Hurray for Washington!

Sunday night Michelle Obama had a first for any First Lady.  No she didn't learn proper table manners.  No she hasn't learned to dress properly.  Our dear First Lady presented the Oscar for Best Picture.  Surrounded by female soldiers, she told the world that Argo had won.  What joy!  See how low the office of First Lady has sunk.

By Mary Theroux

The culmination of last night’s Oscars broadcast with a Live! feed from the White House with Mrs. Obama (hangin’ with her military BFs) marks the official recognition of the Presidency as theater: like the old Western sets, no substance required.

From the very beginning, President Obama was elected based on his strong delivery of stirring words, “Hope and change,” with no serious vetting of his record or policies. Having been awarded the presidency, as the Oscars follow the Golden Globes, Mr. Obama was next awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, solely for his well-scripted promises for peace.

And thus the facade continues: promising peace and delivering expanded war, with new frontiers broken for drone killings of children and other innocents, legal justifications crafted for killing Americans, and near-limitless executive power over nearly every aspect of our lives. Reciting the Progressive line while delivering impoverishment, decreased access and less-affordable healthcare, clearly it matters only what he says, not what is. His hoped-for next act: new goals of gun control that would make the most vulnerable more so, an increased minimum wage that would further exacerbate the inability of those with no work experience to get an entry-level job in which to hone the skills that will put them on the economic ladder, and “green” measures, based, like the Life of Pi, on computer-generated fantasy so much more appealing than dry real-world data.

But it’s OK. The Obamas make us feel good about ourselves, and, after all, that’s what Hollywood, er, Washington, is all about.

Of course, this didn’t start with this administration. Mr. Bush is still hailed a “conservative,” despite having perpetrated preemptive war based on an only-in-Washington scenario of mysterious WMDs, setting off the executive power avalanche that’s really rolling now, and quadrupling the size of the federal government.

But the trend certainly seems to be finding its culmination in the currently reigning stars of the White House—and it’s certainly not one that’s healthy for the ticket-paying audience.

Source

Could you imagine what the reaction from the Lame Stream Media would have been if Laura Bush had tried such a stunt.  Just because Michelle Obama is the First Lady doesn't entitle her to the perks and privileges of a queen.  In fact she is not fit for such a role by her demonstration of manners (Or lack of them.) during the inaugural luncheon.  And just imagine we will have 3 more years of these antics to cope with.  G-d help us!

Higher Gas, Supreme Court And A Lox Smear!

Just a few of the items tacked in this weekends Newsbusted.  Add in Charlie Rangel, Jane Fonda, and Nancy Reagan and the soup gets interesting.  But it goes ballistic when you toss in the Taco Drone and Obamacare.

To E:  THIS IS SATIRE!!!!

The Planet Is Fine, We're F*@ked!

There is nothing wrong with the Planet Earth.  Unless a huge meteor is to hit the Earth or the Large Hadron Collider has actually created an Black Hole, the Earth is  NOT going to end!

That is the real truth!  While the climate is changing, in light of recent revelations concerning the facts behind Global Warming,

More than 1,700 scientists in Britain agree to sign a statement defending the "integrity and honesty" of global warming research, but at least one alleges he felt pressured to do so.

Britain's Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furor over leaked e-mails, referred to as "Climate-gate."

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the "professional integrity" of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fueling skepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

John Hirst, the Met Office chief executive, and Julia Slingo, its chief scientist, wrote to 70 colleagues on Sunday asking them to sign "to defend our profession against this unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of climate change." They asked them to forward the petition to colleagues to generate support "for a simple statement that we ... have the utmost confidence in the science base that underpins the evidence for global warming."

Met Office reports on temperature changes draw on the work of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, from which the e-mails were hacked. Phil Jones, unit director, has agreed to stand down while an investigation takes place into claims that he manipulated data to exaggerate the warming trend and tried to block publication of alternative views.

At Copenhagen the delegates to the Global Warming Climate Change Convention could make do with buses, bicycles, walking and car pooling would send the right message.  Instead there are 1,400 limos (many had to be imported from other European nations) and the delegates came in 140 private jets (I take it that flying coach is out).  So much for Carbon Emissions and Cap & Trade.  Not when one can be treated to such luxury.

No the planet is going to do well, with or without us.  We people, now that is another story.  When the idiots on the left Moonbats cry the Earth is in danger, they really don't give a rat's ass about the Earth.  Only about themselves and their personal habitat.  Otherwise why would the liberals in Martha's Vineyard be protesting a wind farm off the coast that they really can't see?  The one the Late Sen Edward Kennedy (D Mass) tried to get stopped.  I guess that liberal values will always get upstaged by property values.  The all mighty dollar is always more important than an liberal's ideals.  I guess that is why they live in segregated neighborhoods in which Blacks and Hispanics very seldom live in (the only time you will see either is if they are the gardner, housekeeper or maid), but these same liberals will force desegregation on the poor and Middle Class in the hope of "Bettering America".  There is a word that best describes them:  HYPOCRITE!

Actually I cannot write about Copenhagen as well as what the late George Carlin said on this subject years ago.

WARNING:  EXPLICIT LANGUAGE!!

First They Came For My Charmin

While the Moonbats on the left will not support the War on Terror, The War in Iraq, The War in Afghanistan, they do support whole heartily the War On Toilet Paper.

Yes they are back!  This time they are blaming Global Warming on Soft Toilet Paper.

"They'll take my Ultra Soft Charmin only when they pry it from my cold, dead, aloe-smelling hands."

Highly doubtful it will come to that. Please, sit.

We're talking about toilet paper. Charlton Heston's famous vow was of guns.

The issue over tissue in the bathroom — the really super-soft stuff — is more like the fight about the big SUVs loved by many Americans.

Anti-green, according to environmentalists. Politically incorrect. Why should Americans use luxurious toilet paper made from old-growth trees when much of the world gets by with a far more basic and often recycled product?

Why should we flush redwoods, so to speak?

Why not? Why should we suffer like the idiots in Europe, South America, and Asia.  Perhaps they should insist on soft, pillowy toilet paper too.

So Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups have pushed manufacturers such as Kimberly-Clark (Cottonelle) and Procter & Gamble (Charmin) to stop using wood from virgin forests to make tissue products.

Mountains of paper are dumped every day into recycling bins in homes, offices, factories and schools. Use that to make toilet paper, the activists said.

Time to roll off the big number: If each American family would buy one recycled roll just one time, it would save 400,000 trees, allegedly.

The problem, though, is that each time paper is shredded during the recycling process, its fibers get shorter. The shorter the fiber, the less soft the tissue. And Americans, though indicating in surveys that they embraced green initiatives, also said they don't want to sacrifice comfort.

"The truth is that other parts of the world are further along in using recycled content," said Kay Jackson, spokeswoman for Kimberly-Clark. "The American consumer still wants softness, and they are speaking with their pocketbooks."

Pulling back in a competitive market is asking a lot, manufacturers said. They also point out that only 5 percent of forest-industry production goes toward toilet paper.

Darby Hoover, a senior resource specialist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, understands the pressure of customer demand but wonders: Do we really need toilet paper to be as soft as it can be, or do we need it just soft enough?

Environmentalists said other countries — particularly in South America, Africa and Asia — seem to be OK with "soft enough."

They know no better!

Greenpeace has come up with a "toilet paper guide," which looks at recycled content and the use of chlorine bleaches.

The actual toilet paper Greenpeace now suggests.

"When you're doing your grocery shopping or just stopping by the corner store to grab a roll of toilet paper, make an informed decision as both a consumer and someone concerned about the world's ancient forests," the guide advises.

Probably no surprise that brands with names such as Green Forest, 365, Earth Friendly, Natural Value and Seventh Generation scored the highest on the Greenpeace scale.

Bringing up the rear: Charmin, Cottonelle, Angel Soft and, of course, Quilted Northern, which sounds thick enough to keep someone warm on a cold night in Minnesota.

Some manufacturers said they were taking steps to become more environmentally friendly. More wood is from sustainable forests, and they are trying to up their recycled content.

Critics, though, such as Natural Resources Defense Council senior scientist Allen Hershkowitz, point out that many of the reforms apply only to the professional market — schools, businesses, theaters, stadiums and restaurants.

Home is another tissue. There, many Americans insist on the pillowy soft of virgin fibers.

Lisa Jester at P&G said the company was committed to the environment and took seriously its responsibility to help ensure sustainability of the world's forest resources.

"All the fiber we use comes from sources that practice sustainable forestry," she said. "That means that the trees are regrown or replanted and the soil, water and biodiversity are protected."

Environmentalists said old trees were being cut down when recycling alternatives exist. And it's not just about trees, they said. It's about carbon dioxide and ecosystems necessary to wildlife.

"The large old trees are the ones that do the most good," said Bill Grotts, head of the Heartland Tree Alliance, which is part of Kansas City's Bridging the Gap.

"They absorb the most water because they have more leaf area and provide the most cooling effect."

To him and others, that's the bottom line.

I have done some checking and although the old growth forests do absorb a great amount of CO2, so does any mature forest.  It is not just the old growth trees that are great at absorption.  There is an idea of using artificially constructed trees to soak up CO2 at higher rates than old growth forests.

The Shape Of Trees To Come!

I just cannot see anyone writing beautiful poetry about that?  Just imagine what it could be like:

I think I shall never see a poem as lovely as the steel, wire, and plastic CO2 collector.

Just doesn't do it for me

And the suggestion that David gave me when I wrote The War On Toilet Paper is typical of idiot Moonbat thinking:

Save Trees? Save money and the Earth and be clean at the same time! Get serious and add Bathroom Bidet Sprayers to all your bathrooms. I think Dr. Oz on Oprah said it best: "if you had pee or poop on your hand, you wouldn't wipe it off with paper, would you? You'd wash it off” Available at www.bathroomsprayers.com with these you won't even need toilet paper any more, just a towel to dry off!

Don’t worry, you can still leave some out for guests and can even make it the soft stuff without felling guilty. It's cheap and can be installed without a plumber; and runs off the same water line to your toilet. You'll probably pay for it in a few months of toilet paper savings. And after using one of these you won't know how you lasted all those years with wadded up handfuls of toilet paper. Now we're talking green and helping the environment without any pain.

Funny how men decide how women should use the toilet.  Unlike men, women do not urinate standing up.  So we would be either walking around with wet undies or drying ourselves with towels.  Thus defeating the purpose of why toilet paper is not good for the enviroment.

It is strange that Dr. Oz would be defending the use of the bidet only.  And strange that the bidet is the only approved method in the Islamic world.  And further strange that Dr. Oz is a Muslim.  Just a bit strange isn't it.

Here is some information that I guess Dr. Oz didn't learn at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.  Men urinate standing up.  They can sit down, but in general they urinate standing.  No real usage of toilet paper.  Women urinate sitting or squatting down.  For a woman to urinate standing up, she would need more than a bidet, she would need a shower.

Cloth towels are unsanitary at best.  Can you imagine the germs living on those things?  And the expense of washing them?  I wonder if David or Dr. Oz ever tried to get blood out of a towel.

I find these idiots at the extreme end of the enviromental movement.  I can say this with extreme pleasure due to the orders my oldest child gave me concerning the type of toilet paper that is allowed in the house:

"At least 2-ply and ultra-soft!"

This from my environmental, ultra-liberal daughter who yelled when I brought home the cheap, 1-ply stuff.

She knows what she wants, and to hell with Greenpeace!

Safe For All Tokhes!

Flight 93 Blogburst:: Tell the EPA, 'no state-establishment of CO2-phobic religion'

EPA comment period closes Tues: tell ‘em no state-establishment of CO2-phobic religion

Only a couple more days to let the EPA know what you think of its proposed war against CO2. Just click on the little yellow “add comments” balloon. The following is a comment (ending at "sincerely") that you can copy and paste. (If you choose to roll your own, feel free to leave it here too.)


Dear EPA:

There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the primary driver of natural temperature change is solar-magnetic activity, yet the solar flux is completely omitted as an influence on climate in all four IPCC assessments and in the Obama administration's new "Climate Change Impacts in the United Sates" report. This omission is rationalized on grounds that the existing theories of how solar activity affects climate are still formative. The scientific method rejects this rationalization. Observational evidence is supposed to trump theory, not vice versa, but the IPCC is using theory (its distrust of existing theories of the mechanism by which solar-magnetic activity drives global temperature), as an excuse for ignoring the overwhelming evidence that solar-magnetic DOES drive global temperature. Not all religions are anti-scientific, but the demonstrably anti-scientific nature of CO2 alarmism proves that it IS religion, not science.

EPA regulations are supposed to be science based. Imposing restrictions based on an anti-scientific religious doctrine would not just violate the EPA's mandate, but would violate the constitutional prohibition on state establishment of religion.


Solar-magnetic warming: theory and evidence

The sunspot-temperature theory is actually looking pretty solid. A strong solar-magnetic flux is known to shield the earth from high energy cosmic rays which otherwise, according to the theory of Henrik Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, would ionize the atmosphere, seeding cloud formation. Thus the solar wind in effect blows the clouds away, giving the earth a sunburn.

Whatever the precise mechanism, researchers have found that solar-magnetic activity “explains” statistically about 60-80 percent of global temperature change on all time scales going back hundreds of millions of years. On the millennial time scale, see the seminal 1991 paper by Christensen and Lassen (“Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate”) and the 2003 isotope study by Usoskin et al (“Solar activity over the last 1150 yrs: does it correlate with climate?”), which found: “a correlation coefficient of about .7 - .8 at a 94% - 98% confidence level.”

For longer time scales, see the 2003 paper by Shaviv and Veiser (“Celestial driver of Phranerozoic climate?”), which found that found that the cosmic ray flux explains statistically about 75% of global temperature variation over the last 550 million years.


Omitted variable fraud

Solar activity was at “grand maximum” levels from 1940 and 2000 which, given the historical correlation between solar activity and temperature, could easily explain most or all late 20th century warming. When the IPCC and others omit the solar-magnetic variable from their models, any warming effect of solar activity gets misattributed to whatever correlated variables ARE included in their models.

By sheer coincidence, CO2 reached its own “grand maximum” levels (at least compared to the rest of the Holocene) in the second half of the 20th century. Thus in the alarmist models, whatever warming effect the omitted solar-magnetic variable is responsible for gets misattributed to CO2.

You can find rationalizations for this omitted-variable fraud in every IPCC report. For instance, section 6.11.2.2 of the Third Assessment Report does not question the correlation between solar activity and climate, but dismisses the cosmic-ray cloud THEORY as too speculative to include in their climate models:

At present there is insufficient evidence to confirm that cloud cover responds to solar variability.

But they don't just leave solar-magnetic activity out of their models. Because their forecasts are based entirely on their climate models, they also leave solar magnetic effects completely out of their climate forecasts, despite knowing that there is SOME mechanism (even if the cosmic-ray/cloud theory turns out to be wrong) by which solar-magnetic activity is the primary driver of global temperature.

The only solar variable they do include is solar output or Total Solar Insolation (from long to short-wave radiation), which does not include the solar-magnetic flux. The Fourth Assessment Report does the same thing, looking only at TSI, as do all of the analyses that follow from these reports. For instance, if you look at he “Natural Influences” subsection of the Obama administration’s new report, you will see on page 16 that the only natural influence listed is “solar output’ (or TSI), which is why it is shown graphically to be so tiny.

Solar output is close to constant over the solar cycle (less than 0.1% variation), which is why it is called “the solar constant." Because TSI is nearly constant, it cannot account for the many thousands of years of close correlation between solar activity and temperature. That must be coming from the one solar variable that DOES vary with solar activity: the solar magnetic flux. Every IPCC climate scientist knows this, yet they still omit the solar-magnetic variable.



Proof of omission: page 16 graphic from the June 2009 report by U.S. Global Change Research Program (in effect, the NOAA). The only natural warming effect listed is total solar output, which does not include the solar-magnetic flux. Similar graphics can be found in each of the IPCC's assessment reports, where this analysis originates.


Religion, not science

When the alarmists omit solar-magnetic effects on the grounds that they are not satisfied with with existing theories of HOW these effects work, they are not just committing statistical fraud, but they are contradicting the very definition of science. Observation (the overwhelming correlation between solar activity and global temperature) is supposed to trump theory, not vice versa.

Consider an analogy. Until Einstein developed his theory of general relativity there was no good theory of gravity. Newton had a description of the gravitational force (that it diminishes by the inverse of the square of the distance) but nobody had any sensible account for the mechanism by which massive objects were drawn to each other. Applying the standards of the IPCC, a pre-Einsteinian or pre-Newtonian scientist should have forecast that when a stone is released in the air, it would waft away on the breeze. After all, we understand the force that the breeze imparts on the stone, but we don't understand this thing called gravity, so we should not include it, even though we observe that heavy objects fall.

That is not science, and neither is CO2 alarmism. Data is supposed to trump Theory. By using theory (the proclaimed insufficiency of solar-magnetic theory) as an excuse to ignore the evidence (where solar activity is known to somehow warm the climate), warming alarmism perverts the scientific method.

That makes it religion in the constitutionally barred sense. Not only is this belief system embraced by millions of people WITHOUT EVIDENCE, but it is embraced in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Alarmism about CO2 is not just a religion, it is a demonstrably irrational religion, equivilant to believing that rocks will waft away on the breeze.

EPA is supposed to make science-based rulings. If you regulate CO2 based on demonstrably anti-scientific ideology, it will be an unconstitutional state establishment of religion.


The current cooling trend fits the solar-magnetic theory, not the CO2 theory

All of the major temperature records show that the earth's average temperature has been falling for ten years now (with the 21 year smoothed temperature falling for five). In this period, CO2 has continued to increase, while the sun has descended into a prolonged solar minimum. This turn in the sun (breaking the coincidental correlation between solar activity and CO2 that existed for the previous 70 years), is rapidly unmasking the hoax of anthropogenic global warming.

It should not take a rare astrological event to unmask an obvious statistical and scientific fraud. Will the EPA now destroy its reputation by codifying the "green" religion at the very moment when the heavens themselves are exposing its dishonesty? If you choose this course, you will be destroying the nation's economy and the lives of your countrymen in the service of your own anti-scientific religious beliefs, in violation of your oath of office.


Sincerely,



On the subject of state established religion



This is also the subject of our blogbursts, trying to stop the Flight 93 Memorial Project from stamping a giant Mecca-oriented crescent on the graves our murdered heroes:



A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab, and is the central feature around which every mosque is built. (Some mihrabs are pointed arch shape, but the archetypical mihrab is crescent shaped.)

The Crescent of Embrace memorial is actually a terrorist memorial mosque, replete with a full complement of typical mosque features, like the minaret-like Tower of Voices that has an Islamic shaped crescent on top and turns out to be a year-round accurate Islamic prayer-time sundial.

Outcry over the apparent Islamic symbolism forced the Park Service to make changes. They promised that they would remove the Islamic symbol shapes, but they never did. They call it a broken circle now, but the circle is broken in the exact same places as before.

The unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca.


To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

Stop The EPA! Sign the Petition

Hat tip to Churchill's Parrot

President-elect Barack Obama has proposed many ideas on how to fix our energy and environmental problems. With economic ruin looming in front of us, an auto industry ready to collapse, banks failing, and a falling stock market, the last thing we need is to put strict limits on our economic growth.

Obama's plan asks for a reduction in greenhouse gasses by 80% by the year 2050. Asking the EPA to "implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

The Heritage Foundation reports:

“This intrusive regulation will cost the American economy nearly $7 trillion dollars in lost GDP in just 20 years, and result in massive job losses. Heritage’s respected Center for Data Analysis estimates non-farm employment losses will exceed 800,000 in some years, and manufacturing jobs will plummet. Some industries would lose over half of their jobs. Government permits would be needed to expand small businesses and build homes, hospitals and schools. To add insult to injury, foreign competitors will not have to abide by these regulations, leaving American businesses at a disadvantage."

Not only does the West and specifically the United States have to bear the brunt of this problem, but the greenhouse gas savings would do nothing to alleviate the problem since China and India produce more greenhouse gasses each day than we do in a month.

You can help. You can start by signing this petition. Stop the EPA! And get others to sign it too. Then get involved. Call or write your Representative or Senator. But don't sit idly by.