I give you...The Beer Launching Mini-Fridge!  Enjoy this great video: (h/t: Jawa)

Courtesy Iowahawk:

Watch this first:


Now, read this from Newsbusters:

Gore Blasts 'Balance as Bias' in Global Warming Reporting

Posted by Matthew Sheffield on February 28, 2007 - 15:24.

Fresh off his Oscar coronation, Al Gore is stepping up his jihad  against global warming skeptics by continuing his campaign to stop the media from covering their viewpoint at all.

In a speech delivered Tuesday, Gore blasted media organizations for giving any credence at all to people who see things differently than him on global warming. The former veep denounced what he termed "balance as bias" in environment reporting:

Gore told a crowd of about 50 people at the U.S. Media Ethics Summit II that the presentation's single most provocative slide was one that contrasts results of two long-term studies. A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.

He noted that recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth unanimous report calling on world leaders to take action on global warming.

"I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.

"I don't think that any of the editors or reporters responsible for one of these stories saying, 'It may be real, it may not be real,' is unethical. But I think they made the wrong choice, and I think the consequences are severe.

"I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced."

Not very many people showed up, but Gore's  remarks are significant in that they demonstrate that for all the (usually correct) complaints people on the right make about the media being unfair, things have gotten  better to a certain degree to make far left people like Al Gore complain about the media.

That's a small progress to be sure (imagine the media outcry that would ensue if a conservative figure had used such authoritarian language) but I think it's true that many younger media types have gotten a clue about fairness. This enrages the older lefties (like Gore or Dan Rather) who are used to the idea of a media that marginalizes the right and portrays anything remotely conservative or on incarnation of evil.

Bring it on Al.

This is so funny, there is no other comment needed.  Read and head lest you be damned!

Courtesy of LGF and Iowahawk.

Repent, Sinners!

A subject near and dear to my active-duty heart.  Pics below:

Video.  Content Warning:  Inuendo?  I like it though; I like the look.

"If you were worried about calories you would be at home eating Kellogg's."  God Bless this man.
 
Taking a break from all things political and environmental for a bit; submitted for your approval:

Pa. restaurant creates 123-pound burger

The Associated Press

The newest addition to the menu at Denny's Beer Barrel Pub is one whopper of a burger. The Beer Barrel Main Event Charity Burger weighs in at 123 pounds, a meaty monstrosity that its cooks maintain shatters the world record of 105 pounds shared by two restaurants in New Jersey and Thailand.

The sizable sandwich features an 80-pound beef patty, along with a pound each of lettuce, ketchup, relish, mustard and mayonnaise, 160 slices of cheese, up to five onions and 12 tomatoes.

It's topped with a couple of pounds of banana peppers, then sandwiched into a 30-pound bun. Don't forget the garnish of 33 pickles.

There's a pretty hefty price tag, too: $379.

The Clearfield pub unveiled the menu item over the weekend. Restaurant owner Denny Leigey said he plans to submit paperwork on his colossal culinary creation to the Guinness Book of World Records.

It's not the first time that Leigey has waded into the competition for the world's biggest burger. He drew headlines a couple years ago when he unveiled the Beer Barrel Belly Buster, which weighed in at a mere 15 pounds.

Leigey said he didn't know how many calories were stuffed into his latest gigantic entree.

"If you were worried about calories you would be at home eating Kellogg's," he said.

Illustrated:

Could we do this for climate change?

Great point from RWN:  A nicer term for burglar would be "house guest", right?  Posted from RWN with great analysis:

"Bill would mandate nicer term for illegals

A state legislator whose district is home to thousands of Caribbean immigrants wants to ban the term "illegal alien" from the state's official documents.

"I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children," said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. "An alien to me is someone from out of space."

She has introduced a bill providing that: "A state agency or official may not use the term 'illegal alien' in an official document of the state." There would be no penalty for using the words.

In Miami-Dade County, Wilson said, "we don't say 'alien,' we say 'immigrant.'"

"Immigrant" might be a "nicer" term for "illegal alien," but of course, "house guest" would also be a "nicer" word for burglar. However, in both cases, the nicer word is a less accurate description.

You've also got to love the, "do it for the children," justification for this. Why, we can't children who are illegal aliens, "illegal aliens." How would it make them feel?

But, even that's topped by Wilson saying, "An alien to me is someone from out of space." Well, I guess everyone else will have to suffer because of Frederica's limited vocabulary. It doesn't matter that if you go to the dictionary, the first definition of alien is,

"a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen)."

Fredrica apparently isn't familiar with that term and can't be bothered to look it up, so we need to write a law.

Of course, a big part of the reason Wilson wants to do this is because advocates of illegal immigration love to blur the line between "immigrants" and an "illegal immigrant," even though there is a world of difference between someone who is in the country legally and someone who snuck across the border in the middle of the night. In fact, referring to someone who is here illegally as an, "immigrant," is intentionally deceptive. They're no more an immigrant than someone trespassing on your property is a, "visitor."

So hopefully, this frivolous bill won't go anywhere, although if Floridians are lucky, Wilson will be going somewhere the next time she's up for reelection: back to the private sector.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the story.

A great expose' of environmetal hypocrisy just teaming with sarcasm and derision.  I love it! 

I post it here in it's entirety (h/t: michellemalkin.com):

Conserve as I say, not as I do

Lorne Gunter
National Post

Monday, February 26, 2007

On July 7, enviro crusader Al Gore will host "Live Earth" concerts in seven cities around the world to raise awareness of global warming.

Over 100 top groups have already pledged to perform, among them Red Hot Chili Peppers, Foo Fighters, Keane, Snow Patrol, Snoop Dogg, Bon Jovi, Duran Duran and Kelly Clarkson.

Do they all plan to play acoustical instruments on candle-lit stages?

If you have ever been backstage at a rock concert, you'll know that the place is crisscrossed with miles and miles of cables, each as big around as a child's forearm. And they're not carrying steam from geothermal sources or current generated by scores of volunteers pedalling stationary cycles hooked up to converters.

The lights, speakers and massive audio panels have a ravenous appetite for electricity.

Then there are all the television cameras, satellite uplinks and broadcast control rooms. To keep them going will require fleets of semi-trailers idling to power the generators.

And rock stars don't fly coach class. They will arrive in the concert cities in squadrons of private jets, to be picked up at the airports by fleets of massive stretch SUV limos whose gasoline consumption is measured not in kilometres per litre, but in litres per kilometre.

They have to eat, too. The energy to sustain the caterers' mobile kitchens and refrigerators (our enviro- friendly crooners and warblers would throw the bottle across the dressing room in disgust if served warm mineral water), and to keep the celebrities' food warm in the banquet tents and steam the milk for their lattes would power hundreds of homes for a year.

Admittedly, organizers have promised to use as much power as possible from renewable sources (although they have not explained how they will be able to separate out only the "green" energy coming through the transmission lines supplying their sites). And they plan to buy carbon credits to cover off all the truck, limo and jet transportation their crews and stars will use.

Still, "carbon credits" are only a conscience sop. They don't actually reduce greenhouse emissions, they just make those consuming the energy feel less guilty about it.

In the name of preventing global warming, the Live Earth concerts will be responsible for more greenhouse emissions than all the soccer moms in, say, Mississauga, Ont. driving around all year in their mini-vans and H3s.

The hypocrisy of the Live Earth concerts is not unlike the hypocrisy of David Suzuki's current cross- Canada eco-evangelism crusade. (Think of Dr. Suzuki as a green version of Elmer Gantry, and you'll get the right image).

On Friday, the increasingly shrill and dogmatic geneticist-environmental-inquisitor, pulled his pollution-spewing diesel tour bus into Calgary. At an elementary school in the riding next to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's, Dr. Suzuki told students Mr. Harper doesn't care about them or their futures. "The only thing he cares about is getting re-elected with a majority government," he harangued the five- to 12-year-olds.

"I don't believe there is a green bone in Harper's body -- he has never, ever indicated he cares about the environment."

And how can Dr. Suzuki be so sure of Mr. Harper's total disregard for the environment? I suppose it's because, when on tour, Dr. Suzuki used the same kind of emission-belching bus the PM uses when campaigning.

Jason Curan, a Suzuki spokesman, confessed to the Winnipeg Sun that the Suzukimobile was "kind of too fancy for our needs." There are at most eight people, including the driver, on a bus built for 30 or more.

The Suzuki Foundation could have chosen a smaller vehicle that used less fuel and produced fewer emissions, but, well, the holier-than-thou ecopreacher seems to like to travel in style. Dr. Suzuki's Sanctimony '07 tour is not even using biodiesel rather than regular diesel because, as Mr. Curan further admitted, that would void the engine's warranty.

Using a bigger-than-needed vehicle for comfort and eschewing environmental alternatives because of pragmatic concerns such as warranties: Why, the Suzuki-ites sound just like the consumers they like to deride for their lack of green consciences.

Like the Live Earth producers, the Suzuki tour has promised to buy carbon credits to cover its emission tracks. But buying credits is to reducing emissions what the medieval practice of buying indulgences was to absolving sins.

Whether rocking on stage, travelling the country or propagandizing to a bunch of school children, it is easier to preach green, then to be green.

Lgunter@shaw.ca

© National Post 2007

I feel compelled to write this essay after an exchange I had on line last night with an 'environmental economist'.

You can link to my reposts on all three parts:  Part I; Part II; Part III

None of my arguments did anything and the guy really didn't address them anyway.  He just stuck with his point of view.  I should have known better, I know.  After the exchange though, I started thinking.  Trying to persuade the enviro nazis about the facts on CC is an almost lost cause.  We can debate, inform, show the actual science through reports graphs etc, but it isn't going to work. 

I'm not saying don't keep trying, because we need to educate as many of the 'fence sitters' as possible to the real science behind this issue.  We need as many educated people as possible to fight the real battle which is coming.

If you read the above posts you probably already know where I'm going with this.  The real battle isn't at the podium or lectern.  It's not even in the MSM.  It going to take place in your local and state (and more than likely Federal) legislative chambers.  It will then (hopefully) move to the ballot box.

Those who support the current hysteria on CC are going to go through with their initiatives, no matter what the science says.  The first rumblings are already out there in some places.  Read this:  Arlington Budget Seeks 5% Increase: Plan Includes Tax For Initiative on Greenhouse Gas.  And this:  Climate Panel Recommends Global Temperature Ceiling, Carbon Tax.  These stories begin the tale of where the CC advocates will implement their plans.

A majority of people don't really care one way or the other about the debate on CC.  They will more than likely believe the hype as opposed to the facts, just because they are constantly bombarded with it.  But when it comes to actually doing something, people are famously lazy.  Most people don't bother to recycle (another monumental waste of money, BTW).  Most people buy the cars they want, etc.  Politicians know this.

So the solution is?  Taxes.  Fees.  Mandates.  Some of which you may or may not have a say in.  Look at the Arlington story again.  After you get through the first few paragraphs, what happens to the focus of the piece?  It switches to how the government is facing a shortfall in other areas (social spending primarily), so what's the solution?  More taxes.  A fee imposed ostensibly for 'environmental initiatives'.  These initiatives include things which any citizen can pay for themselves if they want.  But what is the real reason for the tax?  More money in a 'general' fund for the politicians to draw from; the government mandating compliance with 'environmental initiatives'.

Anyway, that's the battle we will be facing in the near future.  It's going to move from the classroom to the city council room.

Just like with many other issues out there, what they can't get through the ballot box, they will force through the legal and legislative system.  Taxes will be imposed, regardless of taxpayer input.  Laws will be made and not placed on a ballot. 

The grassroots out there is going to have to re-engage the CC advocates in these arenas.  Education will be a key, not only in getting the word out, but in engaging politicians.  Arm yourselves with the facts.  Don't back down.

Taxes are only the beginning.  How long before mandates are passed down on limiting electrical use?  Making you buy a Prius?  Rasing the fees and taxes for 'less fuel efficient' vehicles.  Some of these things are already in place.  How many of you have to recycle?  Separate your garbage? 

You will be forced by your government into compliance.  If we don't get involved in the fight at these levels, we'll get nickel and dimed into an environmental police state.

As an added bonus:

1. Any law the electorate sees as being open to being perverted from its original intent will be perverted in a manner that is worse than the manner of perversion seen at the time.
2. Any law that is so difficult to pass it requires the citizens be assured it will not be a stepping stone to worse laws will in fact be a stepping stone to worse laws.
3. Any law that requires the citizens be assured the law does not mean what the citizens fear, means exactly what the citizens fear.
4. Any law passed in a good cause will be interperated to apply to causes against the wishes of the people.
5. Any law enacted to help any one group will be applied to harm people not in that group.
6. Everything the government says will never happen will happen.
7. What the government says it could not foresee, the government has planned for.
8. When there is a budget shortfall to cover non-essential government services the citizens will be given the choice between higher taxes or the loss of essential government services.
9. Should the citizens mount a successful effort to stop a piece of legislation the same legislation will be passed under a different name.
10. All deprivations of freedom and choice will be increased rather than reversed.

Sunspots?  Who'd a thunk it?  Oh that's right, responsible scientists.  Duh! 

(H/T: Redstate)

I anyone has any reamining doubts about the 'objectivity' of the MSM...

Read the story here from The New York Post.  Newsbusters analysis and summary below:

AP Calls Convicted Cop-Killer a 'Freedom Fighter'

Great analysis on this MSM outlet trying to take out one of the voices of reason about the Muslim world: (Thanks toLGF for this one also)

Newsweek Joins Islamists, Attacks Ayaan Hirsi Ali

An unbelievable smear job at Newsweek on Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s excellent new book Infidel: The Controversial Memoir of a Muslim Woman.

But Hirsi Ali’s memoir is as much about her political agenda as it is her life, andin between tales of her youth she wedges harsh and uncompromising declarations: “True Islam,” she writes at one point, “leads to cruelty.” If her coming-of-age story—and the saga of her nomadic family, who moved from prewar Somalia to Saudi Arabia, then Ethiopia and finally Kenya—were allowed to breathe on its own, “Infidel” would prove an eye-opening look into the plight of African Muslim women. But throughout the book, you can’t help but feel manipulated, rather than moved. In describing the 9/11 hijackers, she comes up with an inflammatory conclusion tailor-made for her right-wing constituency: “It was not a lunatic fringe who felt this way about America and the West. I knew that a vast majority of Muslims would see the attacks as justified retaliation against the infidel enemies of Islam.”

And Hirsi Ali was right. Poll after poll shows overwhelming support in the Islamic world for Osama bin Laden and for terror attacks against America. To Newsweek, this simple fact is “inflammatory.”

But notice: Newsweek writer Lorraine Ali doesn’t say it’s false.

A Bombthrower’s Life [A ‘bombthrower?’ That accusation is outrageous, when you’re talking about a person who’s been targeted for death by the kind of people who literally throw bombs. —ed.]

Other Muslim women interested in reform aren’t exactly in step with Hirsi Ali. “I wish people had been nicer to her,” says Muslim author and feminist Asra Nomani. “But I don’t blame Islam. I blame really messed-up people who’ve used religion to justify their misogyny.” As staunchly patriarchal strains of Wahhabi Islam infiltrate Muslim cultures outside the gulf region, many modern female followers are wondering how to embrace their religion without succumbing to its more sexist demands. And they’re coming up with answers that don’t require them to abandon either their religion or their culture. In the Middle East and South Asia, a strong majority of Muslim women recently polled by Gallup believed they should have the right to work outside the home and serve in the highest levels of government. Here in the United States, dozens of scholars like Ithaca College’s Asma Barlas, Harvard’s Leila Ahmed and Notre Dame’s Asma Afsaruddin have challenged widely accepted interpretations of the Qur’an. “They are Islam’s Martina Luthers,” jokes Nomani. “They are my heroes.”

Hirsi Ali is more a hero among Islamophobes than Islamic women. That’s problematic considering she describes herself in “Infidel” as a woman who “fights for the rights of Muslim women, the enlightenment of Islam and the security of the West.” How can you change the lives of your former sisters, and work toward reform, when you’ve forged a career upon renouncing the religion and insulting its followers?

An absolutely disgraceful, utterly distorted and deliberately misleading hit piece.

UPDATE at 2/27/07 6:44:01 pm:

Newsweek writer Lorraine Ali has been recognized by the Wahhabist propaganda site Islam Online, as an advocate for the radical Islamic agenda in the United States: Arab And Muslim Journalism Conference Ends In Chicago.

Lorraine Ali, music critic for Newsweek magazine, was awarded the National Arab Journalists Association’s Excellence in Journalism Award. Ali, who is of Iraqi descent, urged young people to get into the mainstream media and make their voices heard, saying that the American public is seeking out the truth, as can be seen by the recent popularity of The Holy Qur’an.

“It is up to us to give the American people another perspective,” she said.