I believe I speak for everyone with half a brain when I ask the carefully crafted question in the the title of this post. What am I asking about, you wonder. Oh nothing special. Just the "Breck Girl" who, I might add has been featured on the cover of Esquire underneath the headline "Sexist Woman Alive" (methinks somebody in the cover art department had to clean out his desk this morning). I just got done watch the national news highlights, and I was treated to John "Two Americas" Edwards saying that his solution to ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home is to "turn up the heat on George W. Bush". This, in and of itself is not unusual to hear from today's liberal establishment, but it struck me as strange that this would be used as a selling point...in a Democratic Presidential debate.
I may be mistaken, but are we not having debates amongst potential candidates within their respective parties so that G.W. gets a replacement? Why then, would it make one iota of difference whether or not the current President's feet are going to be held to the fire at a later date? Does Edwards own a calendar? I could have sworn that Bush has only 18 more months in office. Someone needs to leave the Aqua Net alone (at least pre-debate).
Hat Tip: Christina for this video (made by people with more time than I).
Monday, July 23, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Senile Senators' Slumper Party (BYOB Senator Kennedy)
Just when political posturing (and emissions of CO2) couldn't get any more ridiculous, "Dingy Harry" Ried had to declare, along with his cohorts in the U.S. Senate, that they were pulling an "all-nighter" to cobble together a resolution to bring the troops home from Iraq. Oh, I'm sorry, the official language of the DNC is "redeploy" (kind of like Hitler's use of the word "relocate" to describe "rounding up and exterminating millions of Jews"). So, were the news cameras showing pages hauling in cases of Red Bull or their senator's energy drink of choice (and perhaps some Geritol for good measure)? Hell no! They were rolling in foldaway beds for our distinguished elected officials to take a nap. Senator Kennedy's pages must have been sneaking in the booze via the backdoor.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I was in college (two years ago) an "all-nighter" implied actually being awake and working all night powered by sugar, caffeine, and sheer will...and nicotine for a few of my classmates. You were considered "all-pro" if you could not only stay up, but be a fully-functioning student the following day (complete with class attendance). What a bunch of slackers our Senate has turned out to be.
I can see it all now. Ted Kennedy will be passed out on his cot, martini glasses strewn about, hugging a bottle of vodka, and hiccuping between snores. His junior counterpart will be hugging a bottle of ketchup, and have jumper cables hooked up to the bolts in his neck. Babs Boxer and DiFi will be giving each other quizzes from Cosmo magazine and playing MASH (each will be adorned with curlers and cold cream face masques). Senator Byrd will be busy with a pair of scissors, cutting eyeholes in all of the white pillowcases. Harry will be up in his seat, leaning back with drool coming out of the corners of his mouth. When morning comes, they'll all frantically wake up and try the cram the Cliff's Notes version of the bill that their collective staffs wrote in the night. Even if it's not worth the paper found in the restroom, it will be hailed as a stroke of genius by the MSM. Let's only hope that the producers at CSPAN have the good taste to blur out some of the images conjured in this paragraph.
Update: Wonder of wonders! The U.S. Senate has accomplished...absolutely nothing! I wonder how much money it cost you and I to have those rollaways brought in for them to not even be used (most of our distinguished senators went home in the wee hours of the morning to sleep it off).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I was in college (two years ago) an "all-nighter" implied actually being awake and working all night powered by sugar, caffeine, and sheer will...and nicotine for a few of my classmates. You were considered "all-pro" if you could not only stay up, but be a fully-functioning student the following day (complete with class attendance). What a bunch of slackers our Senate has turned out to be.
I can see it all now. Ted Kennedy will be passed out on his cot, martini glasses strewn about, hugging a bottle of vodka, and hiccuping between snores. His junior counterpart will be hugging a bottle of ketchup, and have jumper cables hooked up to the bolts in his neck. Babs Boxer and DiFi will be giving each other quizzes from Cosmo magazine and playing MASH (each will be adorned with curlers and cold cream face masques). Senator Byrd will be busy with a pair of scissors, cutting eyeholes in all of the white pillowcases. Harry will be up in his seat, leaning back with drool coming out of the corners of his mouth. When morning comes, they'll all frantically wake up and try the cram the Cliff's Notes version of the bill that their collective staffs wrote in the night. Even if it's not worth the paper found in the restroom, it will be hailed as a stroke of genius by the MSM. Let's only hope that the producers at CSPAN have the good taste to blur out some of the images conjured in this paragraph.
Update: Wonder of wonders! The U.S. Senate has accomplished...absolutely nothing! I wonder how much money it cost you and I to have those rollaways brought in for them to not even be used (most of our distinguished senators went home in the wee hours of the morning to sleep it off).
Thursday, July 5, 2007
I'm So Confused!
All the hype over Live Earth and global warming and the rash of wildfires in the western U.S. has brought me into conflict with my annoyingly persistent memories of junior high, high school, and lower division college science classes. How can this be, you ask? Isn't there a concensus amongst those of the scientific community that global warming is a real threat? Didn't global warming cause those fires? Well, allow me to explain myself.
From sixth grade science through university level biology, all we children of the 80s and 90s have heard is that the Earth is always in delicate balance. That each bit of flora and fauna has its niche to fill and if the population of a particular species in any given part of the world is dying off, it throws the balance out the window. Even in my differential equations class we had word problems for the "predator-prey model". For my non-geek audience, "diff e-q" is a pain in the butt branch of mathematics that I've used maybe twice since I graduated. The "delicate balance" view is consistent with the environmental wacko's paradigm. It's basic premise is that we humans are destructive intruders and the best thing we could do for the Earth is just die off and leave the apes in charge. Small wonder that the vast majority of enviro-nuts are also pro-abortion, no?
The "delicate balance" view is taught right alongside Darwinism, which in a nutshell teaches "survival of the fittest". The theory of evolution puts forth that species will evolve, either behaviorally or physically, to adapt to changes in their environment. According to scientists that monitor the finches on the Galapagos Islands (the same finches that Darwin observed over 150 years ago), this adaptation can occur as rapidly as three years. Keep in mind, however, that new species are not evolving from old species. The characteristics of the finch species are changing, but the genome of the finch species is not. Don't know what a genome is? Look it up. If you really want to get the goat of a rabid Darwinist, just mention the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record and the conspicuous lack of intermediate species (species that evolved...and flopped like that Mariah Carey movie Glitter).
Now, to my point of contention: the recent wildfires, regardless of catalyst, were dramatically escalated by dry, dead vegetation. Brush and dead trees that private citizens and members of the Forest Service are not permitted to clear out because this dead undergrowth provides habitat for endangered and threatened species. In Utah's Milford Flat fire, the moisture in the vegetation was at zero percent, while the humidity was at three percent! In the Angora Fire (near South Lake Tahoe), the fire was fueled by vegetation that was mandated undisturbed by state and local agencies to control erosion and maintain water quality in Lake Tahoe.
Won't the ash and debris running off into the lake cause more damage to water quality? How about all of those noxious "greenhouse gases" and their damage to the ozone? Nevermind the damage done to wildlife habitat (click here for a satellite photo of the burn area). Why would nature not have taken its course if people, in the interest preventing raging wildfires, had cleared out the dead vegetation? Since fires caused by lightning strikes are acts of nature, how is this not seen as overthrowing the "delicate balance"? Are we required to cover "acts of God" (to use the insurance companies' lingo) by the purchase of carbon offsets from Algore's company?
So many questions! Luckily, I hold firmly with the idea of Intelligent Design. Our Creator in His infinite wisdom made the Earth idiot-proof, much to the consternation of liberals. I'm by no means advocating wanton destruction of the Earth's natural (God-given) beauty. I merely believe that we need to be good stewards by using and maintaining our resources. To not use the bounty of the earth is to waste potential, and the only losers are all of humanity. Don't believe me? Take it from someone who lives in one of the most impoverished regions of the world.
From sixth grade science through university level biology, all we children of the 80s and 90s have heard is that the Earth is always in delicate balance. That each bit of flora and fauna has its niche to fill and if the population of a particular species in any given part of the world is dying off, it throws the balance out the window. Even in my differential equations class we had word problems for the "predator-prey model". For my non-geek audience, "diff e-q" is a pain in the butt branch of mathematics that I've used maybe twice since I graduated. The "delicate balance" view is consistent with the environmental wacko's paradigm. It's basic premise is that we humans are destructive intruders and the best thing we could do for the Earth is just die off and leave the apes in charge. Small wonder that the vast majority of enviro-nuts are also pro-abortion, no?
The "delicate balance" view is taught right alongside Darwinism, which in a nutshell teaches "survival of the fittest". The theory of evolution puts forth that species will evolve, either behaviorally or physically, to adapt to changes in their environment. According to scientists that monitor the finches on the Galapagos Islands (the same finches that Darwin observed over 150 years ago), this adaptation can occur as rapidly as three years. Keep in mind, however, that new species are not evolving from old species. The characteristics of the finch species are changing, but the genome of the finch species is not. Don't know what a genome is? Look it up. If you really want to get the goat of a rabid Darwinist, just mention the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record and the conspicuous lack of intermediate species (species that evolved...and flopped like that Mariah Carey movie Glitter).
Now, to my point of contention: the recent wildfires, regardless of catalyst, were dramatically escalated by dry, dead vegetation. Brush and dead trees that private citizens and members of the Forest Service are not permitted to clear out because this dead undergrowth provides habitat for endangered and threatened species. In Utah's Milford Flat fire, the moisture in the vegetation was at zero percent, while the humidity was at three percent! In the Angora Fire (near South Lake Tahoe), the fire was fueled by vegetation that was mandated undisturbed by state and local agencies to control erosion and maintain water quality in Lake Tahoe.
Won't the ash and debris running off into the lake cause more damage to water quality? How about all of those noxious "greenhouse gases" and their damage to the ozone? Nevermind the damage done to wildlife habitat (click here for a satellite photo of the burn area). Why would nature not have taken its course if people, in the interest preventing raging wildfires, had cleared out the dead vegetation? Since fires caused by lightning strikes are acts of nature, how is this not seen as overthrowing the "delicate balance"? Are we required to cover "acts of God" (to use the insurance companies' lingo) by the purchase of carbon offsets from Algore's company?
So many questions! Luckily, I hold firmly with the idea of Intelligent Design. Our Creator in His infinite wisdom made the Earth idiot-proof, much to the consternation of liberals. I'm by no means advocating wanton destruction of the Earth's natural (God-given) beauty. I merely believe that we need to be good stewards by using and maintaining our resources. To not use the bounty of the earth is to waste potential, and the only losers are all of humanity. Don't believe me? Take it from someone who lives in one of the most impoverished regions of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)