I

watched this hysterical video the other day – “hysterical” in that the people quoted were immersed in hysteria, not “hysterical” as in funny – on the melting of an ice dam holding back in ice shelf in Antarctica.  We’re told with adequate hysterics that the event disaster happened faster than anyone predicted, so the world must be heating up.

(It reminded me of people who live on the beach and are convinced the ocean is rising because their beach is losing sand – like the celebrity Greenies of Malibu.  Of course the ocean looks higher – there’s less sand between them and it!  The sand is disappearing, by the way, in part because water quality regs forbid people from allowing “particulates,” i.e. sand, to enter streams.  That’s why you can’t take sand that’s built up behind a dam and move it to the stream below the dam – where it would have gone had the dam not been there:  Some enviro-bureaucrat decided that would be pollution.)

So why did the Antarctic ice melt faster than the sacred and immutable computer models thought it would if it wasn’t because of global warming?  Well …

New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.

Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO₂. (The Register, UK)

In other words, the Warmies have no idea going on.  But wait!  It’s worse!

Shindell’s research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:

Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates. Meanwhile, levels of black-carbon aerosols (soot, in other words) have been rising, largely driven by greater industrialisation in Asia. Soot, rather than reflecting heat as sulphates do, traps solar energy in the atmosphere and warms things up.

Well, if that’s the case, then the environmentalists and their companion bureaucrats did it!  The very people who would save us and the planet from global warming are heating the joint up because they also want to stop acid rain.  And not a one of there sacred, immutable computer models predicted it.

This is just more proof that human intelligence is far too limited and far too polluted with politics and dogma to manage something as vast, complex and changing as the globe’s climate.  But some scientists, all politicians and most bureaucrats have egos nearly as vast, so they want to have a go at it.

Against this backdrop of climate incompetence, let’s turn to the EPA’s little fiasco in the making: its announcement today that it has concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare. The announcement paves the way for a whole new round of regulations designed to stop climate change – as if global cycles are stoppable by mere humans.

Here’s what the American Petroleum Institute had to say:

“The proposed endangerment finding poses an endangerment to the American economy and to every American family. It could lead to greenhouse gas regulations under a law fundamentally ill-suited to addressing the challenge of global climate change. The regulations could impose complex, costly requirements on restaurants, colleges, schools, shopping malls, bakeries and many other businesses and institutions. The Clean Air Act was created to address local and regional air pollution, not the emission of carbon dioxide and other global greenhouse gases.”

I’m with you, Jack, in fact I’m more than with you.  It’s not just that the Clean Air Act is the wrong law to address this, but that the “solutions” that likely will follow by its application could, like the earlier acid rain effort, just end up making things worse, just as “saving” us from acid rain has.

EPA and UN, keep your hands off our planet!

2 Comments »

I

am a conservative to the core, which supports my frequent criticisms of global warming both in concept and in application.  As a conservative, I am more interested in truth than dogma, so I want a spirited and open debate on anthropogenic global warming, and I don’t want it to be used as an excuse for massive new government expansions, whether it’s actually occurring at levels that threaten us or not.

I’m also a frequent critic of regulatory madness of all ilk; in fact, C-SM has a category named “Regulatory Madness” where you can find a compilation of these posts.  Conservatives can abide by a certain amount of regulation, but with the knowledge that regulations are government weeds, and once they take root they want to do nothing but spread and grow.

So, with this background, I found this comment posted to yesterday’s post on cap and trade to be very intreguing:

Laer,

You keep missing opportunities to reframe the debate on climate change in terms favorable to a conservative approach.

In my view, conservatives will never regain political power in California (and elsewhere) until they address the issues that are important to those that believe in global warming. Simply ridiculing their beliefs is counter productive.

As a fiscal, social and environmental conservative, I say we start promoting conservative principles to improve the quailty of our air and our water, preserve our natural resources, conserve energy, develop alternative energy sources and achieve energy independence.

Rather than belittling efforts to stop global warming, we should emphasis how conservative approaches to addressing the issues above can be achieved with far fewer resources and far less government intervention than any scheme cooked up by AGW alarmists.

So, the next time an alarmist asks “do you believe in climate change?” we should answer “no, but I do have a better way to (fill in the blank).”

Frank

I like very much the idea of being a political, social and environmental conservative.  Frank mentions specifically air and water quality as areas where environmental conservativism should be applied.  Boy should they.  Check this out:

Congressman Farr (D -Natch – CA) has introduced HR 21, dubbed “Oceans 21,” a bill that directs federal agencies to implement the bill’s new National Ocean Policy “to the fullest extent possible” within two years of enactment of the legislation.  That means the “marine ecosystem” health must be maintained with “complete diversity” and the “physical,chemical, geological, and microbial” ocean environment must be maintained to protect that diversity.  How much should it be protected?  Why, to the fullest extent possible.  Not practicable, but possible.

Forget desalination plants or offshore oil rigs.  They will impact the marine ecosystem too much under Oceans 21.

And forget questioning the wisdom of the bill or its application. Farr has that covered with liberal environmentalism:

H.R. 21 also provides that the National Ocean Policy “shall” be implemented such that “the lack of scientific certainty should not be used as justification for postponing action to prevent negative environmental impacts.” (memo from the law firm Nossaman LLP)

Twenty-one members of Congress were so unconcerned about advancing regulation without scientific certainty that they signed on as co-sponsors.

Like Frank, I am an environmental conservative.  I believe in the Bible’s admonition that we serve as stewards of God’s creation, sustaining the resources He bequeathed to us for the future generations He expects us to parent.  But I live my life working for the regulated community, trying to help them find a little wiggle room in a forest of crushing rules and regs, and I am not as optimistic as Frank that we can prevail against the onslaught without some frontal attacks.

I feel here like I felt on Jan. 20 when I wrote that I could not support the success of President Obama, because the success of his policies was too dangerous to the future of America.  I would like to be as optimistic as Frank that holding to conservative principles, including polite deference to other points of view, can be enough.  I want to stand apart from shrill, hysteric environmental liberals and be more thoughtful, clear and polite.

 In my work, I am.  When I write a letter protesting something as costly, imposing and ridiculous as Oceans 21, my language is proper, contained and even complimentary at times.  When I blog … well, not so much.

I have to run to drop Incredible Daughter #3 off at school, then to a long meeting.  I hope to get back to this because Frank’s comment really fascinates me.

No Comments yet »

O

K, so Joe Biden’s a liar.  That’s hardly big news, is it? It’s not like the American people bought a vice-presidential pig in a poke, after all.  But buying vice-presidential puppies from a … the  horror! … breeder, now that’s news.  Even more newsworthy is the governmental response.

In case you missed the basics, Lyin’ Joe was much quicker than his boss.  He wanted a pup, so he went out and got one – a German Shepherd from breeder Linda Brown in East Coventry, PA.  Ah, how sweet.

But not in whacko America.

After the local rag wrote up the story, readers started posting comments, says said local rag.  Ugly, hateful, insane comments:

Following a story about Brown and Biden in the Daily Local News, readers posted 131 comments, some chiding Biden for having the Secret Service with him when he went puppy shopping and others complaining he did not get the dog from a shelter.

Brown was taken to task for selling pedigree dogs.

Brown said she has read the comments, even the one that said she was sued.

“I’d like to meet that person,” Brown said, adding that she has not been sued.

Some people were outraged about the photograph of Biden holding a 5-week-old puppy, Brown said. But, the breeder points out, Biden only came to select a puppy on that visit, left it with its mother and returned three weeks later to take it home.

Brown was not only vilified in posted comments to newspapers but also on the Web site of People for the Ethical Treatment Animals, or PETA.

According to a Dec. 12 press release from the animal rights group, it aired its controversial TV commercials “Buy One, Get One Killed” in Biden’s home state of Delaware after he bought his dog from Brown. The commercial blames euthanization of animals in shelters on people who purchase pets from breeders.

Goodbye, choice.  Every decision we now make is monitored by those who deem themselves to be more pure than us, those who live on a higher moral plane.  Nevermind that supposedly sentient purebred dogs have a right to breed and bare pups just like mutts.  Doesn’t matter; mutts are morally superior.  Tell that to our purebreds, Cammie and Pepper.

But the outraged psycho-moralists were just the beginning of Brown’s problems.  Perhaps the shirts the agents of oppression were brown, too:

Brown also was cited for record-keeping problems and warned about maintenance and sanitation shortfalls by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

“I was cited for a piece of kibble on the floor and five strands of dog hair. They took a picture of that, they walked around, snapped pictures and don’t tell you why,” said Brown, who disputes all the items where she was written up.

Brown’s case was heard by District Justice James DeAngelo in South Coventry on March 31. She was found “not guilty” for each citation, the judge’s office confirmed Wednesday.

Chris Ryder, press secretary for the Department of Agriculture, said Brown was inspected in December because of a complaint. He said it was department policy not to release the name of the person who complained.

Is it just me, or did Ryder’s comment sound like it fell just a bit short of an apology?  But then, why should an Agency of the State apologize for overtaking a private enterprise, terrorizing its proprietor, and actually bringing her up on charges that cause embarassment and worry, and take time and money to defend.  It’s her fault for daring to be an entrepreneur and not a government lackey.

What a sad, disturbing story.  And even sadder is this:  It happens all the time.

No Comments yet »

C

lick here to view the Environmental Protection Agency’s rogues gallery of fugitives from environmental justice.  Quite a seedy bunch they are, like:

Allessandra Giordano, right, who with poppa Carlos fled the country (hopefully in a bright red Ferrari) for importing cars what did not meet EPA’s air quality regulations.

Or

Wendell Baptiste, left, who I chose primarily because of the fascinating red tint on his mug shot.  Do you suppose he got that way by peddling plutonium on dark corners?  No, Baptiste is a wanted EPA fugitive because he went on the lam after illegally discharging a hazardous substance into waters of the United States.

That’s the most common crime of these losers – dumping oil, sewage or contaminated cargos off their third-world freighters and into our international waters.  That they’ve all fled seems to indicate that EPA Prison is not the most secure detention facility around.

EPA doesn’t want to judge the severity of these crimes.  There is no #1 worst felon among this felonious bunch – at least not one EPA cares to identify.  But the one who gets that dubious distinction is obvious.  It’s not Denis Feron, who fled to Belgium after the hidden pipe dumping gunk from his factory into a creek was discovered, although that’s a pretty heinous act.  Belgium apparently is tolerant of polluters.  And it’s not Albania Deleon, who had a pretty brisk little business going, in which she didn’t properly train asbestos removers, then licensed them and hired them out for a pretty penny. She’s disappeared like asbestos vapors in the wind.

Nope, the award for the #1 EPA fugitive from environmental justice goes hands down to this guy, Mauro Valenzuela.  Nice looking fella, eh?  Hint of a smile, whimsical tilt to the head.  Don’t you believe it. Here’s his write-up:

# Valenzuela was charged in the Southern District of Florida on a multiple count indictment.

# Alleged violations include:

* Illegal transportation of hazardous materials aboard a commercial aircraft
* Making false statements
* Conspiracy

# Valenzuela was a mechanic for SabreTech. He certified that all cabin oxygen generators had been properly removed and replaced on a ValuJet plane. Valenzuela caused these generators to be delivered and loaded on VALUJET flight 592 without proper markings, capping, packaging and other safety measures. The flight crashed into the Everglades shortly after take-off from Miami International Airport killing all 110 passengers and crew onboard.

# Valenzuela fled the country soon after his arraignment. Whereabouts unknown.

Now you’d think they might include murder in there, too, since the oxygen generators caused the fire that caused the horrific, nose-in crash, but that’s someone else’s bailiwick. To EPA Valenzuela is just a lying, conspiring transporter of improperly marked, capped and packaged oxygen generators.

I think there’s a lesson in there about the workings of the mind of the federal bureaucrat … you know, the ones that now run Wall Street and Detroit, and are coming soon to a business near you.

hat-tip to “Alphonse,” who is not too keen on bureaucrats trying to assess evil:

You bring up an inconvenient truth about ranking degree of evil. The criterion should be human life, reduced to cost per life directly or indirectly taken. Most agencies will not touch this. NRC (AEC) tried with one of its early reports, but there was a controversy because it appeared that some lives were deemed to be more valuable than others. [Can't have that, can we?]

The Netherlands used human life valuation for its levee reconstruction: “The optimal failure probability shows a downward trend with increasing number of victims. With this addition, however, the problem of the value of a human life has been introduced. Numerous approximations for this are to be found in the literature. In the present study, it is proposed that the value of human life be equated to the cash value of the net national product per inhabitant of the Netherlands. The opinion is that in assessing acceptable levels of risk, it is advisable to take the possible loss of lives into account in economic terms.” [See, the government really does see you as just an economic entity.]

No Comments yet »

UPDATED

I

n a recent article, the LA Times blamed California’s increased water use, in part, on farmers’ decision to grow permanent crops that “can’t be fallowed.”  I wasn’t sure what it meant, but last Friday I went to a Southern California Water Committee meeting in agricultural Kern County and I got an earful.

San Joaquin Valley farmers have switched from cotton to tree crops like almonds in a big way.  The switch was made in part because stricter environmental regulations, especially for air pollution control and pesticide use, are crimping profits, as are rising energy costs.  So now, a drive through the southern San Joaquin Valley is a drive through tree groves, not cotton fields.  And that’s causing a big problem.

Kern County supervisor Ray Watson told the group that farmers have a tough decision this year, as water deliveries from the Central Valley Project to the western San Joaquin have been cut to zero (as in zero, no water deliveries).  They can get enough groundwater to produce a crop from half their trees, but that means letting the other half die, and it takes about eight years (with good water) for new trees to begin producing.  Or they can minimally water all their trees so they barely survive, but will produce no fruit or nuts – no income.

As a result, unemployment in California farm towns is reaching 40 percent, and even 60 percent. Yet the Sierra snowpack that provides the valley with water is at 90 percent of normal.  What’s happening?

Simple.  The environmentalists took the water.

California – the nation’s largest producer of tomatoes, lettuce, almonds, apricots, strawberries and many other crops – risks agricultural losses of over $2 billion for the upcoming season and $3 billion in total economic losses in 2009.  According to a University of California at Davis study, 80,000 jobs could be lost in the Central Valley.

Although global warming is expected to receive much of the blame for this economic disaster, government regulation is a more significant – and preventable cause – of it, according to The National Center for Public Policy Research.

For example, state and federal water officials have sharply cut agricultural water deliveries in California so that more water can go out to sea as part of an effort to protect the Delta Smelt – a three-inch long fish listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.  In February, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced a “zero allocation” of water from the Central Valley Project, cutting off the massive federal irrigation system that serves numerous California farms.  The supply of water from California’s State Water Project is 20 percent of normal.

“By demanding that the water flow into the Pacific Ocean, government meddlers have forced farmers to abandon production, threatening both the nation’s fresh food supplies and the jobs of farm workers, many of whom are among the nation’s poorest minorities,” said Mr. Smith.  “Ironically, the cut-off of agricultural water has done nothing to help the Delta Smelt.  Every year less water is diverted for agriculture, yet the fish population continues to decline.” (National Center for Public Policy Research)

By the way, the Endangered Species Act also protects certain bass species in California.  Their meal of choice?  Smelt.  Logical people would find something wrong with that, but we’re not dealing with logic here.

The Obama administration, eager to please immigrants and supposedly concerned about the plight of poverty stricken farm workers, is allowing the water shortage to continue – and indeed, the Dems are doing all they can to further the crisis, in the eyes of the National Center, which points at a hearing today before the House Committee on Natural Resources on the California drought.

Only witnesses from federal agencies will be allowed to testify at the hearing – the same folks who are managing water resources to protect the smelt and the bass – and we will hear blame placed on climate change, farming practices and population growth.  Guaranteed, we won’t hear much about the role of activist-inspired environmental policies in creating a “regulatory drought” in California.

Not testifying will be unemployed farm workers or farmers who have been forced to chose between untenable options because of curtailed water deliveries.  Not testifying will be any of the thousands of scientists who don’t go along with absolutist global warming dogma.  Also missing will be any representatives of California’s water industry, who could address the state’s failure to build infrastructure to meet the state’s growing population.

The National Center has categorized this proceding correctly – they plan to show up for the hearings with a kangaroo in tow.

Update one: Representative Ken Calvert showed up at the hearing with a bagful of Delta smelt and some harsh words for the Dems.

And, unrelated but interesting timing, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service just announced that it is going to conduct a status review of the smelt’s listing.  Don’t get your hopes up, though – these almost never change anything.

1 Comment »

Environmental fanaticism comes at a price.  When you start trying to eliminate hydrocarbon byproducts from the atmosphere, it’s messy, costly, and it puts people out of business.  There’s no need to wait for Obama to impose a $2 trillion cap and trade dead weight on the economy – it’s happening right now.

By April 1, the California Air Resources Board (that’s CARB to you folks who like clever acronyms) wants every single gas nozzle in the state replaced with an $11,000 nozzle that’s reportedly cleaner than the costly vapor recovery nozzles they mandated a few years back.  When you figure most stations have six to eight pumps, the cost of fitting the new nozzles on is $66,000 to $88,000.  And that spells trouble, according to the OC Watchdog:

At least 51 independently owned gas stations in Orange County are in danger of closing next month because of costly new regulations implemented by the state. …

“We’re not talking about Chevron. We’re not talking about BP,” said Tom Kise, spokesman for the Responsible Clean Air Coalition. “It could be the guy, or gal, who owns just one gas station,” he said. …

“I think it’s going to be pretty bad,” said David Berri, who figures only three or four of his family’s 22 SoCal gas stations will be ready by April 1.

The rest of the stations might close, he said, putting a tragic end to a rough stretch that’s seen the family lay off employees and lose as much as 50 percent of their revenues.

Even worse, Berri predicted that so many other stations will have to close that gas prices could go up. At the very least, he said it’ll be more difficult to find a place to fill up.

In all, some 3,400 of the 11,000 affected gas stations in California have yet to comply with the regulations. One hundred fifty of them have formed the Responsible Clean Air Coalition to beg the state to delay implementation.

According to the Coalition, the best and most cost-effective of three systems that meet the CARB regs was not approved until just five months ago, so there’s been little time to comply, especially since the credit crunch has made it hard for many small operators to get the capital for the change-over.  Most gas stations are small operations, since the big oil companies have gotten out of the retail business.

Worse, says the Coalition, the manufacturers of compliant equipment know they’re the only CARB-blessed game in town and have been raising their prices.

California already has vapor-retrieving nozzles on its pumps. Californians already pay more than most other Americans because of CARB-mandated refining requirements.  Our air is far, far cleaner than it was at the peak of our air pollution problems, but remains non-compliant primarily because CARB and the feds keep setting higher standards, so this kind of nonsense can be imposed on us.

But, hey, that’s just gas nozzles in one state.  It’s nothing compared to carbon taxes on everything you buy, from hamburgers to houses.

No Comments yet »

C

alifornia’s professional greenhouse gas worrywarts are insensitive dolts.  They have actually picked the hallowed March Madness festivities as the ideal time to announce their latest madcap scheme in their war to save the planet that doesn’t need saving:  Ban big screen TVs.

Yes, folks, you’ll be huddled around your 12″, peddle-driven black and white watching the Final Four if these hysterics get their way. Here’s the report, from OC Watchdog:

The California Energy Commission is considering a proposal that would ban California retailers from selling all but the most energy-efficient televisions. Critics say the news standards could take 25 percent of televisions off the market — most of them 40 inches or larger.

The TV industry points out that this is needless meddling by California’s ubber-Greens, because the feds already have set energy efficiency standards. The Energy Commissars counter that you can save $18 to $20 a year (OOOOH!) by buying a more energy efficient model.  Since that’s obviously no motivation whatsoever, the Commissars are turning to heavy fisted regulations.

Incredible Daughter #1 makes her own point:

Morons. The economy sucks, so let’s take products OFF the market.

She’s right. Televisions are the fastest growing consumer appliance in California. Let’s figure out how to sell more of them, and let people make their own decision based on the unit’s relative electrical efficiency and how much keeping up with the Joneses is required.

No Comments yet »

I

nsanity knows no bounds, and eco-insanity is particularly immune from boundaries.  As the nation’s fiscal crisis deteriorates, whacked-out judges continue to make decisions that would bring incremental improvements to the environment, if any, at a cost of billions.

In case you haven’t read your most recent copy of the Capital Ag Press, here’s the latest:

A court ruling that forces New York City to have a pollution discharge permit for drinking water the city pipes in from elsewhere may threaten irrigation systems in the West.

Let’s pause here for a moment for the uninitiated. A discharge permit is what you need to get if you’re discharging pollutants to the environment. Back in the 70s when the Clean Water Act went into effect, this was a good thing. Industries and municipalities were dumping all sorts of nastiness into the nation’s waters – our waters – and it caused nasty things to happen, like the Cuyahoga River catching fire.

But that was long ago, and the big nasty pollutants and polluters are all under control. What’s not under control are environmentalists intent on using these laws to bring down our nation, so they came up with the idea of calling water a pollutant. If New York City buys water from upstate New York and puts it into its pipe, these guys want New York to have to consider that water a pollutant and get a discharge permit.

The ruling specifically relates to water transfers, something that happens literally thousands of times a year in Idaho and the West, says Scott Campbell, Boise attorney and chairman of the Water Quality Task Force for the National Water Resources Association.

Irrigation canals and ditches are specifically exempt from regulation under the Clean Water Act, but that may change if the court ruling stands, Campbell said. …

“That ruling is literally costing New York City millions of dollars,” Campbell said.

And why should they have to pay? Is there evidence that this transferred water has ever made anyone sick? No, of course not; it’s not a pollutant. But by mincing the letter of the law and finding a judge who apparently recently escaped the insane asylum, the enviros prevailed.

“There are a lot of other states with massive water transfer systems, such as Colorado, which pipes water from the West Slope of the Rockies to its eastern plains. That water moves through pipes and lakes. If the state is required to have a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit, we’re talking billions and billions of dollars. In some instances, there’s no way the water could be treated.”

California could find itself in a similar situation, given a massive water transfer system there that conveys water from the northern to the southern part of the state, he said.

Read more from the Capital Ag Press by clicking here.

C-SM readers know that Kieran Suckling, founder of the Center for Biological Depravity Diversity, promised long ago to change the way we in the West live by attacking our water supplies.  His goal is simple:  He wants to depopulate the West.  The CBD is sure to jump on this lawsuit and try to apply it here, where water districts are already looking at having to increase rates dramatically to keep up with the “regulatory drought” brought by environmental lawsuits.

Again, forcing discharge permits onto water transfers will do nothing directly to improve the environment.  But by making life more miserable for the people, it will accomplish the goals of the radical environmental movement.

hat-tip: Aquafornia

No Comments yet »

T

oday we visited the Land That Time Forgot, also known as the towns of Mendacino and Gooberville. (I think I got that last one wrong … oh yeah, Garberville.) But before we travel back to the 60s, a goodbye to Gualala.

We had a send-off breakfast with our friends, highlighted by Sid Waterman’s wife Julie showing up in a sweatshirt that read “London, Paris, Rome, Gualala.” We heard the latest abominations – this time an effort to remove parking along the main drag and take land from business owners to accommodate bike lanes. Sounds reasonable enough until you realize that no other town on the entire route of California Highway 1 has restrictions from parking on the coast highway, and that the towns represent a rare respite from the terrors of bicycling the rest of the road, which is narrow and full of blind curves. Why a bike trail through the only safe haven for the bikers.

Anyway, it’s crazy enough that my friends have started the Property Rights Foundation of Mendocino County. Good luck to them all, thanks for the great time, and Marshall, I’ll try to take you up on your fly-over invitation next year.

Mendocino and Garberville definitely stuck in the 60s.  People my age who haven’t changed much since the 1960s and 1970s are the most noticeable demographic and knee-jerk liberalism abounds.   No, make that monsterously crazy liberalism, as evidenced by this letter to the editor in The Independent, which serves SoHum – South Humboldt County:

Russian Invades Georgia: Is It About Oil?

Here’s my take on this cluster….

The time was perfect with the Olympics happening and Putin, Kissinger and Bush all in Beijing at hte same time.

So if a meeting took place, perhaps it went down like this:  Kissinger says to Putin, “We’ll give you Ukraine and Georgia and all you have to do is sign a non-intervention treaty with us that states Russia will not interfere with the Israeli/U.S. attack on Iran!” Israel is ready, and Bush and Cheney want it ASAP.

Of course Putin would sign on with this deal; as of right now they (Russians) control most of the country and the BTU oil pipeline that bisects this tiny country of Georgia.

The BTU pipeline runs 1,100 miles from the oil-rich landlocked Caspian Sea to the Black Sea and would make Georgia, a democratically-controlled nation [weird word choice, no?] a major player on Cheney’s “Great Oil Chessboard!”

Now Bush will be pinning out of control, by declaring the evilness of the Russians. McCain has already jacked up the rhetoric about this invasion; his advisor Scheunemann was Georgia’s prime lobbyist and also was a major player in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion! Which is why McBush has some knowledge about Georgia. Now this note:  Joseph Stalin was born in Georgia.

So says Ted Courtemanche.  Not sure where he’s going with that Stalin note.  Perhaps he’s confusing his Commies and Fascists.

Also in the Independent:  A big ad for Humboldt Hydroponics, offering growlights, fans, filters, fertilizers, soils – basically everything you need to grow pot indoors.

Now we’re in The Ship’s Inn, a nice little B&B in Eureka (the strange, empty neighborhood put us off at first, but it’s a nice place).  Tomorrow Redwood National Park.

Now a couple photos:

Mendocino streetscape

More rocks and surf … pretty much the NorCal coast in a nutshell.

And as long as they’re over-regulating with gay abandon, why in the world did the Coastal Commission allow this little monstrosity?

I’m sorry – I left out fog.  Rocks and surf and fog.  It really is quite spectacular, and the long hours together in our rented car – a Dodge Magnum wagon that devours the road once you figure out how to fling its mushy suspension into the curves – is giving me and Incredible Daughters 1 and 3 plenty of time to enjoy each others’ company.

1 Comment »