Neal Boortz asks:
Tell me .. how do you counter the "conservatives are ignorant" argument, and how do you manage to recruit more people to the cause of lower taxes, less government and more individual responsibility when you have people running around loose calling themselves conservatives, getting elected to office as conservatives, and running websites as conservatives all the while telling us that the earth does not spin on its axis and does not revolve around the Sun .. and that everything in the known universe revolves around the Earth?
Pious gratitude to: like HE needs the links!
No separation of Mosque and State at the Minneapolis Community and Technical College.
There has been a lot of talk recently about carbon offsets, a proposed mechanism whereby folks who cannot reduce their CO2 emissions can purchase shares in green organizations, who will reduce on their behalf.
It seems to me that this mechanism can only be of limited utility, because the behaviors of the green companies with carbon to sell can only do so much. Tree planting efforts, while laudable, result in increased water usage and the reduced availability of land cultivation; and other efforts are similarly green-ambiguous.
CO2 emissions are manifestly a problem of the developed / developing world; folks who live in impoverished, undeveloped countries do not have the “carbon footprint” of someone living in a wealthy Western nation, and they never will.
Much of the West’s goodwill is directed toward lifting these unfortunates out of poverty and helping them to enjoy the same high lifestyle that the West itself enjoys. However, this causes a problem: if these people are successfully raised out of poverty to become members of a modern industrial society, by necessity their carbon footprint will increase, thus causing the planet to burn up even faster because of Glourbal Worming. The humanitarian efforts of many to improve the lot of the world’s poor is in direct opposition with efforts to halt the increase in worldwide CO2 emissions.
Therefore I propose to start a company that will trade on the Green Stock Exchange; we shall sell shares, and use the proceeds to help prevent an increase in the global carbon footprint by hindering efforts to improve the material lot of poverty-stricken foreigners (“carbon targets”). These people will be encouraged to retain their reduced circumstances so as to not add to the planet’s carbon burden. In this way, an individual who purchases one of our offsets is truly purchasing the carbon emissions of another person, a person who, due to the efforts of our new company, will be prohibited from emitting carbon from any advanced, technological source.
If our carbon targets are allowed to increase their carbon footprints, company stock will be devalued and market share decreased. It is imperative that purchasers of our carbon offsets know that someone, somewhere, is suffering on their behalf. Thus, company funds will not be paid directly to our “carbon targets” because studies have shown that impoverished people often use money to buy cars or otherwise improve their lot in ways that are not carbon neutral. Instead, company resources will be directed towards sustenance and security efforts, to provide food to the poor so as to maintain (and perhaps increase) our stock of potential carbon targets, while ensuring that no unacceptable carbon upgrades occur within their lives. This “Buns and Guns” plan will ensure long-range viability for our new company.
We foresee a time when the worldwide supply of carbon targets will drop below the demand; under those circumstances, it may be possible to create entire new populations for exploitation through the application of “Bomb-Them-To-The-Stone-Age” technologies. These technologies are not currently available to private corporations, but it is hoped that future lobbying efforts will result in successful partnering with the necessary state agencies, resulting in new areas of corporate growth.
Anyway, that’s my business proposal. I’m accepting seed capital right now, so if you wish to participate, send a check or money order. (US Currency only , please.)
nsurgents in Iraq detonated an explosives-rigged vehicle with two children in the back seat after US soldiers let it through a Baghdad checkpoint over the weekend, a senior US military official said Tuesday.
The vehicle was stopped at the checkpoint but was allowed through when soldiers saw the children in the back, said Major General Michael Barbero of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.
"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion. We let it move through. They parked the vehicle, and the adults ran out and detonated it with the children in the back," Barbero said.
What is the Arab term for "Scum of the Earth?"
I don’t go to rallies or protests of any kind, because they’re like Led Zeppelin concerts without the Led Zeppelin. There’s lots of people who agree that Led Zeppelin is incredible, but no actual Zep.
Note: this is embedded in a Bleat about the protest he attended.
"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming"
Yes, the Arctic tends to be cold, even in the face of so much hot air about Glbal Werming.
I would have thought that Minnesotans would know that it was cold up north.
To be fair, both women were experienced cold-weather explorers, who ran into some bad luck. They sound like a couple of tough cookies.
But, come on...they went up there to "bring attention to global warming."
If they'd gotten heatstroke, I'd be more convinced. But, frostbite in the Arctic? Not exactly unprecedented.
A new survey of the number of polar bears in Canada's eastern Arctic suggests that the population is thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.
In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.
The study's findings back the claims of Inuit hunters, who have long claimed that they had seen a rise in the local polar bear population.
Critics claim the Inuit-dominated government of Nunavit, which commissioned the survey, has an agenda to encourage polar bear hunting and keep the animals off the endangered species list.
More perversion of science by Big Eskimo®'s bought-and-payed-for extinction-denying "scientists!"
Pious gratitude to: tim blair
[L]eftist pundits erect pyramids of anti-war rhetoric, built on falsehoods, misconception, and doubt—constructs that serve as pillars of justification for a hasty retreat. None of it is built on sound military judgment or expertise, which should be a requisite for respected war punditry, but like Ronnie said, "they know so much that isn't so." And, there's nothing left-o'-center bloggers love more than to show off that knowledge.
Global warming "denial" in...the National Geographic?
Don't worry: the scientist is "controversial" and "[h]is views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion."
Since half the article is given over to arguments against his theories, I think we can safely consider his heresy contained.