Mad Men, Mitt Romney, and Non-Traditional Occupations. TGIF

Because I couldn't think of a better picture.

I watched only part of the first season of “Mad Men,” before I simply couldn’t take it anymore.  It’s a testament to our times that a show so full of depraved people could be so popular.  In case you haven’t seen it, the entire show is about a bunch of overgrown children running around on their wives.  Needless to say, I was surprised to come across an article seemingly equating Don Draper with a guy whose personal life is about at squeaky clean as they come.  But after reading it though, I understood.  “The Draperizing of Mitt Romney” does a nice job of laying out the culture war that has been created by the left, in the hopes of retaining the White House.

The president’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, has gone further, quipping that the former Massachusetts governor ‘must watch ‘Mad Men’ and think it’s the evening news’ while jabbing that Romney’s views are out of a time when ‘bosses could dictate on women’s health.’

Ha, that David Axelrod, what a card.  His concluding statement, of course, is a reference to the president’s healthcare plan which forces Catholic employers to provide free contraception to their employees, despite their belief that contraception is a sin.  Obviously, the statement about bosses dictating women’s health is complete nonsense, since no one is telling any woman that she can’t use contraception, but Axelrod’s never been known for getting the punchline right.

The article harkens back to yesterday’s kerfluffle about Ann Romney never working a day in her life.  The point wasn’t really that Mrs. Romney had never actually worked a day in her life, it was that she was unable to understand the problems a modern woman must face.  Other feminists agree.

‘I simply have not seen her in any way as an advocate for women’s empowerment in society,’ said Kim Gandy, the former head of the National Organization for Women, of Ann Romney before Rosen’s comments. ‘And since Gov. Romney looks to her to find out what women care about, that does not bode well. I haven’t heard her speaking out about increasing women’s opportunity for higher paid employment, for women in non-traditional occupations, specifically for increasing pay equity for women, closing the pay gap, certainly not on women’s reproductive rights.’

Well, you probably haven’t heard her talking about these things because they’re made up issues.  Seriously, what’s a “non-traditional occupation?”  Kicker for a NFL team?  Is a wet-nurse a “non-traditional occupation,” because I’ve been looking to break into that market for a while.  And gender pay-gap?  There is no gender pay-gap if you actually compare apples to apples.  In other words, women who haven’t left work at some point to have children or take up mud wrestling are actually earning more than men at the same job.  And this fact doesn’t take into account another fact: the federal government shouldn’t be telling any private company how much they should be paying anyone.  The only other issue referenced is “reproductive rights.”  As indicated above, there is no “contraception issue.”  It’s completely made up.  And Ann Romney isn’t the first woman to be pro-life.  So get a grip.

Despite their consisting of entirely manufactured outrage, the culture wars will continue to be waged at all costs by the left.   Without being able to misdirect the attention of half of the population, the president might have to run on his record, which would be bad for him.  In other words, Barry’s presidency has been a nuclear holocaust to the economy, and he now has to run against a guy that has been a successful business man his entire life.  So what do they do?  Attack a guy who has an impeccable personal life, and accuse him of being a misogynist.  And while they’re at it, they’ll ridicule his “Suzy homemaker” wife who has done nothing with her life other than be faithful and raise five boys who aren’t guests on “Jersey Shore.” Oh yeah, and surviving breast cancer and living with MS.  Apparently the only way to  get any street-cred now days with the feminist left is to have at least one kid be a coked-up transvestite, who’s the product of a failed late-term abortion.  I am woman, hear me roar indeed.

Note to my wife: Your life is easy and you should never talk about things that don’t involve baby-making and bon-bons. **UPDATE** Libs respond

If I ever said this, my wife would kill me.  And by “kill,” I mean make me stay home with my kids for a week.  The following is HILARIOUS.  Not because it’s a woman saying it, but because it’s an Obama advisor, lefty woman saying it.  After all, nothing irritates the feminists like a conservative stay-at-home mom.  The fun starts around the 50 second mark:

Note to my wife: stop your yapping.  You don’t ever have to worry about anything.  You just sit around, eat your bon bons, and look pretty.  This little blurb is yet another reminder of the set-in-stone fact that no one is more intolerant of those who don’t agree with them then liberals.  It’s not like I go around blaming all the world’s problems on the latch-key kid whose parents are too important to have someone at home when the little deviant returns from school with his sixteen year old girlfriend and a couple of cans of Old Style that his buddy Johnny lifted from his old man.

And of course, all of this came after Barry explained to the world on Friday why his wife, Michelle “give me that Happy Meal” Obama, had to work while having two daughters at home.

‘Once I was in the state legislature, I was teaching, I was practicing law, I’d be traveling,’ he said. ‘And we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work.’

Hey, I’ve heard this line before.  People say this to me in a condescending way about all the money I must have, since my wife gets to stay at home with the fruit of my prodigious loins.  In other words, Barry’s trying to tell you that he’s just one of the guys.  A middle class, beer-drinkin’, blue-collar schmo, who didn’t have the money to keep a parent home.  After all, the happy couple was only earning just south of half a million dollars per year at the time.

What’s the point about all of this?  Is it that stay-at-home mom’s are good?  Or that feminists are evil, blood-sucking, harpies?  No, although both points are entirely accurate.  It’s about the fact that, despite the conventional wisdom, the Dems aren’t “pro-women” or  “pro-black” or “pro-gay.”  If you don’t fit into their value system, you’re attacked.  And their value-system for women isn’t being “barefoot and pregnant” at home.  It’s making damn sure that mom is at work, trying to put her boss’s testicles in a box, while Timmy is knocking up his girlfriend on his Transformers sheets.

**UPDATE**

It seems the left realizes the problem here.  So what does it do?  It argues that the right is attacking the moron in the video above because she’s a lesbian.  Seriously.  And they just make it worse for themselves.

No one is arguing that raising children isn’t work. Democratic strategist and CAP Action board member Hilary Rosen is a single mother of twins who had to go through the expensive and challenging process of adoption with her then partner Elizabeth Birch. Now, she’s trying to stick up for other mothers who don’t have the luxury of millionaire husbands to help fund their child-rearing duties, and the backlash is getting ugly.

Granted, this isn’t the mainstream left responding here.  It’s the crazy “Think Progress” fringe.  Still, the fact that the author is a lunatic doesn’t justify dishonesty, right?  The lady in the video wasn’t trying to “stick up for mothers” who have to work.  She was degrading Ann Romney for having the nerve to talk to her husband about the economy when all she’s apparently qualified to do is paint her nails and yell at the lawn boy.  No one is attacking the bimbo because she’s a lesbian; they’re attacking her because she’s everything that’s wrong with the left.  Personally, I hope more Dems come to her defense because it will keep the issue in the news longer.

Senate filibusters taking money from oil companies and using it to build more exploding cars

Well, the temperature has dropped, and with it, my mood.

Just kidding.  It’s Friday, so the work week can suck it.  Plus, how could I possibly complain after three days of Obamacare oral arguments at the Supreme Court?  Just listening to the confused responses of those who previously told me the case was a slam dunk was enough to get me through the week.  Don’t get too excited though; just because the Justices’ questions exposed the absurdity of the mandate doesn’t mean they’ll vote that way.  After all, the Court found a constitutional right to abortion somewhere.  But I’m not here to talk about that.

I’m here to talk about the the Senate bill to end oil subsidies.  It failed due to the filibuster rule, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass something.  Barry, of course, was not pleased:

‘They can either vote to spend billions of dollars more in oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past. Or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren’t needed to boost oil production so that we can invest in the future,’ Obama said. ‘It’s that simple.’

He continued with the rhetoric:

‘It’s like hitting the American people twice,’ Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Thursday morning. ‘You’re already paying a premium at the pump right now. And on top of that, Congress thinks it’s a good idea to send billions more of your tax dollars to the oil industry?’

Two things about this.  First, the American people aren’t being hit twice, because we’re not talking about actual “subsidies.”  In other words, the government isn’t taking my tax dollars and sending them to Chevron.  Instead, our tax code gives oil companies tax breaks, which simply allows them to keep more of their own money.  Thus, B.O.’s statement is blatantly untrue.

With that being said, why are we giving tax breaks to oil companies?  I agree with the president in this respect.  In fact, why are we giving them to any industry?  Why does the government have pet projects?  Why don’t we just lower taxes overall and get rid of subsidies/tax break for every industry?  This leads me to point number two.  What does Barry want to do with the extra money the government gets if the bill is passed?  Pay down the debt?  Send me a check?  Wallpaper the White House?  No.  Of course not.  He would use it to “invest in the future.”

The bill would have killed several tax breaks taken by the five largest oil companies and use some of the proceeds to extend expiring energy tax provisions, such as tax breaks for renewable energy, electric cars and energy efficient homes.

That’s right.  He’d turn them into tax breaks for other industries.  And not just any other industries, but industries that don’t work and that nobody wants.  And as an aside, renewables are already the Belles of the Ball in terms of tax breaks.  Need proof?  Here’s some info from the Congressional Budget Office; complete with a picture which everybody likes.

So, what have we learned?  We have further confirmation that Obama’s a liar (which, to be fair, every politician is).  We’ve also learned that removing tax breaks is hard.  The Republicans didn’t just reject the bill because of the give-away to renewables, or because they’re in the pocket of big oil (which everyone in Congress is).  We’re already paying through the nose for gasoline, and increasing the costs on oil companies certainly won’t help prices go down.

Well, that’s it.  I’m going to listen to some more audio from the Obamacare hearings, and dream of days where the Supreme Court actually enforces the Constitution.

FYI…you can kill your baby if you want. It’s not a real person.

Heard at the entrance to the Club of Life: "You're good. Not you. You can come in. Nope, not with that hair."

Yes, you read that right.  No, the title wasn’t meant to simply make you read this post; it was, instead, a factual representation of how some view life.  When I was in college, I took a class in logic.  Why did I take a class in logic, you ask?  It probably had something to do with it not convening until after lunch.  In that class, I learned that the “slippery slope” argument is a fallacy, i.e., logically wrong.  While it may be technically true that it is a fallacy, it is also true that it tends to be a practical reality.  Case in point: abortion.

Many pro-life folks have been making the argument for decades that legalizing abortion will lead to a devaluing of human life, which will, in turn, lead to killing those deemed undesirable or a burden.  To anyone with common sense, this was not an unreasonable step to take.  A society either values life or it doesn’t.  The wholesale slaughter of the unborn, mostly for the sake of convenience, seems lacking in the “respect life” department.

Of course, since the legal fiction of Roe v. Wade, the aforementioned “slippery-slope” has proven to be factual.  The left has made significant, and largely successful, efforts to justify late-term abortions and partial-birth abortions.  And our current president supported legislation allowing a newborn, who survived an attempted abortion, to die on a table from lack of medical care.  So, the next step shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

‘The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.’

Yep, you read that right.  This comes from an article entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?,” which was published in the ironically titled “Journal of Medical Ethics.”  The authors are, of course, college professors, with significant connections to Oxford and Cambridge.  In other words, this article is coming from the minds of the academic elite.  Not surprisingly, the authors have received death threats.  The Journal’s editor, a professor of ethics at Oxford, had this to say about the persons doing the threatening:

He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were ‘fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society’.

Take a moment to let that sink in.  “Values of aliberal society.”  That’s perfect, huh?  While the talking heads can’t shut up about the Catholic Church trying to take away women’s rights, the liberal elite are publishing an article, in a respected journal about ethics, that advocates for infanticide.

How can they possible justify their position, you ask?  Simple, by huffing paint thinner and waxing philosophic.

Rather than being ‘actual persons’, newborns were ‘potential persons’. They explained: ‘Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

What the hell is an “actual person?”  Can I decide?  Are the authors of the article “actual people?”  It’s difficult to put into words just how dangerous this line of reasoning is.  Lest we forget, a certain group of people weren’t “actual people” to the Nazi’s.

Fortunately, the authors have deemed us fit to receive their thoughts on personhood.

‘We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.’

I’d love to hear who fits into that definition.  Of course, the authors don’t tell us who gets to be in the Club of Life; only those who don’t.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that ‘only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases’ in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was ‘no choice for the parents but to keep the child’, they wrote.

‘To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.’

Well the disabled are out; too expensive.  Seriously, the Nazi’s would LOVE these guys.

Interestingly, the authors did point out one undeniable truth, albeit in a presumably unintentional way:

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised (emphasis mine).

These two morally abhorrent creatures actually stumbled upon a truth lost on the pro-choice morons in America.  There is no moral difference between the unborn and born.  Contrary to the author’s philosophical ramblings, however, it isn’t that they’re both disposable; it’s that they’re both sacred.

Steve Jobs and Occupy Wall Street. What Could Go Wrong?

Doesn't that kid know about all the germs on money?

I was trying to figure out how to start this post about the Occupy Wall Street what-not when I started reading some stuff on the internets about Steve Jobs dying.  I didn’t know the man (I never returned any of his phone calls asking for advice), so I can’t speak to his character.  He apparently made some cool stuff, and I appreciate that my/my wife’s MacBook Pro doesn’t take twenty five minutes to shut down like my work PC.  But I’m also not some techy who can’t sleep the night before the new iPhone is released.  I can say one thing about Steve Jobs though: he was a genius who used his genius to make people buy stuff that they enjoy using…and turned himself from a regular guy into a filthy rich guy who every hot chick he went to high school with is now kicking themselves for having been mean to (I’m looking at you hot chicks from high school who ignored me Steve Jobs and are now unhappy and not hot anymore).

Then I read some Occupy Wall Street guy argue that Jobs wasn’t such a saint because he didn’t do enough for his own “workers who were responsible for his great wealth and success.”  See, this is why I frequent lefty websites and radio stations because you couldn’t make this stuff up.  Obviously the OWS guy was referring to Jobs having the nerve to create jobs in other countries.  Now, this post isn’t about defending Jobs or his creating manufacturing jobs in other countries.  This post is about the mentality of the OWS crowd.

Why are thousands camped out on Wall Street, and at various locations around the country?  They say it’s to protest the 1%.  Why?  Let’s ignore the fact that the majority of the people whose lives are being made more difficult by the protests are far from being part of the 1%.  Why protest people with lots of money?  They say it’s because of jobs.  What jobs?  Did the CEO of Bank of America steal one of the OWS protestor’s jobs (seems unlikely)?  My personal opinion is a simple one: a child-like feeling of entitlement.

It ain't a party 'til the communists show up

Simply put, there is a chunk of people who feel they have a “right” to certain things in life…such as a certain job, with certain benefits, at a certain salary.  Why?  Because it’s “fair.”  If they don’t get those things, then they find someone to blame.  Well here’s the reality: you don’t have a right to anything.  You’re not entitled to the corner office.  Or health insurance.  Or a flat-screen tv.  And it isn’t because “life isn’t fair.”  I know people that have fantastic jobs they don’t “deserve;” that they’ve received simply because they know someone who knows someone.  I also know people that did everything “right,” but are stuck in a lousy job.  I also know people with real problems, like going through divorces or suffering from life-threatening illnesses.  Is any of this “fair?”

My wife used to tell my kids something along the lines of “you get what you get and you don’t throw a fit.”  I’d like to use that line on everyone sitting on Wall Street.  “Fair” doesn’t exist beyond television.  Instead, “it is what it is” should be everyone’s motto.  Am I advocating for a lawless society where only the strong survive?  Of course not.  I’m simply advocating for people to stop acting like children and realize that no one shipped “your” job overseas, or took away “your” benefits.  They don’t belong to you, and they never have.

What sets this country apart from every other one out there is opportunity.  To take what you have and maximize it to the best of your abilities without arbitrary restrictions.  Now, will everybody find the same success?  Of course not.  Does everybody even want the same success?  No.  I, for one, know that I have no desire to put in the work of AIG’s CEO.  I enjoy sleeping and watching football too much.

My advice to the OWS crowd is the same advice I give to my kids and myself: appreciate what you’ve been given and don’t begrudge the success of others.  And don’t schedule kids’ parties on the weekends, because that’s when football is on and no one will want to come.

My argument for the wealthy.

I want your money.

I’m here to stand up for the wealthy.  And by that I mean the ridiculously wealthy.  You know…the Scrooge McDuck types.  Is it because they need it?  Obviously not.  Is it because I’m one of them?  Obviously not (If I was, you’d know it because you’d see my awesome blog (and face) on huge billboards.  Everywhere.).    Is it because I hope to be one someday?  No.  In fact, the longer I live, the less I care about how much money I make.  I’m perfectly happy spending my weekends scaring my neighbors by mowing my lawn shirtless while drinking PBR.  I’m going to stand up for the wealthy because, well, I’ll get to that later.

As you may know by now, Washington is all a-twitter with the debt ceiling debate.  Apparently Congress needs to authorize itself to spend more of our money, and it’s having a difficult time securing such authority.  The right wants huge spending cuts…which include cuts to the entitlements.  The left doesn’t like to cut any entitlements, but instead, wants to raise taxes on the dirty rich people.  Many people out there think asking the ultra-wealthy to carry a little more of the burden, as opposed to taking food out of the mouth of grandma, is fair.  I say many people are idiots (and no one is trying to take food away from grandma, by the way).

Today, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said this:

‘The president has proposed some very sensible tax reforms that would eliminate loopholes and ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a modest additional share of the burden,’ Geithner said.

“Modest additional share of the burden.”  To that request, I ask this: why?  It’s an undisputed, proven, absolute fact that the United States has the most progressive income tax in the industrialized world.  What does that mean?  This:

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

In other words, the wealthy are paying the majority of income taxes, while earning a comparatively disproportionate amount of the money.  At the same time, the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing as far as income tax.  What’s the point?  The wealthiest Americans already shoulder far more than their fair share.

Why do I care?  Because citizens of this country should benefit from their success.  We should all get to keep more of what’s ours.  And everyone should actually have to pay their fair share.  In fact, I’d bet you my lunch that if everyone actually did have to pay their fair share, you’d see both parties drop tax rates real quick.  But I digress….

The idea that we should tax the wealthy more because liberals can’t stop throwing money at the “most vulnerable” is nonsense.  And don’t start talking to me about “doing what’s right.”  Liberals lost the right to make the morality argument once they offered the assertion that an unborn baby equates to an appendix.  Oh, and if you’re really interested in “helping your vulnerable neighbor,” try walking next door and offering them some help.  That’s what most of us do.

None of this matters at the end of the day though, because real reform won’t occur without the economy truly crashing.  What’s real reform, you ask?  Allowing me to opt out of Social Security.  Allowing me to opt out of paying for public schools that my kids don’t attend.  Reforming the tax code and related legislation so that there are simple low rates for everyone (and every business), and all subsidies and deductions are eliminated.  That means no more of my money going to a solar energy plant that can’t light my house in January.  So, in a round about way, it’s all about me.

Algore is a Lunatic…and a Desperate Swindler

I despise Algore.  Possibly more than any other liberal I can think of. Why?  Because when you disagree with him, he calls you an unsophisticated rube.  One of those flat-earth, religious zealots.  Can’t understand science.  Now don’t get me wrong-all liberals make these same claims.  But no one rambles on so unapologetically like Algore.

For example, see his article in Rolling Stone magazine, in which he spends approximately 12 pages venting his spleen about how everyone who doesn’t believe in man-made global warming is a Grade-A moron.  When you read the article, you can’t help but picture Algore, stomping around his gigantic carbon-footprint of a house in L.A., throwing stuff and screaming about how stupid we all are.  Case in point: Algore’s framing of the debate:

In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason.  In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues.

Algore, did you really need to capitalize “Science” and “Reason?”  Does that add to their legitimacy?  What Algore isn’t grasping is that he, and his global warming movement, completely lack credibility.  Americans are pretty good at sniffing out b.s., and Algore bathes in it daily.

Let’s begin with Algore himself.  He’s certainly been screaming the loudest about global warming…and the need to invest in “green technology” while implementing a cap and trade program.  Here’s the problem.  Believing what Algore says about global warming is akin to believing the salesman who tells you that you suffer from a rare disease, and only he has the cure…but it’ll cost you your vacation house in Barbados to get it.  What do I mean?  Algore has invested massive amounts of money in “green technology.”  His response to those questioning his obvious conflict?

Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?  I am proud of it.  I am proud of it.

No Algore, there’s nothing wrong with it.  It just causes anyone with a little bit of common sense to question your motivations, that’s all.

And his Science and Reason?  The R.S. article is chock full of it…except none of it cites to any authority or evidence, which as a lawyer, always makes me look around for the trash can.  Instead, it’s all Algore’s ramblings…much of which is unbelievably hypocritical and/or debatable and/or wrong with the help of Google.  Let’s take a look.

Polluters and Ideologues…are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufactured doubt about what is true and what is false….

Let’s face some facts here Algore.  First, some of the “pseudoscientists,” as you call them, can be found here, thanks to Wikipedia (with links to sources).  Now, can I speak to the credentials of all of these people?  No.  But that’s true for your “very best” Scientists too.  Second, your Scientists have also been “financed,” except with government grants.  Incredibly, or predictably, after having just attacked the non-believers as “pseudoscientists,” Algore goes on to scold the “Polluters and Ideologues” for their efforts to “undermine the public’s respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists.”  Wha?  Look Algore, the public doesn’t need any help in undermining their respect for Science and Reason.  The Scientists do that for them.

Remember the emails?  Oh yeah, that whole thing about the Scientists conspiring to keep alternative views out of the global warming discussion, which we only know about because someone hacked into some Scientist’s email account:

Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a “unified” view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the “common cause”; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to “hide the decline” of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

Algore’s treatment of these emails in his short story?  A three line paragraph essentially asking “what’s the big deal?”  And what about his purported evidence of man-made global warming?  Questionable, at best.

Heat:  He uses anecdotal evidence about nineteen countries setting all-time high temperatures in 2010.  I’m going to take your completely irrelevant fact and raise you one more: there are 195 countries in the world.  He also claims 2010 was the hottest year on record.  That could be, but a NASA Scientist, who Algore cites as being one of the “very best,” admitted to the following in 2007,

Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.

And perhaps most devastating of all to the man-made global warming backers, it is now admitted that six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere.

To be fair, the foregoing information only applies to the U.S., not the world.  Although when the “world temperatures” are determined by largely ignoring cold places like Siberia, while relying upon lots of temperature readings taken in hotter urban areas, I’m not persuaded.  Plus, according to another one of Algore’s Scientists, there’s been no “statistically significant” warming since 1995.  This other guy agrees (more precisely, the former NASA scientist he cites to agrees).  And then there’s Algore’s claim that half of the last decade was a “solar minimum,” despite its fictitious hot temperatures.  Disagreements are found, here and here.

Floods and Drought:  Algore claims, again with no cited authority, that “megafloods” in Pakistan and “historic drought” in Texas support his claims of man-made global warming/climate change.  Well, the pseudoscientists at the weather channel blame the jet stream.  So does this guy.

Melting Ice: Algore,

The acceleration of ice loss in both Greenland and Antarctica has caused another upward revision of global sea-level rise and the numbers of refugees from low-lying coastal areas.

More faulty data here.  For crying out loud, even Time magazine felt compelled to cite to the failure of sea-level Scientists.

Algore’s article is long.  It weaves between calling Americans stupid couch-potatoes, advocating for what will almost certainly be efficient solar and wind production someday (considering two-thirds of all new solar projects and 85 percent of all new wind projects in the United States rely on government grants because they’re so inefficient, I’m not holding my breath), and complaining about the media.  It really is like a never-ending stream of consciousness…and this post has already become too long.  Lets end with the most dishonest assertion in an otherwise dishonest opinion piece,

The best available evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the reckless spewing of global-warming pollution in obscene quantities into the atmospheric commons is having exactly the consequence long predicted by scientists who have analyzed the known facts according to the laws of physics.

David Evans, a Ph.D. who pushed man-made climate change for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999-2010, had this to say recently,

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

You should read Evans’s entire article because it provides an inside look into the politics of man-made global warming, provided by a guy who was once a Scientist, but has since become a pseudoscientist.  What’s his point?  The theory of man-made global warming is wrong because the Scientists pushing the theory as fact are constantly wrong.  And they’re wrong on purpose.

What’s the overarching point of all of this?  Algore has a significant financial stake in a potential political power play that he needs to succeed.  Because of this, he will continue asserting the existence of a consensus that doesn’t exist. And he still hasn’t put solar cells on the roof of his L.A. mansion.

33,000 inmates ordered released in California. I blame public education.

$578 million. I wonder how many criminals it can fit?

With today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision, I have yet another reason to be thankful for leaving California.  In a 5-4 decision, the Court ordered the release of 33,000 inmates in California, due to continued violations of “inmates’ rights to adequate care for their mental and physical health.”  In other words, the prisons are overcrowded.

Don’t worry, I’m not going to analyze the decision, or give my opinion on whether the Court made the correct ruling.  I’m not going to go into the ideological breakdown of the judges, or the nitty-gritty details of the law at issue.  Finally, I’m not going to respond to the pot-heads who will inevitably argue that there wouldn’t be overcrowding if drugs were legalized.  Instead, I’m going to address this:

California Gov. Jerry Brown said he ‘will take all necessary steps to protect public safety.’

(…Except build a new prison so we aren’t forced to release 33,000 felons).  It goes without saying that “public safety” is certainly a purpose of any government.  In fact, I would imagine everyone would agree that it’s a primary purpose of government.  Unfortunately, this purpose has been diluted in many states because public safety has to increasingly compete with unnecessary human interest projects that are forced down our collective throats by do-gooders and/or liberals.  In other words, California can’t pay to house its criminals because it spends too much friggin’ money on crap.

Gigantic example of the crap: public education.  California is $15.4 billion in debt, and an astonishing one out of every four dollars spent goes to the education system.  Who can forget the $578 million Robert F. Kennedy Community School in Los Angeles?  The Los Angeles Unified School District spends $11,357.00 per pupil!  Keep this cost in your head as you read this statement made by Doug Nielson, a government and economics teacher at Coalinga High School:

‘If we stick to our ideologies, our children are going to suffer. When somebody says well, extending these taxes is a tax increase, you’ve got a mindset there that says the dollars are more important than the kids. And they can’t be. We can’t afford to do that. You can’t have first-class teaching on a Third World budget.’

This is the complete lunacy that we face with the public education system.  “Third World budget?”  The United States spends more per pupil than any other nation in the world.  And for what?  Is there any question that private schools can do a better job, at less cost? While saving money for the government to keep felons off the streets?

It’s in this way that liberals have won.  People no longer seriously question why the government is spending $11,000.00 per student.  Heck, most of the people complaining about the 33,000 inmates being released won’t even remember that $578 million of tax-payer money was used to build a school.

At some point, every community needs to answer a basic question: What is the role of government?  Do you want more cops on the the street and criminals in prison…or do you want your government to spend $11,000.00 per pupil at the public schools?  The government can’t afford to do everything, and if you don’t decide on what our taxes are paying for, somebody else will.  Today in California, the Supreme Court made the decision.

Obama is embarrassing

Babs would love her new neighbors

Let’s imagine that we live in a world where Mexico is regularly lobbing missiles into San Diego.  Mexico, along with much of the world, argues that California should be given to Mexico, and until that happens, all the rocket-launching is understandable.  After all, California was once part of Mexico before the Mexican-American War, and there are quite a few Mexican citizens currently residing there.  Now, if we asked our esteemed president to give Southern California back to Mexico, he would probably laugh and say “Not a chance.  They love me in Hollywood!”  Well Barry, how about just the southern portion, including San Diego?  Wouldn’t that be fair?  Again, he’d say “No.”  It’s part of America, he’d say.

In the real world, the same thing is happening…it’s just happening in the Middle East.  It involves Israel.  We are repeatedly inundated with the Palestinian “issue.”  The Palestinian people, they say, deserve their own little country, carved out of a portion of Israel.  Israel obviously says “No.”  Everyone has taken a side.  On one end, you have those like Jimmy Carter-people so infatuated with the Arab Muslims that they’d volunteer to stone an adulterous wife-who think Israel should just disappear.  Others, like Hillary Clinton, advocate for a two-state solution.  Those of us with a shred of common sense don’t quite understand why Israel should give up any land when they’re constantly bombarded with Palestinian rockets.  Fortunately, we haven’t had a president who has taken the Palestinian side since the peanut farmer; until now.

Given his public stance on things, it’s not really all that unreasonable to question Barry’s religion.  You know, whether he’s a Christian or a Muslim.  While I don’t personally care, one does have to wonder.  On the one hand, he goes out of his way to have a cross covered up before he speaks at Georgetown, while on the other hand, he’s given multiple speeches whose only purpose is to suck up to the Middle East.  Well, except for Israel.  Which brings us to our point.

B.O. gave a speech today regarding the Middle East.  Why?  Who knows…I’m guessing it has something to do with the fact that an “unexpectedly” large number of Middle Eastern Muslims are upset about us killing what’s his face a couple weeks ago.  In any event, the man who likes to talk gave another speech.  In it, Barry advocated for a two state solution to Palestinian issue.  Except not just any two state solution.  One that would reduce Israel’s borders to before 1967.

Quick history lesson: between June 5 and 10, Israel successfully fought off  Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in the Arab-Israeli War of 1967.  It began with an air strike by Egypt.  After that, Israel routed the three countries in six days, eventually taking over small portions of land from each country.  Some of that land was the West Bank, previously part of Jordan, which was occupied by lots of Palestinians.  Since that day, the Arab Muslims, along with the liberal intellectuals of the world, have been crying in their Cheerios because of the poor, poor Palestinians.  To them I say: don’t let your ego write checks that your butt can’t cash.

Israel has always been a top-notch ally of the U.S.  It’s a functioning democracy, occupying strategic ground in the middle of crazy-town.  And since drilling for our own oil would make gas cheaper potentially impact a gecko in Texas, we are forced to care about crazy-town.  Unfortunately, our law school professor turned president has found it necessary to give our top-notch ally repeated dong-punches.  And now, he wants Israel to give back all of the land it took from the countries that tried to erase it from the map.  Why?  Because he’s an Israel-hating buffoon, that’s why.  Why does he hate Israel?  I don’t know…maybe he thinks Jews talk about God too much.

Congratulations Barry.  You gave the order to shoot Osama in the head.  The rest of your foreign policy has been a complete, unmitigated disaster.  You have repeatedly dumped on an ally, in favor of a bunch of yahoos who would cut off your head if given the opportunity.

On second thought, maybe Barry’s outlook has merit.  Instead of fighting those drug cartels, why don’t we just give So. Cal. to the Mexicans?  I’m sure Barbara Streisand would love the new locals jumping the walls of her compound to sell her some hand-crafted maracas.

That makes two (so far): Rosie asks why no due process for Binny

See, I told you so.  First, it was Michael Moore.  Now, we have Rosie O’Donnell.  I admit, she’s nuts even for a liberal, but she’s still a lib.  I’m still waiting for more haterz to the killing of Binny…and more will come.  After all, what kind of country are we when shooting some unarmed dude in the face is more ”American” than laying him down and pouring water on him?  What about that chick from “Flash Dance?”  Should we have just shot her in the face?  Apparently, the left now believes we should never take prisoners…just line ‘em all up and shoot ‘em in the face.   Well, except for Mike and Rosie.