Environmental Whackos
Liberal Violence: Five Names You Should Know
Excellent article!
Liberal Violence: Five Names You Should Know
by John Hawkins
Unfortunately, there are dangerous kooks, trigger-happy wackos, and lone gunmen out there. Bad people exist. Crazy people exist — and every so often, one of them snaps and there’s a resulting body count. To most people, this is just a tragic fact of life.
However, to liberals in the media who are forever baffled by events that the average person has grasped since he was a child, these killers tend to break down into three groups. If they’re devout Muslims and are connected to terrorists, then they must have killed for some reason OTHER than their religion. If they’re conservative murderers, then they must have killed because of Glenn Beck, talk radio, the Tea Party movement, or whoever the hot conservative villain of the moment is and they’re obviously part of a wider trend. On the other hand, if they’re liberal, well then, at best the killer in question must be some random wacko who should immediately be forgotten. At worst, liberals try to paint leftward leaning killers as conservatives. They did this with Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell, who was a registered Democrat and the Holocaust museum shooter, James Von Brunn, who was an “anti-Christian, 9/11 ‘truther’ who hated the Bushes and ‘the neo-cons'”.
This is actually quite ironic given that openly violent groups have been tolerated, if not embraced by the Left. ELF, ALF, the Black Panthers, G8 rioters, the black bloc at anti-war rallies, and even the Weathermen are looked upon favorably by liberals.
Still, it’s not enough to simply point out that liberals wink at leftist groups that engage in violence. When the next nutjob kills someone — and regrettably, there will always be a next time — conservatives need examples to point towards when the MSM tries to once again convince the public that only right-wing wackos do that sort of thing. Here are a few worthy examples to throw back at them when they try it.
1) The Earth Liberation Front: Usually, when you point a finger of blame at domestic terrorist groups like ELF and ALF, liberals fall all over themselves to say that, “Nobody has proved that they’ve killed anyone yet.” Well, as long as they’re just engaged in arson and bombings, I guess they’re just peachy!
John Lewis, the FBI’s deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990. The FBI has 150 pending investigations associated with animal rights or eco-terrorist activities, and ATF officials say they have opened 58 investigations in the past six years related to violence attributed to the ELF and ALF.
…The ELF has been linked to fires set at sport utility vehicle dealerships and construction sites in various states, while the ALF has been blamed for arson and bombings against animal research labs and the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industry.
Well, certainly no one could support the actions of a group like this, right? Maybe you can ask the people at the Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network about that.
2) James Chester Blanning: Do you remember James Chester Blanning? You probably don’t because his bombs didn’t go off. But, just to prove a point, I’m going to post an entire story about Blanning from the SFGate so that no one can claim I left anything out:
Gift-wrapped bombs rattle tony ski enclave
Aspen, Colo. — A onetime resident of this city who had been bitter over its transformation into a playground for the rich left four gift-wrapped bombs downtown in a bank-robbery attempt, turning New Year’s Eve celebrations into a mass evacuation, police said Thursday.
The dangerous bombs were made of gasoline and cell phone parts and came with notes warning of “mass death.” The 72-year-old man suspected of placing them in two banks and in an alleyway on Wednesday shot and killed himself a short time later, police said.
Now, here’s a detail that would have been everywhere in the press had the politics been reversed. Here’s Blanton’s note:
Do not f*** with us or there will be mass death like we have all been part of over in that f***ing quicksand trap that rove and chaney’s monkey bush put us into where so many of our soul mates and brothers died very horrible deaths.
Funny how they didn’t think the Rove and “chaney’s monkey bush” comments were worthy of publication, isn’t it?
3) The Weathermen: There’s no need to go into depth about the Weathermen because you heard it all during the 2008 presidential campaign. But here’s what is worth noting about the Weathermen: They claimed to be involved with 25 bombings, they intended to kill members of the military, and in 2001 Bill Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”
What is the moral equivalent of allowing a man like Bill Ayers to teach college students and become such a big wheel in politics that he is able to befriend the President of the United States? There simply is no comparison on the right. It would be like Eric Rudolph being let out of a jail, given a teaching position at Liberty University, and running fundraisers for Mitt Romney. Conservative readers are undoubtedly grimacing in disgust at the very idea. Liberals haven’t batted an eye at doing something just as morally abhorrent.
4) Carol Anne Burger: Burger wasn’t just any old leftie — she was a writer for the Huffington Post who stabbed her roommate 222 times with a screwdriver before she killed herself. Burger’s last story for the HuffPO before she went down the memory hole? “Christian School Teacher Takes Female Students to Palin Rally.” Yes, those Christians and Palin fans — they’re the ones you have to watch out for.
5) The Animal Liberation Front: If the world were a high school class, the crazies at ALF would be voted most likely to deliberately wipe out the human race with a bioweapon to make the world safe for snail darters:
In 1993 the Departments of Justice and Agriculture issued a report to Congress on the “effects of terrorism on enterprises which use animals,” naming ALF as the most significant “radical fringe” animal rights group in the United States. The report stated that between 1979 and 1993, more than 300 incidents of break-ins, vandalism, arson and thefts had been committed in the name of animal rights nationwide. After some ALF members set a fire causing $3.5 million in damages at a veterinary lab in California in 1987, the FBI officially added ALF to its list of domestic terrorist organizations. According to the FBI, between 1995 and 2005 ALF committed some 700 criminal acts.
If some wacko goes to a Tea Party and shoots up a McDonald’s, every conservative in America is to blame, but we’re not supposed to draw any conclusions about modern liberalism from left-wing domestic terrorist organizations? Give me a break.
LINK: http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2010/03/16/liberal_violence_five_names_you_should_know
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Global Warming Lie is Slowly Being Uncovered (Even Jon Stewart Mocks Gore and GW)
I am certainly no fan of Jon Stewart but even he is mocking Gore and the global warming myth now. Since he has always been such a fan of the left, it’s got to say something that even he has noticed that the global warming folks are starting to look like fools. Read the 4 articles below on ‘ClimateGate’ to see that MAYBE people are finally seeing that things have been overblown or even made up about global warming.
Jon Stewart on ClimateGate: ‘Poor Al Gore – Global Warming Debunked Via Internet You Invented’
By Noel Sheppard / December 2, 2009
If you needed any more assurance the growing ClimateGate scandal is far more significant than America’s media has been portraying, you got it Tuesday night from Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart.
Somewhat surprisingly, “The Daily Show” host in his opening sketch tore apart the scientists involved in sending the obtained e-mail messages for showing “a clear effort to raise fears about global warming, and hide evidence against it.”
Stewart even mocked the man responsible for spreading more fear on this subject than anyone on the planet:
Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. OH. OH the irony.
PSU Professor Under Investigation for Possible Manipulation of Climate Change Data (ClimateGate)
By Laura Nichols
Collegian Staff Writer
Penn State is conducting an inquiry into the controversy surrounding a Penn State professor whose illegally leaked e-mails have sparked an international debate over whether he and his colleagues distorted data on global warming.
-snip-
Skeptics of climate change are calling the ongoing investigation “Climategate” and allege the leaked e-mails suggest the researchers — including Mann — had fabricated or manipulated data on global warming.
LINK: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx
Scientist in climate change data row steps down
LINK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/8389727.stm
Australia’s Global Warming Bill Defeated
Parliament Shoots Down Legislation to Set Up Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System
(AP) Australia’s Parliament defeated legislation to set up a greenhouse gas emissions trading system on Wednesday, throwing a central plank of the government’s plans to combat global warming into disarray.
LINK: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/01/tech/main5856591.shtml?tag=stack
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )Gov’t Monopsony Distorts Climate Science, says SPPI
How much more info do people need to make them question ‘global warming’?
Government monopsony distorts climate science, says SPPI
The climate industry is costing taxpayers $79 billion and counting
Washington, DC 7/22/2009
The Science and Public Policy Institute announces the publication of Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism. Key findings:
Ø The US Government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayers’ money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Most of this spending was unnecessary.
Ø Despite the billions wasted, audits of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of “global warming” theory and to compete with a lavishly-funded, highly-organized climate monopsony. Major errors have been exposed again and again.
Ø Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks, which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges.
Ø Meanwhile, in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying just $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government spends on alarmists, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in 2008 alone.
Ø The large expenditure designed to prove the non-existent connection between carbon and climate has created a powerful alliance of self-serving vested interests.
Ø By pouring so much money into pushing a single, scientifically-baseless agenda, the Government has created not an unbiased investigation but a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ø Sound science cannot easily survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance.
Says Nova, “For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money.”
Robert Ferguson, SPPI’s president, says: “This study counts the cost of years of wasted Federal spending on the ‘global warming’ non-problem. Government bodies, big businesses and environmental NGOs have behaved like big tobacco: recruiting, controlling and rewarding their own “group-think” scientists who bend climate modeling to justify the State’s near-maniacal quest for power, control, wealth and forced population reduction.
“Joanne Nova, who wrote our study, speaks for thousands of scientists in questioning whether a clique of taxpayer-funded climate modelers are getting the data right, or just getting the “right” data. Are politicians paying out billions of our dollars for evidence-driven policy-making, or policy-driven evidence-making? The truth is more crucial than ever, because American lives, property and constitutional liberties are at risk.”
LINK: http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )Scientists to Congress: ‘Sky is Not Falling’
Another article on the hoax of global warming…
Scientists to Congress: ‘Sky is not falling’
Say global warming alarmism unproven, energy taxes crippling
Posted: July 01, 2009
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A team of scientists with years of expertise in climate issues has written an open letter to Congress asserting the “sky is not falling” and there is no evidence man is causing global warming.
The letter was signed by physics professors Robert H. Austin and William Happer of Princeton, environmental sciences professor S. Fred Singer of the University of Virginia, retired manager for strategic planning at ExxonMobil Roger Cohen, physics professor (emeritus) Harold W. Lewis at UC-Santa Barbara and others.
Their names are tied to long lists of initials, including APS, or the American Physical Society; AAAS, or the American Association for the Advancement of Science; and AGU, or the American Geophysical Union.
At issue is the pending “cap-and-trade” tax increase in Congress that would impose not only restrictions on the use of energy, but also taxes on that use. It narrowly was passed in the U.S. House but faces some hurdles in the Senate.
The letter is being publicized at the Climate Depot website, along with others.
It addresses a recent letter from the Woods Hole Research Center that demanded quick action by Congress to “avoid global disaster.”
“The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that center is the former den of the president’s science adviser, John Holdren, and is far from independent,” the new letter said.
“This is the same science adviser who has given us predictions of ‘almost certain’ thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.”
The new letter said the facts are simple: “The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for 10 years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.
“The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN’T EXIST.”
The legislation would, however, “cripple the U.S. economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors,” the scientists warned.
“For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science,” they wrote.
Finally, they wrote, “climate alarmism pays well.”
“Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken,” the letter said.
The Woods Hole letter had contended, “New information arrives daily to confirm what many specialists have known for three decades: human-caused climatic disruption is serious, moving rapidly, and gaining momentum with every delay in correcting the trend.”
The Austin letter, however, said such instances of “consensus” simply are not proof.
Others signing the new letter were physics professor Laurence Gould of University of Hartford and meteorology professor Richard Lindzen of MIT.
Their diagnosis of the climate issue largely agreed with Alan Carlin, the senior operations research analyst at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics.
Carlin submitted his research on the agency’s greenhouse gases endangerment findings and offered a fundamental critique on the EPA’s approach to combating CO2 emissions. But officials refused to share his conclusion in an open internal discussion, claiming his research would have “a very negative impact on our office.”
Instead, his study was barred from circulation within the EPA and was never disclosed to the public for political reasons, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, a group that has accessed four internal e-mails on the subject.
CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman told WND, “His boss basically told him, ‘No, I’m not going to send your study further up. It’s going to stay within this bureau.'”
A March 12 e-mail to Carlin warned him not to have “any direct communication with anyone outside NCEE on endangerment.”
Carlin, a researcher who earned his doctorate in economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an undergraduate degree in physics from California Institute of Technology, informed officials that two-thirds of his references were from peer-reviewed publications and defended his inclusion of new research on the topic.
“It is also my view that the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in the technical literature,” he wrote. “I believe my comments are valid, significant and contain references to significant new research … They are significant because they present information critical to justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed [greenhouse gas] endangerment finding.”
WND also has reported on the Petition Project, which has compiled the signatures of more than 31,000 scientists, including some 9,000 Ph.D.s, who flatly reject the “global warming” agenda
LINK: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102750
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )CarbonGate: More Lies About Global Warming
Can’t we just get the truth????
Carbongate
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: A suppressed EPA study says old U.N. data ignore the decline in global temperatures and other inconvenient truths. Was the report kept under wraps to influence the vote on the cap-and-trade bill?
This was supposed to be the most transparent administration ever. Yet as the House of Representatives prepared to vote on the Waxman-Markey bill, the largest tax increase in U.S. history on 100% of Americans, an attempt was made to suppress a study shredding supporters’ arguments.
On Friday, the day of the vote, the Competitive Enterprise Institute said it was releasing “an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency.”
In the release, the institute’s Richard Morrison said “internal EPA e-mail messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.”
Reading the report, available on the CEI Web site, we find this “endangerment analysis” contains such interesting items as: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”
What the report says is that the EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research by its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The research, it says, is “at best three years out of date in a rapidly changing field” and ignores the latest scientific findings.
Besides noting the decline in temperatures as CO2 levels have increased, the draft report says the “consensus” on storm frequency and intensity is now “much more neutral.”
Then there’s one of Al Gore’s grim fairy tales — the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and glaciers the size of Tennessee roaming the North Atlantic. “The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for operations of such processes,” the report says.
Little evidence? Outdated U.N. research? No reason to rush? This is not what the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were telling us when they were rushing to force a Friday vote on Waxman-Markey. We were given the impression that unless we passed this cap-and-tax fiasco, polar bears would be extinct by the Fourth of July.
We have noted frequently the significance of solar activity on earth’s climate and history. This EPA draft report not only confirms our reporting but the brazen incompetence of those “experts” that have been prophesying planetary apocalypse.
“A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and West,” the report says, “suggests that the IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect of solar variability on global temperatures. Their report suggests that solar variability could account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures.”
The report was the product of Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). He’s been with the EPA for 38 years but now has been taken off all climate-related work. He is convinced that actual climate observations do not match climate change theories and that only the politics, not the science, has been settled.
Thomas Fuller, environmental policy blogger with the San Francisco Examiner, wrote Thursday in a story developed in conjunction with Anthony Watts’ Web site wattsupwiththat.com: “A source inside the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed many of the claims made by analyst Alan Carlin, the economist/physicist who yesterday went public with accusations that science was being ignored in evaluating the danger of CO2.”
All this is particularly interesting because of the charges by Al Gore, NASA’s James Hansen and others that the Bush administration and energy companies actively suppressed the truth about climate change.
One of the e-mails unearthed by CEI was dated March 12, from Al McGartland, office director at NCEE, forbidding Carlin from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues such as those in his suppressed report.
Carlin replied on March 16, requesting that his study be forwarded to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which directs EPA’s climate change program. Carlin points out the peer-reviewed references in his study and points out that the new studies “explain much of the observational data that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.”
For saying the climate change emperors had no clothes, Carlin was told March 17: “The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”
In other words, the administration and Congress had their collective minds made up and didn’t want to be confused with the facts. They certainly didn’t want any inconvenient truths coming out of their own Environmental Protection Agency, the one that wants to regulate everything from your lawn mower to bovine emissions and which says the product of your respiration and ours, carbon dioxide, is a dangerous pollutant and not the basis for all life on earth.
The problem the warm-mongers have is they now are in a position of telling the American people, who are you going to believe — us or your own lying eyes? Forget the snow in Malibu, the record cold winters. Forget that temperatures have dropped for a decade.
In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” Apparently not, for as he spoke those very words his administration was suppressing science to advance a very pernicious ideology.
LINK: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330911757213432
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )EPA’s Own Research Expert ‘Shut up’ on Climate Change: What He Found Didn’t Fit their Agenda
They are a bunch of lying scumbags! This is why we can’t get good, accurate information on this topic. They cover up the info that doesn’t fit into their agenda!! And they want us to spend millions of dollars fighting global warming??? It’s a waste of our money on a bunch of bologna!
EPA’s own research expert ‘shut up’ on climate change
Government analyst silenced after he critiques CO2 findings
Posted: June 24, 2009
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Environmental Protection Agency officials have silenced one of their own senior researchers after the 38-year employee issued an internal critique of the EPA’s climate change position.
Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics, or NCEE, submitted his research on the agency’s greenhouse gases endangerment findings and offered a fundamental critique on the EPA’s approach to combating CO2 emissions. But officials refused to share his conclusion in an open internal discussion, claiming his research would have “a very negative impact on our office.”
His study was barred from circulation within the EPA and was never disclosed to the public for political reasons, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, a group that has accessed four internal e-mails on the subject.
CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman told WND, “His boss basically told him, ‘No, I’m not going to send your study further up. It’s going to stay within this bureau.'”
A March 12 e-mail to Carlin warned him not to have “any direct communication with anyone outside NCEE on endangerment.”
Carlin, a researcher who earned his doctorate in economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an undergraduate degree in physics from California Institute of Technology, informed officials that two-thirds of his references were from peer-reviewed publications and defended his inclusion of new research on the topic.
“It is also my view that the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in the technical literature,” he wrote. “I believe my comments are valid, significant and contain references to significant new research … They are significant because they present information critical to justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed [greenhouse gas] endangerment finding.”
After nearly one week of discussion, NCEE Director Al McGartland informed Carlin on March 17 that he would not include the research in the internal EPA discussion.
“Alan, I decided not to forward your comments,” he wrote. “… The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. … I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” In yet another e-mail sent only minutes following the previous one, McGartland wrote, “With the endangerment findings nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.”
CEI charges that suppression of Carlin’s study denied public access to important agency information, as court rulings have indicated that both “the evidence relied upon [by the agency] and the evidence discarded” must be included in the rulemaking record.
“They could come up with reasons to reject it, as I’m sure they’re going to come up with reasons to reject the scientific objections that are coming in now from outside parties in the general public and from skeptical scientists,” Kazman told WND. “But I’d say the real issue here is that this critique is coming from a career EPA insider, so it can’t be dismissed as the work of someone in the pay of the coal-burning fossil-fuel industry. The fact that someone within the EPA was taking this approach is something that would be naturally embarrassing to the agency.”
CEI also said the incident violated the EPA’s commitment to transparency and scientific honesty.
Prior to taking office, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared, “As Administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.”
Likewise, CEI reminds the EPA of President Obama’s April 27 speech to the National Academy of Sciences in which he stated, “[U]nder my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”
In a memo to the EPA, Kazman wrote, “Because of ideology, however, it was this back seat to which Mr. Carlin’s study was relegated; more precisely, it was booted out of the car entirely.”
“The irony of the president and Administrator Jackson talking about EPA’s new transparency and commitment to scientific integrity, that’s really incredible,” Kazman said.
CEI is asking the agency to make Carlin’s study public, extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to his research and publicly declare that there will be no reprisals against Carlin for his research.
Kazman said the issue is “coming to a head” because the EPA’s internal commentary period just closed, and the 1,200-page Waxman-Markey climate bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions is scheduled to come to a vote Friday on the House floor.
He believes Carlin’s study could have implications on how lawmakers feel about the allegedly solid research behind the climate bill – especially if objecting analysts within the agency are being silenced.
“Any right-minded administrator would have said, ‘Fine, put it in and we’ll give our reasons for why we reject his contentions,” Kazman said. “But instead, they shut the guy up.”
LINK: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Bono Discovers Sustainable Development Isn’t Sustainable
This is priceless!! Bono sees up close that capitalism is the only way to go and that all the ‘touchy-feely’ crap they’re spouting just DOES NOT WORK and actually harms people. I wonder when the rest of the morons will wake up??
Bono Discovers Sustainable Development Isn’t Sustainable
by Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney
THE BIG problem with renewable energy is that it just doesn’t renew itself. The sun does not shine enough and the wind doesn’t blow enough to power the towns, cities, factories, hospitals and schools that make our lives so livable.
No environmentalist would ever allow their child to be treated in a hospital fully powered by “renewables”. They would not take the risk that the wind might stop whilst their baby was on the operating table. They would insist that the hospital and the life support systems had a fossil fuel powered back-up.
And so it is with “sustainable development”. It just isn’t sustainable. At least it does not sustain a lifestyle that those who promote it would consider acceptable for themselves. But of course that is the key. Renewable energy and sustainable development are for “other people”.
Even though environmentalists come from societies and very often families that became rich because of their use of non-renewable energy and unsustainable development they will not allow these opportunities to be extended to the poor in the developing world.
Environmentalists come from wealthy societies and families who cut down forests and burned coal and oil to make their families and societies healthy and prosperous. But, nowadays, for the poor in Africa and Asia and even middle America their path out of poverty must be “sustainable.” No fossil fuels or factories for them. But what this really means is sustainable poverty. It is a system that condemns people to a lifetime of drudgery and subsistence farming because modernity and industrialisation is “unsustainable.”
Which brings me to Bono, the lead singer of rock band U2 and more lately a campaigner for sustainable development in Africa, Asia and south America. In 2005 Bono and his wife Ali Hewson set up Edun a clothing range that was going to prove there is a different way to end poverty. It was going to be a non-corporate and of course “sustainable”.
At he time MSNBC said it would be “clothing with a conscience”. Vogue magazine said Edun was going to “flip capitalism on its head”.
But now it seems that Bono has now discovered that big companies with their big carbon footprints are useful if you want to keep paying the wages and produce the goods and sell them. Last week the rock star announced he has sold out to LVMH, the worlds largest luxury goods company. Announcing the deal Bono all but admitted that his touchy feely version of capitalism and development just didn’t work. Selling out to LVMH was a great deal, said Bono, and would “bring greater and longer-term stability to our manufacturers and the communities they support”.
In other words my Clooneyesc view of business is plain wrong and I now have to admit that I can’t pay the workers salaries without a proper business running the company. They, with their international marketing skills and economies of scale will make the business truly sustainable – that is – they will ensure that the workers have work and a salary every week and for years to come.
It is an admission that capitalism works and is the only way to ensure a better future for some of the world’s poorest people. And now Bono’s clothes with a conscience will be marketed and sold by a company that also sells Louis Vuitton, Donna Karan and Givenchy. LVMH’s also make and sell the delightfully unsustainable Moët & Chandon, Dom Pérignon and Veuve Clicquot. It also makes and sells parfum Christian Dior and Givenchy and luxury jewellery and watches such as TAG Heurer, Christian Dior and De Beers Diamond Jewellers.
Neither side felt it necessary to say how much Bono got for selling half the company to LVMH. Edun has, in the past, made much of the company’s transparency. However it seems that the transparency only extends to poking our noses into what the workers earn. Bono and his wife are exempt from such questions. But good luck to them. It is really not important to know how much money they have.
But it is important for them to stop keeping people in poverty in the name of sustainability. We used our resources – we burned coal and oil and chopped down our forests. We drove our cars and flew our planes. We have used capitalism to conquer disease and poverty and as a consequence our children are the best-educated and healthiest in history.
But it seems that now some of these children want to stop the poorest on the planet from having what we have. Bono loves sustainable development but only for other people. U2’s latest album was recorded in separate sessions in France, the UK, Morocco, the US and Dublin. The band is now going on a worldwide tour to promote it.
This is not “sustainable” but it is necessary to keep people in work and to keep Bono’s bank balance healthy. And this is a good thing. U2 will provide employment for hundreds if not thousands through selling the album and going on tour. But it is being done the old fashioned way – through unsustainable but wealth creating capitalism.
If it is good enough for Bono and his band of Irish multi-millionaires then it should be good enough for the poorest on the planet.
Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney are the directors and producers of “Not Evil Just Wrong,” a documentary which looks at the true cost of Global Warming hysteria. noteviljustwrong.com
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore
Typical idiot democrats. They don’t want to hear the truth and they don’t want US to hear the truth, so they just let Gore spew his garbage unchallenged. Disgusting!!‘
House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated’
Climate Depot Exclusive
Washington, DC — UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.
“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment’s fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.
According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed ‘celebrity’ as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The “celebrity” witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats’ “celebrity” with an unnamed “celebrity” of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.
“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.
“Waxman knows there has been no ‘global warming’ for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years’ global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore’s mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, ‘the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'” Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing…US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton – March 19, 2007 ).
A call to the Democratic office of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned Thursday night.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )The Holier-Than-Thou Food Police are Trying to Save us From Ourselves!
This article is so true!! These kinds of people drive me nuts!!!! They definitely think they are better than the rest of us and want to force their views on us. Talk about intolerance!! I know a couple of people like this and, frankly, they’re just weird!
GOURMONSTERS
Carla Spartos
NY Post /April 22, 2009
THEY glare at you at the market when you ask for a bag, think nothing of forking over $8 for two measly organic chicken breasts and favor restaurants with tiny portions, precious fare.
They’re the food police and their patron saints — Alice Waters and Michael Pollan, chief among them — are on a crusade to tell you not just what you should eat, but how you should eat it.
Like an exclusive clique of anorexic cheerleaders, they think they’re better than you.
It’s not enough that you should simply eat your fruit and veggies. No, in order to be virtuous they first must be preceded by fashionable adjectives such as local, organic and sustainable — recession be damned.
And since you’re too stupid to figure this out, the food police must save you from yourself. No longer content to silently judge you and the contents of your grocery cart, they’ve nobly taken to clanging their enameled cast-iron cookware outside their 150-mile “locavore” food radius.
Leading the culinary cops is Alice Waters, the poster child of all things local, organic and sustainable. In 1971, Waters opened Chez Panisse in Berkeley, Calif. Part restaurant, part counterculture commune, it put seasonal, ingredient-driven menus on the map. But her actual cooking, which mainly centers around painstakingly composed salads, has always been overshadowed by her cooking philosophy: a chiding and bourgeois brand of junk food prohibitionism.
Waters even attempted to pressure the Obamas to choose a White House chef of her liking. In what reads like the cover letter to the 18th Amendment banning booze, she wrote to the administration: “The purity and wholesomeness of the Obama movement must be accompanied by a parallel effort in food at the most visible and symbolic place in America — the White House.”
And since she knows best, she recently told columnist Maureen Dowd she’d like to serve President Obama “some golden beets” — even though he’s said he doesn’t like them. (“Is it wrong for me to wish that [Waters and Dowd] would just go away, already?” asks Feedbag blogger Josh Ozersky. Not at all, Josh, not at all.)
But mainly she and the rest of the Food Police seem out of touch. While the economy drives people to fast-food dollar meals, they cluelessly extol the virtues of expensive organic grapes. On a “60 Minutes” segment last month, Waters thinks nothing of paying $4 a pound for greenmarket grapes (that’s about $10 for a bag). When Lesley Stahl questions her about such high prices, she responds incredulously, “And some people want to buy Nike shoes — two pairs.” One might wonder to whom she is referring.
But the kicker is when she invites Stahl into her home, where she uses a quaint wood-fired hearth to whip up some eggs while flashing a beatific smile. Is it any wonder Anthony Bourdain recently told the blog DCist, “Alice Waters annoys the living s – – – out of me”?
Us too. But she’s not the only offender. Read on for more of the Food Police’s holier-than-thou household hints.
LINK: http://www.nypost.com/seven/04222009/entertainment/food/gourmonsters_165584.htm
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )« Previous Entries
Don't Get Me Started... 