Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Them's fightin' words....

Rep. Alan Grayson represents the 8th Congressional District here in Florida, which includes parts of Marion, Lake and Orange counties, including the metro Orlando area. He is being challenged by Dan Webster, a former State Representative and Senator, small-business owner and Tea-Party conservative. RealClear Politics has this race leaning toward Webster by around 7 points, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that Grayson is a smarmy, semi-literate wanna-be tough guy who instantly grates on the nerves. Not to mention an unapologetic shill for the Pelosi-Reid-Obama team.

So Mr. Grayson decides a new attack ad is in order and puts this out....

OH CRAP!!! Looks like ol' Dan is sunk. There he is using those verses in public...the ones that talk about women submitting to their husbands that all the biblically illiterate get all pissy about, claiming that this is PROOF! that Christianity is anti-woman, misogynistic and patriarchal. But hold on a second.....let's give Mr. Webster the opportunity to respond. Or let's at least look at the video this damning evidence was culled from.

Whaaazzzat?!? He was actually urging men NOT to concentrate on those verses, but to focus on the verses immediately preceding which teach men to cherish their wives, even as Christ cherished the the point of dying for her if need be?! He was actually promoting selflessness on the part of the husband in the marital relationship? He wasn't actually coaching a bunch of neanderthal Church men on how to force their wommenfolk into de facto slavery? Huh? Whod've thunk Alan Grayson would've distorted the truth like that?

Makes ya wonder what else he and his cronies have been "distorting"...doesn't it. You know it's bad when Contessa Brewer and Anderson Cooper are busting your chops and calling you on your sleaziness.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Dear "Green-Power" lovers....

Here's a cautionary tale for all about the mad rush to replace eeeevil fossil-fueled power plants with those that will exhibit a much smaller "carbon footprint"....from Merry Olde England no less.

"The Thanet wind farm will milk us of billions"

Thus screams the headlines of an article by one Mr. Christopher Booker in today's online edition of the London Telegraph. It seems that the UK, with much fanfare and back-patting, opened the world's largest wind farm of the coast of Kent last week. Their Climate Change Secretary (!)
slobbered all over the knothole-rapist aspect of this endeavor in his speechifying.

Seems like there is a problem though. As is too often the case when policy is built around political correctness rather than solid fact, the hype far exceeds the actuality. The British government, who is set to pay over 1.2 billion pounds to the Swedish owners of the wind farm over then next several years, have been hoodwinked...flim-flammed....bamboozled. Instead of using facts, say by hiring their OWN engineers to look at the project, the government just based everything on the BUILDER'S claims. The builder, Vattenfall, claimed the wind farm's three 100 MW turbines would generate a total of 300 MW of electricity...roughly enough to power 200,000 to 240, 000 homes. And it will.....on the rare occasion that the wind is blowing at design velocity. Which, it turns out, isn't all that often. Data from last year shows that the farm's delivered power at 26% of rated capacity for the year.

Which is what I've been saying about these "alternative' power sources that the knothole-rapists have sold as the salvation of America's energy and economic future. They just cannot produce the amount of power required by a modern industrial, comfort-driven society reliably. The wind doesn't always blow as hard as the guys with the slide rules and pocket protectors decided it needed to blow for a plant to produce a given amount of energy. The sun doesn't shine as much as it needs know..things like clouds, storms and that little period of absolutely no sunshine we like to call night! So any call to replace all of our fossil-fueled power with these sorts of sources is either woefully misinformed (stupid really) or disingenuous. They either don't know it's not feasible, or they don't care...since depopulation is the real goal off many of these jack-wagons!

For the cost to the British tax-slaves of this ONE wind farm, which will produce about a quarter of the power the government was counting on, they could have gotten an entire new nuclear power plant, which would have delivered 13 times the amount of energy that this plant can deliver on it's best day. And the nuclear plant would have been able to deliver it day-in, day-out, rain or shine, breezy or other words reliably! I know I'd be pissed if I was a British tax-payer.

The take-away is that we over here in the US need to learn from debacles like this, not repeat them. If it makes you feel better to supplement the reliable power provided by fossil fuels and nuclear with these costly, trendy, uber-chic "green" sources....go right ahead and do that. But leave the decision up to the consumer...not some functionally retarded "legisleech" (to swipe a phrase from my friend Nicki at Mandating a certain level of "renewable" generation capacity only ensures that EVERYONE's electricity bill goes up. Make those who really want to put their money where their mouth is as far as saving our fragile little planet put up or shut up. Give them the option to pay the added cost of the "green" power, but don't make me subsidize their "Gaea-guilt". Betcha not too many are willing to pony up.

But...the article does shine light on one bright spot in this whole sorry mess. The Thanet Wind Farm will create jobs..."green" ones at that! Yessiree...a whopping 21 permanent jobs will be created. Wonder how many jobs that nuke plant would've created?

Do go read the article for yourself.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Hey Mr. Holder....your anti-American slip is showing!

Apparently the DoJ has themselves a slinky, sexy new website. Gone are the old, jingoistic Stars and Stripes motif, deemed "shtick from the Ashcroft days" that "was a bit much for an agency that isn't supposed to be political," In its place..

 So elegant in basic black, with the golden medallion accent. What could possibly be wrong with this?

Well look a little closer at that quotation running across the upper margin....

Nifty little quote eh? Wonder which of our Founding Fathers...or luminary of jurisprudence penned that one...although it doesn't really sound like something the guys who declared that our inalienable rights were bestowed on us by a Creator would say.... hmmm! Who indeed could've penned this, and why would it be the new "slogan" for the DoJ?

I can answer the who. Meet C. Wilfred Jenks. Never heard of him you say? Don't feel bad...not even the almighty wikipedia has heard enough about him to rate his own entry. However here is what I was able to dig up, with the help of the evil info-overlord Google and the folks at the American Spectator.

Seems Mr. Jenks was a "progressive" lawyer, of British birth, who was leading figure of the "international law" movement back in the 1930s. This is the group that advocated for "workers rights" and sought to impose a global, common law. Most telling, Jenks was a long-time member, and eventually the Director General, of the U.N.'s International Labour Organization.
As director, Jenks was responsible for putting the first Soviet in place as a senior member, and with fostering the environment which allowed the UN to grant "observer status" to the PLO. This environment also emboldened the UN to begin it's continuing anti-Israel bias. Because of the leftward leanings of the ILO, the US (one of the signatory parties) eventually withdrew its membership in that organization in the mid-1970s.

So the creative minds hired by the DoJ couldn't find a suitable quote about the law from one of our American jurists, or political had to go with an obscure British communist? One who agitated for a "global common law" which would have preeminence over national laws? Thar's what they came up with? And apparently this was vetted at the highest levels in the DoJ and at the White House.....and approved!

So there is the "who". I'll leave you to form your own conclusions as to "why" the Obama DoJ would replace the Stars and Stripes with the scribblings of a hard-left globalist.

Oh my!

And I thought my swing was "unorthodox"....

I, at least, have the comfort of blaming a "manly" stature for my swing ills! I would say he swings like a girl...but that would unduly insult girls! At some point someone has to tell him to give it up.....

Friday, March 12, 2010

Meet Florida's Pubic Enemy #1

This lovely lass is Megan Barnes.
Ms Barnes has a special claim to fame. She has been named Florida's "Pubic Enemy #1". It seems that Ms. Barnes, an Indiana native was driving on that loooooooonnnnnnnggggg bridge to the Keys that everyone has seen. She was headed down to meet up with her boyfriend. Strangely, her travelling companion for this little jaunt was her ex-hubby. Yeah.....the ex husband is riding shotgun so Ms. Barnes can make a booty call in Key West! And that's not even the strange part!
The ever resourceful Meg must've been all in a rush to get to her destination. So much so, in fact that she neglected certain matters of personal hygiene usually attended to while luxuriating in a hot bubble bath....or in the shower...or at the very least in a "salon" where a sadistic little oriental gal will rip away the winter wool for you. But NOOOO, none of that for our little Meg. She decided that the best place to trim up her little Chewbacca was behind the wheel, tooling down the highway WHILE HER EX HELD THE WHEEL so she could concentrate on the "delicate" areas!!! What. The. Heck. ?!?
Not too surprisingly, cuz ...back me up on this one fellas...if you've seen one woman naked, you pretty much want to see them ALL naked, the EX was a bit distracted by the sight of the muffin that so recently had been on his breakfast plate (and was soon to be some other schlep's blue plate special) being rendered into a remarkable likeness of Kojak. When the SUV in the lane ahead of them braked to make a turn.....KA-POW! The T-bird plowed right into the back of it! When the cops finally got her to admit that she'd been driving, her excuse for not stopping when the car ahead of her slowed.... "I told you I was shaving."
Somehow I'm thinking the mug-shots of the offending body part will show up on AlGore's inner-tubz someday soon! And why do I think online dating had something to do with this....or maybe Craigslist?
No mug shot exists of her EX ... whose man card will be forthwith revoked, if it has not already been shredded.
Full story is right here....

Wednesday, March 10, 2010


From the genius that brought you "The Streak" and "Jerimiah Peabody's Poly-unsaturated, Quick-Disolvin', Fast-Actin', Pleasant-Tastin', Green and Purple Pills"....


Sunday, January 24, 2010

More "science" from the IPCC...and by "science" I mean LIES!

With the IPCC is under fire yet AGAIN, the question becomes why is ANYONE putting ANY stock whatsoever in anything this bunch of knothole-raping hippies says? Last week it was "discovered" that the claims this so-called expert panel have woven into the political discourse regarding the imminent melt-off of the Himalayan glaciers (quite likely by 2035)! Based on a SWAG (Stupid Wild Arsed Guess) which the mouth-breathers at IPCC formulated, apparently after drinking the old bong-water whilst reading a 1999 New Scientist magazine article, the UN swore by the petrified testicle of the Al-mighty Gorealce that if immediate action wasn't taken immediately to stop "global warming", all of the ice and snow ON FREAKING MOUNT EVEREST would be melted away by 2035. Dunder-heads in capitols throughout most of the world bought into this...after all the UN said it, and His Tubbiness concurred (he got a Nobel prize AND an Oscar you know).

So now I'm reading how the same brainiacs are in hot water for "wrongly" linking Global Warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes. The Times (UK) Online is running the following story.

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters

Y'all can hop on over and partake of the sweet, sweet "I told ya so" goodness yourselves, but I'd be remiss in not pointing some of the more salient points:

" It(IPCC) based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough. "

"When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

"It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored."

The academic paper at the centre of the latest questions was written in 2006 by Robert Muir-Wood, head of research at Risk Management Solutions, a London consultancy, who later became a contributing author to the section of the IPCC's 2007 report dealing with climate change impacts. He is widely respected as an expert on disaster impacts.

Let me interject here, Mr. Muir-Wood, the widely respected expert, was hired to do this research as part of a larger study for a Colorado University workshop on disaster losses in 2006. So he does this report, in which he finds basically NO INCREASE in disaster losses from 1950 to 2005 (the entire period of his study), once growth (the rising number of people who both desired to, and became able to afford to, live near the beach) was accounted for. He did note a slight 2% increase during the period of 1970 to 2005, which corresponded with a period of increasing temperatures (forget for a minute that 1998 was the last year global temperatures actually rose). HOWEVER, he clearly stated that MOST of this increase could be attributed to the "active" 2004 and 2005 Hurricane Seasons, among other things (like the fact that the strong US dollar meant that any disaster affecting the US would invariably skew the results toward a "larger" global price-tag)

The IPCC decided to only use the part of Muir-Wood's report dealing with the 1970-2005 time frame, and IGNORED the caveats in the report itself, to claim PROOF.....SCIENTIFIC PROOF....that global warming was causing more, and more costly disasters.

The Colorado U team, meanwhile, published a statement agreeing that so far there was no evidence to link global warming with any increase in the severity or frequency of disasters. It's chairman, Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, also an expert on disaster impacts, not only correctly identified the non-issue "exposed" in Muir-Wood's report, but called the IPCC out for cherry-picking the data.

What does the IPCC have to say?

"We are reassessing the evidence and will publish a report on natural disasters and extreme weather with the latest findings. Despite recent events the IPCC process is still very rigorous and scientific." - Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Universite Catholique de Louvain in Belgium climatologist, who is vice-chair of the IPCC.

OOOOOO-kaaaay! Rigorous and Scientific! But if it's soooooo rigorous, then why does this guy say this?

Science is progressive. If something turns out to be wrong we can fix it next time around.” However he confirmed he would be introducing rigorous new review procedures for future reports to ensure errors were kept to a minimum. - Professor Christopher Field,director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution in California, who is the new co-chairman of the IPCC working group overseeing the climate impacts report.

The IPCC's process is soo very rigorous and scientifically sound that the new HMIFIC is instituting new, more rigorous and science-y processes to ensure that errors are kept to a minimum! Reminds me of the opening credits to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

"We apologize for the previous scientific process. Those responsible for the sacking of those responsible,have themselves just been sacked." IPCC

Big Deal Shifty, you're probably saying...who cares? Well, I do. And so should you. Unless you WANT to forfeit both your standard of living (things like lights, heat, air-conditioning...anything run by electricity) AND your money. As the Times points out, the IPCC's totally made-up claim "has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions." 100 Billion is a lot of cash. Now factor in the moron politicians here and abroad that are clamoring for action NOW to combat Global Warming, and the "action" they propose. Cap and Tax? Won't slow GW one whit. Won't even bankrupt coal like Obama promised to do. All it will do is make YOU and I shell out more and more money to the Government, funnelled through our local power company and gas stations.

Letting the EPA regulate CO2, because that same agency has "determined" that CO2 is a hazard to humans? Ummm... did the nuns at St. Pat's lie to me in science when they told me that plants NEED CO2 to live? Where the hell is the Sierra Club on this one....the EPA wants to kill all plant life! And as far as the EPA's ability to regulate anything....let's just say I remain singularly unimpressed by them...and my job requires me to deal with that agency on a regular basis. I once worked at a municipal power plant on the banks of the Detroit River. The windows on our turbine deck looked out over the river to the sprawling Great Lakes Steel. The local EPA dweeb had his office in a strip mall less than a mile from the plant, with HIS windows looking at our three smokestacks. I can't count the number of times I'd field a call from him, demanding to know why he saw a light grayish haze coming out of our stack, then walk right out on the turbine deck, look northward and watch a noxious green, or rust-orange, or yellow cloud of smoke roll off the steel mill, obscuring it from view! (And just a little tidbit of info....a light grayish haze coming out of a fossil-fuel fired power plants stack is called "economy haze" and it indicates that the plant is actually emitting LESS pollutants than a totally clear stack!)

Bottom line is this: if we remain silent and let the hockey-helmeted politicians drive the short bus off the Global Warming prevention cliff, we have nobody but ourselves to blame. I, for one, LIKE my big-screen Plasma TV, 4 home computers and keeping the house a comfortable 72 degrees F all year long! How about you?