: David L | March 01, 2007 at 10:31 PM
And now for something completely different.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 01, 2007 at 10:38 PM
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=221450
Bristol academics claim Branson prize.
Posted by: clarice | March 01, 2007 at 10:38 PM
I beat those Bristol academics to the punch in a thread here this week when I said we should make the militant greens quit exhaling CO2.
Posted by: Larry | March 01, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Charlie--I'll see you UTube and raise you--this one is amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTKJiP_bdbE
Posted by: clarice | March 01, 2007 at 10:44 PM
For a reasonable retainer fee we could sue them,Larry.
Posted by: clarice | March 01, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest, Clarice? I mean what with S C A M and all......
Posted by: Larry | March 01, 2007 at 10:49 PM
From the article:
The solution, published online by The Journal of Unlikely Science, is remarkably simple, requiring no technological wizardry or financial investment. It is quite simply, stop breathing; or at least breathe less.
Me too!!!
...
Posted by: hit and run | March 01, 2007 at 10:51 PM
I am certain my clinet--that is YOU--will gladly waive that in the full knwoeldge that my loyalty would never be divided..
Posted by: clarice | March 01, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Okay, that is pretty cool....
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 01, 2007 at 10:53 PM
I heard Rachmaninov play on the radio this morning. They've made new recordings from his player-piano rolls.
Posted by: Ralph L. | March 01, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Clarice: The dancers were wonderful!
Posted by: centralcal | March 01, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Isn't that amazing! How do they ever memorize the routine?
Posted by: clarice | March 01, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Did you get any details, Ralph?
We had the Rachmaninoff piano rolls when I was a very young kid. That man was some kind of freak.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 01, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Amazon has everything.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 01, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Try WCPE.org You can order the CDs they play and listen to the broadcast online. It's a listener-supported station, no tax money involved.
Posted by: Ralph L. | March 01, 2007 at 11:03 PM
You're in NC, Ralph?
I used to listen to WCPE all the time.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 01, 2007 at 11:08 PM
the highest Intrade bid on Libby being found guilty of at least one count is way down to 54.0...offers still at 75.0..last trade was 70.0
Posted by: ben | March 01, 2007 at 11:10 PM
I didn't have any trouble with the big chords in that Prelude. It was the fast parts I couldn't do at all well. I'd like to see the rest of their show.
Posted by: Ralph L. | March 01, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Yes, but unfortunately reception is poor in my neighborhood. They have a huge antenna now; I heard them in Danville VA on Monday.
Posted by: Ralph L. | March 01, 2007 at 11:13 PM
I think prediction 11A was "hung on all counts for which they have not been unanimous for acquittal." I have a hard time squaring the descriptions of their group demeanor today with any disagreements. I have to say that it turns my stomach a bit that people would behave in this manner--the T-shirts, the levity, the early Friday recess--with so much at stake for the guy they're deliberating about.
Posted by: Other Tom | March 01, 2007 at 11:19 PM
I don't think they've even begun voting yet, OT
Posted by: clarice | March 01, 2007 at 11:26 PM
"I have to say that it turns my stomach a
bit that people would behave in
this manner--the T-shirts, the levity, the early Friday recess."
.
So far the jury seems to be getting a free pass on their ultimate duty.
What's the sentiment about blaming the jury if they get it wrong?
Posted by: clyde | March 01, 2007 at 11:30 PM
This is a reasonable description of the "facilitator" technique of group decision making..
Some aspects are not suitable for juries (i.e. "brainstorming") but you'll get the idea of what I THINK they are oing:
Facilitator
I do not recall all the background of the jury but it sounds to me as one of them has this background and is using this method.
Posted by: clarice | March 01, 2007 at 11:34 PM
I'm glad that you're on this, Tom. Otherwise, I might have to read stuff like this about this case:
http://guntotingliberal.com/archives/860
And that would make my brain hurt.
Posted by: Dan Collins | March 01, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Clarice
So what are the consequences of the Facilitator technique for this trial?
Posted by: ben | March 01, 2007 at 11:43 PM
It doesn't dictate results, but because it helps people focus it tends to lead to more rational results --and much less acrimony--getting there.
Posted by: clarice | March 01, 2007 at 11:47 PM
It doesn't make sense to trade one pack of cigarettes for one third world person quitting. After all, the carbon offsets don't work that way.
Instead, you have a company bribing the Uganda government to create national parks and evict the long time residents in order to plant trees there. And then you take the 99 year benefits of the trees (ignoring any methane production, of course) w/o paying for the maintainence of the trees as your carbon offset.
Planting trees in India was almost as good, as they forgot to provide the water needed to keep them growing. That agin was because they took the credits based on 99 years of benefits, but didn't fund the maintainence.
Or, you provide the poor in South Africa with compact flourescent bulbs, and make them travel 50 miles to pick them up.
Part of the problem here, which is why you need to have your non-smoking programs somewhere in the Third World, preferably in Africa or Asia, is that the geographic separation almost totally disengages the markets. Thus, in the case of Gore's power bills, he helps drive the demand side in Tenn., while the supply side is being manipulated in South Africa, resulting in more, high carbon, power being generated here, and less power being generated there.
It is bad enough moving power across this country, given the inevitable loss. But it is impossible right now to move it from South Africa here.
So, the nice thing about a non-smoking program in Africa is that it doesn't affect air quality here.
Posted by: Bruce Hayden | March 01, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Wow! That does sound like it - even the shirts and silliness.
Posted by: SunnyDay | March 01, 2007 at 11:48 PM
I'd sell you guys some fuckhead credits, but I don't have any to spare.
Posted by: Dan Collins | March 01, 2007 at 11:49 PM
"It doesn't dictate results, but because it helps people focus it tends to lead to more rational results --and much less acrimony--getting there"
Well I am for acrimony if it gets us a hung jury rather than a conviction..but if it gets us an acquittal then I am for rational results.
Posted by: ben | March 01, 2007 at 11:50 PM
"It doesn't dictate results, but because it helps people focus it tends to lead to more
rational results --and much less acrimony--getting there."
But what if the jury is irrational and renders a guilty verdict?
Posted by: clyde | March 01, 2007 at 11:51 PM
That's very encouraging, Clarice. If God came down right now (or sent a delegate) and announced that they haven't taken any votes yet, I would be elated. I hope you're correct.
On another delightful note, I see that Gore and two lackeys were waived through the screening process at an airport, until a security employee objected and they had to be screened like everyone else. Put this together with the $20,000 annual electrical bill and you might get the notion that this guy thinks the rules he wants to apply to others don't apply to him. That couldn't be it, could it?
Posted by: Other Tom | March 01, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Anybody remember how many felony convictions Ken Starr got? For some reason I think it was eighteen, and of course he was indirectly responsible for Clinton getting fined $90,000 by a federal judge for lying to him, and being disbarred and impeached. Now THERE was was a special prosecutor, by God.
Posted by: Other Tom | March 01, 2007 at 11:57 PM