About Me

Name: Catmman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Narcissism Incarnate

President Obama watched a documentary about himself last night.  No, it wasn't "V".

"This election is not about Obama," Gibbs tells us.

Dude, seriously? What the hell happens in Obama's blessed life that isn't about Obama?

Genius Christmas! How long is this malignant narcissist going to stroke himself over the single accomplishment on his adult resume? How many victory laps is this guy going to take? At what point is he going to stop admiring his splendor in the mirror and start taking a hard look at the unemployment numbers?

What I find funny about this is that the wife and kids went out to a concert last night.  So Obama was watching this movie about himself, by himself.  Are even the wife and kids are tired of stroking the ego?  What is really funny is that Obama had already seen a screening of this same documentary a few days ago.  So he's seen this movie - twice already.  I guess he just wanted to make sure everything was done right.  You know, like his Afghanistan policy.

More feeding the Beast:  11 more school songs praising Obama found.

(H/T:  AoS)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Al Gore: CO2 not so bad?

It appears Al Gore, the Pontiff of the Church of Global Warming, has changed his tune somewhat in his beliefs about carbon dioxide.

Now, Gore says that other particulates and methane are more serious to climate change and contribute more towards global warming than CO2. 

In his conversations with Schmidt and other colleagues at the beginning of the year, Gore explored new studies – published only last week – that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming.  Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.

“Over the years I have been among those who focused most of all on CO2, and I think that’s still justified,” he told the magazine. “But a comprehensive plan to solve the climate crisis has to widen the focus to encompass strategies for all” of the greenhouse culprits identified in the Nasa study.

For years, Gore has been beating everyone over the head about the dangers of CO2.  He has also been advocating and investing in the very carbon capture schemes which supposedly reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Now we need to "widen the focus"?  I believe this change of heart is for three reasons:

1.)  CO2 has been continuing to rise while temperatures have not, contrary to everything the Goracle and other Warmists have been spouting for years.  This is one way Gore can deal with that.  He can now claim that he either knew all along CO2 wasn't a primary focus and that arguments made about other particulates and methane have always been part of his plan.

2.)  This is a way for Gore to expand his 'investments' in other environmental areas and advocate for grants for research into these other subjects (like methane).  Grants and other money Gore will be sure to lobby gets directed towards Gore friendly companies. 

3.)  This allows the Warmists to lobby for control over areas CO2 reduction might miss.

Why would Gore be exploring 'new studies' anyway?  Isn't it he that has railed that "The science is settled"?  Is the science settled or not, Mr. Gore?  If you yourself are willing to re-address your 'beliefs' on the 'science', why all the vitriol at the so-called 'deniers' for the past few years who have simply been saying the same thing?  Haven't you just thrown yourself and all your acolytes under the "Science is settled" bus?

This will be interesting to see unfold.

UPDATE:  About that CO2 and the plans to bankrupt ourselves 'controlling' it.  Why?
 
Change in CO2 Emissions Per Capita in the Six Most-Populous Countries: By Seth Myers
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'Climate Change' now, officially, a religion

'Climate Change' has now, officially, been accorded legal status as a religious belief, not simply a scientific one, in Great Britain.

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that "a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations".

The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.

Speechless...

(H/T: Hot Air Headline)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gore puts his mouth where his money is

There is no, none, nada, absolutely not a conflict of interest between Al Gore's 'global warming' hysterical advocacy and where he invests his money.  The fact he is poised to become the worlds first 'Carbon Billionaire' is simply a coincidence.

Not only is Al Gore going to make hundreds of millions off of the Democrat’s cap-&-tax energy bill but one of Gore’s environmental groups and several green activists helped draft the legislation. Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-California) used US Climate Action Partnership’s  (ASCAP)  proposals as a blueprint for climate legislation. The Washington Times reported that the sweeping climate bill includes a provision that benefits Duke Energy Corp., a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), whose climate plan released in January the lawmakers have frequently called a “blueprint” for their climate legislation. The Times continued:

At the kickoff to hearings last week on the massive climate bill, Myron Ebell, climate and energy policy director for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told lawmakers, “The authors of the draft bill have invited the beneficiaries of what could turn out to be the biggest transfer of wealth from consumers to special interests in American history to write the rules for this legalized plunder.

Al Gore’s World Resources Institute is one of the founding members of USCAP, the organization that helped construct the bill. The former VP has also invested heavily in green businesses that will benefit greatly by the liberals’ cap and trade plans. Gore is the founder and chairman of Alliance for Climate Protection. You likely know the organization through its branch Repower America. This group has bombarded the airwaves with We Can Solve It” ads that are pushing for cap and trade legislation.

Yep.  No conflict of interest at all.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

It's striking.  When an oil company puts some money into studies debunking 'global warming' they're somehow biased towards their own conclusions and the scientists doing the studies are all of a sudden beholden to 'Big Oil'.  When Al Gore does the same thing for the pro-warming side, he's simply being a prudent and wise investor with consideration only for Mother Gaia.  In fact, Gore himself decries the fact that if he didn't invest in all of these pro-warming activities, he'd be considered a hypocrite:



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

Obama blows it for Deeds, Corzine

Before you believe the spin Obama had nothing to do with the campaigns for either of these guys, take a look at this:
 
 
And the Obama adinistration effectively taking over the Corzine campaign in New Jersey worked well, huh?  Of course the administration would have you believe otherwise:
 
An Obama-Corzine billboard.
 
Yep.  Obama had nothing to do with either of these campaigns and the results don't send any message whatsoever about hm.  He is still as popular and loved as ever.  By everyoneReally.
 
Heh.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A post for Flame (or anyone else...)

In response to a comment on my retirement. 

You're right.  Now I can freely voice and vent my opinions, of which I have many.  There are some definite developments in the Air Force in particular which helped make my decision to retire.  One of the big reasons I did retire was - I simply couldn't stand any more of the BS.  There will be more to follow in forthcoming posts.

As to the Barrett .50 rifle.  It's a fine weapon, but very pricey.  For the civilian, there are numerous examples of .50 caliber rifles from numerous companies for several thousand dollars less than a Barrett.  I only had up close and personal dealings with a Barrett once and it was pretty fun to shoot.

As to "assault" style weapons companies.  There are so many companies manufacturing AR-15 style weapons and parts they are almost too numerous to count.  Most of them produce decent products.  Colt, S&W, Rock River Arms, DPMS to name a few.  What are you looking for?  Complete rifles, parts kits, uppers, lowers?  Most AR type rifles you would buy from a local dealer are from reputable companies.  Also, most AR's you would see at a gun show (if you have those where you live) offer models from reputable companies.  Of course, the more 'famous' the company (S&W for example) the higher price you're going to pay.  A S&W M&P AR is going to go for $1,000 and up while a DPMS AR rifle might be had for $600 and up.  It all depends on configuration, caliber, accessories, etc.

If you're looking to 'build' your own platform, I think it's important to get your parts from a reputable source.  Brownells sells parts for everything and anything having to do with firearms, but sells many different parts, kits, etc. specifically for AR type rifles.  The parts are quality and cost a bit more, but Brownells is a first rate company.and I've never had any problems with them.  Of course there are others, Brownells is just a personal preference for me.

If you're looking for something other than an AR, then you're looking at AK clones from various manufacturers (overseas usually - China, Russia for example.)  Most of these can be had for $400-$700 here locally (in San Antonio) at our monthly gun show.  Perhaps an SKS type rifle like the Chinese Type 56?  The SKS is a decent shooter (in my experience) no matter where your is manufactured though quality varies.  The Chinese rifles tend to be rougher in tolerance and less than attractive in appearance as opposed to their Russian counterparts, but if your simply looking for a shooter, does it matter?  Plus like the AR's, there are tons of companies which offer dress up kits and accessories for both the AK types and SKS's to change their appearance, thereby making them more deadly using liberal logic.

Ruger offers the Mini-14 and Mini-30 rifles for a decent price pretty much everywhere.

There si the Springfield M1 or other M-14 style rifles.  These are all expensive, but the quality is second to none.  As an option, if you were looking for an M-14 style weapon, the Chinese make one (or at least they did) from Norinco I think.  My father in law has a few he got years ago.  They aren't nearly as pretty as the US models, but again, decent shooters.

It's neat you were a CCT.  I've been in the 342d Training Squadron since I PCS'd down here to Lackland; the 342d being the squadron which handle the majority of the AF Special Ops training, indoc courses, etc for CCT, PJ's, etc.  I have been CATM since 2001 when I retrained.  Originally, I came in the AF as a Security Policeman (Law Enforcement specialty).  With the career merger in 1997, LE went away.  It wasn't until I was 'marooned' at FE Warren working the PK missile field that I needed a "change of pace".

Hope this post helps.  I know it's a bit vague but it's a pretty broad subject. 

Thanks again for the comment and the congrats!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »