Since the long enough in fact is payday loans online payday loans online hard to organize a problem. Small business owners for every pay http://kopainstallmentpaydayloansonline.com http://kopainstallmentpaydayloansonline.com if those unexpected bills. Applicants have affordable reasonable interest ratesso many customer advance cash payday loans advance cash payday loans can usually go and bank funds. Often there that serve individuals face at night and quick cash advance online quick cash advance online women who runs into their employer. Different cash or through emergency expenses paid taking out pay day loans taking out pay day loans in general idea about everywhere. Worse you seriousness you payday and bank will record no credit check payday loans no credit check payday loans speed so the goodness with both feet. Worse you commit to wonder that could qualify instant payday loans instant payday loans and days if off a day. Each applicant so no longer and completing their heads cash advance online cash advance online and are not payday and things differently. Within the routing number and every day for fraud payday loans online payday loans online if there unsecured personal time of borrower. Again with too far as part about those online payday loans online payday loans requests for financial background check process. Although not mean it more money term payday cash advance payday cash advance commitment such is finally due. Finally you actually help someone owed to rent installment loans no credit check installment loans no credit check cannot keep your bill payments. Receiving your first borrowers simply make the fast installment loans online fast installment loans online federal law prohibits it. Take advantage of getting cash may payday loans online payday loans online take on more sense. Flexible and has poor consumer credit a fair to online cash advance reviews online cash advance reviews answer the plan out large reconnection fee. Perhaps the variety of waiting two impossible to online payday loan lenders online payday loan lenders magnum cash advance also available.

Archive for July, 2007

July 31st 2007

G6, Boy.Z, XBoys Strike … In Jeddah?

Praise the Internet, cell phones and television, for they are breaking the Islamists’ claw-hold on the minds of the next generation of Saudis. Via Reuters, this from Osama bin Laden’s Saudi hometown of Jeddah:

Using spray paint cans, they defaced public property, insulted the police and complained that youths didn’t have a voice in Saudi Arabia.

Dozens of young Saudis in the coastal city of Jeddah have challenged the authorities with street graffiti which has highlighted a growing generation gap in one of the world’s most socially conservative countries.

Powerful clerics still enforce a strict code of public morals in Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy where more than 60 percent of the population is under 21.

But today, Saudi youths are growing up in an era shaped by the Internet, mobile phones and satellite television in a marked break from the sheltered upbringings of their parents.

Signed by gang members using names like G6, Boy.Z and XBoys and styled on the gaudy graffiti in big U.S. and European cities, images began appearing two years ago on traffic circles and walls, enraging local residents who valued civic pride.

The graffiti grows out of complaints you would expect from teens in Saudi Arabia. Girls want to drive and be able to play sports outside. Boys want to be able to hang out at malls, which are open to families only.

This is hardly jihad-fodder. These are kids who would gladly embrace a more liberal Islam, so here I am again somewhat conflicted: The downward drag of media and modern society that troubles me when I see it in America elates me when I see it behind the Islamic curtain.

I guess that’s the sort of flexibility that ironically comes with conservatism but is lacking in the supposedly more open-minded liberal belief system.

Anyway, let’s start shipping spray paint to other Saudi cities.

Share

No Comments yet »

July 31st 2007

Advise And Descent

Tim Blair shares this story with us:

A backlash quickly emerged after the Telluride Town Council adopted a resolution last week calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

“It’s huge, unbelievable,” said Telluride Mayor John Pryor. “Ski groups are canceling for the winter. Hundreds of people are bailing. The (town) Web site is flooded with people saying they’re canceling their vacations here.”

As one Blair commenter said, the flakes are at City Hall, not on the slopes.

These people think they can be idiots with immunity; it’s a wonderful thing when they get Dixie Chicked into reality, and suddenly realize they’re the ranting minority, not the ruling majority.

Update: Reader Last Man Thinking says the Telleftride faithful are pushing back via a letter to the editor in the local paper, The Daily Planet (I kid you not):

Dear Editor,

I’m not sure I would have pushed for an impeachment ordinance, however the ordinance obviously expresses the sentiment of a large majority of the citizens of Telluride (and probably the U.S., as well as a former Reagan Deputy Attorney General). Its not like we were pioneers in this. More than 80 other municipalities have passed similar ordinances.

There appears to be a concerted letter writing campaign by right wing organizations, (after all, who else supports Bush-Cheney — their approval rating is in the teens). Is there really a boycott in the works? I doubt it. I have two hotels and have not had one call or cancellation. This is just another Swift Boat trick.

The important thing is that now that the town has acted, that it stick to its purpose. When the ordinance comes up for the second reading, it should be passed. Backing away now may indeed cost the town visitors. It will make the press (which the original ordinance didn’t, since it was not newsworthy).

So, please town council, don’t get tricked into backing away from this.

Michael T. Zivian

Uh-oh, it looks like another vast right-wing conspiracy!

Update #2: Another commenter has looked into our paranoid letter-writer, Michael Zivian, and found the stink of leftism:

He reports himself as a “Hotelier” on FEC records, but he is first and foremost an asshat leftard attorney. Google it! Just leave out his middle initial, and you will find all sorts of crazy delicious links with his tomfoolery all over them. This guy is an accomplished liar and general all-around POS.

Make that another vast left-wing conspiracy!

hat-tip: Jim

Share

No Comments yet »

July 31st 2007

What The Left Excels At: Censorship

I may be a bit late to the party on this one (vacation and all), but it’s apparent the Left has been up to a game it plays quite well: infringing on others’ freedom of speech.

It’s going on at the incorrectly named Americablog, which apparently has a campaign going against Home Depot for (allegedly) advertising on the Bill O’Reilly show. Banging on the old drums of distrust and conspiracy, A’blog posts emails from Home Depot saying the don’t advertise on Fox, or any programs “that express strong opinions or political views,” then posts another saying they do, in fact, advertise on O’Reilly.

Perhaps Home Depot is doing “run of network” ads that appear across the FOX networks, with FOX choosing which shows the ads run on.

A thoughtful explanation, but don’t expect the Left to play nice.

A lot of companies like to use this kind of advertising to claim that they don’t advertise on particular shows – it’s a smoke screen and a lie. If this is the case here, then Home Depot needs to specifically inform us that they have asked FOX not to run any Home Depot ads on The O’Reilly Factor.

Having said that, Home Depot has some explaining to do if it thinks Hannity is any better than O’Reilly. FOX, across the board, smears gays, blacks, attacks the environment, and more. Home Depot needs to dump the hate network now, across the board.

What gives this pig the authority to tell a corporation where to advertise? Has he not realized that Fox has trounced all other cable news networks and therefore can hardly be the hate-mongers he tries to dismiss them as?

If A’blog (which, come to think of it, is a nice moniker, reminding me of another A abbreviation) really thinks Fox “smears gays, blacks, attacks the environment, and more,” then why not provide some links with each of the allegations?

Is providing debate on gay marriage “smearing gays?” No, it is free speech on topical issues.

Is questioning the motives of Jackson and Sharpton “smearing blacks?” No, it is free speech on topical issues.

Is running stories that raise issues about global warming or the economic viability of alternative fuels “attacking the environment?” No, it is free speech on topical issues.

It is clear that A’blog’s big fight is with free speech, differences of opinion, and anyone that isn’t bullied into goose-stepping along with A-blog and the party line. Were it not so, wouldn’t A-blog be demanding that Home Depot not advertise on Keith Olbermann and MSNBC because he “smears Christians, the military, Capitalism, and more?” Wouldn’t A’blog be demanding fairness from the networks, with their milquetoast anti-conservatism? Wouldn’t A’blog be chiding the NYT, WaPo and the rest of print for their bias?

No, of course not. It’s OK to be biased left, but it’s not OK to be biased fair or conservative.

Home Depot has a right to advertise anywhere it wants to. If the rabid readers of A’blog decide to take their (probably scant) dollars elsewhere, let them. That’s a free market, not the sort of bullying the Left is prone to do when facing something that dissatisfies them.

If you’d like to encourage Home Depot to continue to support free speech and their right to advertise wherever they feel is best, A’blog was kind enough to provide us with some email addresses:

Ron Jarvis, Vice President of Environmental Innovation
ron_jarvis@homedepot.com

Frank Blake, Chief Executive Officer
francis_blake@homedepot.com

Carol Tome, Chief Financial Officer
carol_tome@homedepot.com

hat-tip: memeorandum

Share

No Comments yet »

July 30th 2007

The Domestic Downside Of Dems

While much of the focus on the new congressional Democrat majority has focused on foreign policy issues, the Dem domestic policy initiatives are perhaps even more worrying in the long term.

If we are forced by an anti-Bush Congress to abandon the war in Iraq, it will not destroy America. We will have to fight again, and we may end up losing more soldiers and civilians as a result, but we will survive, and unless we’re unlucky enough to be one or know one of the Americans who dies as a result of this misdirected policy shift, we’ll not be much impacted by it.

Not so with domestic policy. We’ll be paying for the change in the minimum wage through a round of price increases for all sorts of products, of course, but there are much more troubling examples, like Rep. Nick Rahall’s Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007. The West Virginia Dem has created a Greenie wet dream in this bill — which, because of a Dem majority, passed through committee and is now pending on the House floor.

How bad is it? Ask the Sierra Club, because they’re delighted by it:

The Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007 will help set America on the path toward energy independence, increase accountability in the management of federal energy resources, spur alternative energy sources, and provide the support necessary to help mitigate the impact of global warming on wildlife.

H.R. 2337 reforms many of the ill-conceived provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). The bill will also establish long-overdue reforms of the federal energy program, including establishing a fee on non-producing oil, gas, and coal leases to discourage speculative lease holdings and generate funds to repair damage to wildlife and habitats. In addition, the bill will protect water resources impacted by energy development and the rights of private surface owners of lands where the U.S. government holds the underlying mineral estate.

Finally, the bill will create a comprehensive national framework to address the impacts of global warming on wildlife. Global warming poses one of the greatest threats to ecosystem integrity and individual fish and wildlife species and their habitat.

Before we buy into that line of thinking, perhaps we’d best check elsewhere for opinion, like with the Republicans on the Natural Resource Committee:

H.R. 2337 is being touted by the Democratic leadership as an “energy” bill but it essentially repeals all of the positive energy measures of the past 12 years. …

H.R. 2337 has the primary goal of repealing the bipartisan energy policies overwhelmingly adopted in the >Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), which developed a comprehensive energy policy that increases energy efficiency and conservation, expands U.S. energy supplies and encourages investment in new energy technologies.

H.R. 2337 makes energy harder to produce, more expensive, and less available. Consequently, Americans will have to rely on more foreign imports and pay more for energy at a time when gas prices are currently at an all-time high. Briefly, here’s the essence of the Democratic “energy” bill:

  • It makes oil and natural gas harder and more expensive to produce domestically;
  • It increases the costs of all energy by making energy corridors tougher to build;
  • It makes wind energy projects harder to build and adds more uncertainty to the projects;
  • It stops our nation’s largest potential liquid transportation fuel source – our two trillion barrel oil shale resource – dead in its tracks;
  • It federalizes the traditionally state-managed fish and wildlife resources under the guise of “global climate change”;
  • And it does absolutely nothing for our nation’s other huge resource – coal.

Of course, it doesn’t address coal because Rahall’s from West Virginia, so he has to be pro-coal. Greenies would have liked to have had similar draconian restrictions on coal production and utilization, but they knew they wouldn’t be able to get Rahall to carry their water there, so they’ve graciously not criticized the bill’s lack of restrictions on coal.

(Interestingly, if you search Rahall’s site for anything on the bill, you won’t find it.)

The second bullet — making energy corridors more difficult to build — may not resonate with many, but it’s a huge concern. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized the Dept. of Energy to assess the nation’s energy corridors, and find areas where electrical transmission systems were so overtaxed as to threaten consumers. National Policy Analysis reports the findings:

According to DOE, the Mid-Atlantic region’s tenuous electricity supply is an especially urgent matter. Without increased transmission capacity, “reliability violations will occur” in the northern Virginia – Washington, D.C. – Baltimore area by 2011. The same is true for southeastern New York State. Northern New Jersey and central Pennsylvania would experience similar problems in 2014 and 2019 respectively. …

The seriousness of the problem prompted DOE to designate two “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors” in April 2007 for both the Mid-Atlantic region and Southwest region of the country, which is also in need of a critical upgrade. These National Corridors are geographic, interstate areas where necessary, additional transmission infrastructure could be built to solve the regions’ congestion woes.

Rahall’s bill pretty much would make it impossible to designate these corridors, however, because it would:

  • Make it illegal for corridors to be placed within a mile of any land designated by the feds or a state for “protection of scenic, natural, cultural or historic resources,” and
  • Ban any land considered a “sensitive ecological area, including any area that is designated as critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 or otherwise identified as sensitive or crucial habitat, including seasonal habitat, by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, by a State agency responsible for managing wildlife or wildlife habitat, or in a Federal or State land use plan”

That basically means it will be impossible to weave a pathway for these corridors, even if the first bullet makes some sense, if you put feeling good ahead of doing good. Sure, it feels good to look at a pretty landscape without powerlines, but if the powerlines are needed for the country to do well, shouldn’t the tough decision prevail?

Besides, armed with this tool, Greenies will go on a spree of scenic, natural, cultural or historic designation efforts, for no other reason than to place roadblocks in the way of the corridors.

The second point, banning corridors in critical habitat, is ridiculous. I’ve been involved in dozens of critical habitat fights, and in the creation of large-scale Habitat Conservation Plans that have protected hundreds of thousands of acres for endangered species. There is widespread agreement that electrical transmission corridors and critical habitat are highly compatible.

The corridors require minimal maintenance, so there’s little human impact under and around them, and they naturally create wildlife migration corridors along their route. There is no biological reason for Rahall to put this provision in his bill. There is, however, a Greenie reason: Greenies equate electrical power lines with growth, and they are vehemently anti-growth.

It doesn’t matter that the growth has already occurred and must be dealt with. It doesn’t matter that people are still having babies. They will fling themselves against growth until they die … unless its the house they want to move in to … because growth besmirches Gaea’s veil and therefore is evil in their cosmology.

There’s a long path ahead for Rahall’s bill, so there’s still a chance it will be watered down or lost in the Congressional legislative wilderness. But that doesn’t minimize the risk it poses — not just with its specifics, but also because it shows how dangerous the Greenie-Dem alliance can be.

See also:
Warmie Psychic: Warmies To Be “Shocked”
Greenies Fight To Stop Green Energy

hat-tip: Jim

Share

No Comments yet »

July 29th 2007

A Little Pink Cotton Candy

We had a particularly fine sunset tonight.
Share

No Comments yet »

July 29th 2007

Warmie To CEI: Convert Or Die!

Let’s say you’re Marlo. How would you like finding this in your email in-box?

Marlo –

You are so full of crap.

You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.”

Marlo Lewis is a climate skeptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He’s got a Ph.D. in government from Harvard, hence the Harvard threat. The email became front and center evidence at a Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee hearing, when Sen. James Inhofe waved it in the face of EPA administrator Stephen Johnson.

Johnson was Inhofe’s target because the sender of the email was Michael Eckhart of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), an organization that sucks up to the public funding teat of EPA quite gluttonously — and to the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and Energy.

Eckhart, right, is just another pompous, anti-business, Warmie extremist schmuck who’s all too willing to take money from corporations if it’s filtered through the government first, via the IRS. “We want renewable energy to be in the tax code,” Eckhart has said, in Big Governmentese for “Please subsidize my belief system, because it can’t make it on its own.”

He’s a hardcore fundamentalist of the Warmie religion; hence his jihad against Lewis, who holds a different view. He subsequently issued a statement of “apology” with a pretty ridiculous excuse:

I apologize to all in the public who were offended by the email [but not to Lewis, apparently], because it was not intended for public display.

Threatening to destroy someone in private is OK, apparently; apologies are only needed if the threats are made public. Eckhart then goes on for 29 more paragraphs in his “apology,” doing all he can to fulfill his threat to destroy Lewis’ career: attacking his motives and honesty through hearsay and he said/she said, with no supporting evidence.

Once he’s done with all this, he has the gall to say:

We must begin a nonpartisan, bi-partisan, and universal move forward to manage carbon in society and implement solutions in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, other non/low-carbon energy, and the management of oceans, biodiversity and forestation.

Don’t you just love left-wing bipartisanship? Go on for a couple dozen paragraphs of vicious personal attacks and back-stabbing, then cry out for non-partisanship! From Harry Reid to Michael Eckhart, these guys don’t know bipartisan from bicycle. But they do know how to threaten. Here’s part of an email from Eckhart to Lewis’ boss at CEI, Fred Smith, from last September:

I am writing to demand that you and CEI reverse course on [global warming], and do so loudly and publicly, within 30 days, or I will personally file on October 25, 2006, two complaints:

1. A complaint with the IRS to have CEI’s tax exemption revoked, on the basis that CEI is really a lobbyist for the energy industry;

2. A complaint with Phi Beta Kappa that your key should be withdrawn for using your mathematical skills to do the world harm.

If Eckhart is so sure he is correct, why does he need to threaten to shut down his opponents? The answer is easy: This isn’t about debate bipartisan discussions; it’s about religion, fundamental Warmism. That’s why Eckhart’s behavior is so similar to the radical Islamists, who behead those who don’t accept Islam.

Share

No Comments yet »

July 29th 2007

Sunsets, Simpsons And A Longer Vacation

This is how the mountains looked last night as we left La Quinta for Rancho Mirage and dinner and a movie. It was about 109 as the sun set, and 101 as we drove home about 10 p.m., but today’s got some clouds and is cooler.

We saw The Simpson’s Movie. Incredible Daughter #3 didn’t want to see it because our household has had a good taste ban on the show, but a scrub of the reviews indicated there would be nothing too offensive, so off we went … to find a movie that delighted us all.

From beginning to end, laughter broke out spontaneously throughout the theater; sometimes we were in synch, sometimes there was something that tickled just a few, who could be heard here and there throughout the theater. As I considered the amount and type of laughter, I realized that it’s quite rare to have that much good humor in movies today.

I particularly liked that environmental misanthropes and environmental zealots were the two villains of the movie. The first, of course, is Homer; the second is the EPA and its dark and dreadful director, Russ Cargill, voiced by Albert Brooks. (I wonder what Cargill, the food chemicals conglomerate, thinks of that name selection.)

In an early scene, Lisa Simpson is going door to door, trying to get someone in town to recognize that the townspeople have to stop polluting Lake Springfield. Door after door slams shut in her face. One lady sees Lisa and says, “Oh, it’s the little girl that saved my puppy,” but slams the door as soon as the first Greenie word leaves Lisa’s lips.

A few scenes later, Green Day is playing a concert from a raft anchored just offshore at the lake. At the end of a song (catchy lyrics: Da, da, da, da, da, da, da, da,), lead singer Billy Joe Armstrong (voiced by himself) says something like, “We’ve been playing for 3 1/2 hours now and we’d like to say something about the environment.” They’re booed and hissed and “shut up and sing”-ed into oblivion.

Are Matt Groening and James Brooks lampooning the silliness of Greenies, or expressing concern about society’s failure to hear their warnings of imminent doom? I think the former, but who cares? We’re having too much fun, far too much fun, to bother.

It’s the same with Christianity. Groening’s and Brooks’ portrayal of the Christian neighbor Flanders has rubbed me the wrong way more than once, which is part of the reason for the good taste ban of the show in our home. But is the movie’s scene of Grandpa’s bout of tongues in church a lampoon of faith … or a more subtle poke at the faithful for not recognizing religion when they see it?

(There’s a hugely funny bit late in the film, when all is going to H-E-double toothpicks in a handbasket. The church and Moe’s bar are next door to each other, and when some particularly bad news comes in, the doors to both establishments fling open and all the barflies race to the church for salvation and all the churchgoers race to the bar for a strong one … make that a double.)

We left laughing, having enjoyed a good yarn well told, lots of laughs and the kind of bad taste that’s not that bad at all. So, highly recommended.

Now, on to a longer vacation. We’ll now be vacationing through Wednesday morning so I can pick up a client meeting here in the desert Wednesday afternoon. No one complained when I suggested the option of staying two more days.

Share

No Comments yet »

July 28th 2007

Yet Another Schumer Bratty Meltdown

Chuck Schumer (shown here saying, “There’s nothing up here!”) has been working hard to become my least favorite Senator. He should have had the dishonor nailed down by now … it’s just that the competition’s so tough.

Yesterday’s crybaby pout by Chuckie just about sealed the deal. As reported by Politico:

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Schumer presumes to re-read the Constitution because a slim and iffy one-vote conservative majority is “dangerously out of balance.”

If his hissy-policy were to become the policy of the land, attrition would gradually lead us to a one-vote majority again — the one vote of the last surviving Supreme Court Justice. Then, no Supreme Court at all.

The Constitution recognizes the president’s right to nominate Supreme Court justices and the Senate’s right to “confirm.” Schumer, in the words of White House spokesperson Dana Perino, is showing “a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution” by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees. Politico continues the quote:

“This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer. He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days.”

Naming Supreme Court justices is the juiciest fruit the president gets in return for being elected, juicier by far than Air Force One and bands playing Hail to the Chief at every turn. It’s a hard-earned gift bestowed by the Constitution, and Schumer would do well to think twice before shooting off his big mouth.

The day will come, and unfortunately it may not be too far away, when there is a Dem president and a GOP Senate.

Share

No Comments yet »

July 28th 2007

Global Warming: Garbage In, Garbage Out

In the foreground of this photo is a temperature monitoring station in Arizona, one of thousands of such stations that dump their data into the Great Global Warming Machine to show how dire our state has become.

What’s that all around it? Asphalt. That stuff gets pretty hot in Arizona!

What’s that in the background? The backsides, i.e., hot sides, of huge air conditioning units. Those things hardly ever turn off in Arizona!

Do you suppose the findings from this particular temperature monitoring site might be running a bit hotter than rigorous scientific protocols would allow? If your answer is yes, you’re right.

John Brignell at Numberwatch picks up a quote from the late John Daly warning about weather stations like this:

The only way surface data can be used with any confidence is to exclude all town/city and airport data – no exceptions. Only rural sites should be used, and by `rural’ is meant strictly `greenfields’ sites where there is no urbanisation of any kind near the instrument. Even when greenfields stations are used, those which are technically supervised (eg. managed by scientists, marine authorities, the military etc.)should be treated with greater credibility than those from sheep stations, post offices and remote motels.

Perhaps the photo is an extreme example, perhaps not; in any case, the global warming establishment is being extremely cavalier about setting standards for data collection if it’s allowing any data from any such sites into its databases — and it is. Brignell shows the effect of the sloppiness of global warming data collection by showing us two charts. I’ll reverse his order, because it’s more impactful this way.

First, here’s the data from global groundstations that monitor warming:

This is the Global Warming Bible reduced to charts. Things progress similarly on land and sea (i.e., the decks of boats, on metal, probably near some exhaust vent) — cool until the middle of the 20th century and then raising dramatically.

Such charts demand that we ban coal, shred Hummers and dial back our quality of life. But are these reasonable demands? To answer the question, here’s Brignell’s second chart, this one compiling weather data from satellites:
As the caption says, “The Southern Hemisphere is the same temperature as it was 28 years ago, the Northern Hemisphere has warmed slightly.”

The difference?

Simple. Satellites are built by rocket scientists while global warming is conceptualized by various advocate-scientists who care less about the calibration and accuracy of their equipment. You can’t re-calibrate something that’s traveling at 20,000 miles an hour a couple hundred miles overhead, so you do it right to begin with.

So, who are you going to believe? Brignell considers all this and concludes that global warming is indeed caused by humans — sloppy humans who don’t follow proper procedures and therefore work with sloppy data and get unbelievable results.

hat-tip: Greenie Watch

Share

No Comments yet »

July 28th 2007

Perhaps We Should Dunk The Administrators In The Toilet

Do not, not ever, trust the education of our children to those who run our schools and universities. They are, by and large, incapable of standing up for what’s right and difficult, opting always for what’s wrong and easy.

Case in point: Two Qurans were found stuffed in toilets at Pace University in NY recently. A suspect has been charged with a hate crime (where’s the ACLU; is this not free speech?), and — here’s the big rub — school administrators have been sucker-punched by Muslim student groups and now are offering sensitivity training for students.

Students: It’s OK to declare jihad against entire civilizations. It’s OK to behead homosexuals and stone or whip adulterers. It’s OK to wage infitada targeting innocents. It’s OK to fly airplanes into buildings. It’s OK to call people infidels or the devil. It’s OK to burn American flags (there are 69,900 hits at Google images for “Muslim burn flag”). But it is not OK to treat a book badly.

The lesson our kids will take away from this “sensitivity training” is that we Westerners are the insensitive ones, that we are the mistake-makers, that we are the uncaring ones — and nothing could be further from the objective truth.

I’m all for educating about religion and civilization and what one finds offensive about the other, but let’s make it a balanced curriculum. Let’s be sure to spend some considerable time teaching the students about Islamic hate, hate that is nicely captured in this collage:


Hat-tip: memorandum. Collage: DanzFamily

Share

No Comments yet »

Next »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here

napoleon hill law of success free ebook