Barack 'n' Devoid

I cannot even begin to tell you how amused I am with the dilemma posed by Barack's candidacy in the face of the Clintonian juggernaut: if you are a good Hollywood liberal ... who do you vote for?

According to Ariana Huffington (major league Hillary suck-up, author and Democrat blogger) "It's like being married, and suddenly you fall in love. You're a good person, and a loyal person ... you have a history with the Clintons,'' she said. "And you feel like you're cheating.'' At an event held at the Beverly Hilton and organized by Hollywood producers David Geffen, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg of DreamWorks SKG -- all of whom had donated generously to Clinton's Senate campaign as well as to Democratic Party causes and whose event raised approximately $1.3 million for Barack-- you could see all sorts of celeb A-listers and moguls flittering around Barack like moths around a flame.

How this must piss Hillary off!! Think of all those Whitehouse invites, those Lincoln bedroom sleep-overs, kiss-ass parties on the Vineyard ... where did it all go? What happened to the "love?" What love? Remember, this is the Clinton machine here that we are talking about and they have made it "very clear that, in the political world, no dalliances are allowed. There is zero tolerance for that,'' according to Huffington. "It's sheer loyalty versus sheer fear.'' Hillary makes her case through e-mails and constant communications by staffers with major donors: the polls show that Hillary will win and if you give any money to anybody else, you can forget about the inaugural. In short, Hillary remembers -- like all those that have crossed her before and are now pushing up the daisies (look to an earlier post about Clintonian associates who have met their demise before their allotted time). And we are not talking about a generous Democrat supporter who maxes out to each candidate ... she wants absolute loyalty: no money to ANYONE else. And Terry McAuliffe (ex-DNC head and now Clinton campaign chairman) has said that in absolutely clear terms. Think Carthage.

Bill's Whitehouse spokesman, Chris Lehane, said this: "I think history is pretty clear that those folks who are loyal to the Clintons find the loyalty is really reciprocated -- and that is one of the reasons why so many people have stuck with them for so long,'' he said. "They really do respect and appreciate it when someone is loyal, and that manifests itself in many ways ... that is what good politicians do.''

My favorite unrepentant-complete-liberal-moron, Natalie Maines from the Dixie Chicks, was at the Barack event (actually, my fav is Barbra Streisand -- where was she, why wasn't she there?). "Everyone was just getting a feel for the first time,'' she said. "You know, it's early on. And everyone here is obviously supporting him financially by coming to this event ... and sort of hoping he lives up to the expectations.'' Ah, the words of the sage. She of the Grammy Awards bounty who is still blacklisted by her heritage and whom she claims to represent (although the Hollywood liberal media cover up the truth about her "country" support in an effort to portray Red States as swinging to the left). Good. I hope she features large in Barack's campaign ... or do I? Maybe I really wish her on Hillary?


BACK TO DEVOID!!

It is almost too embarrassing to contemplate and I (almost) hesitate to mention: Devoid felt it necessary lease a Cadillac. Oh, I am sorry ... it was his s t a f f e r s that did it. Right. Nixon didn't break into the Watergate, either. But why, oh why, did Devoid need a Cadillac when his predecessor made do with a Crown Vickie? Sure, the CV is a piece of poop on 4 wheels, but if Romney, the arch conservative and representative of money and privilege made do with one as governor, Devoid should not bling it up, especially when he comes to office on a platform of sweeping away the practices and greed of the previous administration.

He is not the President. He looks ridiculous -- a cliche, running into a stereotype. In spite of anything I may think about his politics, I don't think that he deserves that image. He is cultured, articulate, educated and accomplished. I also think of him as a greedy hypocrite, a typical Clintonian "do as I say, don't do as I do" liberal weenie -- like his wife really needs a $72,000 per year appointments secretary. A Pelosi-trooper who no doubt will need a personal jet in keeping with his expanded duties to meet with and visit his constituents in western Mass.
Maybe he DOES deserve that image? The Boston Globe continues to accept Devoid's explanations ... they also accepted Billy Bulger's.

Whaling for food. Cretins.

Well, sort of food. For certain people.

The Nisshin Maru is a converted fishing factory ship that the Japanese use as the mother ship of its "whaling effort." And the Nisshin Maru is currently off of the ice pack in the Ross Sea, Antarctica -- burning. It is owned by a Japanese government agency, the Institute of Cetacean Research. State sponsored slaughter under a scientific guise.

Those interested in saving the whale are no doubt aware of the progress of the Sea Shepherd organization in thwarting the annual "research whaling" by the Japanese. And if claim to care about these things, you SHOULD be aware of the work of the Sea Shepherds. There have been a few rammings, attempts to run in front of harpoons, and general havoc designed to prevent the Japanese from filling their holds with "byproduct" of their whaling research.

Two of the havoc creators have left the Japanese fleet earlier this week to get back to Australia before their registration lapses and the boats become "unflagged." So they are out of the equation for now. Greenpeace has also shadowed the Japanese fleet, so they are in a position to help the burning (and possibly sinking) Japanese vessel, although they would understandably show great reluctance in doing so. They are reportedly making haste to stand by. Latest reports state that the fire may be under control although 120 persons were evacuated to other Japanese spotter and hunting ships. The vessel flying the Jolly Roger is a Sea Shepherd. Of course this photo was provided by the whalers to the New Japan Times to show the sympathetic Japanese public how evil the anti-whaling forces are. Japanese press has called them "pirates." One wonders about Photoshop usage, but even if only psy-ops, its a cute image -- 3000 or more miles from anything.

The Japanese government has "cordially requested" that the New Zealand and Australian navies stand by to lend their assistance should the situation become worse. In response the Kiwis told the Japanese that they have two frigates in the area, but that they are headed North -- away from the whalers -- due to pressing obligations elsewhere. Right. But the threat of 1000 tons of fuel oil leaking from the ship if it sinks into the pristine environment will probably induce the Kiwis and Aussies to assist if necessary.

So the Japanese are hoping to "cull" 950 odd minke whales and some 7-10 Fin whales ... what on earth for? What do they already not know about these animals? Except that there are precious few Fin whales remaining and that they are large and most likely, tasty.

Here lies a slippery slope: these are -- without doubt -- intelligent animals. Mammals. We want to prevent these creatures from being killed in the most heinous way possible ... slowly, bleeding to death, with a large metal object in their back which has exploded (to create hydrostatic shock to kill quicker). They are inflated (no use in letting them sink!) dragged backward up onto the ramp of a large ship (where they if not already dead, suffocate) where they are brought under the flensing knives. But is this a lot different from the way we treat cattle? Would it be different if in some way we could learn to farm whales?? Is that the dividing line? Is it offensive because we perceive whales to be more intelligent than the normal animals which we slaughter for food?
Is it because they are wild and free, as well as intelligent? Is it because people like the Japanese would hunt them to extinction (powerful argument, that one) if nobody opposed them?

I eat meat and like it a lot. All sorts. Even lamb and veal. Fish too, although I tend to order or buy farmed fish if at all possible. But somewhere I cannot condone whaling. The cruelty to animals possibly (or potentially) as intelligent as we are is just unacceptable. But why? Is it that whales and other members of that family including dolphins and porpoises -- cetacea -- may possess a sense of self in the same way that we do? Is that the dividing line?

Anyway, SINK YOU BASTARDS!!! But retrieve the crew.

Gobal warming -- you need to read this.

From the London Times, by Neil Calder (former editor of New Scientist).
Without permission -- so if this offends Mr. Calder, I will remove it.

This is important and relevant to all of us -- so for the sake of intellectual honesty, please pass this on.

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

Dixie Slags

So they won a bunch of grammys. Who the hell cares? They won: (1) Song of the year; (2) Best Country Performance; (3) Record of the Year; (4) Best Country Album; and (5) Best Album. But these awards do not reflect their status in the country music world. They were shut out from ANY awards in Nashville. Not a one. Nada. In fact, if you look at the Country Charts from Billboard, there are half a dozen other artists whose albums also reached #1, and have been on the charts longer and REMAIN higher on the charts than the Dixie Cretins.

So what gives? Simple: the Grammys are just like the Oscars -- with awards going to political winners, with very little to do with the music. The music industry is notoriously left-wing, and now with Boosh on the ropes, they finally have the courage to support their political allies. The various liberal news organs cite "Red Hot Dixie Chicks" etc. Well, only to the politically motivated are they hot. It is indeed ironic that the Grammys hand out all these country awards as well as the main staple, but country music ignores the Dixies -- they do not sell as many albums as some almost unknown acts. We must presume it is cross-over buyers from the stable rock and roll or popular music segments that are buying the Dixie Chicks album -- it sure isn't the Red State crowd.

If anyone should be or is "ashamed," it should be the folks responsible for the Grammys for such a craven and crass show of political favoritism.

Monday, monday.

I am reminded of things I have read on various bathroom walls: here I sit all broken hearted, etc. Similar to trying to find something interesting to write about. But let's look at the Australian Prime Minister:

"If I were running Al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats," Howard said.

Obama noted that Australia has only 1,400 troops in Iraq.

"If he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric," Obama said.

Well, how about that? Lemme see, Australia has a population of about ... the same as Rhode Island? Proportionately, I'd say the Aussies are pretty much putting their poop shooters on the line. Politically too, as regards the rest of the world hating Boosh so much. So Obama, even though Howard has insulted you, he has proved himself ... while all you have done is look good for the cameras. Got any real ideas about global security, or are you like the rest of the Democrats, great at jumping up and down pointing at the fiasco -- but completely devoid of practical ideas?

Next on the list:

Skiing ... basically a really stupid thing to do: (1) you start by putting on layer after layer of clothes until you feel and look like a polyester mummy; (2) you put boots on your feet that would give Mary Shelley nightmares; (3) you attach your feet to lengths of multi-layered fiberglass with devices designed to ensure that your feet come loose from said lengths; (3) you pay the equivalent of the monthly payment on the national debt of a largish third world country to purchase the right to seat yourself on a cold bench which wafts you (through bitter cold winds) to the top of a mountain; and then (4) you launch yourself down that mountain praying that you do not fall and break various pieces of your body. In fact, if you consider yourself sporting, you attempt progressively more difficult ways of getting down the mountain until probability will have its way and you succeed in doing yourself damage.

The reward is "apres ski" which should really be renamed "thank God I am in one piece, and why don't I go out and get blinding drunk to celebrate that" hour.

Last weekend it was -10F at the bottom of the lift. Probably -20 at the top, maybe -30. The place in question is just below Mount Washington, NH, one of the more extreme places on Earth for weather -- Google it, if you doubt me. -30 ... for you European readers is the same as -30C. That is REALLY cold. In fact, the skis don't run as they normally do because the thin layer of melted snow critical to the running of the ski doesn't form as it does in balmier temperatures, like 10F (-14C or so?). Your skis act more like velcro. Where am I going with this? Wait.

Last weekend, I saw huge groups of English school kids who are on ski vacations in New Hampshire. Perhaps the name "New Hampshire" made them think that it would be like a hilly and snowy "Hampshire," a county in England. Anyway, I never saw a more poorly equipped group of teens in my life: maybe their ski clothing would be adequate for the French Alps, maybe Avimore in Scotland ... but ... maybe they noticed that the locals did not have a single square inch (or even millimeter) of skin showing. Maybe they noticed that NOBODY wears those smart mirrored sunglasses. Maybe they noticed that nobody with a season's pass wears "thick woolen hats," rather they have neoprene face masks, fleece lined neck gaiters and full head helmets?

I stopped and just stared -- those rosy English faces with complexions of cream, never having seen raw sun, bitter cold or other weathering agents. Nor frostbite, apparently. I feel someone should send their parents a letter before they come: BEWARE -- this is not some namby-pamby Euro-luxe resort you are sending your kids to ... it is bitter Siberian-like cold without cushy perks that you may have seen in your issues of Tattler. I notice that their parents don't come, they just send their kids on a cheap (for Europeans given the dollar is officially worth less than camel poop) ski vacation, and probably head off to Courchevel or Gstaad in the meanwhile for their own little "break."

As I have seen this before, invariably, by the end of the week the local merchants have fattened their cash registers and the Brit-kids are indistinguishable from locals -- helmets, face masks, gloves with liners, lots of fleece, no woolen "jumpers", good goggles, and slightly maniacal grins on their faces when they come into the lodge. They will have some stories to tell their Euro-weenie friends ... cold, huh? You think you know cold? Lissen, mate, you have no idea what cold is! Cold is where tears freeze on your face, and where two runs down the mountain can give you frostbite. Cold is where you don't touch exposed metal. And from then on a little ice on the piste won't bother them either, and there will be no such thing as challenging conditions.

They will also probably come back to New Hampshire because everything is so ridiculously cheap. Jeans are still $29.95 at the outlets!!

Speaking of which ... reading the Times of London, I glanced at an article on ski clothing. The author breezily wrote of paying Stg. 395 on a ski jacket, Stg. 200 on some stretch pants, etc. Maybe it would be better if their kids just brought back some U.S. ski gear -- it might save them 50-60% on their equipment. But I forget the Euro passion for labels ... its gotta be D&G or Bogner for style, or some obscure Austrian/Swiss make if it is any good. Right.

Liberal Left Coast Morons

Just a sample of the idiocy on the West Coast ... from San Francisco (remember this is one of the most liberal spots in the US of A outside of the People's Republic of Cambridge):

From SF Gate.com website -- the italics are mine....

Chris Finnie, Boulder Creek

Constitutionally, Nancy Pelosi is now second in line for the presidency. That fact sticks in the craw of conservatives everywhere. So they'd much rather paint this as an issue of the speaker's entourage than of the longer distance she flies compared to her predecessor, and of the legitimate security concern of refueling stops. As for arrogance, who should know better than the Republicans? -- Chris, I could not care less about the distance she flies and Republican arrogance. This is about ignorance -- yours: (1) Mistress Nancy is THIRD in line; (2) it IS about size and entourage; and (3) there are PLENTY of smaller jets that can make the trip without refueling.

Marietta Crane, San Francisco

If the only plane that can get her to California non-stop is a bigger plane, then by all means, she should have a bigger plane. She should not be penalized simply because she lives on the left coast. Bella Pelosi is NOT being penalized for living on the left coast. She is granted use of a plane by the military -- as has her predecessor since 9/11. It is not about bigger -- it is about greed and hypocrisy.

Gabrielle Wilson, Berkeley

In a post 9/11 world, Speaker Pelosi should have the added security measure. However, who gets a free ride on the plane should be a public matter, and that should be balanced against security. No doubt the patriarchial right-wing conservatives are simply having a hard time digesting the thought of a female speaker of the House. Gabrielle, take your head out of your ass -- it is not that the speaker is female, it is because she is a liberal democrat hypocrite. For security, you fly a smaller, faster more manoeuvrable plane, not a passenger bus.

Jon Stewart, San Francisco

For security reasons, Pelosi should be allowed to have a jet that is big enough to get herself and whatever staff to her destinations without refueling. She could very well be a target for some kind of terrorist act someday. The good ones always have bullseyes on their backs. Astounding lack of comprehension ... a bullseye? The "good ones"? We are talking about squandering huge sums of money and fuel to satisfy imperial ambitions!!

Mary Canavan, Berkeley

Pelosi should have a plane that gets her from here to there without having to land for refueling. I see that the Republicans are once again pulling the holier-than-thou card as they strut around mewling about cost and propriety -- as if they knew something about either topic. Berkeley ... I could have guessed. Mary, it is about claiming to be an environmentalist and then turning around to act like an Arab Sheik. About claiming to represent a movement to rid Washington of this type of excess ... even Dennis "Greedy Bastard" Hastert didn't reach for this sort of entitlement. Holier-than-thou? I should frikkin well hope so!!

Blair Calhoun, Half Moon Bay

Talk about sore losers. The speaker should get the use of any plane she damn well wants. Any passengers outside of her immediate staff should pay a nominal fare in accordance with similar military flights. Almost Blair, but not ANY plane ... only what is reasonable and if she wants to take 50 members of "staff" then she needs to reconsider her importance.

Some smarter Left Coasters say:

Tim Davis, Walnut Creek

Speaker Pelosi opened her session preaching how every decision we make should benefit our children. Please tell me, Madam Speaker, how much more money it will cost for your larger jet? How many school supplies would these dollars purchase?

Oscar Lopez-Guerra, San Mateo

Not a surprise here -- I was kind of expecting it. Washington environs and position usually go to their heads. Perhaps G.W. could vacate the White House so Nancy can move in and redecorate it pastel blue.

D.C. Anderson, Moraga

As an energy conservation engineer, I think the issue of fuel consumption should be paramount. If Speaker Pelosi truly believes in an aggressive energy conservation program, the Gulfstream C-37 is the only logical choice. The range of 5,600 miles is adequate for non-stop from Washington to San Francisco, and the 16-person capacity even allows room for Pelosi's private plastic surgeon. Thank you D.C.

Posted by LRJ: None of these lawmakers should have a plane at all.

Statistically commercial air is much safer than any of these private jets or small military jets and the cost to taxpayers is absolutely astronomically... as in $18,000 an hour. That's right eighteen thousand dollars an hour.

And the difference in fuel savings between a large military 737 size aircraft and a public airfare would supply a fleet of 100 Toyota Priuses driving 10,000 miles a year for the next 72 years. (that's right, I looked it up!).

Its distasteful, its wasteful, and its bad government.

Posted by Brookeking: I think her request for a 757-200 with bedrooms, and cost 22,000/hr to fly is a bit much. If she wants to reward her backers by these flights, it will be a problem. Didn't we learn the last lesson from the Lincoln bedroom scandal?? Now we can have a mile-high bedroom for these backers and staff?

If she wants her staff to fly ; let them fly commercially, and not use the military jet. Her staff can meet her at her CA office.

By me: it is not about being a "sore loser." No, you liberals have had that market cornered since the day you started claiming that the election in 2000 was "stolen." It is about walking the walk as well as talking the talk. So far, Pelosi has been the poster child of corruption, lying, influence peddling and hypocrisy. If a Republican had done ANY of this, we would have been reading about the "Continuing Credibility Crisis in Congress" in every issue of the NY Times, SF Chronicle, LA Times and Boston Globe. But Nancy of the Dark represents the classic liberal ethos: "do as I say, don't do as I do."

Bella flies at night

Bella Pelosi -- Mistress of Darkness

She flies at night. Well, maybe not, but currently she is unhappy about her congressional wings. As(S) Speaker of the House, and third in line should she manage to figure out a way to "off" Boosh and Cheney, she is entitled to a government aircraft to commute back and forth to her home district in California.

The previous SoH, Dennis Hastert, had a rather inappropriately large Air Force 3 -- it was a small commuter jet to run back and forth from Chicago and Washington and it rightly attracted some flak from the House Minority. Mistress Pelosi wants something quite different: a C-32. A C-32, you say? What is that? Is that unreasonable? Didn't Hastert have an Air Force jet? Yes, since 9/11 he was accorded secure transport as a result of place in line for the Oval Office is the unthinkable should happen. Before that, it was subject to availability, and for up to only 10 people. The jet he did use was able to seat no more than 15.

Friends, a C-32 is a bland way of describing what we know as a Boeing 757, a transcontinental (indeed certified for trans-oceanic flight) passenger jet. "No," says Pelosi, it is not about the size, it is about the range. I need to be able to fly non-stop to San Francisco, so I need a jet that can do that.

And what, carry your 100 person entourage with you? Perhaps ferry some influential donors to the DNC or your campaign for some fun on the East Coast? Mistress Nancy, come clean: you have delusions of grandeur and are milking the system you intended to reform. In short you are a frikkin' hypocrite!!! A BOEING 757!!! For your guide, you could use any number of exceedingly comfortable business jets, seating up to 15 persons to accomplish the same goal: trans-continental jet travel.

But this is different on another level too: Mistress Pelosi is flying a hugely expensive jet to run, consuming up massive amounts of fuel to accomplish her goal of "getting home to her family." A small business jet would cost $12,000 to run (ignoring the cost of the crew) to SF from DC. What would the 757 cost? Worse is Pelosi's environmental platform and views are diametrically opposite to the stated need to visit her family: California is home to the most active green whackos in the US. How does this play with them? Or are their views contingent only on applying to those who are politically opposed to them? So much for Toyota Priuses, I fly a 757!!

Get a grip on it. It is business as usual on capitol hill -- and the Democrats are the same wolves as the GOP and the sheep's clothing is starting to fall off.

Cheney is a jerk

No doubt about it. Arrogant, head-strong, unable to see beyond the agenda in Iraq ... lots of other things to say about him that are not particularly nice. And most likely true.

One of the things that may be subject to debate is the result of the attempted Blitzer-lynching a few weeks ago (Jan. 25, 2007). Was Blitzer over the line or not? A very good friend of mine asserts that Cheney was and is fair game, as is his family. To be sure, there appears to be an unreconcileable tension between the policies of the Bush administration towards gays and lesbians and the practice in the Cheney family.

The Booshies want to ban "gay-marriage" in the United States. The Booshies appear to regard same-sex "families" with the same approach, although that is less clear. You can call anything (in terms of domestic relations) you want a "family": the distinction comes in the legal recognition of what is a family. That appears to hinge on the marital relations between two people. What gay activists want is the legal recognition of marriage to "frame" the notion of family. Readers of this blog know that I think they should be entitled to the whole "nine yards" of the practice, including counseling, divorce, martial property, marital deductions, estate tax reduction, ... everything.

Back to Cheney. Cheney, ever the party man and supporter of Boosh (though why that should be given his clearly superior intellect to Dubbya, escapes me) has stated that he stands behind the official policies of the administration. Everyone appears to know this and have heard this -- though the amount of people that actually tune Cheney in as opposed to those who claim to have heard him may be wildly divergent -- but what is less well known is that Cheney has repeatedly stated that he considers marriage within the realm of state's rights.

Parse this: Cheney thinks that the people of the individual states have the right to determine the laws as regards marriage within those states. Take that a step further: Cheney thinks that the Federal government has no business in regulating marriage rights. This was very clearly his position in the 2004 election when he was asked his views on marriage, in hopes to trap him.

So perhaps Cheney is really only guilty of standing behind his boss? Would it please liberals and democrats to see dissension within the White House? Of course. And that is why buttholes like Blitzer continue to try and mine this vein. People cannot see past their hatred of Cheney and what he represents in terms of US foreign policy to see him clearly in other regards.

Dick and Lynn Cheney have NEVER tried to hide anything about their daughter. They have only been supportive of her and her lifetsyle choices. Mary Cheney was her father's chief of staff during the 2004 election -- not exactly hiding her from the far-right whackos that form a great deal of the Republican Party's support. In fact, it was far closer to "I really don't care what you think, my daughter is my daughter and you really don't have an electoral alternative anyway." Convenient of liberals to ignore that.

Blitzer is, of course, a far lefty from a far left leaning network. And there is bad blood between the Cheneys and Blitzer going quite a way back. In October 2006, Blizter interviewed Lynn Cheney, the ostensible topic being Lynn's new children's book entitled "These 50 States." But during the 15 minute segment, Blizter allowed only 3 minutes of talk on the ostensible main topic. He then shifted towards questions about waterboarding, her husband's health and the Jim Webb controversy. Blizter actually read from a statement issued by the DNC comparing Lynn Cheney's fiction to the sexually charged fiction of Jim Webb.

Prodded by Blizter, Lynn Cheney struck back asking Blizter why CNN thought it necessary to blatantly politicize their news coverage, pointing to CNN's tagline of "The Broken Government" and similar statements -- RIGHT BEFORE AN ELECTION. She also attacked CNN's decision to air video produced by America's enemies -- "terrorist propaganda."

Cheney: Right. But what is CNN doing running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans? I mean, I thought Duncan Hunter asked you a very good question, and you didn’t answer it. Do you want us to win?

Blitzer: The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that. You think we want terrorists to win?

Cheney: Then why are you running terrorist propaganda?

Blitzer: With all due respect, with all due respect, this is not terrorist propaganda.

Cheney: Oh, Wolf…

Blitzer: This is reporting the news, which is what we do. We’re not partisan…

Cheney: Where did you get the film?

Blitzer: We got the film…look, this is an issue that has been widely discussed, this is an issue that we reported on extensively. We make no apologies for showing that. That was a very carefully considered decision, why we did that. And I think, and I think, of your…

Cheney: Well, I think it’s shocking.

Blitzer: If you’re a serious journalist, you want to report the news. Sometimes the news is good, sometimes the news isn’t so good.

Cheney: But Wolf, there’s a difference between news and terrorist propaganda. Why did you give the terrorists a forum?

Put simply, in Cheney's eyes Blizter cannot defend himself by claiming to be a serious journalist wanting to report the news. In CNN's editorial eyes, anything bad for the United States is good news -- for so long as a Republican is in office. And since when did Lynn Cheney have input into the decision to waterboard Gitmo detainees? Ironically, Blizter attempted a mugging only to have his teeth kicked in -- he must have forgotten that Lynn Cheney was a "Crossfire" participant.

Back to Dick Cheney. So Blizter attempts to go back to Cheney's daughter ... to hurt him, to ridicule the administration. Blitzer's smarmy "we are all happy for you" is completely transparent and is inappropriate -- given where he was headed with the mugging. If you want to screw with Cheney, just ask if he believes in gay marriage or not. Whether he believes that gays should be entitled to the privileges of a legal familial entity or not. He will then give you the official BS from the GOP. That is his position. Has to be. He still has to answer to his daughter at Christmas -- but Mary Cheney understands this too. That is why she worked for him. That is why she doesn't repudiate him.

But Blitzer, don't even dare to claim that you are only engaged in serious journalism, because you are not. You have a personal and ideological vendetta against the Boosh administration, and maybe the Cheney family in particular. Why not ask Boosh whether he can reconcile his Veep's familial arrangements with his policies? Mary Cheney's baby is not a political statement, it is personal. Between her and her God and family -- she has said as much directly, pointing to the bump in her belly. Respect THAT.

But I also respect that people of different political persuasions may choose to differ. That is why we have the freedoms that we do in the country. In other countries, Blizter may have conveniently had an accident (think of the fate of Putin's critics), and Mary Cheney would have passed through this mortal coil long since (think Taliban). Yet Blizter is so focused on the demise of the GOP and the Booshies that he fails to see the ultimate results his actions might represent. As does most of the liberal-leftwing video and print media in this country.

Back to the melting pot.

Masspoke

So the effort to abolish the tolls is dead -- more or less. The democrats have decried the Romney initiative since day one (last October) claiming all sorts of things. Now they are all up in arms about the fees paid to law firms for consulting on how to dismantle the tolls.

The Masspike Authority -- a patronage riddled organization if there ever was one, has told everyone that there are all sorts of legal, environmental and fiscal hazards related to abolishing the tolls: the Authority is a democrat controlled organization. Through the patronage system, he who controls the State House controls who runs the Masspike who controls the people who work there, sucking off the public teat and costing commuters time and money every day. There is no wonder that they have all sorts of problems with the abolition of the tolls -- it is their gravy.

And of course Dooval the Devoid has no interest whatsoever in eliminating a huge source of revenue that can be spent on "programs." Programs that bolster his political base and drain our pockets. So no joy there, either.

Now the real kicker lies here" when the Authority was created in 1952, law makers promised that when the bonds were paid off, they would eliminate the tolls. The bonds were paid off in 1983. It was the clear intent of the legislature that created the beast to kill it off when it had served its function. But as so often the case in liberal political environments, taxes (for that is what the tolls are now) are never rolled back where at all possible. It is like an entitlement to the State House: more money to squander. And we all know that the recipients of entitlements NEVER like to let them go. Ever.

Inasmuch as this elimination/abolition should and would have occurred but for Democratic meddling and greed, we can count this as an effective tax increase from the burden that should have been ours. Devoid and his administration is running true to form.

Colts -- the ad fest

Who really cares about the super bowl anyway? It's the adds that make it worth while. And last night they were terrible. More to the point, they failed to make any sense -- or perhaps I was not as drunk as the creators of the ads thought I would be. Actually, I was completely sober, so that should be a tip-off. I heard Dan O'Saughnessy this morning on talk radio saying how much he liked the Bud Light rock paper scissors ad. What? It's funny when someone is hit in the head with a rock so that the other guy gets the beer?

And what was with Prince? Too many drugs and an entourage that is unwilling to tell him that the world has moved on? He was embarrassing.

The result of the game? Yeah, Manning is that good. Get over it you NFC weenies.

AL Gore, the IPCC and BAD SCIENCE

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the UN have produced their latest magnum opus: the Fourth Assessment. The first three, on 1990, 1995 and 2001 we saw an increasing panic -- temperatures going through the roof, massive droughts, ice metling everywhere and greenhouse gases consipring to bake us. The 4th Report does one thing clearly: it tells us that the forecasts of doom have been hopelessly overdone. In fact, the report cannot but cut every critical assessment made in the previous three reports ... we are victims of a global panic mongering for political agendas.

Now lets get this sraight: I want to gut fossil fuel emissions to create healthier air to breathe. I want to wean the US from foreign oil. I believe that there are alternatives. But I also believe that Al Gore is full of shit.

Drawing liberally from C. Monckton's (if you don't know who he is, Google it and read) latest analysis of the 4th Report, I think that there are some "bon mots" to consider. So in no particular order:

1. Globally, temperatures are NOT rising at all, and methane (an evil greenhouse gas) is falling! Since 2001 the best estimate of temperature deviation is an increase of 0.03C ... much smaller than the statistical incidence of sampling error, and hence not legitimate at all. In fact, while the rising CO2 levels are of concern, the UN had to admit that they now are forced to believe that the CO2 and other gases are reflecting much of the suns output and potentially have a COOLING effect ... not a "greenhouse" effect at all.

2. The 2007 report halves the estimate of rising sea-level from 3 feet to 17 inches. So you people in Bangladesh can sleep dry. You see, the models used tend to over-estimate sea level rising.

3. The UN points out that we have most likely been the cause of rising temperatures since 1940, and that CO2 is certainly to blame. But it fails to point out that from 1940 to 1975, the temperature FELL, even though CO2 rose every year like clockwork.

4. The UN report assumes (in several models) that the population of the Earth will top 15 billion by 2100 -- even though UN demographers believe that it will top out at 10 billion and then plummet. The maximum CO2 growth estimates leading to rises in temperature of 5-6C are predicated on 15 billion in population -- something that the UN does not officially believe, either.

5. The computer models used by the UN in 2007 and 2001 did NOT predict that the oceans are actually cooling and have been since 2003 -- the 4th Report only notes that the oceans have acted as a greater heat sink that they had previously thought.

6. The 4th report did nothing to apologize about the inaccuracies (or blatant lies) presented by the "hockey stick" graphs presented in 2001 to emphasize temperature rises and CO2 connection -- even thought the graphs have been thoroughly repudiated by statisticians. Unfortunately for us, China, India and others have used the disgrace of the Hockey Stick hoax to decline to follow any guidelines on curbing CO2 growth -- or that of particulate emissions.

7. China has 30,000 coal mines and a new coal fired powerplant coming on stream EVERY 5 DAYS and will continue to do this through 2012. Even in Britain shut down every single source of emissions now, China would have taken up the slack in but a few years.

8. China will pass the US as the leading source of CO2 and particulate emissions within two years. The trouble is that we are no longer certain of what increases in the CO2 level mean -- the 4th report postulates that reflectivity caused by the gases could even cool the earth. Even assuming that CO2 is the cause of some warming, the variability of solar output may be stronger than CO2. What are we going to do about that? The 4th Report states that the sun may have been responsible for up to 2/3 of obesrved warming (within the statistically curious guidelines that the UN choses to highlight CO2's role!). Solar scientists are predicting a decline in solar output (due to cyclical patterns) for the next 50 years.

9. Everyone is concerned about the melting glaciers ... but global ice mass has INCREASED, not decreased over the last 30 years. Mountain glaciers comprise 5% of the world's ice -- but Greenland and Antarctica share 95% of the rest. And their mass has been increasing -- that is MASS, not extent of some sea glaciers, but it is mass that counts. The loss of the Polar ice cap has perhaps increased the sea level 0.3mm per year over the last 40 years, partially offset by the increases elsewhere. The rise over the last century is about 6.5 inches. But the level has been rising for thousands of years that we are aware of. Witness the sunken harbors of antiquity.

10. The UN is concered at the rate of temperature increase of 0.13C per decade over the last 50 years. But it fails to point out that this rate was also observed between 1910 and 1930 -- when the global CO2 levels were very low and growth on a relative scale, puny

11. Higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere -- perhaps due to greenhouses gases has had an interesting effect on deserts: the Sahara has shrunk by 300,000 sq. km in the last 20 years. If water vapor makes clouds, and clouds make rain, and clouds reflect heat away from the earth -- all true statements ... what is the net?

12. Arctic temperatures are variable: from 1920 to 1940, they were warmer than they are now by about 1c. There was also considerably less ice. The polar bears managed then too. In the Middle Ages there may have been NO arctic sea ice during the summers.

13. As some permafrost melts, we are discovering the bones of Mammoths and other creatures -- who lived there before the ice took over.

14. UN figures on CO2 production contemplate the ability to burn oil and gas (coal is a different story, but it too is finite and for most of the world, unavailable) -- what it does not address is that within a relatively short period of time, and certainly before the 2100 doomsday, it willhave become FAR too expensive to burn. Uh ... what and who is going to produce the gases that are killing the climate? Just the Chinese coal? Russian forests -- are we going to suffer deforestation to produce the energy to heat our homes?

Add it all up, and the UN has a positive agenda to induce a climate scare -- it needs to punish the energy gluttons of the US and Western Europe in favor of the developing world -- and we come to the simple conclusion that we just don't know enough about anything. However, we do know that the numbers and statistics that we have been fed over the last 40 years are contrived, biased, dishonest and politically directed. But that is not to say that I would not like to provide my grandchildren with renewable energy sources -- clean water, clean air, an envirnoment free from carcinogens. And free from whackos with head gear and a desire to terminate my existence because I disagree with their notions of the devine.

A joke?

So are they just harmless pranksters or not? And are they stupid enough to think that they are not in deep poop? No and Yes.

To plant devices around Boston designed to evoke the threat of terror -- the means by which they get the attention that they want -- is to place themselves in a position not far from the intentions of terrorists. Not marketing guerillas. Terrorists.

Accordingly, while they may not be guilty of weapons and explosives charges or conspiracy to commit murder -- standard charges for terrorist, these idiots DO fit the bill for conspiracy to cause terror. If it looks like it, acts like it, has the aroma thereof ... it is "it." No matter that these devices were giving the observer "the finger", no matter that they could not explode, it is the reaction that they reasonably created. Indeed, a terrorist with a sense of humor might decide that it would be appropriate to give the finger to the poor bomb squad member detailed to disarm the device.

They shut I-93 South into the Tip O Neill tunnel. They caused havoc ALL over Boston. Countless people were afraid that the "day" had come. People were caught and late for meetings and appointments all over. Say you had waited months for an appointment with a specialist -- crucial to a diagnosis for a dangerous disease ... and you missed your chance to get appropriate and timely treatment because of marketing for a cartoon.... In tort theory, if you can prove that "but for" the antics of these morons you would have been able to get the treatment you needed, you could sue for wrongful death. What about people in ambulances? Late for a court date which subsequently results in a default? What if, what if?

Turner Broadcasting -- the puppet masters are clearly culpable -- if not liable. The idiots at the NYC marketing firm specializing in these "tactics" are clearly right behind Turner ... but what about these two gomers seen above?

You would have to be extremely stupid to do what they did. Just about brain-dead. And I couldn't give a crap about Mr.Dread's grandma saying that he would never do anything to harm anyone because he was a pacifist ... he DID harm people. All over. And scared the snot out of them. That is the deed, indeed.

Accordingly, they should all, from top to bottom, spend some time at Club Fed. They don't need to go to Gitmo, but it is not acceptable that they should just "skate." They have to pay for their deeds. And it should not be cheap.