Our purpose is, and has always been, to ensure a civil and safe environment where the many types of campus activities and open discourse can occur.
â€” University of Florida Police Chief Linda Stump. According to an Oct. 25 Associated Press story: “University of Florida police were justified in using a Taser against a student who refused to stop questioning Sen. John Kerry on campus last month, according to a state investigation released Wednesday.”
If you decide abstinence is right for you, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. But if you decide that you’re ready for a sexual relationship, the best way to protect yourself from HIV and other [sexually transmitted infections] is to be faithful to your partner and use a condom every time.
â€” Jenna Bush, daughter of President George W. Bush, in her book “Ana’s Story,” about a Central American teenage mother who is HIV-positive, that exudes an attitude that The Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus calls “refreshingly reality-based about sexual behavior â€” in a way that her father’s administration resists.”
It’s not difficult for a banker or a trial lawyer or a hedge fund manager to come up with $2,300, and they’re often left wanting to do more. That’s when they look across the dinner table at their children and see an opportunity.
â€” Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, in an Oct. 24 Post story that says “as bundlers seek to raise higher and higher sums for presidential contenders this year, the number who are turning to checks from underage givers appears to be on the rise.”
Any suggestion that Senator Rockefeller would make policy decisions based on campaign contributions is patently false. He made his decision to support limited immunity based on the Intelligence Committeeâ€™s careful review of the situation and our national security interests.
â€” Wendy Morigi, a spokeswoman for Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Oct. 22. Sen. Rockefeller has received more than $42,000 in political donations from top executives at Verizon and AT&T, which seek legal immunity for participating in National Security Agency warrantless eavesdropping.
Many AT&T executives work with the leaders of both the House and Senate Commerce Committees on a daily basis and have come to know them over the years. … [It is] commonplace for AT&T employees to regularly and voluntarily participate in the political process with their own funds.
â€” AT&T spokeswoman Claudia B. Jones, Oct. 22, explaining that the political contributions were related to, says The Times, “Mr. Rockefellerâ€™s role on the Senate Commerce Committee, not immunity or other questions before the Intelligence Committee. [Interestingly, Ms. Jones, vice president of media relations for AT&T, gave $500 to the Obama for America committee in March. Presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes the telecomm immunity bill.]
That these companies are going to focus their lobbying efforts where their business interests are is no revelation. Thatâ€™s the standard Washington way of doing business. But youâ€™re not going to buy a Rockefeller.
â€” Matt Bennett, vice president for Third Way, “a moderate Democratic policy group that has supported immunity for the phone carriers,” Oct. 22.
We have so many examples like this of people on relevant committees receiving these contributions from people who are under their jurisdictions. Itâ€™s sad to say, but it is pretty much business as usual in Washington. And it shows why so many Americans just shake their heads over the way Washington works.
â€” Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, a group that promotes promotes stricter campaign finance laws, Oct. 22
Of course the communications companies that helped the Bush administration carry out its post-9/11 warrantless wiretapping operations should be granted immunity from legal action. If, that is, they do what is generally required of those who are given protection from prosecution or civil suits.
If they squeal. If they talk, turn stateâ€™s evidence, appear as a witness for the prosecution, roll over, rat out, become the worldâ€™s largest corporate stool pigeons, get the monkey off their backs, spill their guts, unburden their souls and clear their consciences.
â€” Buffalo News editorial, Oct. 24
I said everything I needed to say.
â€” Julie L. Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control, Oct. 25, about charges that Bush administration officials cut a 14-page report on the health risks of global warming before she presented a six-page report to Congress.
It was not watered down in terms of its science, it wasnâ€™t watered down in terms of the concerns that climate change raises for public health.
â€” White House press secretary Dana Perino, Oct. 25, on the CDC director’s report to Congress.
The science is clear, and the physical consequences of global warming are obvious in shrinking polar ice caps, retreating glaciers, stronger storms, and changing rainfall patterns. We can expect rising sea levels, spreading diseases, and unpredictable, abrupt climate shifts. Even the richest nations will face huge costs coping with this challenge. The poorest nations will be hit the worst and will have the fewest resources with which to respond. This is a recipe for global resource wars, and even great resentment of our wealth by those less fortunate â€“ a new world disorder. We must act.
â€” Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, from his campaign Web site.
The scientific consensus is clear and overwhelming: we are causing the planet to warm, with potentially devastating consequences. We need to take immediate steps to address this problem. Critics contend that action will be too costly, but I believe that action is both an environmental necessity and an economic opportunity. By putting the right incentives in place, we will drive American businesses to innovate, creating new products and new jobs. Failing to act is the riskier course to both our environment and our economy.
â€” Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Feb. 2, in a statement on a United Nations report on climate change.
Everybody’s got the goals right: we’re all for energy independence, for dealing with global warming, for increasing job opportunities in the country. The difficulty breaks down in how do you get there. If you’re going to truly be effective in reaching those goals, you’ve got to be very candid about how you get there.
â€” Democratic presidential candidate Chris Dodd, Aug. 2, in an interview with grist.org.
We have no credibility with the rest of the world on this issue right now. We’re the worst polluter on the planet. America needs to lead by example. … We must lead the world to a new climate treaty that commits other countries â€” including developing nations â€” to reduce their pollution. I will insist that developing countries join us in this effort, by offering to share new clean energy technology and, if necessary, using trade agreements to require binding greenhouse reductions.
â€” Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards in a July interview with scienceblogs.com.
We must reduce America’s carbon footprint in the world by passing legislation that caps emissions and improve energy efficiency while generating energy from low-carbon sources. However, any legislation will have little impact on the global environment if we do not work together with other global polluters. Today, China and India are surpassing the U.S. in carbon emissions. Fighting global warming can only be effective if it is a collective global effort.
â€” Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel from his campaign Web site.
America has a moral responsibility to lead on the issue of climate change since we create so many greenhouse gases here and have a very large carbon footprint. … We need to work with the world community to lower greenhouse gases, reduce the carbon footprint, to bring forth new energy technologies. The world is ready for this. America needs to be ready for it and they are waiting for leaders who are ready to do it.
â€” Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich in a January BBC interview.
Strengthened institutions and invigorated alliances and partnerships are especially crucial if we are to defeat the epochal, man-made threat to the planet: climate change. … As the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases, America has the responsibility to lead. While many of our industrial partners are working hard to reduce their emissions, we are increasing ours at a steady clip â€” by more than ten percent per decade. As president, I intend to enact a cap-and-trade system that will dramatically reduce our carbon emissions. … Getting our own house in order is only a first step. … We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia.
â€” Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama writing in the July/August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.
This planet is revolting against the use of fossil fuels and against manmade pollution. And we have to fight global climate change. And we have to have an international effort to do it. And it means mandating the reduction of carbons and caps and emissions and the pollution that comes from fossil fuels and vehicles. It has to happen. … The first thing a president does on the global climate change is say we are going to follow the Kyoto Treaty, but we are going to exceed the limits because we’ve lost six years.
â€” Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson, speaking at Drake University March 2.
One thing my dad insisted upon was a jingle. He said if there is a jingle, people will say it over and over in their heads.
â€” Marla Bleecher, daughter of Vincent DeDomenico, the inventor of Rice-A-Roni, “The San Francisco Treat,” who died Oct. 18 at 92.
Quotabull is a weekly feature of Scholars & Rogues.
I like the Jenna Bush quote. And I’d really like it if the presidential candidates talked carbon taxes instead of questionable cap and trade systems, or would talk something radical like using both instead of treating them as either-or.
Also regarding the Jenna Bush quote, The American Prospect reviewed her book favorably: