About Me

Name: Catmman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Daily Dilbert

 Dilbert May 31, 2007
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Finally, common sense from NASA

If you're like me, you wondered why an organization formed for the exploration of space would be wasting precious taxpayer dollars worrying about global warming.  Especially when so many other organizations and scientists are explicitly investigating it.

Well, finally someone comes out and says what needs to be said.  Now, they need to shut that Hansen guy up and work on a warp drive or something.  Posted from Newsbusters:

It seems almost a metaphysical certitude that the following will not be raised in this evening’s nightly newscasts, or the headlines of tomorrow’s papers.

Regardless, Dr. Michael Griffin, the Administrator of NASA since April 2005, told NPR Thursday morning, “I am not sure that it is fair to say that [global warming] is a problem we must wrestle with” (audio available here).

As ABCNews.com reported Thursday, this has drawn “the ire of his agency's preeminent climate scientists,” in particular, global warming alarmist James Hansen (h/t NBer Sick-n-Tired).

More on that later. First, here are some of Griffin’s remarks as reported by NPR.com (emphasis added throughout):

I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

How delicious. Wonderfully, he wasn’t done:

Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another. We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well. I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change.

Well, someone ought to tell NASA scientist James Hansen this. After all, as reported by NewsBusters Thursday, Hansen has made it almost his personal mission the past 26 years to use his position at NASA to advance global warming alarmism in order to impact legislation.

As such, according to ABCNews.com, Hansen wasn’t pleased with Griffin’s remarks (emphasis added):

Griffin's comments — released in transcript form by NPR — immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," Hansen told ABC News. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change."

Hansen believes Griffin's comments fly in the face of well-established scientific knowledge that hundreds of NASA scientists have contributed to.

"It's unbelievable," said Hansen. "I thought he had been misquoted. It's so unbelievable."

Nice way to talk about the head of the agency you work for, James.

Apparently, news of the upcoming NPR segment created quite a deluge of media inquiries at NASA. As a result, Griffin sent out the following press release Wednesday evening (emphasis added):

“NASA is the world's preeminent organization in the study of Earth and the conditions that contribute to climate change and global warming. The agency is responsible for collecting data that is used by the science community and policy makers as part of an ongoing discussion regarding our planet's evolving systems. It is NASA's responsibility to collect, analyze and release information. It is not NASA's mission to make policy regarding possible climate change mitigation strategies. As I stated in the NPR interview, we are proud of our role and I believe we do it well."

Think we’ll hear anything about this apparent difference of opinion on tonight’s news broadcasts or in the papers tomorrow?

I'm not holding my breath.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Anti-Gun Priest calls for death of Gun Shop Owner

Shameful.  Posted from Newsbusters:

On May 29th a Catholic Priest from Chicago's St. Sabina Church joined a rally in front of a gun shop and called for the owner of the shop and all pro-gun legislators to be "snuffed out", yet, the media is strangely silent on the "Father's" extreme comments -- words one would think would be explosive enough to get media coverage. Father Michael Pfleger, known the city over for his overt political activism, made the obscene comments while demonstrating with Jesse Jackson and his Organization Operation Push in front of Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale, a Chicago suburb.

This from the Capitol Fax Blog (one of Illinois' best political sites):

Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina’s Church, went way over the top this week. During a protest against Chuck’s Gun Shop, Father Pfleger twice threatened to “snuff out” the shop’s owner and threatened the same fate for legislators who oppose his position on gun control.

“We’re gonna find you and snuff you out,” Fleger said about the gun shop owner, likening the man to a “rat.” He later repeated his threat to “snuff out” the owner.

“We’re gonna snuff out legislators who are voting [garbled] against our gun laws and we’re coming for you because we are not going to sit idly.”

That is some of the most vicious rhetoric one could imagine coming out of the mouth of a so-called Priest, but, the MSM had nothing to say about the comments. In fact, while several Chicago MSM sources mentioned the Jackson sponsored protest, none of them mention Pfleger's outrageous and inflammatory rhetoric.

NBC5 News (TV), with a story copyrighted by the Chicago Sun-Times, doesn't mention that Pflager was even at the rally.

ABC7 News (TV) similarly doesn't mention that Pfleger was at the rally. They do, however, recount Jackson's unfounded claim that "weapons sold at Chuck's Gun have ended up in the hands of criminals." There is no proof that Jackson's claim is true and ABC notes at the end of the piece that, "From time to time, protestors target Chuck's Gun Shop, but there have been any charges that the gun stores breaks the law." Still, and once again, Jackson gets away with making unfounded claims without any proof whatsoever to back it up with no one calling him to account.

The Chicago Tribune at least mentioned that Pfleger was at the rally, but does not report his comments at all. All the Trib said was that, "Michael Pfleger encouraged the crowd to push for stricter gun laws." And that he, "vowed that the rally was just the beginning and that civil disobedience was possible."

So, why the blackout of the "Father's" outrageous comments?

Could it be because they agree with the efforts at gun control and they don't want Pflager's idiotic rhetoric to tarnish that effort?

Or, perhaps, Pfleger has been a loose cannon for so long that his foolishness doesn't even rate comment anymore?

That last point is a shame if true, too. After all, don't we always hear that Bush is an evil, evil "extremist Christian" for wanting to have faith based charities being able to receive Federal funding? Don't we hear that this is some sort of violation of the so-called "separation of church and state"? Don't detractors always say that the Church should stay out of political fights? Additionally, don't leftists claim that Churches that get involved with right leaning political causes should have their tax exempt status threatened or removed?

Yet, here we have in Father Michael Pflager, a Catholic Church and it's Pastor getting directly involved in political fights and causes all the time. You can go right to the St. Sabina website and immediately see a graphic and a link to an overtly political message against Illinois gunrights legislation. The link takes you to a Church sponsored page featuring a listing of current Illinois gun bills that they are targeting for activism.

If THIS isn't a violation of Church and State... what is?

But, do we hear the left railing about this political activism by a church? Do we hear calls for St. Sabina's tax exempt status to be threatened?

Um, no. After all, it is an MSM approved brand of political activism, one that leans squarely against the Constitution and in a heavily leftward direction.

And, can we remind one and all of what kind of coverage Reverend Jerry Falwell got upon his passing? How often did the MSM rail against his political activism? It shouldn't have to be noted that Falwell's activism was scorned because it emanated from a distinctly right leaning direction.

In any case, the MSM's failure to report this incident is telling, indeed.

(For those interested, an MP3 audio file of Father Pfleger's comments can be downloaded from the Illinois State Rifle Association website)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The "Bumper Sticker" Campaign

Illustrated:
Cartoons By Michael Ramirez
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NASA Nutroot fans AGW flames

This guy Hansen, who continually claims he is being 'silenced', is being 'silenced' once again on ABC News.  More proff that the MSM doesn't care about the facts on climate change, theirs is an aganda pushing government control.

Posted from Newsbusters:

ABC’s Global Warming Piece Ignores Decades of Hysteria from NASA's James Hansen

Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 31, 2007 - 11:49.

ABC’s Bill Blakemore wrote an article posted at the network’s website Tuesday citing global warming alarmist and NASA scientist James Hansen as stating that the earth is at a tipping point “with dangerous consequences to the planet” (emphasis added):

With just 10 more years of "business as usual" emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas, says the NASA/Columbia paper, "it becomes impractical" to avoid "disastrous effects."

Unfortunately, Blakemore chose to completely ignore decades of hysterical predictions by Hansen that have already proven wrong, and that this is not the first time the NASA scientist has referred to ten years before disaster strikes.

For instance, here is what the Washington Post reported last January (emphasis added):

"It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."

Yet, maybe more comically, USA Today reported earlier this year that Hansen made such claims in 2004 (emphasis added):

He echoes a warning by NASA scientist James Hansen in 2004 that the window for action is only 10 years.

So, when does the clock start ticking? After all, if it began in 2004, shouldn’t the window for action now be down to seven years?

Clearly, Blakemore chose not to challenge Hansen on this.

Maybe more surprising, Blakemore didn’t bother looking at some of Hansen’s previous claims, and how they’ve panned out.

For instance, on June 23, 1988, Hansen was invited to speak to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. At the time, the Midwest was mired in a terrible drought sending commodities prices skyrocketing.

Here’s how the Associated Press reported Hansen’s testimony the following day (emphasis added):

"Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming," he said.

He said there is only a 1 percent chance that he is wrong in blaming rising temperatures around the world on the buildup of man-made gases in the atmosphere.

[…]

Computer models predict more frequent droughts in the American Midwest and Southeast, and the latest models predict a best-guess estimate of an increase in global average temperature of about 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit each decade into the middle of the next century.

Interesting prediction concerning increased droughts in the Midwest, as just five years later, the region experienced record rains and floods as reported by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (emphasis added)

From May through September of 1993, major and/or record flooding occurred across North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Fifty flood deaths occurred, and damages approached $15 billion. Hundreds of levees failed along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.

[…]

During June through August 1993, rainfall totals surpassed 12 inches across the eastern Dakotas, southern Minnesota, eastern Nebraska, Wisconsin, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana. More than 24 inches of rain fell on central and northeastern Kansas, northern and central Missouri, most of Iowa, southern Minnesota, and southeastern Nebraska, with up to 38.4 inches in east-central Iowa. These amounts were approximately 200-350 percent of normal from the northern plains southeastward into the central United States. From April 1 through August 31, precipitation amounts approached 48 inches in east-central Iowa, easily surpassing the area's normal annual precipitation of 30-36 inches.

Nice call on the continued drought in the Midwest, James. Unfortunately, Blakemore didn’t bother calling Hansen out on these numbers, or how wrong he ended up being just five years later.

However, ten years later, as the U.S. was considering involvement in the Kyoto Protocol, the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels did (emphasis added):

Ten years ago, on June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere. His testimony coincided with a very hot, dry period (much worse than the summer of 1998), and subsequent polls showed that, as a result of his testimony, the public believed that the 1988 drought was caused by human-induced global warming.

At that time, Hansen also produced a model of the future behavior of the globe’s temperature, which he had turned into a video movie that was heavily shopped in Congress. That model was one of many similar calculations that were used in the First Scientific Assessment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC", 1990), which stated that "when the latest atmospheric models are run with the present concentrations of greenhouse gases, their simulation of climate is generally realistic on large scales."

That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Figure 2 compares this to the observed temperature changes from three independent sources. Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. Lower atmosphere temperatures measured by ascending thermistors on weather balloons show a decline of 0.36°C and satellites measuring the same layer (our only truly global measure) showed a decline of 0.24°C.

The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure, and IPCC’s 1990 statement about the realistic nature of these projections was simply wrong.

Interesting, wouldn’t you agree? After all, if Blakemore and others are going to continue to quote Hansen as an expert on predicting future climate events, shouldn’t they look at his past forecasts to determine accuracy? Or, is that just too much like journalism?

Yet, maybe more delicious were predictions made by Hansen in 1986. The following comes from an Associated Press article published June 11 of that year (emphasis added):

Hansen predicted that global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, "which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years."

How close was Hansen on this one? Well, as the following chart shows, he was probably off by roughly 1.4 degrees, or almost 70 percent!

       

Also of note in this AP piece:

Hansen said the average U.S. temperature has risen from 1 to 2 degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.

Well, as we are now in 2007, and we’ve only risen about 0.6 degrees since Hansen made this prediction, we’re going to have to rise at least 2.4 degrees in the next thirteen years for him to be right. As we’ve only increased by 1 degree since 1976 when the previous cooling cycle ended, it seems quite unlikely we’ll spike two and a half times as much in the following thirteen.

Sadly, Blakemore didn’t challenge Hansen on this either.

Unfortunately, what we see here from Blakemore and others who use Hansen as a resource is that the accuracy of his previous predictions are totally irrelevant. All that matters is what he is saying about the future without regard to the past.

Of course, none of this should surprise us as the media use exactly the same tactic when they allow Democrat political leaders to make statements today that completely contradict statements made yesterday without any challenge.

How disgraceful.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Ron Paul/Cynthia McKinney ticket in '08?

They are both sufficiently nutrooty, although I don't honestly beleive Mr. Paul is certifiably insane like Ms. McKinney. 

This would tie up the wackjobs from both parties.  H/T: RWN.

Question for other Dem Candidates - Who would you pander to if this convergence of creepiness occurred?


"Don't hate the playah -- hate the JEWS."

She's not sure she can remain a Democrat.

After all, the Democrats refuse the repeal the..."Secret Evidence Act."

Pic via Reason's Dave Wiegel.

Although, to be honest, I'm not sure why Reason is snarking about her nascent candidacy. Is the problem that she's not insane enough?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

National Review throws gauntlet at WSJ

This would be sweet.  Posted from MichelleMalkin.com:

The pro-immigration enforcement National Review and the open-borders Wall Street Journal have been engaged in a battle over the shamnesty bill.

Now, NR has issued a challenge to the WSJ. Get ready to rummmmble:

We hereby challenge the Journal’s editors to debate the immigration bill in a neutral venue with a moderator of their choosing — two or three of us versus any two or three of them. We propose to do it in Washington next week so it will have the maximum impact on the Senate’s consideration of the most sweeping immigration reform in decades (time and place to be worked out in a mutually satisfactory fashion).

It shouldn’t be a problem for the Journal’s editors to take up this challenge, since opponents of the bill aren’t “rational” on the question, have no arguments, and are “foaming at the mouth,” as they explained in a videotaped session of one of their editorial meetings last week. Click here to watch — you have to see it to believe it.

We urge them to come out of the shadows, and hope defending the bill in this forum is not another one of those jobs that no American will do. (We would challenge President Bush himself to a debate on behalf of the conservatives he has maligned, but we fear he hasn’t read the bill.)

Har.

I'd pay to see that smackdown.

Longtime readers of this blog know that the Wall Street Journal is notorious for refusing to acknowledge its factual errors in editorials about immigration policy and for tarring its opponents as anti-immigrant racists. Will they rise to NR's challenge or continue to smear amnesty opponents from the safety of their Manhattan offices?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Illegal Alien works as Police Officer - for 10 Years

Hold onto your butts folks.  Posted from MichelleMalkin.com:

Peachy:

A Milwaukee police officer was arrested Wednesday by federal immigration agents on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant who assumed the identity of his dead cousin a decade ago, officials said.

The officer, who has lived and worked under the name Jose A. Morales since he was a teenager, was arrested by agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, police spokeswoman Anne E. Schwartz confirmed Wednesday.

A spokeswoman from Immigration did not return a call seeking comment Wednesday night.

"When the Milwaukee Police Department was made aware of these allegations, we worked in concert with federal authorities on this investigation," Schwartz said.

Morales, 24, was suspended after his arrest, Schwartz said. He will continue to be paid, per state law...It is suspected that he, as a teenager, took on the identity of his dead cousin. By doing that at such a young age, he created a trail of fingerprints and other identification that ultimately allowed him to join the department, Schwartz said.

"We do everything we can during the background check when people apply to be police officers, but in this case when it has been going on so long, it would be really difficult to discover it was going on," Schwartz said.

Oh, but have no fear. The background checks for the massive illegal alien shamnesty will be so much better at detecting fraud and weeding out the bad guys. Really, just trust Bush/McCain/Kennedy/Chertoff/Graham. Because, you know, they know so much more about "reality" than we do.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'Carbon Footprint' rating on all product labels

Watch as the Euros begin the comedy of trying to 'outgreen' one another.  Also watch the oh, so subtle increased taxation and goods costs rise throughout the realm.  Posted from Hot Air:

Some goods already carry the label but it’s only a few and participation is strictly voluntary at the moment. Now the government’s stepping in to standardize measurements and extend the plan to all manufacturers. Is it too much to dream that in a few years, when the hysteria’s reached a crescendo, some wise old progressive soul might float the idea of … “carbon rationing”? 100 credits a week; just present your card when you go to pay and the cashier will deduct the appropriate amount.

Won’t that be nice.

Plans have been unveiled to design a “carbon calculator” that could work out the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted by everything from the production of a pack of tomatoes to a car.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [Delfra] joined forces yesterday with the Carbon Trust, a Government advisory body, to try to agree how to measure greenhouse gases in the manufacturing process…

A spokesman for Defra said: “We need to look at cradle-to-grave emissions, whether it be a tomato, a CD or a car.”…

The carbon footprint of a beef steak, for instance, is likely to take into account the energy used to grow the wheat for the animal feed…

BSI British Standards will oversee the work and come up with a benchmark to avoid retailers and manufacturers trying to “out-green” each other. Nutritional labelling on food packaging has been undermined by disagreements between Tesco and Sainsbury’s and between different manufacturers.

Exit rhetorical question: They’re going to do this for everything sold at Live Earth, right down to the nine-dollar bottles of spring water, aren’t they?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cynthia Mckinney - President '08?

Wouldn't this be rich?  Posted from Hot Air:

Are we looking at a five-way race? Bloomberg’s got a billion dollars burning a hole in his pocket; Ron Paul’s going to end up convinced by the neo-Birchers and left-libertarian nutroots that he’s the messiah and therefore must run; and, if Hillary is in fact the Democratic nominee, the pressure from the hard left for a “real liberal” anti-war alternative will be sufficiently great to put the Greens in play. But who can they get to top the ticket that’ll create some buzz? One obvious possibility has already expressed an interest in running for office next fall.

And now another obvious possibility, bless her heart, has joined the fray.

Exit question: Isn’t this actually bad news? Socialist alternatives to Hillary are all to the good since they’ll drain off votes from the dumber parts of the Democratic base, but if the Green nominee’s too kooky it’ll make it easy for the Democrats to demonize them and draw some of those votes back. For example, here’s St. Cindy’s latest flirtation with Trutherism. Obviously that’s a plus for some on the left, but probably not enough of one on its own to tilt them towards her and away from Hillary. On the contrary, among mainstream Democrats who are thinking of voting for Sheehan as an anti-war protest vote, it might be enough to tilt them away and back towards the mainstream. (Although I suppose, at this point, we overestimate the repugnance of 9/11 conspiracy theories to even the mainstream left at our peril.) Same with McKinney — she’s a Truther, she had the run-in with the Capitol Hill cop, and some of her inner circle have some mighty interesting attitudes toward Jews. Again, none of which will bother the far left but it might bother single-issue mainstream Democrats opposed to Hillary’s Iraq war position.

What we need is a media darling with high name recognition, fanatical enough about the war that he’d feel obliged to oppose a Democrat who voted for it in 2002, regardless of what her position might be now, and instilled with enough messianic ego that he’d entertain running even at the risk of inflicting another Gore/Nader nightmare on the party.

But where could we find someone like that?

moore-oscars.jpg

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Proof of Democrat Lies - Video

I know that should almost go without saying.  What really shocks me is that this aired on CNN:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

60's Icons finally get it?

Or did they get it all along?  This is a very revealing article on the thoughts of some of the bigwigs from the 'counter culture' which emanated from the 1960's.  Great read.  Posted from Newsbusters

In the new 40th Anniversary Edition of Rolling Stone magazine, Editor Jann Wenner asks rocker-icon Bob Dylan, "Do you worry about global warming?" and Dylan responds: "Where's the global waming? It's freezing here."

The point is that Dylan was half-serious and questioning Wenner's liberal assumptions, as were a number of other 1960s rock icons who gave some startlingly sober answers to the hyper-idealized drivel regurgitated by Wenner and other questioners. (Hat tip to Cincinnati.com.) When asked his views about the 1960s, Director Steven Spielberg replied, "Just narcissism, a collective and personal narcissism."

Actor Jack Nicholson declared: "I'm a patriotic fella and this factionalism today isn't to my liking. I'm incapable of hating a president of the United States." Stewart Brand, a former LSD user and the creator of the Whole Earth Catalog, said: "Almost everything we tried either failed hideously or didn't pan out. Communes failed, drugs went nowhere, free love led pretty much to AIDS. A lot of people thought Mao Tse Tung was a hero."

Neil Young, who wrote a famous song about Richard Nixon having soul, was asked "Can you ever imagine saying George W. Bush has soul?" and Young replied, "I'm sure he does." Of course, not everything these 1960s rockers and celebrities say is accurate or conservative or even coherent, but it is a little comforting to see that they are not blindly following the liberal playbook in every single instance, which is hard to say for much of today's top media. Read more ...

A sampling from the interview: "Do you think it's gloomy on the horizon," Editor Jann Wenner asks Bob Dylan.

"In what sense do you mean," says Dylan.

"Bob, come on," says Wenner.

"No, you come on. In what sense do you mean that?" Dylan says.

Wenner tries again: "We seem to be hell-bent on destruction. Do you worry about global warming?"

"Where's the global warming?" Dylan asks. "It's freezing here."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stop Communism - Defeat Hilldog!

Comrade Hillary, at it again.  What scares me is that more people don't see this for what it is.  Posted from RWN:

"Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies.

..."We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," she said." -- Karl Marx Comrade Hillary Clinton

One of the left's favorite arrows in the class warfare quiver, is the wealth gap between the rich and poor. The idea here is supposed to be that even if the poor and middle class are doing better economically, they should still be angry, bitter, and jealous because the rich are doing even better than they are. Then, the liberal/socialist (same thing, really) dream is that the proletariat will become angry and demand that the government will step in and take control of most aspects of the US economy so that they can teach the bourgeoisie a lesson!

The problem with this thinking is that the liberal idea of fairness, everybody gets the same results, strangles entrepreneurs, crushes the human spirit, and always leads to less prosperity for everyone. If you believe in real fairness, which means the government does it's best to make sure everyone has a level playing field under the law, yes, some people will do much better than others, but society also does better as a whole. It's like Churchill said,

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

PS: From RWN advertiser Defeat Hillary,

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Daily Dilbert

 Dilbert May 30, 2007
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Three sides of the same coin

There are multiple stories today about varying climate around the globe.

Now, this doesn't make a blip on the screen for a person like me who understand there are always variations in climate.  These articles should be proof positive (at least anecdotally) that global climate fluctuates continually - it always has, and it always will.

First we have Freak snow, ice across Europe.  Ironically, as Nancy Peolsi speaks of the global warming she 'witnessed' in Greenland, a so-called freak snow storm was ravaging the city where she was in Germany.

Next, the alarmist story Lake Okeechobee ties record low level.  Now, nowhere in the story was AGW mentioned.  How long until the likes of Laurie David or other Gore acolytes proclaim this as another sign of climate catastrophe?  There is no context when the alarmists glom onto a story like this.  Florida is in a drought.  Here in San Antonio, TX, we are sitting at over twenty inches of rain in less than five months.

And finally, for you 'cap-and-trade' fans out there, look what the future holds in store for us if we go down that road:  Argentina Rations Gas to Companies, Chile Amid Cold (Update1) .  Another so-called freak weather incident causes an energy shortage.  Read between the lines.  Think of this scenario in reverse.  We have a harsher than normal winter.  Since we've instituted cap and trade quotas on energy, northeastern energy companies must reduce energy consumption at the source, reducing access of electricity or heating oil when it's most needed.  Far fetched?  Far more likely than the polar ice caps melting in my book.

Don't fall for alarmist rhetoric.  Use common sense and evaluate things for what they are - natural cycles which occur all the time. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789102627Next »