Park Life

Bloody jackdaws!!

for fuck sake he's shite

http://www.slate.com/id/2215818/ http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...0/09/27/privacy

You won’t find too many defenders of George W. Bush’s record on spending these days, even among Republicans. But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008. The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term. Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/200...g#ixzz1AvHyh0aP

Washington aye named after the one at your manor. Orlando? Thought that was Mexico. Boston, aye I've played on their pitch not sure there's a yank one, Memphis? Thought that was a bike? Edit Aye Atlanta City, aye I've put Atlantic City above. Your a bad liar Stevie I'm telling you. Tell me why I should know Boston, or why I should know anything about America. I could name you 30 major cities in major European countries, never had a thirst for knowledge for America. Plastic bullies who I hope fail in most things they do. Some of it is planned ignorance granted, but their dismissiveness of the world's most famous country fucks me right off so I'm every bit as dismissive as them mugs. I know Clearwater because my uncle has a holiday home there, been asked if I want to go about 20 times over the last 15 years, always say no because the only place I'd ever go to in America is Vegas. "Have a nice day". Oh dear. Because its a major reference point in popular culture. Seen The Departed? Heard of the Boston Red Sox? No to both. Can't be that impressive, it wasn't one of the host cities of the World Cup. I know Parky, is it the sort of place you could have two weeks? Think 10 days is max. Eating giant burgers at 4 in the moring having been on free booze all afternoon and night has a lifecycle. Helipcopter ride into the desert is nice. Love the vibe there, especially if you're up and you get a lot of freebies and service is second to none imo. The ex-Mrs P loved blackjack so there was no tension.

Mobile forward needed?

Washington aye named after the one at your manor. Orlando? Thought that was Mexico. Boston, aye I've played on their pitch not sure there's a yank one, Memphis? Thought that was a bike? Edit Aye Atlanta City, aye I've put Atlantic City above. Your a bad liar Stevie I'm telling you. Tell me why I should know Boston, or why I should know anything about America. I could name you 30 major cities in major European countries, never had a thirst for knowledge for America. Plastic bullies who I hope fail in most things they do. Some of it is planned ignorance granted, but their dismissiveness of the world's most famous country fucks me right off so I'm every bit as dismissive as them mugs. I know Clearwater because my uncle has a holiday home there, been asked if I want to go about 20 times over the last 15 years, always say no because the only place I'd ever go to in America is Vegas. "Have a nice day". Oh dear. Vegas is ace Stevie, been twice. Can come away with more than you went with if you keep yer head.

In two minds wether to unload on him or not.

Elite stooge or clever well meaning black man?

Washington aye named after the one at your manor. Orlando? Thought that was Mexico. Boston, aye I've played on their pitch not sure there's a yank one, Memphis? Thought that was a bike? Edit Aye Atlanta City, aye I've put Atlantic City above. Your a bad liar Stevie His push for the GC crown knows no bounds and caters for no shame.

Tottenham plan to demolish Olympic Stadium and rebuild Olympic Park Tottenham Hotspur intend to demolish the new Olympic Stadium and rebuild it as a specific football venue. Photograph: Rex Features Tottenham Hotspur today went on the offensive in the increasingly bitter battle to win control of the Olympic Stadium in Stratford, arguing that their bid rivals West Ham United would struggle to fill it and leave fans so far from the pitch that in some cases they would be unable to see the ball. Tottenham also unveiled plans to refurbish Crystal Palace as a 25,000-capacity athletics stadium to compensate for ripping out the track from the Olympic Stadium to knock down the venue and rebuild it as a dedicated football ground. Spurs, who estimate that moving to Stratford would be roughly £200m cheaper than an alternative plan to rebuild White Hart Lane, will also create an athletics "legacy fund" that they claim would fulfil the commitments made to the sport when London won the Games in 2005. The plan was immediately labelled "woefully inadequate" by Ed Warner, the chairman of UK Athletics, which is backing West Ham's joint bid with Newham Council. It would retain the track, reducing the 80,000-capacity stadium to 60,000 seats and promising a multi-sport solution with football in the winter and athletics and cricket in the summer. The Olympic Park Legacy Company is expected to announce a preferred bidder by 28 January, although that could still slip into next month, with a final decision made in conjunction with the government and the mayor by the end of March.

You're not the boss of us.

The herders are insane.

Pobs Clearwater Credence Revival.

It's gonna get raped.

US House Subcommittee Examines Geoengineering Strategies and Hazards 5 February 2010 The US House Committee on Science and Technology’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the scientific basis and engineering challenges of geoengineering, a term that encompasses a wide range of strategies to deliberately alter the Earth’s climate systems for the purpose of counteracting the effects of climate change. Make no mistake, despite the sometimes far-fetched proposals, this is not a subject that should be taken lightly. As Chairman Gordon has also made clear: geoengineering has been proposed as—and it can only be responsibly discussed as—a last-ditch measure in the case that traditional carbon mitigation efforts prove ineffective on their own. Even then, a tremendous amount of research is required to know what strategies may be worth deploying. —Chairman Brian Baird (D-WA) Members questioned witnesses about the science, engineering needs, environmental impacts, price, efficacy, and permanence of select geoengineering proposals. Geoengineering strategies fall into two major categories: Solar Radiation Management and Carbon Dioxide Removal. Solar Radiation Management techniques aim to reflect a portion of the sun’s radiation back into space, thereby reducing the amount of solar radiation trapped in Earth’s atmosphere. Types of Solar Radiation Management include: installing reflective surfaces in space; and increasing reflectivity of natural surfaces, built structures, and the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide Removal aims to reduce excess carbon dioxide concentrations by capturing carbon directly from air and storing it. Carbon Dioxide Removal proposals include such methods as carbon sequestration in biomass and soils, ocean fertilization, modified ocean circulation, non-traditional carbon capture and sequestration in geologic formations, and distributing mined minerals over agricultural soils, among others. Some Solar Radiation Management approaches could be quickly deployed at a relatively low cost and shut down if necessary. Witnesses discussed the low cost as a potential risk in itself, because nations, corporations, or individuals could act unilaterally. Neither Solar Radiation Management nor Carbon Dioxide Removal techniques would eliminate all climate change effects. For example, Solar Radiation Management could block solar radiation, but ocean acidification, the change in ocean chemistry caused when ocean water absorbs excess carbon dioxide, would continue unabated. Ocean acidification reduces the ability of shellfish and corals to form their shells and skeletons, which impacts the health of the entire ocean food chain. Witnesses also strongly emphasized that any type of intervention may carry significant unintended and unknown consequences for ocean ecosystems, agriculture, and the built environment. They emphasized the need for more research to understand potential consequences. This hearing was the second of a three-part series on geoengineering in the Committee on Science and Technology. The series is intended to create the foundation for an informed and open dialogue on the science and engineering of geoengineering. The Full Committee held the first hearing on November 5, 2009, entitled Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention. The third hearing is planned for spring 2010 and will cover issues of governance. The series of hearings is part of a partnership with the United Kingdom House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. The two Committees are holding parallel hearings and sharing materials once they are publicly available. The Commons Committee’s hearings and requests for information focus on the domestic and international regulatory frameworks that may be applicable to geoengineering. Resources * Geoengineering II: The Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges

Geoengineering — the concept of deliberately manipulating the earth’s climate system to counteract climate change — made its debut in Congress this week, which I suppose makes it officially “mainstream.” The House’s Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing on geoengineering — the first serious congressional review of the subject, according to committee chairman Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn. An equivalent committee within the UK’s House of Commons will hold similar hearings as part of a partnership with the U.S. Congress. Gordon stressed the hearings should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of any geoengineering activity and its timing was unrelated to pending negotiations in Copenhagen.

Too late, where do you think Parky lifts his patter from?

About 6 mins in some congressmen reveal that they are discussing it, but clearly none know it is already happenning...