Friday, August 30, 2013
Before I answer that, can we just please stipulate here that, aside from the two played, crony, and brain-dead political parties, none of these demarcations and categories are set in stone, and that it would probably be a good thing if we were to minimize any sort of strict adherence to them? Yes? Good............................................................................Alright now, me, conservative? Again, it totally depends upon your definition. Am I a social conservative? Obviously no (this, in that I am strongly in favor of marriage equality and generally pro-choice - I do support restrictions in the third trimester). How 'bout a neoconservative? Hell no (this, in that I was strongly against both Iraq wars and, while, I initially supported the Afghan war, I also opposed that when it morphed into a nation-building/counterinsurgency operation)!............................................................................Which leaves us only with fiscal conservative and libertarian and, yes, I have in fact become that. BUT EVEN WITH THIS ONE, I still consider myself much, MUCH, more of CATO problem solving/policy oriented libertarian than I do a Mises or Rand Institute (while, yes, I have a great amount of respect for people like Yaron Brook and Robert Murphy, I generally prefer the art of the possible to that of the theoretical world) libertarian................................................................................So, FOR INSTANCE, on the whole health-care issue, instead of wanting to do nothing a la Brook, I have advocated a comprehensive policy of health savings accounts, subsidies for the poor, catastrophic insurance, and case management for the indigent..............................................................................And the same thing with tax reform. While, yes, I do in fact see the appeal of a flat tax with zero deductions, I've instead put forth a more palatable (to the left) plan of still zero deductions but with three rates (10% on the first $50,000, 20% on $50,000 to $500,000, and 30% on everything over $500,000) as opposed to one - the goal here still being to make the tax form the size of a postcard...............................................................................So, there it is, folks. Whatever...............................................................................Oh, and, yes, I'm a civil libertarian, too - anti-warrantless wiretaps and anti-torture (which, yes, President Obama, also includes rendition).
Thursday, August 29, 2013
The Heartland Institute has an annual budget of about $6 million a year. Contrast this to the World Wildlife Fund which raked in $235 million last year and the National Wildlife Federation which raked in $107 million last year (both figures courtesy of the Better Business Bureau), and I really do have to ask you again, and the big fellows are who exactly?.............................................................................P.S. And, yes, I ripped off my title from "South Park".
The Kyoto Protocol severely restricts the CO2 emissions of Luxembourg, Iceland, Belgium, and Slovenia but NOT China, India, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, or South Korea. To steal a phrase from the Swedish diplomat, Margot Wallstrom, "This isn't about science, it's about leveling the playing field (the fact that the latter countries already emit far more CO2 emissions than the former but because the latter are poorer yada yada)."
"I think she has been punished, perhaps overly severely (the woman lost her television show and book deal, all because she told the truth), for her honesty in admitting it and for the use of the word in the distant past. She's apologized profusely."............You go, Mr. Carter (this, while both the racial and sexual discrimination claims have been dismissed with prejudice - meaning that this Jackson bimbo cannot go back to the well for more). It's good to see that at least some people on the left aren't motivated by vengeance, blackmail, and racial demagoguery.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill proposes to reduce CO2 emissions by 83% by the year 2050. This would put us at approximately the same level that we were in 1867!!!!! Does anybody with even half a brain think that this is a) doable worldwide (yeah, Brazil, India, and China are going to consent to wreck their economies to please Al Gore, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Enron, Panasonic, Kyocera, J.P. Morgan, Sharp, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, etc.) or b) desirable? The fact of the matter is that inexpensive carbon-based energy has created wealth and made the world a much more livable place (prior to it, life was often short, agonizing, and brutish) for its inhabitants. Yeah, we'll probably gravitate eventually to a more hydrogen and nuclear-based energy economy but in the mean time we (i.e., the world) probably need to be burning more in terms of fossil fuels, a) to help get the third world out of poverty and b) because it is probably more environmental than what they're presently burning; cow dung, charcoal, etc.. Enough already with this talk of cap and trade.
I agree with Colonel David Hunt on this one. "When our enemies are killing each other, LET THEM."
The vast majority of people in the top 1% achieved this position honestly and through hard work (6-8 years of college, lengthy internships when it comes to physicians, and 60-80 hour work-weeks), and they also pay the largest chuck of federal taxes. Are there a few bad actors in the bunch? Of course there are. But come on here; leeches, the wholesale and collective tarring of them, etc.?
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
In the early phases of its green energy initiative (2004), the Spanish government estimated that the cost of emission permits to Spanish companies would run no more than 85 million euros. The actual cost (as determined by Price Waterhouse Coopers) turned out to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 BILLION euros. The cork-soakers were off by 1,665%. Yeah, Mr. Obama, let's emulate Spain.
Yeah, I'm a lean no on this one.
Why in the hell was Gore rarely fact-checked? I can remember this one time in particular when the dude went on the Larry King Show and just made a myriad of untrue statements. a) He predicted that the sea level was going to rise by a meter withing a decade. Even the IPCC has only said that the sea level would rise about 1.3 CENTIMETERS per decade. b) He claimed that global warming was making droughts more severe. The Palmer Drought Severity Index has shown nothing of the sort. And c) he predicted a rapid decline in agricultural yield. The exact opposite has been the case throughout the 20th and early 21st century (plants respond well to warming and especially well to increases in CO2). I mean, this isn't difficult stuff to check, folks. You just need a computer and a modicum of motivation. CNN does have those things, correct?
Alright, let's see if I've gotten this straight. Paula Dean makes a racially insensitive comment 20 years ago (after being robbed), apologizes for it, and still faces the possibility of the loss of her livelihood, while Al Sharpton made (at least) 2 homophobic comments, orchestrated the Tawana Brawley scam, never apologized for any of it, and this dude gets rewarded with his own cable show AND continues to draw a quarter million dollars a year off of his pressure group? Wow, talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations/hypocrisy.
Monday, August 26, 2013
And the mad, depraved, and disgusting dash to the bottom continues. Thank the good Lord that we still have Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Deborah Kerr, Olivia de Havilland, Ava Gardner, and Natalie Wood on video for respite..........................................................................P.S. Sometimes the cost of relevance is way too high.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
A lot was made over the fact that Trayvon Martin was an "unarmed teenager". Yeah, well, guess what, folks, those two youngsters who beat that 88 year-old WW2 vet to death were unarmed teenagers, too. Kind of too bad that a George Zimmerman wasn't there, I say.
"The notion that alarming warming is 'settled science' should be offensive to any sentient individual.......Nothing in science is incontrovertible. This is especially true in as primitive, turbulent, and complex (there are literally hundreds of causes of climate change) a field as climate.......The value of authority is also of dubious value. It is essential to deal with the science itself."
When Medicare was started in 1965, the projected cost of the program for 1990 was $12 billion. The actual cost was $98 billion (they were off by 817%)....I'm telling you here, people, listening to Mr. Obama say that this Obamacare is "only" going to cost us a trillion dollars....Be afraid, be very afraid.
Actually, I can't really blame wd for not wanting to debate Mr. Lindzen. Gavin Schmidt tried (in the PBS Intelligence Squared debate) and got his head handed to him (just ask the audience)............................................................................Not that I'm necessarily one of those "my experts are better than your experts" folks anyway in that I actually look at the facts; the fact that the satellite and radiosonde balloon temperatures have flatlined in spite of a 28% increase in CO2 emissions, the fact that the ocean temperatures courtesy of the ARGO system have also flatlined, the fact that global sea ice as measured by the University of Illinlois's Arctic Science Research Center has stayed pretty much steady, the fact that there has been no measured hotspot in the upper troposphere of the tropics, the fact that additional radiation has been exiting the atmosphere, not less, etc.....................................................................................And the real "conflict of interest" here is the tens of billions of dollars that have been going to state "scientists", renewable energy businesses, and the big banks which stand to make a killing off of cap and trade.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
"In a normal field, these results (on feedbacks) would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own - quite removed from science. One can reasonably expect that opportunism of the weak will lead to efforts to alter the data (though the results presented here have survived several alterations of the data already). Perhaps most important, these results will of necessity offend the sensibilities of the educated classes and the entire East and West Coasts, and who wouldn't want to do that?"
Excuse me while I slit my wrists.
"What was done, was to take a large number of models that could not reasonably simulate known patterns of natural behavior (such as ENSO, the PDO, etc.), claim that such models nonetheless accurately depicted natural climate variability, and use the fact that these models could not replicate the warming episode from the mid-'70s to the mid-'90s, to argue that forcing was necessary and that the forcing must have been due to man.......This argument makes arguments in support of intelligent design sound rigorous by comparison. It constitutes a rejection of scientific logic, while widely put forward as being 'demanded' by science.......This is a sad point for science."
Yeah, it's a little violent.
I guess that there was a survey question recently in which they asked the respondents, "So, if there was a burning building and you had to choose between saving your dog or a person that you didn't know, who you choose?", and close to 40% of the folks said that they'd save their dog. Wow, I guess that people really do their canines...............................................................................So, who would I choose? I don't have a dog but I do have a cat and as much as I love the cat I would obviously choose the human. ALTHOUGH, if I did know OF the person and that person happened to be Bashir al Assad or Major Nidal Hassan or Sirhan Sirhan or basically anybody else of that ilk, I would take the cat.......Kenny G? Hm, yeah, I guess.
According to a 2001 study by Siegert, et. al, in "Nature" magazine, the widespread peat fires in Indonesia during the 1997-1998 El Nino released 1-2 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. NONE OF THIS has been figured into any of the IPCC's models or calculations. Gee, what a huge surprise.
Friday, August 23, 2013
According to a study by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Freedom, while the total school population has increased by 96% from 1950 to 2009, the total number of administrators and other non-teaching personnel has increased by 702%, and, while the total number of teachers has increased by 252%, the number of teachers as a percentage of total school staff has decreased by 28% and teachers are now just 50% of the total educational make-up. Yeah, I would say that the situation has gotten just a tad top-heavy/out of control.
"It is frowned upon."............I don't know, folks, maybe he SHOULD just shut his yap (the fact that he obviously did a hell of a lot more than "frown upon" the death of Trayvon, etc.).
Thursday, August 22, 2013
There are two main types of evidence in science; numerical and signatorial. Let me talk a little bit about the latter as it pertains to man-made global warming.........................................................................The main point here is that each of the most common potential causes of global warming has a distinctive effect on the environment. When it comes to carbon dioxide, the main thing to look for is a hot-spot in the upper troposphere (mainly in the tropics). Luckily we do possess the technology (satellites, radiosonde balloons) to determine the existence of such phenomenon AND GUESS WHAT? There isn't any hot spot in the upper troposphere, zero, nada. This, folks, is the most powerful evidence available that carbon dioxide could not have been the main reason for our most recent episode of global warming (1975-1999) - and still the media/political class pushes it. Unbelievable.
Politicians, government bureaucrats, extremist environmental groups, Wall Street.
1) The U.F.C.W. - nay.......2) The Culinary Workers Union - nay.......3) The I.B.T. - nay.......4) The S.E.I.U. - yay, but only because they got a waiver.............It seems to me as if there might be a small amount of trouble brewing in paradise here.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
In 2008, the Heartland Institute and the UN both had conferences on climate change. The Heartland conference (predominantly comprised of skeptics) received zero in terms of corporate sponsorship. The UN conference (comprised predominantly of alarmists) - they, on the other hand, received copious amounts of backing from both the renewable power industry and the carbon offset industry. To say here that the skeptics are the corporatists in this debate is laughable.
Dude, one of the reasons that President Obama vacations in MAHthahd's Vineyard is that the fellow doesn't have a second house in Texas, California, or Kennebunkport Maine. Yes, I grant you that maybe the Hudson Valley or the North Shore of Boston or the Monadnock region of Southwestern New Hampshire or the outer banks of North Carolina MIGHT have been a lesser pretentious choice but, come on, man, the dude should be able to vacation WHEREVER and not have to be reamed about it 24/7/365 by some partisan fool like you. Yes, the President SHOULD be criticized but focus on the important stuff maybe.
On the New "Crossfire" Featuring Van Jones, Newt Gingrich, Stephanie Cutter, and God Only Knows Who Else
Participants not loathsome, repulsive, nauseating, and crass enough. I just cannot wait to miss it.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
One of the things that you hear a lot is that most of those Southern racist Democrats from the '50s and '60s ultimately switched parties and became Republicans....I'm still trying to figure out if that one's true or not. I mean, yeah, you had that segregationist horny-toad, Strom Thurmond, for certain, but a lot of those other blankety blanks seemingly didn't switch; fellows like Al Gore Sr., John Stennis, Sam Ervin, James Eastland, Everett Jordan, William Fulbright, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, etc.............................................................................Maybe what these accusers are meaning to say here is that all of the FUTURE racists from the South ultimately became Republican. Yes, it would still be an exceedingly ballsy accusation on their part, but at least is would be arguable.
You're a healthy 28 year-old and faced with an option; pay $4,000 for health insurance, or a $95 fine. Does the President of the United States actually think that the lion's share of individuals who comprise this demographic are going to opt for the former choice?...And did he even think the damn thing through?
This fellow is a real piece of work. I saw one of his BBC interviews and the guy actually said that, if you take out 1998's El Nino, the trendline for global warming would have continued at it's pre-El Nino rate. First of all, I'm not entirely certain that this is true. I've looked at the satellite data over the past dozen years or so and that trendline looks pretty damn flat to me (he probably utilized some of those James Hansen airport, right next to the concrete/air conditioner thermometers). And second of all, isn't this (the omitting of key pieces of data, the cherry-picking of data, the torturing of available data, etc.) the very thing that got these imbeciles into trouble in the first place? If you're asking me here, people, Mr. Monbiot implicated not just himself but the entire alarmist movement with this "observation".
Monday, August 19, 2013
It is total bullshit. As even the IPCC itself has admitted, these researchers are not entirely independent. In fact, according to the reports that were eventually levied by Wegman and McIntyre, 9 out of the 12 of these researchers utilized precisely the same bristle-cone pine data that Michael Mann did and they ALL utilized at least some of overall findings. To say that these individuals are independent is kind of like saying that your middle and index fingers are independent.
Yet another bald-faced lie, folks. I have NEVER denied that the planet's climate changes. In fact, I have ASSERTED that it does change and that it has changed FOR 4.7 BILLION YEARS. Yes, I do have an issue with the present day hysteria which predominantly uses climate models (all of which have proven embarrassingly wrong) instead of observations/data, and which apparently thinks that a tweaking of a trace gas (each of its 2 components being in the Periodic Table of elements) from 27 thousandths of 1% to 39 thousandths of 1% is somehow going to cause an Armageddon (CO2 levels have been higher in the past and there has never been a runaway greenhouse effect), AND which idiotically wants to spend trillions of dollars to little or no effect....That I do plead guilty to.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
1) Steig, et. al. (1998) "Science" - North America.......2) Huang, et. al. (1997) "Geophysical Research Letters" - all continents.......3) Broecker (2001) "Science" - California.......4) Holzhauser (1997) "Palaoklimaforschung" - the Alps.......5) Hormes, et. al. (1998) "Radiocarbon" - the Alps.......6) Hormes, et. al. (2001) "The Holocene" - the Alps.......7) Hormes, et. al. (2003) "New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics" - New Zealand.......8) Thachuk (1983) "Origins" - the Vikings.......9) Arendes (2007) "Zeitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschraft" - Germany....... 10) Fagan (2000) "The Little Ice Age" (book) - Norway.......11) Pohl (1984) "International Journal of Earth Sciences" - the Alps.......12) Hyde (1935) "Procedings of the American Philosophical Society" - Switzerland (that landmark discovery of those Roman period mines).......13) Filippi, et. al. (1999) "Journal of Paleolimnology" - Switzerland.......14) Andren, et. al. (2000) "Boreas" - the Baltic Sea.......15) Berglund (2003) "Quaternary International" - Scandinavia.......16) Schilman (2001) "Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology" - The Mediterranean.......17) Schoell (1978) "Geology of Lake Van Kurtman" (book) - Turkey.......18) Nicholson (1980) "The Sahara and the Nile" (book) - the Sahara.......19) Issar (1989) "Paleoclimatology and Paleometeorology" - Israel.......20) Frumkin (1991) "The Holocene" - Israel.......21) Hassan (1981) "Science" - the Nile.......22) Esper, et. al. (2002) "The Holocene" - Pakistan.......23) Verschusen, et. al. (2000) "Nature" - East Africa.......24) Tyson, et. al. (2000) "South African Journal of Science" - South Africa.......25) Chen (1973) "Scientia Sinica" - China.......26) Saho (1981) "Climate and History" (book) - China.......27) Zhang, et. al. (1989) "Journal of Climate" - China.......28) Deer (1994) "Climatic Change" - China.......29) Feng (1993) "The Holocene" - China.......30) Caho (1986) "Man and Land in China" (book) - China.......31) Yang (2002) "Geophysical Research Letters" - China.......32) Zhibang (2003) "Chinese Science Bulletin" - China.......33) Kitiwaga (1995) "Geophysical Research Letters" - Japan.......34) Daniels, et. al. (2005) "The Holocene" - North America.......35) Hu, et. al. (2001) "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" - Alaska.......36) Campbell, et. al. (1993) "Nature" - Canada.......37) Stine (1998) "Water, Environment, and Societies in Times of Climatic Change" (book) - United States.......38) Stine (1994) "Nature" - United States.......39) Fagan (1999) "Floods, Famines, And Emperors" - United States.......40) Graumlich (2000) "U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Proceedings" - United States.......41) Campbell, et. al. (1993) "Nature" - Canada.......42) Campbell (1998) "Quarternary Research" - Canada.......43) Cioccale (1999) "Quarternary International" - South America.......44) Iriondo (1999) "Quarternary International" - South America.......45) Chepstow-Lusty (2003) "Journal of Quarternary Science" - South America.......46) Valero-Garces (2000) "Journal of Paleolimnology" - South America.......47) McGall (1995) "Pacific Islands Yearbook" - Easter Island.......48) Nunn (2007) "Climate, Environment, And Society in the Pacific During the Last Millennium" (book) - South Pacific.............I could have kept going but decided to stop at 4 dozen. You get the picture.
"Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which satisfies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right. Get out from underneath your desk and debate the people, Mr. Gore."......Alright, I added the last part.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
I've never been a Fox News apologist (just ask Hannity, O'Reilly, and Fox and Friends) and I'm certainly not going to start now. But I gotta tell you here, folks, as it currently stands, MSNBC isn't just a little bit worse than Fox, it is way, WAY, worse. I mean, just take a look at the last couple of years. Fox News has hired Ed Henry, John Roberts, and Howard Kurtz to a network that had already been featuring Shepard Smith, James Rosen, Chris Wallace, Kirsten Powers, Carl Cameron, and a spate of other folks who are the very least tolerable. Compare that to MSNBC which has elevated the likes of Chris Hayes, Lawrence O'Donnell (who I initially thought was decent but, no, no longer), Alex Wagner (some vacuous hottie who comes on at noon), Karen Finney, and Melissa Harris-Perry AND who've also circled the wagons around maximum-core ramrods/preexisting staple; Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow (the increasingly disturbed Ed Schultz apparently being the odd man out now). The way that I see the situation here, folks, Fox is at the very minimum giving it the good college try.
Friday, August 16, 2013
This Chris Hayes fellow is a total rush. He talks in one of his self-promotional ads about the "challenge of climate change" and what exactly we can do to "beat it" and it was like, "Dude, you can't beat climate change. It's a phenomenon that's been happening for 4.7 BILLION years. I mean, I know that you and your fellow ramrods think that the government can solve basically anything and all but in order to accomplish THIS, you're literally going to have to learn how to control the solar cycle, sun spots, ocean currents, plate tectonics, cosmic rays, lunar cycles, galactic cycles, planetary perturbations, above-water volcanic activity, underwater volcanic activity, clouds, bacteria, geomagnetic sun activity, peat fires, etc., etc., etc.. Dude! Ya' just might want to aim a little bit lower here."
A vitriolic and even more partisan and divisive candidate than Christine O'Donnell. In fact, this dude makes Ms. O'Donnell sound like Margaret Chase Smith, Jacob Javits, and Edward Brooke.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
According to Forbes magazine, the new administrator of the IRS actually DID try and get Lois Lerner to resign but the chick refused and, because this dipshit, Lerner, is a federal employee (though not a member of the union), he really couldn't fire her, either. So basically the woman is just sitting in a rubber-room somewhere while the rest of us (wd, possibly excepted) go to work and pay through the nose. Amazing, huh?
On Charlton Heston's "Get Your Stinking Paws off Me, You Damn, Dirty Ape" Only Being #66 on the AFI's List of 100 Greatest Movie Lines
You've got to be kidding. You have got to be kidding!
5) Steve Buscemi's Mr. Pink in "Reservoir Dogs".......4) Al Pacino's Ricky Roma ("You said, 'fuck the machine'") in "Glengarry Glen Ross".......3) Tony Curtis's Sidney Falco in "Sweet Smell of Success".......2) Eli Wallach's Tucco in "The Good, The Bad, And the Ugly".......1) Joe Pesci's Tommy DeVito in "Goodfellas".......Honorable Mention) Peter Lorre's Joel Cairo in "The Maltese Falcon" and Dustin Hoffman's Ratso Rizzo in "Midnight Cowboy".
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
I really gotta vote, no, on this one - two reasons. a) The vast, VAST, majority of banks that failed were either wholly commercial banks or wholly investment banks. The only glaring exception was CitiBank, and does anybody really think that turkey of a company, with that track record, wouldn't have had problems anyway? And b) The data here is pretty clear that what ultimately got many of these commercial banks into trouble were NOT activities that the Glass-Steagall law ever prohibited. Yeah, that's right, folks, their problems largely arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—strategies and investments that these folks had ALWAYS been free to engage in, WITH GLASS-STEAGALL!! Hello!
Is this guy the world's biggest ignoramus or what?
Monday, August 12, 2013
I say, utterly ridiculous. a) He expanded the monetary base to it's most inflationary status since the days of Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. b) He lowered interest rates to their lowest level since the St. Louis Fed started tracking them in the early '70s. c) The fellow had long since gained a reputation as "Mr. Bailout", having already bailed out the Mexican Peso and the Long-Term Capital Management Fund....If Greenspan was a moderate Fed chairman, I most certainly don't want to see a radical one....Oh, wait a minute, we have one now in Ben Bernanke. NEVER MIND!!
I'm also kind of curious as to what you think about the Roderick Scott case - you know, the one in which a black dude (242 pounds and muscular) shot a 16 year-old white kid for allegedly trying to break into a car and for allegedly trying to charge after him (I say allegedly in that one of the bullets entered the youngster's back). Does this scenario prompt you to want to hold your black babies close as well?
I totally understand you wanting to hold your black babies close, but after just witnessing that brutal beat-down of a 13 year-old (4 years younger than Trayvon and not a druggie/brawler) kid via a trio of older and tougher black teens, you just might want to hold your white ones close as well. Just sayin'.
The United States - 10,421 Canada - 0.............And the reason for this monstrous difference probably had to do with unit banking laws - the United States having them, Canada not (the fact that these laws made it significantly more difficult for banks to expand, diversify, etc.). Thank you kindly, Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt.
"How could a large bank, constituted on essentially the same principles, be expected to regulate beneficially the lesser banks? Has enlarged power been found to be less liable to abuse than limited power? Has concentrated power been found less liable to abuse than distributed power?"............Yeah, I would say that the American people got it right in 1876 (Tilden won the popular vote but lost the electoral college to Rutherford B. Hayes).
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Can you say, hundreds and hundreds of sex-starved twenty-somethings on Wall Street blowing their gaskets simultaneously?
I was watching C-Span the other night and they had on that Texas state senator, Wendy Davis (she of the now legendary abortion filibuster). It took place at the National Press Club and after her speech she took several questions, one of which I found particularly interesting. She was asked if there were ANY restrictions on abortion that she could possibly accept. Her answer was basically, no, that abortion was a Constitutionally protected right, period, end of discussion...................................................................................Sooooooooooo, a woman who is 8 1/2 months pregnant in perfectly good health should be able to abort a pregnancy just because she decides that she doesn't want a kid after all and doesn't want to go through the adoption process - THAT'S OK? Really? I don't know, people, it sounds to me as if there are radicals on both sides of this debate.
Yes, there are some white Hispanics (Hispanics exclusively of European origin). Fidel Castro is a white Hispanic. Geraldo Rivera is a white Hispanic. Rick Sanchez is a white Hispanic. Vicente Fox is a white Hispanic (10% of Mexico is white). Nobody is arguing against this. The only point that I've been making is that George Zimmerman is NOT a white Hispanic. a) His great grandfather was African which would make him 1/8th black and b) his mother and uncle are Peruvian which would make them obviously Mestizo and hence partly Native-American. George Zimmerman is every bit as dark (and probably darker) than Melissa Harris Perry, people. HELLO!
Saturday, August 10, 2013
I think that I'm just going to quote Jonathan Swift on this one, folks - "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he never reasoned into." The fact that I could tell Mr. Gore, "HELLO, by 400 ppm, CO2 has already absorbed pretty much all of the infrared energy that it can, and that even if you doubled it to 800 ppm (or even tripled it to 1,200 ppm), the warming effects would undoubtedly be paltry", and the fellow would simply tune me out, etc..
The President may be a reasonably smart chap in many ways but he does seem to struggle with geography at times. Last night, for example, on the Tonight Show, he tried to tell us that Jacksonville FL, Charleston SC, and Savannah GA were actually Gulf Coast cities. Seriously. I mean, can you imagine if a Republican had voiced something that idiotic?
Friday, August 9, 2013
And the sadistic bastard who decided to put Ann Margret (then 24) and Tuesday Weld (then 21) in multiple scenes together was who exactly (had to go to a damned X movie just to chill)?.............................................................................P.S. It's also kind of a ripoff of 1961's "The Hustler", the only difference being the game (poker versus billiards).
On Steve McQueen Turning Down "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" Because He Couldn't Get Top Billing Over Paul Newman and Deciding to do "The Reivers" Instead
Yeah, that probably wasn't the right move.
Must want to get into her pants.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
And how is it "selfish" to not want the world economy to be ruined? If you're asking me, it's the radical environmental movement that's the selfish party here. These miserable bastards go globe-trotting all over the planet halting projects that would undoubtedly bring jobs and energy to areas that desperately need them, and once they succeed, they head back to their air-conditioned offices in New York City, Melbourne, etc......................................................................And if you think that I'm exaggerating on the effects of radical environmentalism on the economy, think again. According to Yale economist (and believer in AGW), Richard Nordhaus, the Stern proposal would cost the world $27 trillion and only obviate the damage from global warming by $13 trillion, and the Gore proposal would cost the world $34 trillion (you had to figure that the Gore proposal would be more) and only obviate the damage from global warming by $12 trillion. It seems to me, folks, that it will be far, Far, FAR, less costly to adapt to global warming (if in fact it happens - many such as Piers Corbyn of Weather Action have argued , no) than it will be to prevent it. Of course that will also mean significantly less money to the government and............
The "green economy" is a bald joke. It was an abject failure in Spain and if it weren't for the massive subsidies in our country it wouldn't even exist here.......And the world had a green economy once. It was called the 14th century and people lived to roundabout 30. Mankind has developed the capacity to split the atom and instead we're building windmills that operate at a 10-35% capacity, require massive amounts of carbon energy for start-up, and which need a fossil fuel back-up anyway. WE ARE NUTS.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
What's next? Heidi Klum as Eleanor Roosevelt? Megan Fox as Lady Bird Johnson?
Relax. Please, relax. There is no tipping point. There is no runaway greenhouse effect (carbon dioxide levels have been much higher in the past and the earth has never once turned into Hades). Yes, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas but its effects on the atmosphere are logarithmic (you get the most noticeable warming from the first 20-40 ppm and by the time that you get to 400 ppm the effects are negligible). And while there may in fact be an interaction between CO2 and water vapor, the feedbacks seem to be negative in that the increased cloud cover tends to counteract the sun's rays..................................................................................And even if we do get a warmer climate and increased CO2 levels, those aren't necessarily bad things. Life on earth has almost always flourished (please, name one global warming period in which mass extinctions occurred - ONE!) during periods of warming (global cooling - now that shit is lethal) and the increase in CO2 is more than likely to produce better crop yields and help the rainforest. My advice to all of those worry-warts out there would be to just kick back and enjoy the rays at this point....Oh, and don't wreck the economy, please. That we do not need.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Not unpresidential and contemptuous enough/needs to go on another vacation.............And, yes, I do have Obama fatigue (just like I had Bush fatigue before him).
Not Eugene Ionesco, Samuel Beckett, Edward Albee, and Bertolt Brecht enough.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Doesn't make the French soldiers look inept enough.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been measured in a variety of ways over the years. From 1812 to 1961 it was predominantly measured via chemical analysis (the Pettenkofer method) and since then via infra-red spectroscopy. The problem here is that neither of these techniques are considered foolproof and the data has also been manipulated and cherry-picked..........................................................................For instance, DID YOU KNOW that, according to the first technique (Beck, 2007, Energy and Environment), the atmospheric CO2 level in 1942 (prior to the post war industrialization) was approximately 400 ppm, higher than it presently is (there are many other years that I could have mentioned in addition)? Or that the IPCC carefully selected the chemically analyzed data, only selecting the lowest readings and using those as the preindustrial baseline?.............................................................................Look, I have no doubts that carbon dioxide levels have probably risen, and that we in fact have played a role (I obviously have much less certitude that carbon dioxide is the major driver of warming) but the fact that these morons have continuously cherry-picked their numbers is really starting to piss me off. First they do away with the Medieval warm period and the little ice age. Then they do away with the 35 year cooling period from 1940-1975 (unfortunately for them, they can't do away with that 1975 Newsweek cover - a lot of the very same global warming alarmists of today were the global cooling alarmists of yesterday). And now this. Enough already!
Sunday, August 4, 2013
I'd probably have to go with Hamilton. The fellow was a fan of a) banking and government working closely/central banking, b) mercantilism and protectionism, c) a permanent Presidency, d) public debt (he called it a "public blessing"), e) high taxation, f) central planning, and g) governing through force, coercion, and intimidation (he actually wanted to hang the perpetrators of the Whiskey Rebellion). Yeah, I'd probably have to go with him.
Well, they're either really, really, right or really, really, wrong.
The obvious assertion of that silly ad was that wind is somehow going to be a major player in our energy future. That is bullshit. It is bullshit and, please, allow me to explain why. a) Wind, at its absolute peak, is only 35% efficient (in some areas it is only 9-10% efficient), ERGO it needs a back-up and generally, Ema, that is fossil fuels.......b) It takes thousands and thousands of tons to make each and every one of those windmills (it's called "high resource intensity") and where do you think the energy to make those windmills comes from, Ema? Yeah, that's right, fossil fuels (I repeat, you can make windmills out of steel but you can't make steel out of windmills)!!......c) The power density of a nuclear power plant is 56 watts per square meter. The power density of a 10 barrel a day oil stripper well is 28 watts per square meter. You want to know what the power density of wind turbines is? Try 1.2 watts per square meter (calculations from energy experts, Robert Bryce, Jesse Ausubel, and Stan Jakuba and similar to those of the Nature Conservancy). Da' ya' really want to pave entire states and chop down trees in the Alleghenies to build a bunch of fucking eye-sores that only give you a trickle of electricity (this, while not appreciably lowering our carbon footprint), continue to keep third-world countries impoverished, and which mangle by the thousands falcons, owls, and American bald eagles? I sure as hell don't.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Does Rachel Maddow have any idea how idiotic that those commercials of hers are? Apparently not. My personal favorite is the one in which she's standing in the middle of this humongous (and no doubt heavily subsidized) wind farm and trying to sell us on the fact that THIS is somehow the answer to our energy and environmental needs. It's like, does she just not know the facts? a) That wind is highly intermittent and inefficient? b) That it is always in need of a fossil fuel back-up? c) That it is highly resource intensive (the fact that a lot of energy goes into its creation, the fact that you CAN make windmills out of steel but not vice versa)? d) That windmills have the second lowest power density level (only ethanol's is lower) of any major power source and that you would literally have to pave entire states in order to get the same amount of power as you get from fossil fuels, hydro, nuclear, etc.? e) That wind is significantly more expensive than fossil fuels? f) That when in fact you figure in the resource demands and necessary fossil fuel back-up, the carbon footprint really isn't any lower than fossil fuels and significantly higher than nuclear? g) That this type of energy on a mass scale would have significantly deleterious effects on wildlife and the environment (the cutting down of trees, the potential for forest fires, the construction of thousands of miles of power lines, the slaughtering of endangered species, etc.)? I mean, I know that the woman is a true-believer and all but maybe if she once and a while spoke to folks such as Bjorn Lomborg, Robert Bryce, and Vaclav Smil, it wouldn't be quite as embarrassing.
Based on that logic, Zimmerman would have been justified in shooting Trayvon when the latter came up to the car, circled it, and put his hand in his waste-band.............But just for the sake of argument here, let's say that Trayvon did feel threatened (which is ridiculous in that he was a good 100 feet and out of sight when Zimmerman got out of the vehicle), maybe you can punch the dude once, maybe get on top of him to subdue him, BUT YOU CAN'T KEEP GOING; grounding and pounding and slamming his head on the sidewalk when the guy is screaming for help for 45 seconds. That is battery and had Trayvon not been shot, he'd have been arrested.
So, it was bad for Zimmerman to be a "cop wannabe", but it wasn't bad for Trayvon to be SELF-DESCRIBED "gangsta' wannabe"?......Zimmerman was sitting in his car looking at Trayvon AND TRAYVON WAS LOOKING BACK AT HIM. And not only was he looking back at him, he was making a threatening gesture while encircling the God-damned car. Oh, yeah, Zimmerman is definitely the bad guy here.
Friday, August 2, 2013
On Prosecution Witness, John Good, Saying that Trayvon was on Top of Zimmerman Administering "Ground and Pound"
So, was HE "hallucinating", too?
A broken nose, 2 black eyes, 2 distal lacerations on the back of his head, and a bruised coccyx. Yeah, it could have been worse...AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE HAD NOT THE MAN ULTIMATELY DEFENDED HIMSELF (this, after his having screamed for help for 45 seconds)!.............................................................................And this whole idiotic notion that for a head injury to be serious there has to be external bleeding is preposterous. People get concussions and TBIs all the time and in many cases there isn't any external bleeding AT ALL...............................................................................Now, as to whether Mr. Zimmerman's head was being rammed into the sidewalk or not, I don't know, I wasn't there. But the fact that one of the world's most renown pathologists, Mr. Dimaio (not to mention a modicum of common sense), says that the lacerations are totally consistent with Zimmerman's story leads me to believe, yes................................................................................And, again, I ask you, if George Zimmerman's sole purpose was to murder an individual who he had never met before (simply because the fellow was black, allegedly), then why the hell didn't he just do it? Why did he wait until the fellow had him on the ground administering a vicious beating? It makes no sense!
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Listen to the 911 call, people. It is obvious that a) Mr. Zimmerman first caught sight of Trayvon while he was cruising down Retreat View Circle AND THAT HE PASSED HIM, b) Zimmerman then pulled into the clubhouse parking lot in which he was able to watch Trayvon (from a distance) continue down the road, c) it was Trayvon who first approached Zimmerman in the car and who actually circled the vehicle menacingly (actually reaching into his waste-band while doing so), and d) Trayvon then seemingly hid behind the clubhouse and when Zimmerman exited the clubhouse parking lot and took a right onto Twin Trees Street, AGAIN, it was Trayvon who was following him (ultimately passing him and ducking between the houses that line Twin Trees Street and the Western section of Retreat View Circle).................................................................................Now, it is true that Mr. Zimmerman ultimately did get out of his vehicle and I've admitted that that was doltish. But to say that he got out of the vehicle with the express intent to murder a black kid just because he was a black kid and not for the much more logical reason of ascertaining his location (this, to provide the police with additional information) is quite an idiotic leap of faith, in my opinion.
It doesn't show up on traditional drug tests. But the fact that a) Trayvon's liver was damaged (how many 17 year-olds have liver damage?), b) he had just purchased two of the critical ingredients of it, c) his behavior on that night was wildly violent and paranoid, and d) his text messages were laced with innuendo pertaining to lean, you gotta think that the youngster had a problem here.
He's still insisting that Zimmerman said, "fucking coons" on that 911 tape. Never mind the fact that the FBI and police fully examined it, that a CNN audio expert analyzed it and concluded NO, or even that the prosecution itself has concluded that Zimmerman didn't say, "fucking coons" but "fucking punks". None of this, none of it, seems to matter to wd, who I have now concluded is a pathological liar and an individual who is in desperate need of major help.