DNC Dipseedoodidiocy, Redux June 25, 2008Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Environmentalism, Global Warming, Idiots, Liberal Hypocrisy, Politics, wtf?.
add a comment
She ain’t working alone. Fresh from their own padded rooms come Denver mayor John Hickenlooper,
and “Greening Director” Andrea Robinson, whose stated goal is to provide “the most sustainable political convention in modern American history.”.
This includes having Garbage Nazis a Trash Brigade make sure that everything is disposed of properly.
Decked out in green shirts, 900 volunteers will hover at waste-disposal stations to make sure delegates put each scrap of trash in the proper bin. Lest a fork slip into the wrong container unnoticed, volunteers will paw through every bag before it is hauled away.
However, according to the WSJ, there are some snags on the road to true Greenness for our rezident hypocrites.
For instance, using all-cotton, union-made in USA fanny packs:
Official merchandiser Bob DeMasse scoured the country. His weary conclusion: “That just doesn’t exist.”
Ditto for the baseball caps. “We have a union cap or an organic cap,” Mr. DeMasse says. “But we don’t have a union-organic offering.”
Then there is the issue of precedent:
After all, the last time Democrats met in Denver — to nominate William Jennings Bryan in 1908 — they dispatched horse-drawn wagons to bring snow from the Rocky Mountains to cool the meeting hall. Ms. Robinson suspected modern-day delegates would prefer air conditioning. So she quickly modified the mayor’s goal: She’d supervise “the most sustainable political convention in modern American history.”
Can I make a suggestion? Use the 1908 version of cooling the blowhards self-important asshats delegates and candidates. Eliminate air conditioning. Ever given any thought on how THAT contributes to “global warming“?
While cooling needs increase energy use, heating needs reduce the amount. Since cooling (using electricity) is more inefficient than heating, the increase in primary energy use is amplified. Over time, the increase in cooling outweighs the decrease in heating leading to an overall increase.
The DNC this year is in Denver, August 25-28. Average daily temp in Denver in late August? 86 degrees Fahrenheit. Sounds like AC weather to me, especially when you’re talking about a bunch of overweight, overly self-important Democrats. But if they’re serious about this greening stuff, they’ll turn off the AC.
Think that’ll happen? Cold day in hell, and so on.
Actually, a guy named Fred Smith has the right idea:
Watching the greening frenzy from afar, Fred L. Smith Jr., president of the libertarian Washington think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, suggested the Democrats could really shrink their footprint by staging a virtual-reality convention: “Just have everyone stay at home with their laptops, sitting in their pajamas, interacting through their avatars.”
Just imagine. All that vast carbon footprint brought about from travel, AC usage and tremendous amounts of Liberally Hypocritical Hot Air, gone.
But do you think Mayor Green would think that is such a great idea? The economic impact on Boston from the 2004 Hypocrisy Cattle Call DNC was estimated at $163 million. Think it will be any less in Denver? Even in a recession? Don’t count on it. There is NO WAY Mayor Green would dare even think about endorsing Smith’s brilliant Green Scheme for the DNC if it means the good people of Denver lose out on ‘prox $170 million.
I mean, Greening is all well and good. But economic growth comes first.
Don’t serve that, it isn’t colored correctly UPDATED May 22, 2008Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Environmentalism, Idiots, Liberal self-loathing, wtf?.
Meet the face of utterly f***ing stupid liberal asshattery. Her name is Parry Burnap, and she is “Denver’s “greening” director (whatever the eff THAT is -ed). . .attached to the (DNC’s) host committee full time for now; the committee works closely with the city but is a separate, nonprofit entity.”
This brainless twit has worked with the DNC to make sure that all official meals catered to the upcoming bloodbath Democratic National Convention meet the following guidelines:
- Fried foods are forbidden at the committee’s 22 or so events,
- as is liquid served in individual plastic containers.
- Plates must be reusable, like china, recyclable or compostable.
- The food should be local, organic or both.
- And for the final filip of brainless Political Correctness taken to the Nth degree of schizophrenic derangement, caterers must provide foods in “at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white.”
Don’t believe me? Check the link.
Caterers praise the committee and the city for their green ambitions, but some say they’re baffled by parts of the RFP.
“I think it’s a great idea for our community and our environment. The question is, how practical is it?” asks Nick Agro, the owner of Whirled Peas Catering in Commerce City. “We all want to source locally, but we’re in Colorado. The growing season is short. It’s dry here. And I question the feasibility of that.”
None of that matters to the completely demented Burnap (WHAT a name that is. . .):
“It takes some creativity because some of these things are more expensive,” she says. “But we’re at the front end of a market shift.”
For those of you not familiar with Lefty Asshattery, that last sentence translates to: “No one else is doing this, and it’s batshit crazy, but we desperately hope that others will follow our ridiculous example, since it, you know, like, saves the world.”
Could someone PLEASE explain that damned color scheme??? WTF IS that all about? Not enough colors represented on our god-forsaken food plates, so now THAT is also up for Equal Opportunity?
My God, My God, why have you abandoned us?
Who the hell let these idiots -both Burnap, for her idiot ideas, and the Denver DNC reps, for embracing them- out of their cages?
UPDATE: I found Burnap’s post-graduate thesis online.
COLA just got very expensive April 24, 2008Posted by Administrator in Environmentalism, Global Warming, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal self-loathing.
add a comment
Actually, Pepsi might be the only thing whose price is NOT rising right now. But in these times of skyrocketing fuel prices coupled with rising food prices, the Cost of Living Adjustments are not going to keep up. . .leaving many of us on the margin with some difficult choices to make.
But, as usual, the Anchoress raises an interesting point re: biofuels. Like so many of the current fad beliefs -reality TV is quality programming, American Idol showcases real talent, Obama is the Messiah, all political candidates are really different this time around, the world is warming due us Bad Humans- this one struck me as more than a little unlikely to “solve all of our problems.”
Consider: Biolfuels have the following, immediate effects on the world that we have generally come to believe are undesirable:
- They really do nothing to encourage conservation in consumers
- There is no real conservation of fuel at all, in fact, it is likely that more fuel is consumed in producing biofuels. Harvest and fertilizations processes consume much petroleum. Granted, there is a “free” exchange that occurs through photosynthesis, but much of this is then offset by the planting and harvest petroleum uses.
- Significant increases in fertilizers add to the river run-offs that are purportedly damaging sea-life off of river mouths, most notably the Mississippi.
- Most damning, the food supply becomes limited, driving up prices and limiting access.
We are hearing about food riots in developing countries, and the press is making hay about Sam’s Club limiting bulk purchases of rice. Like anything reported by todays Yellow Journalists, the context of these reports needs to be taken with a large block of salt.
Yet. This hearkens back to the Anchoress’ point: Is the use of food for energy consumption -rather than for human consumption- morally acceptable?
Yeah, it’s bad policy. But I’m wondering if it is also immoral?
I’m sure that sounds extreme, and I don’t mean to. It also sounds very Roman Catholic, but I can’t help that; it seems to me that there is a morality question here – is it ever right to burn food for energy when people are hungry?
Taking a line through the idea of things being used for the purposes intended, one might call burning for food both “disordered” and (when doing so threatens humanity) “intrinsically evil.”
I just know it makes me uncomfortable as hell to consider burning fuel to zip down to Walt Disney World, if it means people somewhere else are struggling to get fed.
Well, from my perch, she should not be questioning herself. She’s dead right. It is morally indefensible to be burning food for our own comfort while others are starving.
Welcome to 21st Century Liberalism. Where We Burn Our Own Food While Third World Indigents Starve.*
*(And don’t forget, we’re the party of the Little Guy!!!)
APGW my blue ass and rosy cheeks March 31, 2008Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Environmentalism, Global Warming, Liberal Hypocrisy.
1 comment so far
Look. I know this is anecdotal. I also know that to claim one year’s experience is not exactly valid in terms of a “world wide trend.”
But still. It is March 31st. I had to totally bundle up -again- to bike to work this morning. My Weatherbug says it is 23 degrees out. Average low at this time of year is just under 40. And this has been going on for weeks.
There is a trend towards warming? Well, I just might accept that, though I have yet to see the Urban Heat Island argument adequately addressed as to how it has impacted yearly measures of heat increase. Yes, I know the IPCC has quoted stat and verse that supposedly refutes it. Being trained in stats myself, I will say that I find their self-serving conclusion just that: self-serving, and not conclusive.
An example of the refutation of the heat island argument:
Ocean temperatures have climbed steadily during the past century, for example — yet this data is not affected by “urban heat islands.” Most land glaciers around the world are melting, far away from urban centers.
new research shows that the causes of Mt. Kilimanjaro’s well-documented
glacier retreat is far more complex, likely resulting from a natural climate shift that occurred more than 120 years ago, long before widespread use of fossil energy. Thus, scientific evidence informs us that the shrinkage of Kilimanjaro’s ice cap is simply part of the ebb and flow of the endless cycle of nature. This represents a perfect example of why scientific “consensus” does not equal scientific truth. And why we should not act in haste, basing our actions on scientific conclusions that have not been thoroughly examined and tested despite being widely quoted. An international team of researchers led by Georg Kaser and comprising experts in tropical weather, mountain glaciers, and paleoclimate took a behind-the-scenes look at the Kilimanjaro ice melt and answered the question, “Is man-made global warming responsible for the loss of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers?” The answer was a resounding “no.”
As for warming ocean temperatures, well, they’re not. Of course, NPR is trying to spin things in such a way as to say that the warmth has been pushed down to depth we don’t measure.
Which would be an interesting turn of science. “Warm air rises”, remember? How is it that in the ocean warm temps sink? A revolution? Or wishful thinking on Chicken Little’s part?
I vote for #2.
Meanwhile, temps this last year dropped huge.
China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Hm. Interesting to see how the spin doctors fall all over themselves to deal with this one.
Getting back to the origiunal issue, as far as ‘warming” being AP-caused, I’ll start listening to those arguments at the same time I start seeing the Chicken Littles abandoning their cars.
I work at a school where most of the kids are somewhat well-off, and they have their own cars and drive themselves to school, in some cases no more than five blocks. In the interests of protecting the environment, they founded a Recycling Committee that encourages the student body and faculty to recycle paper and cans.
Now, I on occasion will crumple up the odd piece of paper and toss it in the trash. These kids then get on me about not recycling. I retort that when these kids start biking to work and cease spouting acre-feet of CO2 in the air by driving their cars, then they can lecture me on trashing the odd piece of paper. Till then, they need to keep their sanctimonious mouths shut.
Never fails to make my point.
Same goes for your APGW Chicken Littles. Start biking. DO something rather than complain. Making a difference doesn’t mean whining about how others aren’t helping. Making a difference means YOU doing what YOU can right now.
Charity begins at home, people.
Of course, if cooling is in effect, I guess we better start driving those cars again, and quick, or we all might freeze to death.
Nobel Committee joins the ranks of the absurd, engages in unconscious irony. . .UPDATED October 15, 2007Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Environmentalism, Global Warming, history, Idiots, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal self-loathing, Politics.
1 comment so far
. . .by recognizing their equally absurd and unconsciously ironic confreres in idiocy, the UN, along with the Amazing Bloviator, the Goracle Himeself, Al Gore, as the co-recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Utterly ridiculous. The Nobel Peace Prize has now achieved the same level of legitimacy as the MTV Movie Awards and the award for Best In Show at the Westminster Kennel.
The irony comes about as this award is given on the same day as a British judge demands that guide notes be provided to Brit schoolchildren who are compelled to watch Gore’s exercise in propaganda, An Inconvenient Truth. Seems the thing is so full of fallacy and exaggeration, the British courts have to order that the kids be told the film is spurious nonsense.
Of course, the mainstream press paints that headline different. MSNBC paraphrases: “British Judge OKs Gore’s film for schools.”
Mendacity from the press, irony in history, and cluelessness and absurdity from the Nobel committee.
Yep. A fine world we live in.
UPDATE: You must, –MUST, I SAY!!!!!- click this link from the Iowahawk that spoofs both Gore’s award, the idiocy of the Nobel committee, and the horrors of mass market mailing all in one fell swoop (and I do mean fell, as in the old meaning of evilly menacing and destructive). It is hilarious.
Robert Heinlein on Environmentalism August 25, 2007Posted by Administrator in Environmentalism, Smart People.
There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who “love Nature” while deploring the “artificialities” with which “Man has spoiled ‘Nature.'” The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of “Nature” — but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers’ purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the Naturist reveals his hatred for his own race — i.e., his own self-hatred.
In the case of “Naturists” such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women — it strikes me as a fine arrangement — and perfectly “natural” Believe it or not, there were “Naturists” who opposed the first flight to old Earth’s Moon as being “unnaturaI” and a “despoiling of Nature.
Well, I’ve been thinking this to some degree for years now. . .but I see that RAH had beaten me to it. What a brilliant iconoclast the man was.