Topic du’jour – building one heck of a bandwagon
I don’t know if anybody else has been paying attention lately, but there have been a whole lot of fancy video-based internet advertisements for “Fight Global Warming” popping up lately. About 2 out 3 news articles I read via my Yahoo! news has these annoying little ads in the side bar, which after weeks of ignoring them finally prompted me to click and see what the heck this new push is all about.
In retrospect, I wish I hadn’t caved to my curiosity. My old fashioned concepts of truth and integrity may never be the same…
Those of you who are near my age might remember the big ozone depletion scare about 20 years ago. As I recall, it was sprung upon us around the 1986-87 era and we were taught in school that – in so few words – our skin was going to be eaten away by cancer and all life on earth would probably cease because the ozone layer was disappearing thanks to us evil human beings and our love of aerosol hairspray. “Ozone layer” and “ozone hole” were the catch phrases and as a youngster who was facing the probability of having his skin turn black and fall off thanks to UV exposure, I was scared out of my wits. Of course, it didn’t take very long for the hype to disappear thanks to the passing of the Montreal Protocol, and we were once again safe from harm. My school stopped pounding it into my head and it was no longer splashed all over the news. We had won the battle over those wicked CFC’s and life was good.
Looking back, I have to wonder how much of the hype was artificially created so that politicians and environmentalists could tack their name onto a topic du’jour and ride the wave – which coincidentally ended in 1987 with the Montreal Protocol. I also can’t help but to ask how much this had to do with DuPont and their new miracle refrigerant that could replace the ozone depleting Freon – but at a substantial cost increase.
But I digress. The hype died down and they stopped scaring the hell out of us because the problem had been solved. Supposedly.
Did you know that 2008 saw the fifth largest recorded hole? Ouch. In fact, the ozone levels have not tracked the decreases in CFC’s since 1987; and while there is no question that CFC’s affect ozone, there is some question as to how much impact they really had. Don’t get me wrong, phasing out CFC’s was a good thing. Any time we can eliminate chemicals and replace them with “safer” options, I’m all for it. But what does bother me is that I had to suffer through the “ozone hole” scare in the mid-80’s, and for what? Was the problem solved? Why did the hype suddenly dry up? I mean, according to one of the original discoverers of the hole, it has nearly doubled in size since the original discovery. Yet, the ozone layer takes a very distant back seat to today’s topic du’jour, to which I pose the question: once the alarmists get what they want, will global warming go the way of the ozone hole even though nothing will have really been accomplished? If history is any indicator (and it is!), that is exactly what will happen.
So now let’s get back to the “Fight Global Warming” ads. A click sends me to a site set up by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Ad Council. Hmm. Maybe the Ad Council isn’t quite the force for good that they claim to be? Ok, ok, I’m just saying…
Anyway, this is the worst kind of alarmist tripe and is sending me into reminisce mode as I remember the good old days of ozone holes and UV rays… But don’t take my word for it, let’s quote straight from the horse’s mouth here:
Scientists are no longer debating the basic facts of climate change.
Really? I would beg to differ. In fact, the latest update to the Senate minority reporton global warming paints a drastically different picture as even former and current IPCC scientists are standing up against the science. Even the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, is standing up and calling “bullshit.”
Even if the temperature change is at the small end of the predictions, the alterations to the climate are expected to be serious: more intense storms, more pronounced droughts, coastal areas more severely eroded by rising seas.
Umm, there’s no proof of this. In fact, the global warming goons had to eat crow after they predicted that global warming would produce a vicious hurricane season… And then it didn’t happen. Whoops!
Experience has shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches.
Really? Gee, I didn’t realize that we’ve been down this road before. Maybe I missed it. Have we ever had CO2 cap-and-trade programs in place before? I’m not really sure where they got the information here or how they justify these claims, but the US Chamber of Commerce and the Wall Street Journal think differently.
The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.
Uh huh. Sounds a little too definitive to me. In fact, there are two very annoying elements in that statement. First off, it assumes that global warming is real and actually happening; something that is very debatable in itself. Second, the egotistical assumption that man is responsible for this. The earth has survived for a very long time and has contended with a lot of issues. To lay the claim that man is responsible for raising global temperatures that threaten all life on earth is not only ignorant, it’s maniacally egotistical. Mankind is a tiny drop in the big old ecological bucket. While our activities certainly have an impact on the planet, to assume that we can push things past a tipping point (short of all-out nuclear war) is assuming that we’re far more powerful or significant than we really are.
We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.
Wrong. This is nothing more than hypothetical talk and lies (yes, even though CNN tells us otherwise). There is no acknowledgment to the fact that global temperatures in the 1930’s were warmer than any recent decade and the fact that the fear du’jour in the 1970’s was a second ice age. There’s also some interesting information regarding levels of melt and the fact that the alarmists are quick to point out melt but fail to acknowledge recovery.
Although humans as a whole have survived the vagaries of drought, stretches of warmth and cold and more, entire societies have collapsed from dramatic climatic shifts.
Yes, we’re doomed. Despite all of our technological advancements since the supposed collapse of the Mayan empire thanks to climate change, we’re still doomed.
Anyway… The list goes on and on… And let’s not pass up the fact that they have a “Dangers of global warming” section listed abovethe science and facts section on their home page – so clearly we know where they stand on the issues. I guess this isn’t a matter of presenting the facts and letting people decide on their own. Oh no! This is an issue of doom and gloom alarmism followed by a quick look at the theoretical science behind the alarmism (followed by a this is how bad you are “You’re Impact” guilt trip if you follow the menu order at “Fight Global Warming”)…
It feels like de’ja vu all over again! I guess the biggest question on my plate right now is what’s next? Eventually this hype will die down (presumably when the people hyping get their way) and even if nothing changes a’la the ozone hole, the issue will be “resolved” and the general public will finally stop getting inundated with fear mongering rhetoric compliments of the Ad Council… And then we’ll be on to the next global “threat” that we’ll have to deal with by scaring the hell out of the public…
But alas, that’s topic du’jour for you. What more can I say?
Is Minnesota planning an army of evil clones?
Well, probably not… But honestly, I can’t think of any other reasonable reason why the state would involuntarily collect and warehouse newborn baby DNA.
Is this the state health department overstepping it’s bounds by violating defined state law and pursuing its own agenda, or is this a sign of something much more sinister going on?
Of course, the way things are going in Minnesota, I would suspect that maybe they’re just planning on cloning more potential voters for Al Franken…
An army of evil clones, a cloned liberal voting base or just plain invading the privacy of ordinary citizens…
Whatever the rationale, every last person should be asking why the MN Health Department is warehousing baby DNA… There’s just something very unethical and scary about it.
Dear Mexico, Have we got a deal for you!
Dear Mexico,
This may be a long time coming, but I think it’s finally time to give you a little something for your efforts. I know that Texas has been a sore spot with you for a long time. Sorry. You gave it a good shot, but we like Texas and it is ours. However, not all is lost, and for your efforts I think you have earned a consolation prize: California.
I know it’s not as good as Texas, but it does have nice beaches, so I think it’s a fair prize. I mean, you did lose after all, and you should be happy enough to just get something out of the deal. But really, if you look past the surface it’s really not all that bad. Sure, they have some serious issues with local government, state law and a population that, in general, has some issues with delusions of grandeur… But they really aren’t hard to deal with since they’re a bunch of peace-loving ninnies anyway. Their power is derived through pop-culture and a corrupt court system – not through any sort of military or police muscle, so bringing them in line shouldn’t be any problem.
The only thing we ask is that you keep the Californians. We don’t want them, and they have made it clear that they don’t want to have anything to do with us – so as a caveat to the gift of California, you get the Californians. We don’t care what you do with them once they’re yours, but rest assured that they will not be welcome in America any more. They’re not hard workers, but they are easily led, so leading them into a life of slave labor might just be a good option assuming you don’t expect too much out of them. Oh, and don’t worry about calling them slaves because they are already used to the notion of sacrificing the fruits of their labor “for the greater good” … even if they’ve never actually practiced what they preached. But it really doesn’t matter anyway, because they seem to believe it, so forcing them into it should be an easy process.
As an added bonus, we are throwing in all of California’s unused natural resources and energy sources. There should be plenty there since Californians didn’t believe in using their own – however the pipelines of resources from surrounding states will be cut off upon your taking receipt of California.
Our only official recommendation would be what to do with state and local government officials once the state is under your jurisdiction. Since their usefulness wwould be nullified once under Mexican control, it would not be advised that any one of them retain even a shred of power. We would recommend one of two options when dealing with California’s government personnel: 1) load them into a giant catapult and launch them into the ocean; or 2) commit them into psychiatric institutions where they can be monitored by professionals who can keep them from doing any further harm to themselves or others.
We hope you enjoy your consolation prize, and do sincerely hope that this squares us up for the whole Texas fiasco. It really is a nice state once you get passed the ranks of the mentally ill government and the hordes of useless people.
Sincerely,
The other 49 UNITED States of America
W is dead to me
While I didn’t vote for George W Bush in 2000 or 2004, I still supported him as our President and supported his war efforts because I believed in the principle. However, don’t get me wrong, I did not support him as a Republican nor as a Conservative (which is why I didn’t vote for him) because I don’t think he embodied any aspects of Cconservatism and he helped to redefine what it means to call oneself a Republican. Sorry, not interested.
But I have had a turn of heart lately, and that is my withdrawing of even the smallest levels of support for the man or his administration. Why? Because he has sold us down the river with a freakish swing to the left that most dems wouldn’t have even ventured.
While the liberal loons out there are quick to point out that W is a Republican and as such it is all the Republican’s fault and blah blah blah; however their inability to see the forest for the trees when it comes to politics blinds them to the fact that W has done near irreparable harm to this county because he did the same, exact things that the dems do – just under a different name. So if a Republican acting like a liberal Democrat has shredded the very foundations of this country, then just which side of the political spectrum is to blame?
Oh, don’t get me wrong… The dems are not exonerated from one tiny iota of blame here, because if Bush sold us down the river then it was the congressional dems that he sold us to. These fools built a frightening empire that was nothing more than a house of cards because it was entirely based on lies and the desire for power, and W – somebody who was supposed to shelter America from this disastrous game – instead sold us into a life of servitude holding up this crumbling house of cards.
So thank you, W, thank you for sacrificing your values and the values that have been the foundation of America since its founding. Thank you for throwing us under the bus so that you and uyour friands can continue to live above the fray on the taxpayer’s dollar. Thank you for helping to fuel the culture of political corruption in Washington by joining them instead of holding them accountable.
I write this as 30% of my coworkers won’t be back to work next week and I get to learn to live with a 20% pay cut while less honorable industries and politicians continue to live fat on the rest of our backs.
Again, thank you. This gesture will not be soon forgotten.
Out of touch, out of control
While the rest of us “little people” are out here dealing with layoffs, hour cuts and wage freezes and reductions, our Congress “of the people” is getting a $5000 cost of living increase for 2009… This on top of their minimum salary of $169,300 (oh, the leaders make a whole lot more than that, with Nancy Pelosi topping out at $217,400!). Don’t think I’m not equal opportunity here either, because I’m highly skeptical of President Bush’s $400,000 a year salary, but he’s also not getting a COLA increase while the rest of us are wondering if we’re going to be able to adjust to mega inflation combined with reduced paychecks… Of course, let’s not forget that Congress members get all sorts of other perks like traveling in private jets and generous expense allowances… But why should us little people care about things like that?
Does anybody else wonder how it is that people who make more than six figures and have job security, health benefits and perks up the wazoo are the people who claim to know what’s best for us? Do these people (especially the ones who have been in office longer than they haven’t) even know what it’s like to be “us” any more??
Government make-work? Where’s the sign-up sheet, Mr. Obama?
I have a question for Mr. Obama and his economic planners…
With all of these plans for “infrastructure” and government make-work jobs, will ordinary Americans get a shot at the jobs, or will they all go to existing union construction and maintenance firms? After all, we have a whole lot of idled construction and maintenance capacity and enough manpower to handle all of Obama’s plans…
So with my new reduced hours and 30% of my company already laid off as of the end of the year, I sure would like a shot at — oh, let’s just say I would like a job doing power distribution and grid work… Or maybe agriculture work. Either or, I’d be happy enough. So where’s the sign-up sheet? I want my name on that list alongside all of the rest of the existing idled workes who will presumably be activated by the “great” stimulous opportunity. In fact, I want the rest of my fellow rural Wisconsin residents who are hurting to be added to the work list.
As these are the promises that are beiong made, I don’t think it’s asking too much, is it?
Union of Confused Sycophants?
The Union of Confused Sycophants, er, I mean the Union of Concerned Scientists seems interested in driving us straight into the side of a mountain… And for what? Why? Global warming? Global climate change? Kissing the rearsides of the politicians and businessmen who are looking to make names for themselves?
It would seem that these buffoons just don’t get it. They see what they want to, and look no further. Are these really the people we want steering public policy through spineless and gutless politicians who are nothing more than puppets to the environmental and big green money movement?
Needless to say, I am appalled to the point of wanting to excommunicate the New England states from America by the fact that the band of collective idiots out there are holding carbon auctions under their own “mandatory” cap and trade system. I guess in an era of pending economic catastrophe it only makes sense to inflict as much harm on the businesses and residents of New England as possible – and all in the name of global warming?
The first quarterly auction sucked $38.5 million from industry… And this is to be a quarterly event for the 10 New Engand states? You have got to be kidding me! But economics and unemployment be damned, it’s all about saving the planet from global warming, right? After all, the UCS Northeast climate policy coordinator, Ned Reynolds (probably a real swell guy) had this to say about it:
“During a holiday season that hasn’t featured a lot of good news, this second RGGI auction will be a cup of good cheer.”
What the hell is wrong with these people? Seriously. There has got to be something screwed up in the heads of these folks if they think that using global warming alarmism to extort money from industry and people is a good thing in the wake of the crumbling economy is a good thing!
Does anybody who hasn’t sacrificed their common sense at the alter of the green or doesn’t stand to make money or personal gain from this extortion really actually believe in global warming any longer? We have bigger fish to fry; not to mention the fact that the “evidence” supporting global warming alarmism is falling apart faster than the liars can make it up. The hard facts are starting to stack up against the claims that the sky is falling, and the general public is starting to poo poo even the most egregious claims (did they change their mind again?) that are com ing out these days. Add to that the fact that. well, didn’t one of the alarmists-in-chiefs just tell the world that they are indeed lying, but lying for a “good cause?”
I’m starting to wonder when it is that the people in this country are going to put their foot down and tell these corrupt politicians, scientists and money grubbers where to stick their global warming… Waiting until it’s too late isn’t going to cut it this time. It’s time to listen to reason before we’re in too deep.
Merry Xmas: A First Amendment Primer
(This post was originally written last year at this time, but I think it’s a good time to resurrect it)
As a strict Federalist, I have shocked people before by stating that I disagree with the Bill of Rights and feel that it was one of the worst decisions that our founding fathers made. While it wasn’t necessarily bad in intention, it simply was a very bad idea from the get go.
Why? Namely because you cannot easily define rights. Rights are, by nature, undefinable. It would be easier to define what one’s rights aren’t than to simply make blanket statements like the Bill of Rights did. In the end, making such vague and open-ended statements does nothing but open up the process to exceptions, misinterpretations and abuse. It allowed for Judges to define rights, which equates to legislating from the bench – which is not a good way to deal with citizen’s rights because the very concept of rights can vary drastically depending on how the bench is stacked at that particular time. That is how we end up with national headaches like gun control, Roe v. Wade and the supposed “separation of church and state.” These sorts of things aren’t in the US Constitution. They were created by judges.
Since it is that Merry Christmas time of year, I thought I would take the opportunity to address the misconception of the separation of church and state; namely because I am getting severely annoyed by all of the whining babies out there who keep claiming that the recognition of Christmas is a violation of the Constitution.
But first, a brief history lesson regarding religion in the eyes of our founding fathers. Why did the “establishment” and “free exercise” clauses of the first amendment come about? At the time, people were fleeing Europe to get away from, among other things, religious persecution. Due to the blending of government and religion in many areas of Europe, religion was not free. In some instances, Europeans had to deal with theocracies. In others, it was simply a matter of the government telling the people that they had to abide by a particular religion. With the founding of America, the founding fathers sought to prevent this from happening here. Hence, the clauses.
The “establishment” and “free exercise” clauses were put in place to keep government from legislating religion as well as to allow for the people to practice without fear of persecution. It should have ended there.
However, it didn’t. Thanks to the erroneous ways of the Bill of Rights, judges were allowed to interpret the amendments as they saw fit, using whatever context they found convenient. In turn, we now must contend with a nation where children are not allowed to pray in school, symbols are banned and any recognition of a religious holiday or event is taken to mean an official endorsement and stomped out in the name of the Constitution.
I don’t think that this is what the first amendment had in mind.
I fear that the founding fathers are rolling in their graves over the fact that their precious concept of freedom has been bastardized in our modern times and has actually been turned to work against our basic freedoms. Contrary to modern opinion, the first amendment was not designed to eliminate religion; rather it was put in place to ensure that all religions were recognized and accepted within the structure of our new nation.
So where did this misconception come from? Opinion. Opinion based an 1802 correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists regarding their protection from federal interference as a minority religion in the area. In the letter, he says:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
To me, it sounds like Jefferson is proclaiming that the Danbury Baptists are free to practice as a minority religion and they should have no fear of having the government step in and tell them that they are wrong and must adhere to any majority. In other words, religion is something between man and god, and as such there is no right or wrong in the eyes of the law.
However, I do not see any reference to the government not recognizing or acknowledging religion – so long as they do not proclaim one to be “right” or “superior to” any other religion. In an 1808 letter to the Virginia Baptists, Jefferson touched on this again:
“We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
Again, there is no proclamation that religion is to be specifically excluded from government. In fact, as I read this statement, one thing sticks out in my mind:
“…we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion…”
To me, this statement means that everybody is free to practice as they see fit, but again there is no reference to the denial of religion in government. In fact, Jefferson specifically states “openly” which would tell me that religion was not something that was intended to be denied or hidden from the public.
So where did the modern day interpretation of the separation of church and state come from? A judge’s opinion based on these letters from Thomas Jefferson. The entire basis for the argument of government recognizing religion as being unconstitutional was not based on the constitution itself. It was based on a judge defining rights from the court bench.
So where does this leave us today? it leaves us with the ACLU and a bunch of whining brats out there standing behind an opinion on what the Constitution could mean, but doesn’t necessarily reflect what the Constitution does mean.
An element of government professing any recognition or acceptance of religion – particularly when revolving around a holiday that is celebrated by the majority population through culture and belief – is not a violation of the constitution so much as it is a violation of somebody else’s opinion. How sick is that? For an entire nation to be held to a standard of being punished for professing “Merry Christmas” or putting out a nativity scene on public land is ludicrous at best. As long as the government doesn’t specifically state that they are endorsing a particular religion as better than or exclusive over another, there is no real constitutional violation.
So with that, I say just one thing: Merry Christmas, everybody!
Dictators gone wild
When Congress speaks, who listens? If the US Congress feels put off by the current situation, imagine how we – the little people who don’t seem to matter anyway – feel… The American people have been cut off from their representation, and now the representation has been cut off from the top.
Where did our checks and balances go? … All it took was for Congress to make one decision that the top didn’t like for things to completely come apart, and now we see the nature of the beast.
Congress’ inability to pass an auto industry bailout was not an open invitation for the top players to step in and do one anyway. Yet…
White House assures automakers help is on the way
Detroit automakers, teetering on the brink of collapse, are receiving strong signals from the White House that short-term help is on the way while a key senator says the relief package could reach $15 billion for GM and Chrysler.
So much for a separation of powers. From the looks of things, Bush, Pelosi, Reid and Obama are running the show and the rest of government be damned. I guess maybe the “top three” and the sacred “Office of the President Elect” think they’re above it all and well beyond reproach…
Feeling disenfranchised yet?
Dude, where’s my money?
A government of the people, for the people?
Not any more! We’re just little subjects here to provide the working capital for our mighty bureaucracy.
Quick Hits: Fed Refuses to Dole Out Information
The Federal Reserve has made about $2 trillion in emergency loans. Ever wonder who’s gotten that money?
So did Bloomberg News. The news agency filed suit under the US Freedom of Information Act on November 7th in an effort to discover the terms of 11 Federal Reserve lending programs.
On December 8, the Federal Reserve said it’s permitted to withhold internal memos, information about trade secrets and commercial information. In short, the Fed says it’s not required to disclose the information – and won’t.
Uh huh…
