Noted actor and Scientologist John Travolta has finally spoken out about global warming. He ain’t fer it, he’s agin’ it! Hope you were sitting down when you read that a Hollywood actor has weighed in on global warming. Wouldn’t want you to pass out and hit your head on anything, too, when you found out that he was taking the “brave” stand of joining the lemmings in the middle of the pack.
As an aside, don’t you just love it when someone is called brave for taking the “popular” stand? The Dixie Chicks were so brave the way the stood up to President Bush, weren’t they? No, they weren’t. They would be brave if the went to Cuba and told Castro to release, say, the librarians he’s been holding for years for daring to think differently. But they aren’t going to do that. It could be because they don’t know or understand what’s going on, but I think it’s more they don’t care.
Why should they? Lefties are looked upon a brave for saying popular things in a free society. Just because they say things like “This is the most oppressive threat to our democracy we’ve ever faced,” and the ever popular “We’ve lost our right to free speech to this oppressive regime!” without even a hint of hypocrisy or awareness of the fact that they are saying these things in public and to reporters who publish them all while they roam the streets free, thus directly contradicting the very words they just uttered.
There is no reward in liberalism for intellectual consistency. Michael Moore, et. al. (that means all those of his ilk on the Left, not a misspelling implying he ate all the food or anything) love and cheer policies like those championed by people like Castro, Che Guevara, Mao, Stalin, Chavez, and the like, so you don’t hear them condemn them. As long as you provide health care to your people you will be forgiven for the murder, torture, and starvation you’ve inflicted on your people that forced them to go to the doctor in the first place.
Hollywood and music industry’s award shows are huge “pat yourselves on the back” rallies filled with people who genuinely believe they understand the way the world works, and there is no problem we can’t hug ourselves out of. I’m not saying you have to have a Ph.D. on certain issues to know what’s going on in the world. But I will say this; it sure helps when it comes to knowing what to do next. It definitely gives someone more street cred than, say, a Grammy.
Enough about the industry in general, let’s get back to Vinnie Barbarino and his solution to global warming.
This is from Vinnie himself: “I'm wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities.”
He really did say that. I couldn’t make that up. Well, I could, but I wouldn’t because it just wouldn’t sound believable. But the possibility of sounding crazy doesn’t seem to bother the star of such films and “Battlefield Earth,” “The Boy in the Plastic Bubble,” and the “Look Who’s Talking” series.
Nor should it. I’m giving him grief here, but he actually stepped up and admitted he’s a bit of a hypocrite on the issue, so big ups to him.
You see, the star of “Get Shorty” (which actually is an excellent movie) admits that he thinks something should be done about the “problem,” he continues, “I'm probably not the best candidate to ask about global warming because I fly jets.”
He’s being a bit modest there, he doesn’t just fly them, he owns 5 of them, including a personal 707. The picture in the story I linked shows his house, but looks more like an airport without the threat of a TSA cavity search.
And he flies everywhere. Nothing wrong with it, you just probably shouldn’t start talking about something that, were it true (which it’s not), you would be one of the largest individual causes of.
So, JT, I’m going to let you off the hook since your little story allowed me to rant against both The Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore. Just don’t make a sequel to “Wild Hogs” and we’ll be cool.
30 March 2007
Tuesday afternoon quarterbacking
I'd call it Monday morning quarterbacking, but it's been so long after the fact...And most of this seems like anger rather than reason. This story from the AP inspired this post.
Bloggers on the Left (check out this post, and other posts by the same (I wish I could use the words bitter moron, but I shouldn't, so I'll just go with) guy at this hate website) act as though Rudy Giuliani was simply in the right place at the right time on September 11th, that anyone could've held the city together that horrible day, it just happened to be him. Nothing could be more wrong.
There have been many moments in history where the right time and place converged with the wrong people and the wrong thing happened. Anyone remember Neville Chamberlain giving away Europe? If there had been the right person at that right place and time, someone with, say, a backbone to stand up to Hitler, who knows how history would've played out? Instead we got a few months of peace in our time, unless you lived in one of the areas Chamberlain ceded to the Germans, then you got war early.
I understand the anger and hurt feelings, as much as anyone who wasn't there could, but it seems misdirected and, dare I say, political.
Rudy is not simply the harmonic convergence of tragedy and microphones, he turned that city completely around from what it was under Koch and Dinkins. Crime, taxes, and welfare rolls slashed, Times Square taken from a place where you ran risk of a social disease if you inhaled too deeply, to a place where families pose for pictures. New businesses and jobs that come with them replaced barren wastelands; the city was cleaned up, graffiti wiped away.
Giuliani is much more than the "one trick pony" his political opponents try to paint him as, he is a leader who has demonstrated time and again the ability to bring about positive change to a place many had written off. He gave New York more than a face lift, he gave it a blood transfusion with full organ transplants.
Don't believe me, or don't really think the change was that dramatic? Go rent any movie set in New York made in the 80's this weekend. There will be a scene, there always is, set in Times Square, or some other recognizable section of the city. Then watch one made in the last 10 years. Compare the New York of Fort Apache, The Bronx to the New York of even an episode of NYPD Blue. If you don't see a difference, you aren't looking.
The Giuliani mystique is not a media creation, it is more than luck, and is certainly not myth. It is the result of the right place and time intersecting with the right person. History is littered with people who never rose the occasions with which they were presented. But history is made by those who did. Even before his heroic leadership of September 11th, 2001, Rudy Giuliani had risen to the occasions presented him. Without that tragic day, he would still rightfully be regarded as the man that saved New York, only instead of from a terrorist attack, it would've been from itself.
So as the media continue to throw mud, dig up past "scandals," make an issue of his personal life, remember what he has done, all that he has done. Before he was "America's Mayor," he was New York's Mayor. And he did a damn fine job at it.
Bloggers on the Left (check out this post, and other posts by the same (I wish I could use the words bitter moron, but I shouldn't, so I'll just go with) guy at this hate website) act as though Rudy Giuliani was simply in the right place at the right time on September 11th, that anyone could've held the city together that horrible day, it just happened to be him. Nothing could be more wrong.
There have been many moments in history where the right time and place converged with the wrong people and the wrong thing happened. Anyone remember Neville Chamberlain giving away Europe? If there had been the right person at that right place and time, someone with, say, a backbone to stand up to Hitler, who knows how history would've played out? Instead we got a few months of peace in our time, unless you lived in one of the areas Chamberlain ceded to the Germans, then you got war early.
I understand the anger and hurt feelings, as much as anyone who wasn't there could, but it seems misdirected and, dare I say, political.
Rudy is not simply the harmonic convergence of tragedy and microphones, he turned that city completely around from what it was under Koch and Dinkins. Crime, taxes, and welfare rolls slashed, Times Square taken from a place where you ran risk of a social disease if you inhaled too deeply, to a place where families pose for pictures. New businesses and jobs that come with them replaced barren wastelands; the city was cleaned up, graffiti wiped away.
Giuliani is much more than the "one trick pony" his political opponents try to paint him as, he is a leader who has demonstrated time and again the ability to bring about positive change to a place many had written off. He gave New York more than a face lift, he gave it a blood transfusion with full organ transplants.
Don't believe me, or don't really think the change was that dramatic? Go rent any movie set in New York made in the 80's this weekend. There will be a scene, there always is, set in Times Square, or some other recognizable section of the city. Then watch one made in the last 10 years. Compare the New York of Fort Apache, The Bronx to the New York of even an episode of NYPD Blue. If you don't see a difference, you aren't looking.
The Giuliani mystique is not a media creation, it is more than luck, and is certainly not myth. It is the result of the right place and time intersecting with the right person. History is littered with people who never rose the occasions with which they were presented. But history is made by those who did. Even before his heroic leadership of September 11th, 2001, Rudy Giuliani had risen to the occasions presented him. Without that tragic day, he would still rightfully be regarded as the man that saved New York, only instead of from a terrorist attack, it would've been from itself.
So as the media continue to throw mud, dig up past "scandals," make an issue of his personal life, remember what he has done, all that he has done. Before he was "America's Mayor," he was New York's Mayor. And he did a damn fine job at it.
29 March 2007
All we are saying…Is give facts a chance.
The second coming of Al Gore juggernaut knows no loyalty to the truth, which isn’t that far off from the first coming when he was an elected official. Never one to let the facts stand in the way of a good story, or even common sense, Gore is planning a massive, world-wide day of music to raise awareness of the greatest myth since the Roswell UFO crash; global warming. I say common sense because he’s planning concerts on every continent including Antarctica. That’s right, Antarctica! He’d have larger attendance on Gilligan’s Island, and probably actually damage the environment less if he did.
No one lives on Antarctica except scientists and penguins. Scientists aren’t known for their love of rock and roll music, and penguins much prefer country, so the concert at the Ice Palace (I doubt that will be the venue’s name, but what else should it be called?) will most likely have record low attendance and only bring bodies and garbage to the Earth’s South Pole.
It doesn’t make any sense, but then what about global warming does? They talk about the earth’s temperature rising by a degree, leading to massive melting of the all the ice on earth, higher temperatures, and drought. Now, I’m as much of a scientist as Al Gore is, which is to say not at all, but it would seem to me that if the earth is warmer, water would evaporate more quickly, and since the laws of physics and common sense dictate that, thanks to gravity, we can’t have oceans in the sky, that water will rain back down on earth. Again, I’m no scientist, but I’m pretty sure I heard once that rain makes drought go away.
But I hate fighting this fight on the terms the Left has laid out. Since the premise is a myth, any argument on those terms, no matter how logical, is irrelevant. When not bound by the facts, logic loses all meaning.
As Al Gore and other Socialists who are pushing their rejected and failed agenda by other means have said, “The debate is over.”
I don’t know about you, but that line brings to mind a teenager and their parents arguing over curfew, not serious scientific discussion.
But the global warming alarmists aren’t interested in serious scientific discussion, they are interested in action to save us from ourselves. We are, after all, dealing with a “fever” that needs attention. Forget the fact that the earth has had many fevers, many much worse than we allegedly have now. In fact, forget facts! They only get in the way and confuse the issue.
Every solution to global warming is what Leftist/Socialist/Communists have been pushing for, and failing overwhelmingly to get, for the last century. Doesn’t that strike you as odd? Or at least a massive coincidence?
Now back to our regularly scheduled rant.
Senator Inhofe (R-OK), fresh from questioning Gore for 15 minutes (15 minutes completely filibustered by Gore and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) where no real answers were given and Gore refused to stop personally polluting the earth, thereby killing us all) has blocked Al Gore’s plans to have the Washington, DC portion of his concert series on the US Capital grounds, and thank him for that.
It turns out that the National Mall is booked the day of Gore’s concert, and he needs somewhere to host it, so he thought his and his father’s old stomping grounds of the Capitol would be as good a place as any.
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) was more than happy to accommodate, but Senate action is required, not just the Majority Leader’s blessing. That’s when Inhofe stepped in and blocked it.
This caused outrage that anyone would dare block Oscar winner Al Gore’s concert (just as an aside, Gore didn’t win an Oscar, the Director and Producer did. Gore was the subject of the documentary, not director or producer, so didn’t get one. By the (old) rules of the Academy, Gore shouldn’t have been allowed on stage. No one is allowed to accept an Oscar on behalf of someone else, a rule instituted after Marlon Brando refused his Godfather Oscar and sent an Indian woman up to tell everyone off.).
Outrage or not, the concert is blocked in the US at this point. Knowing Inhofe, I don’t thing he’ll be dropping his hold anytime this lifetime, so Gore will probably have to take his show elsewhere.
Too bad, actually. While I know the whole global warming myth is just that, a myth, and the rise in the earth’s temperature (mild as it is) is perfectly normal as part of the cyclical nature of sun, there are some good bands playing the show.
If it were free, I’d probably go. But there’s no way I’d pay for it. If I want to pay to be preached to by a bunch of liberal nut jobs about how humans, specifically Republicans, and capitalism are screwing up the world all day long I’d just listen to NPR.
No one lives on Antarctica except scientists and penguins. Scientists aren’t known for their love of rock and roll music, and penguins much prefer country, so the concert at the Ice Palace (I doubt that will be the venue’s name, but what else should it be called?) will most likely have record low attendance and only bring bodies and garbage to the Earth’s South Pole.
It doesn’t make any sense, but then what about global warming does? They talk about the earth’s temperature rising by a degree, leading to massive melting of the all the ice on earth, higher temperatures, and drought. Now, I’m as much of a scientist as Al Gore is, which is to say not at all, but it would seem to me that if the earth is warmer, water would evaporate more quickly, and since the laws of physics and common sense dictate that, thanks to gravity, we can’t have oceans in the sky, that water will rain back down on earth. Again, I’m no scientist, but I’m pretty sure I heard once that rain makes drought go away.
But I hate fighting this fight on the terms the Left has laid out. Since the premise is a myth, any argument on those terms, no matter how logical, is irrelevant. When not bound by the facts, logic loses all meaning.
As Al Gore and other Socialists who are pushing their rejected and failed agenda by other means have said, “The debate is over.”
I don’t know about you, but that line brings to mind a teenager and their parents arguing over curfew, not serious scientific discussion.
But the global warming alarmists aren’t interested in serious scientific discussion, they are interested in action to save us from ourselves. We are, after all, dealing with a “fever” that needs attention. Forget the fact that the earth has had many fevers, many much worse than we allegedly have now. In fact, forget facts! They only get in the way and confuse the issue.
Every solution to global warming is what Leftist/Socialist/Communists have been pushing for, and failing overwhelmingly to get, for the last century. Doesn’t that strike you as odd? Or at least a massive coincidence?
Now back to our regularly scheduled rant.
Senator Inhofe (R-OK), fresh from questioning Gore for 15 minutes (15 minutes completely filibustered by Gore and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) where no real answers were given and Gore refused to stop personally polluting the earth, thereby killing us all) has blocked Al Gore’s plans to have the Washington, DC portion of his concert series on the US Capital grounds, and thank him for that.
It turns out that the National Mall is booked the day of Gore’s concert, and he needs somewhere to host it, so he thought his and his father’s old stomping grounds of the Capitol would be as good a place as any.
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) was more than happy to accommodate, but Senate action is required, not just the Majority Leader’s blessing. That’s when Inhofe stepped in and blocked it.
This caused outrage that anyone would dare block Oscar winner Al Gore’s concert (just as an aside, Gore didn’t win an Oscar, the Director and Producer did. Gore was the subject of the documentary, not director or producer, so didn’t get one. By the (old) rules of the Academy, Gore shouldn’t have been allowed on stage. No one is allowed to accept an Oscar on behalf of someone else, a rule instituted after Marlon Brando refused his Godfather Oscar and sent an Indian woman up to tell everyone off.).
Outrage or not, the concert is blocked in the US at this point. Knowing Inhofe, I don’t thing he’ll be dropping his hold anytime this lifetime, so Gore will probably have to take his show elsewhere.
Too bad, actually. While I know the whole global warming myth is just that, a myth, and the rise in the earth’s temperature (mild as it is) is perfectly normal as part of the cyclical nature of sun, there are some good bands playing the show.
If it were free, I’d probably go. But there’s no way I’d pay for it. If I want to pay to be preached to by a bunch of liberal nut jobs about how humans, specifically Republicans, and capitalism are screwing up the world all day long I’d just listen to NPR.
27 March 2007
But what are the opposing hitter's batting average?
The ERA is back! Not earned run average, it's the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution and it's back to save women from...well...not really sure. But doesn't it strike you as odd that this amendment is once again proposed on behalf of 51 percent of the country that has achieved damn near everything under the sun without it? Is it really needed? I had no idea I was allowed to oppress women simply because there isn't an amendment to the Constitution outlawing it. I kind of thought the Constitution applied to everyone, regardless of race or gender? I know, there are amendments dealing with race, but those were approved in a time when Democrats were still treating Americans who weren't white as though the South had won the Civil War and a message needed to be sent.
No such parallels exist with women, so do we really need this amendment? Is it just for show? Possibly. Senator Kennedy does have a lot to make up for to women. But I thought it was more likely a wider conspiracy, so I did some snooping around, and I think I found it. Could it be this story? Could be!
In any event, the Constitution is too important to infect it with politically correct, unnecessary garbage. Men are men, women are women, and both are equal in the eyes of the law, as it should be. We don't need to reaffirm this obvious fact in our most important document. The only way men and women could be more equal is if men were forced to buy 30 pairs of shoes, or women were forced to survive with only 3. Neither would tolerate that, and, in the words of Martha Stewart, "That's a good thing."
Men and women are equal, but men and women are different. And, to quote the French, "I surrender!" Wait, wrong quote. I meant to say, "Viva la Difference!"
No such parallels exist with women, so do we really need this amendment? Is it just for show? Possibly. Senator Kennedy does have a lot to make up for to women. But I thought it was more likely a wider conspiracy, so I did some snooping around, and I think I found it. Could it be this story? Could be!
In any event, the Constitution is too important to infect it with politically correct, unnecessary garbage. Men are men, women are women, and both are equal in the eyes of the law, as it should be. We don't need to reaffirm this obvious fact in our most important document. The only way men and women could be more equal is if men were forced to buy 30 pairs of shoes, or women were forced to survive with only 3. Neither would tolerate that, and, in the words of Martha Stewart, "That's a good thing."
Men and women are equal, but men and women are different. And, to quote the French, "I surrender!" Wait, wrong quote. I meant to say, "Viva la Difference!"
26 March 2007
The Sheriff of Nottingham would be rightfully disturbed.
A great new study by The Tax Foundation found an interesting tidbit of information about not only who pays how much in taxes, but who the government spends most of it on.. It seems all those alarmist Leftists weren't correct after all when they said the Bush tax cuts (you remember those, right? Those pesky tax cuts that actually increased revenue to the government, spurred economic growth, and pulled us out of Clinton's recession!) would be like robbing from the poor to give to the rich.
Well, someone is suffering from serious economic dyslexia if they can read this study and still have the same impression. This is from the executive summary:
"Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy."
It's clear from this study that Robin Hood was a complete sucker! He was out there fighting and risking his life to steal from the rich to give to the poor when all he had to do was vote for liberals.
Well, someone is suffering from serious economic dyslexia if they can read this study and still have the same impression. This is from the executive summary:
"Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy."
It's clear from this study that Robin Hood was a complete sucker! He was out there fighting and risking his life to steal from the rich to give to the poor when all he had to do was vote for liberals.
The sky is staying where it is! The sky is staying where it is!
Not exactly the most attention grabbing headline, I know. That is why the global warming crowd gets so much attention, they know how to write a headline. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the rest of us, there is growing skepticism in the actual scientific community about the "science" behind the global warming conspiracy. (Did I really just call it a conspiracy? Yes, I did. Haven't you ever noticed how all the "solutions" to global warming just happen to be what liberals have been fighting for, and losing on, for years? Coincidence? Hmm.) The Great Global Warming Swindle is the latest salvo from those scientists who like their science based in facts, not the "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed" mentality of consensus driven hysteria popular these days with the Chicken Littles out there. It also gives plenty of credence to my use of the word conspiracy.
Check out the video, it's well worth the time it takes to watch, and much more interesting than a PowerPoint presentation. Oh, and it has those pesky things science used to be based on; facts. I would make one of those "inconvenient" jokes here, but they are about as played out as adding "gate" to the end of every so-called political scandal.
Enjoy
Check out the video, it's well worth the time it takes to watch, and much more interesting than a PowerPoint presentation. Oh, and it has those pesky things science used to be based on; facts. I would make one of those "inconvenient" jokes here, but they are about as played out as adding "gate" to the end of every so-called political scandal.
Enjoy
You simply aren't taxed enough!
It's always funny to listen to liberals talk about taxes, well funny and sad. See, to them taxes are money the government earns somehow, not money the government takes from you. What they leave you with is considered, to them anyway, uncollected income for the government. Remember back in the 90's when the so-called "surpluses" were happening all over the place and then President Clinton said he could give the people back their money and "hope" they "spent it right"? Just how absurd that statement was is the perfect example of how liberals view your money. You aren't entitled to more of it because you may spend it wrong. Government, on the other hand, knows exacly how to spend and track your money much better than you do. After all, $600 hammers hit nails in faster, therefore saving valuable nanoseconds when it comes to hanging pictures in Pentagon offices.
That said, for more than a decade there was a haven from the intrusion of government into commerce; the Internet. Buying online had both its advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage was that you had to wait to get what you bought and, in the case of things such as clothing, hope it fit and looked as good as it did in the small picture online. Small prices to pay for the convenience of being able to shop anywhere around the country and around the world, but a price to pay none the less. The advantage was no sales tax, i.e. saving money. Well, the government, much like the mafia, doesn't like the idea of transactions taking place without getting their cut. So they tried to impose their sales taxes on businesses that sell to their state residents, even if the company was located in another state.
Thankfully the Supreme Court said forcing companies to comply with 46 different state tax laws (yes, only 46 states have sales taxes) imposed an undue burden on these businesses, and struck down the effort. Never one to take "You can't do that" for an answer, many of the sales tax states banded together to form the Streamlined Sales Tax Project to simplify their sales tax collection policies to the point that they could "comply" with or get around the Supreme Court ruling. It's their money and they WANT it!
Washington state recently join this "Gang of 22." A local paper up there, the Yakima Herald, today is praising the decision to tax transactions of Washingtonians in the last, great free market. Their logic is typical big government liberalism, and they use all the usual buzz words like "fair."It's worth reading if only for a look into the "what's yours is ours" mindset. Check it out by clicking here.
That said, for more than a decade there was a haven from the intrusion of government into commerce; the Internet. Buying online had both its advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage was that you had to wait to get what you bought and, in the case of things such as clothing, hope it fit and looked as good as it did in the small picture online. Small prices to pay for the convenience of being able to shop anywhere around the country and around the world, but a price to pay none the less. The advantage was no sales tax, i.e. saving money. Well, the government, much like the mafia, doesn't like the idea of transactions taking place without getting their cut. So they tried to impose their sales taxes on businesses that sell to their state residents, even if the company was located in another state.
Thankfully the Supreme Court said forcing companies to comply with 46 different state tax laws (yes, only 46 states have sales taxes) imposed an undue burden on these businesses, and struck down the effort. Never one to take "You can't do that" for an answer, many of the sales tax states banded together to form the Streamlined Sales Tax Project to simplify their sales tax collection policies to the point that they could "comply" with or get around the Supreme Court ruling. It's their money and they WANT it!
Washington state recently join this "Gang of 22." A local paper up there, the Yakima Herald, today is praising the decision to tax transactions of Washingtonians in the last, great free market. Their logic is typical big government liberalism, and they use all the usual buzz words like "fair."It's worth reading if only for a look into the "what's yours is ours" mindset. Check it out by clicking here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)