About Me

Name: Catmman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Immigration "Reform" from Obama...& McCain

We knew this was coming regardless of who was elected, be it Obama or McCain.
 
Obviously McCain hasn't forsworn his previous philosophy on this subject.  It's going to take a miracle to stop it this time.
 
(H/T: AoS)
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

20 Shots, 20 Kills

I'm an Air Force shooter, but this guy is teh awesome!
 
Semper Fi Marine!
 
The Top Ten reasons this guy is a bad-a here!  (Funny stuff!)
 
(H/T: Hot Air)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Plan: Zero New Jobs by 2011

So sayeth Obama's website (the soft bigotry of low expectations continues unabated):
 
"The plan will mean 2.5 million more jobs" by 2011, Obama said. His Web site clarified that the plan would "save or create" that many jobs.
 
Obama's website says it right here.  This indeed is a bold initiative.  I suppose you could also say that if Obama fails to create any jobs by 2011 his economic plan is a success?  Is that really an economic plan?  I enjoy the double talk - Obama says one thing, his web site "clarifies" it.  Why not just say it?  Will you create new jobs?  Or will you "save" old jobs?  If you only "save" jobs, then what is it you really did?  And if you claim that you saved said jobs, by what measurement do you use to quantify that, "See? Told ya!"?
 
Something else to ponder:   Just some cursory glancing at the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows about a million or so jobs created annually on average (the numbers do fluctuate but bare with me for the sake of my point).  Obama says he wants to create 2.5 million jobs in two years.  That is pretty much along the statistical average for annual job growth anyway (for two years), so what's the big dang deal?  Of course the next year could be pretty shacky with the state of the economy right now, but come on.  Is it really a "plan" to "create" jobs which were probably going to be created anyway?  And if you simply "saved" jobs, you did nothing for the economy or the overall unemployment rate so what the heck are you bragging about?
 
No word in Obama's economic plan thus far on paying for that one lady's gas and mortage...
 
More here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Blogging Lobbying?

New attack vector to silence dissent?  Maybe.  They are looking at it in Washington state:
 
Blogger beware? State regulators are wondering whether online political activism amounts to lobbying, which could force Web-based activists to file public reports detailing their finances.
 
In a collision of 21st century media and 1970s political reforms, the inquiry hints at a showdown over press freedoms for bloggers, whose self-published journals can shift between news reporting, opinion writing, political organizing and campaign fundraising.
 
It doesn't look like this will hold water (there are too many lefties who do this as well) but just another way political speech and freedom may come under attack in the near future.  Just the fact this is being looked at (along with serious calls for a return to some type of "Fairness Doctrine" for talk radio) show how effective our voice in this medium is.  Check your six and be aware of these types of initiatives fellow bloggers!
 
(H/T: AoS)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Al Gore lied, whales died

The ice wasn't supposed to be there.   Haven't we been told again and again arctic ice was melting?  It would be gone this year?  I think I even read a few stories saying the arctic was ice free this year for the first time in decades?  As it turns out, not so much.
 
 
At least 200 narwhal whales in Canada's Arctic, trapped by winter ice and facing starvation or suffocation, must be culled, officials say.
 
Community elders and officials feared the whales would die from a lack of oxygen as the ice grew thicker around them, Pelley explained.
 
What tickles my funny bone?  I can't help but think of all the shows I've seen where people extol the intelligence of whales and other sea mammals.  These whales live in the arctic and they couldn't see this one coming?  I hate to slaughter a dead whale here, but, c'mon!  I suppose what this incident really boils down to:
 
Al Gore lied, whales died.
 
(H/T: AoS)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NBC Fires Climate Alarmists

The entire staff for the program "Forecast Earth", The Weather Channel's (TWC) environmental alarmist soapbox, was let go due to budget cuts.
 
I can't help but chuckle.  I feel bad these folks (amongst others at TWC) were let go but this is a bit funny.  NBC, one of the paragons of green hypocrisy, what with their outdoor AC during the Olympics and the annual "Green Weeks" touting the joys of single-pad toilet paper use, s-cans the entire staff of an environmental show.
 
I know what your thinking.  Did they let noted climate alarmist and Green acolyte Heidi Cullen go?  The article states her fate is unknown at this time.  It would indeed be a bit of karmic justice if indeed Ms. Cullen were s-canned.
 
Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.  These alarmists finally get a big dose of reality.  When faced with the real problems of money, budgets and maintaining a healthy bottom line, the "environmental concerns" of a few alarmists take a back seat and ultimately count for...nothing.  At least in this instance, reality does indeed trump extremism.
 
Maybe these TWC folks can hook up with those laid off by the Goracle?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NOAA: Warmer Winter, unless it isn't

NOAA calls for "variability" in the climate this Winter. 
 
Huh.
 
I thought climate was variable all the time?
 
Anecdotal Climate Evidence (Observation):  Where I live (San Antonio, Texas) the temperature yesterday (high) was 80 degrees.  Today the high (projected) is 60 degrees; right now it is in the mid fifties.  80 degrees yesterday, 60 degrees today.  Does this qulify as variable?  It's definately not static!
 
Money Quote:   These patterns are only predictable a week or two in advance and could persist for weeks at a time,” said Michael Halpert, deputy director, Climate Prediction Center. “Therefore, we expect variability, or substantial changes in temperature and precipitation across much of the country.”
 
The preceding statement begs the question:  If this winters' (or any seasonal) climate patterns can only be predicted a "week or two" in advance thereby resulting in said climate "variability" (this is for seasonal temperatures mind) why do these people continue to propagate global warming/climate change hysteria for the climate one hundred years from now?  In other words, if actual climate predictions are only reasonably accurate for a matter of a couple of weeks, why does climate alarmism (no small part supported by NOAA) tell us definitively that the temps will rise by such and such degrees, sea levels will rise by exact amounts, etc. over a multi-decadal time frame?
 
Climate alarmists tell us that the temps WILL rise.  The polar ice caps ARE melting.  That we must do something about it NOW before it is too late.  The variability in those statements would be:  temps ALWAYS rise as well as fall.  The ice caps ALWAYS melt, as well as regrow/refreeze get thicker/thinner.  And all one need do to put the "do something now" argument to rest is look at how well the economic bailout is going.  The government is handling that well, yes?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Peak Oil is a Myth

As are many other theories dealing with energy.  Watch this video, get edumacated:
 
 
Other energy myths busted:
 
Facts:
- 95% of the world's proven oil and gas reserves are controlled by national oil companies (Forbes)
- Only 16% of U.S. oil imports come from the Middle East (EIA)
- The largest supplier of oil to the U.S. is Canada (EIA)
- The second largest supplier of oil to the U.S. is Mexico (EIA)
- Only 0.005% of U.S. domestic oil production is exported (EIA)
- Only 1.5% of the United States electrical generation comes from oil (EIA) (48% Coal, 20% Natural Gas, 19% Nuclear)
- The U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil supply because it produces over 25% of the world's economy (World Bank)

Failed Predictions:

- 1885, U.S. Geological Survey: "Little or no chance for oil in California."
- 1891, U.S. Geological Survey: "Little or no chance for oil in Kansas and Texas"
- 1914, U.S. Bureau of Mines: Total future production limit of 5.7 billion barrels of oil, at most a 10-year supply remaining.
- 1939, Department of the Interior: Oil reserves in the United States to be exhausted in 13 years.
- 1951, Department of the Interior, Oil and Gas Division: Oil reserves in the United States to be exhausted in 13 years.

Reserves: (partial list)
- 1.3 Trillion barrels of 'proven' oil reserves exist worldwide (EIA)
- 1.8 to 6 Trillion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Oil-Shale Reserves (DOE)
- 986 Billion barrels of oil are estimated using Coal-to-liquids (CTL) conversion of U.S. Coal Reserves (DOE)
- 173 to 315 Billion (1.7-2.5 Trillion potential) barrels of oil are estimated in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada (Alberta Department of Energy)
- 100 Billion barrels of heavy oil are estimated in the U.S. (DOE)
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Al Gore Elucidates on Maya Collapse

No longer content to blame only the United States for climatological catastrophe, Al Gore writes this little blog post about some study on the collapse of the Maya civilisation:
 
A new study suggests the Mayan civilization might have collapsed due to environmental disasters:
"'These models suggest that as ecosystems were destroyed by mismanagement or were transformed by global climatic shifts, the depletion of agricultural and wild foods eventually contributed to the failure of the Maya sociopolitical system,' writes environmental archaeologist Kitty Emery of the Florida Museum of Natural History in the current Human Ecology journal."
As we move towards solving the climate crisis, we need to remember the consequences to civilizations that refused to take environmental concerns seriously.
 
If you haven’t read already read it, take a look at Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse.
 
I am no archaeologist, nor am I a history professor, though I have watched about a half dozen History Channel shows on the Maya and am pretty good with a internet search engine.  Additionally, I'm pretty sure I have more college credit than Al Gore, but even if I don't I'm still smarter than he, but I digress.
 
It is possible that the Maya did indeed suffer from some type of ecological problem which hastened their collapse as a civilisation.   One recent theory states the area the Maya populated may have suffered from a protracted drought.  This would indeed be an ecological disaster.  To add to the confusion is the fact that some 88 different theories or variations of theories have been postulated as to the collapse of the Maya, none of which has been proven or which answers the question once and for all, "What happened to the Maya?"
 
What Al Gore is doing though is completely disengenuous.  He is taking an event which occurred over 1000 years ago and attempts to equate possible ecological problems with his current alarmism on global warming:  there was some type of "ecological collapse" which caused the Maya to disappear; we (current history) are suffering from "climate change", if we don't do something then we'll disappear.  I'm sure there is some type of moniker to attache to Gore's illogic but like I said, I'm no professorial type (though I could play one on TV, I do wear glasses).  Ironically, this is an attack angle global warming skeptics have used against Gore himself.  Skeptics (such as myself) say we should look at the climatological history of the planet, see if there are any trends in climate, are there climate shifts, and if so what happened?  Gore and his acolytes have refused to do this clinging bitterly to their computer models as a Pennsylvania Republican does to his bible and guns. 
 
Side Note:  It is also interesting to note there are over 88 different theories on the collapse of the Maya - none of which has been proven or quantified.  Al Gore holds to one single theory of climate change - anthropogenic (man-made, driven by industrial CO2 emission) - which has also not been proven or reliably quantified.  Yet this single theory we are told to hold to by Gore himself.  A theory which doesn't stand up under real-world scientific observation or analysis of the aforementioned planetary history.
 
Gore also places the blame of possible ecologic collapse of the Maya on their own limited knowledge of nature and science.  As brilliant as the Maya were let's face it, they didn't invent the plasma TV.  Heck, they didn't even have electricity!  Perhaps the Maya did overfarm or over hunt the land.  The Maya though were at least a partially (probably mostly) agrarian society and it's hard to believe after farming the same lands for hundreds of years that they didn't know what they were doing.  There could have been some kind of uprising, war, pestilence, invasion, no one knows - but Al Gore knows what he believes - the Maya destroyed their ecosystem, they perished.  Must have been those damn Maya Humvees...
 
Maybe the ruling class of the Maya got to comfortable.  Maybe fewer and fewer farmers and hunters were doing all the work for more and more "priests" and "slave girls" and they simply could not sustain a population where only part produced and the other part mooched?  Maybe aliens from Al Gore's home world stopped by, showed them the wonders of government control of energy production and the Maya all threw themselves off a cliff?
 
I suppose my point is that Al Gore has no shame.  He points to history as a warning of what ecological disaster could do.  Fine.  We skeptics try pointing Al Gore to climatological history and he runs to his SKYNET War Room and looks at computer models some more and polishes his Nobel Prize and Oscar. 
 
Of course anyone so inclined to listen to Al Gore when it comes to the history of a civilisation should at least know:  former vice-president Gore (and the man who ran for the nations' highest office in 2000) didn't know who the Founders were on a tour of Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home.  Until I see Al Gore identify a picture of George Washington (in public and for the record) he needs to shut the heck up on history as well as climate.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Somali Pirates: Heroic Redistributors

According to this AP article, life is just peachy for all involved with piracy.  The pirates bring money, jobs, food, security, esteem, to the impoverished masses.  It's win-win!  Honestly, even the hostages guests receive imprisonment Five-Star treatment from their humble, Robin Hoodish overlords activity coordinators:
 
The attackers generally treat their hostages well in anticipation of a big payday, hiring caterers on shore to cook spaghetti, grilled fish and roasted meat that will appeal to a Western palate. They also keep a steady supply of cigarettes and drinks from the shops on shore.
 
Frankly I'm shocked that the author of this article would use such derisive epithets like "attacker" and "hostages".  These scumsuckers honest fisherman driven to desperation are simply participating in the redistibution of wealth stolen from the masses by evil Western countries.  Economic justice in other words.  The pirates bring hope.  They offer change. 
 
Heck in this country we have the same thing except we don't call them pirates.  We call them Democrats.
 
Associated Press rendering of the typical Somali Pirate
 
Other nations's are responding differently, not as taken with the pirates viewpoint as the locals.  It seems other countries have no problem sending these scruvy dogs to the depths of Davy Jones' Locker!  Arrrrrgh!
 
(H/T: Ace
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Wages of Redistibutionism - Chattel

Whoever claims the "right" to "redistribute" the wealth produced by others is claiming the "right" to treat human beings as chattel.
 
 - Ayn Rand, The Monument Builders (The Virtue of Selfishness)
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's "Lemming Manuever" on Climate

Calling climate change an urgent challenge, President-elect Barack Obama promised Tuesday that Washington would take a leading role in combating it in the United States and throughout the world.
 
"My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change," Obama said in a video message to governors and others attending a Los Angeles summit on the issue. (AP)
 
Simply calling something an "urgent challenge" doesn't make it so, except in the liberal world of virtual climate change.  From Junk ScienceLeadership? Where to? Over a cliff? How did we let a bunch of gibbering loons stampede the mob with nonsense claims of planet cooking with trivial increases in an essential trace gas? Get a grip people! You don't live in a computer-generated virtual world so you are in absolutely no danger from virtual planet cooking.
 
More on the problems with Obama's climate "leadership":

Temperatures have declined for 7 years and sea levels have paused in their rise. 5 of the last 7 decades since WWII and post war boom have shown cooling, not exactly an endorsement for the greenhouse gas warming theory. Climate models are failing even the ones from the IPCC from 2007 above.

The following detailed study by SPPI shows how futile any such ultra costly emissions plans are for states and the United States and for many foreign countries. They produce very little or no gain for great economic pain as many countries have already found out.

Obama is not taking heed of the devastating economic impact of cap and trade on EU, UK, Canada and New Zealand, where countries are abandoning their emission goals and or kicking out the ruling parties. Obama is on the right track partially with the energy plans. We need to exploit our energy resources including nucleer, clean coal, but wind and solar will only be single digit answers anytime soon. We need all of us to conserve energy. We need the ability to drill offshore and tap our in ground resources of fossil fuel - clean burning natural gas and oil. Let’s hope market forces and public pressure drive an “all of the above solution” although I think it may take brownouts and blackouts before the politicos tell the enviros to back off their untenable positions.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NOAA: October 2008 2nd Warmest Ever

Don't believe this data either fresh on the heels of the bad NASA data last week.  Why?  Read this:

This is not surprising as NOAA has become the biggest outlier in recent months. They have thanks to Tom Peterson and Tom Karl a global data base that is worth nothing. There is little or no adjustment for urbanization, land use changes, no adjustment for bad station siting (69% of the 560 US climate stations surveyed by Anthony Watts team of volunteers were poor or very poorly sited), 2/3rds of the stations globally dropped out around 1990, the number of missing months increased tenfold in the FSU and Africa after 1990, and changes in instrumentation like here in the US that Tom Karl himself found produced a warm bias of 0.5F. All these introduce a warm bias, none of which are corrected for. Not less than 6 peer review studies have shown these issues may account for up to 50% of the warming since 1900. Trust only the satellite. In fact, this October was the 10th warmest of the 30 years of data for the MSU satellite according to UAH with only a 0.167C (0.3F) anomaly instead of the 1.1F (2nd warmest out of 129 years) as per NOAA. Unfortunately satellite data extends only back to 1979.
 
(H/T: ICECAP)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bailout Money Belongs to Congress

So says Republican Congressman Joe Knollenberg.  Taxpayer money, it seems, doesn't belong to the taxpayer:
 
 
This morons reasoning is why Republicans keep getting their butts kicked in elections.  It holds true that when a voter is forced to select between a true liberal or "liberal light" (such as is the case with Mr. Knollenberg here), they will choose the true liberal every time.
 
Mr. Knollenberg's reasoning is also at the heart of what ails the Republican party.  When a Republican says, actually says, that taxpayer money isn't "ours", he is saying that money belongs to whom?  The government.  Once a Republican (who should be conservative) accepts this premise, openly advocating through statement the liberalistic, the socialistic viewpoint that taxpayer money is the government's and not the citizens, we have the troubles we are faced with.
 
If a Republican believes (as Democrats do) that taxpayer money isn't "ours" but "theirs" why worry about cutting spending?  Why worry about reducing the size of government?  Why worry about cutting those same taxes which give the government it's "revenue"?  When such a fundamental issue is acceded by a Republican, when they abdicate this most basic of conservative beliefs, just what else are they willing to abrogate?  Guns?  Property?  Immigration?  Abortion?  Religion? 
 
"Representatives" like Mr. Knollenberg need to leave the Republican party.  More to the point, they should be driven from it.  Mr. Knollenberg shows he has no understanding of this most basic of Republican principle(tax money belongs to the citizenry, NOT the Government) and is, wholeheartedly, willing to sacrifice the principles of the Party and Conservatism by taking the liberal, ie, socialist viewpoint.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Assault Weapon Ban" Reauthorization Filed

By five House REPUBLICANS!
 
It seems the Republican Party does indeed, need an enema.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »