I believe that one reason for my decline in posting over the last few months, besides time constraints due to business, is that so many things that I want to say, have already been said, and far more eloquently, by others. Case in point is a Two-fer from Big Lizards last week:
And here’s a nice round-up of forbidden knowledge from the Republicans in the Senate, led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK, 100%), ranking member (and former chairman) of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works (EPW). Inhofe is a national treasure, one of the few Republicans not only willing to stand up against the greedy socialists at the UN (many Republicans do that), but also willing to put in the time to educate himself on the actual science involved.
This makes Inhofe a much more potent danger to the regime of so-called “anthropogenic (man-made) global climate change” than his colleagues. Hardly any other senator or representative, on either side the aisle, is willing to go so far as actually learning something about what he’s talking about.
In the meanwhile, my brother sends me a link to another page of the Senate EPW Republican minority website, in which Inhofe finally nails the climatistas: He catches them confessing the real reason for all the hoopla about globaloney. This is a true “cognition” moment when all the pieces abruptly fall into place:
- A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference. A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations….”
- “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
Yes. Now you understand why I have consistently referred to the climatistas as “socialists”: Because they are.
Watermelons. Green on the outside, Red on the inside. You will find a wealth of information in this piece on the fraud of man made Global Warming, and political (instead of Scientific) process behind it.
The other piece echos somewhat the Robert Kaplan piece from my previous post:
Since the US military is the only entity capable of policing the world, why shouldn’t Japan totally rely upon them? That is how my online correspondent sees the situation: Japan pays enough to buy its protection, so what are Americans complaining about?
I told Asean that paying others to protect your own country is a sure way to lose face. He shrugged; most Japanese think merely losing respect is a cheap price to pay for never having to fight. Japan suffered so much from the last war — in which Japan was the imperialist aggressor — that many Japanese simply refuse to fight again, ever… no matter what the provocation. They won’t to fight even to protect their own interests, land, or culture; they are content to outsource national defense in a way that Americans cannot even imagine.
Is this a position worthy of a once-proud nation of Samurai warriors? How can they face their ancestors, who would have fought bravely and died rather than surrender?
Aside from the craven and disgusting nature of this attitude, their strategy of self defense by proxy is doomed to fail. It has several problems:
- Refusing to fight does not let you avoid war; rather, it invites war.
- Mercenaries are not loyal to you; they always have their own agenda.
- Americans cannot be everywhere; we’re not omnipotent: It’s impossible for the United States to fully protect Japan even if we wanted.
- Finally, the most likely reason outsourcing national defense will fail is the “men on the wall” syndrome: Just like the hobbits of the Shire, the Japanese have not fought a war for a long, long time. They have forgotten how to fight, and even that there is any need to fight.
Lot’s of good food for thought in both. And, sadly, a great deal of truth…
From the Daily Mail (UK):
At the age of 27 this young woman (Toni Vernelli) at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.
“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
I agree completely that people of Ms. Vernelli’s political/social proclivities should voluntarily be sterilzed. In fact, I hoper that it becomes vogue, and a full fad/trend for such folks.
Is there any way that we could convince Lawyers to go the same route?
Imagine my shock and horror this morning, when I began to go about the normal Sunday morning routine, and discovered that it was 60 minutes later than we thought it was.
It took about 240 seconds for me to realize what had happened: My alarm clock (which we both use, as it has two alarm settings) had, thinking the old DST rules were still in effect, fell back one hour last night.
As my wife said, hurrying out the door, as she was now running very late, “time for a new alarm clock”.
This is particularly annoying as the changeover to the new DST was very disrtruptive to my industry, having a large cost in software upgrades and manhours to patch and update older systems, whose programmers had no inkling that COngress, in a fit of trying to show the people that they were trying to DO something about Energy Conservation, cost the economy a huge some of money.
To date, I cannot find a recored that anyone has calculate to the to the economy of the change to the new start/stop dates, but I am sure that there are many people (like me) and companieis that got over the first hump, and neglegted to make a permanent fix, so the total cost is still rising. An old Estimate is $500 Million, to $1 Billion dollars.
So, Congress is going to cost me another $40 today, for a new alarm clock.
And it will STILL be dark when I get up. Oh, and research seems to be coming up to speed with common sense. DST may be bad for you.
Oh, and there is still the possibility that DST may go back to the previous rules, (so I am keeping the old clock, just in case), becuase, according to the Act:
SEC 110 DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME(c) Report to Congress.–Not <<NOTE: 15 USC 260a note.>> later than 9 months after the effective date stated in subsection (b), (March 1, 2007 -ed.) the Secretary shall report to Congress on the impact of this section on energy consumption in the United States.
By my calculations, that is Nov 1, 2007. Though, considering that Congress is still working on Appropriations Bills that were due Oct 1st, I doubt they will get to this anytime soon.