From: "Mark" 

That be the one -- it's not so new now though, probably in paperback soon,
if not already. It's the one with this insert after the copyright page:

"This is a work of fiction. Characters, corporations, institutions,
and organizations in this novel are the product the author's imagination,
or, if real, are used fictitiously without any intent to describe their
actual conduct. However, references to real people, institutions, and
organizations that are documented in footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are
real."

That "footnotes are real" line cracks me up  Anyway, it
is enjoyable so far (about a quarter of the way through), but I read so few
novels that I'd not want to rate it on any scale at all in comparison to
other fiction works.

"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:430d399d{at}w3.nls.net...
> Well making this country poor so it can't be a world power is exactly what
> the hate America first crowd wants.  State of Fear sounds interesting.  Is
> that the new Creighton book?
>
> Gary
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:430d31ef{at}w3.nls.net...
>> BTW, I just got around to starting to read "State of
Fear" and this stuff
>> sounds like it's right out of the novel -- it probably is
  funny,
>> odd, expected too, is they want to stop (probably because Halliburton is
>> involved somehow) electric power plants from being built to "save the
> Earth"
>> but that same prevention will force poverty (and open pit fires etc.) to
>> continue and cause more pollution than the power plants ever would have.>
>>
>> They'll lose. > routines in the novel -- haven't read far enough yet to see if they're
>> successful>
>>
>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>> news:430d2e2e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> > Yes, your point and other procedural things are what I had in mind when
> I
>> > said I wasn't sure yet if it was weird or not.  This ruling could just
>> > mean
>> > that the lawsuit wasn't on its face, taking everything and all
> allegations
>> > in favor of the plaintiff to be true, so without any basis to be thrown
>> > out
>> > immediately before any proceedings whatsoever.  If this was a motion
>> > for
>> > summary judgment, then its already to weird for me at that point.
>> >
>> > Gary
>> >
>> > "Mark"  wrote in message
> news:430d27a6$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> Sounds like good news. After they cannot prove their case
the global
>> > warming
>> >> canard will fade into the obscurity it deserves. It may turn into a
>> >> "be
>> >> careful what you wish for" problem for all those
grant grubbing
>> > "scientists"
>> >> as they see their funding go south after the fact as well.
>> >>
>> >> "Rich Gauszka" 
wrote in message
>> >> news:430d1ee0{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> > Judge Jeffrey White, a former partner at Orrick,
Herrington &
>> >> > Sutcliffe,
>> >> > was appointed to the Northern District by President
Bush in 2002. <
> no
>> >> > liberal judges making this ruling >
>> >> >
>> >> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_sc/global_warming
>> >> >
>> >> > SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge here said
environmental groups and
> four
>> >> > U.S. cities can sue federal development agencies on
allegations the
>> >> > overseas projects they financially back contribute to global
>> >> > warming.
>> >> >
>> >> > The decision Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey
White is the
> first
>> > to
>> >> > say that groups alleging global warming have a right to sue.
>> >> >
>> >> > "This is the first decision in the country to
say that climate
>> >> > change
>> >> > causes sufficient injury to give a plaintiff
standing, to open the
>> >> > courthouse door," said Ronald Shems, a Vermont
attorney representing
>> >> > Friends of the Earth.
>> >> >
>> >> > That group, in addition to Greenpeace and the cities
of Boulder,
> Colo.,
>> >> > Santa Monica, Oakland and Arcata, Calif., sued
Overseas Private
>> > Investment
>> >> > Corp. and the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Those
> government
>> >> > agencies provide loans and insure billions of dollars of U.S.
>> >> > investors'
>> >> > money for development projects overseas. Many of the
projects are
> power
>> >> > plants that emit greenhouses gases that the groups
allege cause
> global
>> >> > warming.
>> >> >
>> >> > The coalition argues that the National Environmental
Policy Act, the
>> >> > law
>> >> > requiring environmental assessments of proposed
development projects
> in
>> >> > the United States, should apply to the U.S.-backed projects
>> >> > overseas.
>> > The
>> >> > U.S. law should apply, they say, because those
developments are
>> >> > contributing to the degradation of the U.S.
environment via global
>> > warming
>> >> >
>> >> > The case is Friends of the Earth v. Watson, 02-4106.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5