This week Ann reviews a new book that defends liberals' favorite boogie-man, Joe McCarthy. Ann is a big supporter of McCarthy's efforts to rid Washington of sympathetic communists. If you are one of those liberals who cringes reflexively every time you hear the name Joe McCarthy, you would be wise to check your facts. The pied-pipers of liberalism evoke the name McCarthy anytime a conservative asks for some accountability and you people blindly believe he was an evil witch-hunter who ignored the "free association" clause of the Constitution....think again. Check out Ann's column today and then do a little research yourself.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
It's Ann Coulter Thursday!
This week Ann reviews a new book that defends liberals' favorite boogie-man, Joe McCarthy. Ann is a big supporter of McCarthy's efforts to rid Washington of sympathetic communists. If you are one of those liberals who cringes reflexively every time you hear the name Joe McCarthy, you would be wise to check your facts. The pied-pipers of liberalism evoke the name McCarthy anytime a conservative asks for some accountability and you people blindly believe he was an evil witch-hunter who ignored the "free association" clause of the Constitution....think again. Check out Ann's column today and then do a little research yourself.
The jig is up Al
Well it appears that the Goreacle and his ridiculous church of radical environmentalism have reached the end of their 15 minutes of fame. The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman has written a strongly worded letter that hammers the whole movement as a hoax. Here's an exerpt...
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
[...]
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.
If you want to read the whole thing, go here. It's worth it.
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
[...]
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.
If you want to read the whole thing, go here. It's worth it.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Poking fun of the self-injured.....again
Remember yesterday when I told you how we like to poke fun of people who get hit by trains? Well, I didn't think it would happen again so soon...A woman who leaned over a station platform to vomit was hit in the head by a 65mph train – and SURVIVED.
Amazingly, the 28-year-old wasn’t knocked on to the tracks and suffered only a fractured skull and cut face.
Don't even think about accusing me of calousness. You know you laughed when you read that first sentence. I mean of all the places on Earth to vomit, you choose the path of a speeding train. I'm sorry, but that's funny as heck!
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
The truth about hybrids
As gas prices creep higher and higher, lot's of people are tempted to buy a hybrid car to save on transportation costs. No problem there, but hybrids are more expensive than their gas-guzzzleing analogs. So what explains their popularity? Pompous, environmental ideology, that's what. What you sanctimonious, Goreacle-worshipping blow-hards don't realize is that the carbon released into the atmosphere as a result of manufacturing the "Eco-friendly" nickel batteries used in hybrids is huge.
Here's an exerpt from a study detailing the energy costs of vehicles from concept to disposal...
The nickel for the battery, for instance, is mined in Sudbury, Ontario, and melted at nearby Nickel Centre, just north of the province's massive Georgian Bay.
Toyota buys about 1,000 tons of nickel from the facility each year, ships the nickel to Wales for refining, then to China, where it's manufactured into nickel foam, and then onto Toyota's battery plant in Japan.
That alone creates a globe-trotting trail of carbon emissions that ought to seriously concern everyone involved in the fight against global warming. All told, the start-to-finish journey travels more than 10,000 miles — mostly by container ship, but also by diesel locomotive.
But it's not just the clouds of greenhouse gases generated by all that smelting, refining, manufacturing and transporting that worries green activists. The 1,250-foot-tall smokestack that spews huge puffs of sulphur dioxide at the Sudbury mine and smelter operation has left a large swath of the surrounding area looking like a surrealistic scene from the depths of hell.
On the perimeter of the area, skeletons of trees and bushes stand like ghostly sentinels guarding a sprawling wasteland. Astronauts in training for NASA actually have practiced driving moon buggies on the suburban Sudbury tract because it's considered a duplicate of the Moon's landscape.
"The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants, and the soil slid down off the hillside," David Martin, Greenpeace's energy coordinator in Canada, told the London Daily Mail.
"The solution they came up with was the Superstack. The idea was to dilute pollution, but all it did was spread the fallout across northern Ontario," Martin told the British newspaper, adding that Sudbury remains "a major environmental and health problem. The environmental cost of producing that car battery is pretty high."
In terms of energy-efficiency from concept to disposal, the Prius costs $2.94/mile while the Hummer2 costs $1.95/mile.
It turns out, you silly, self-righteous, envoro-zealots, that the Hummer you loathe so much leaves a far smaller carbon-footprint than your Prius that gives you so much self-satisfaction. If you drive a Prius, you'd better contact the Goreacle post-haste, and get a second job to pay for idiotic carbon-offsets, so you can sleep with pride at night, comforted by the knowledge that you're doing your part to save the world from man.
This is one of Canada's strip mines where nickel is mined. I suppose it's OK to strip-mine somebody elses' back yard as long as the result is you getting to drive around smugly gloating about how you're saving the world and everybody else isn't.
Do you "greenies" really care about polluting the environment, or is it really just about the sense of smug superiority it gives you over everybody in your imaginary "green" world?
Here's an exerpt from a study detailing the energy costs of vehicles from concept to disposal...
The nickel for the battery, for instance, is mined in Sudbury, Ontario, and melted at nearby Nickel Centre, just north of the province's massive Georgian Bay.
Toyota buys about 1,000 tons of nickel from the facility each year, ships the nickel to Wales for refining, then to China, where it's manufactured into nickel foam, and then onto Toyota's battery plant in Japan.
That alone creates a globe-trotting trail of carbon emissions that ought to seriously concern everyone involved in the fight against global warming. All told, the start-to-finish journey travels more than 10,000 miles — mostly by container ship, but also by diesel locomotive.
But it's not just the clouds of greenhouse gases generated by all that smelting, refining, manufacturing and transporting that worries green activists. The 1,250-foot-tall smokestack that spews huge puffs of sulphur dioxide at the Sudbury mine and smelter operation has left a large swath of the surrounding area looking like a surrealistic scene from the depths of hell.
On the perimeter of the area, skeletons of trees and bushes stand like ghostly sentinels guarding a sprawling wasteland. Astronauts in training for NASA actually have practiced driving moon buggies on the suburban Sudbury tract because it's considered a duplicate of the Moon's landscape.
"The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants, and the soil slid down off the hillside," David Martin, Greenpeace's energy coordinator in Canada, told the London Daily Mail.
"The solution they came up with was the Superstack. The idea was to dilute pollution, but all it did was spread the fallout across northern Ontario," Martin told the British newspaper, adding that Sudbury remains "a major environmental and health problem. The environmental cost of producing that car battery is pretty high."
In terms of energy-efficiency from concept to disposal, the Prius costs $2.94/mile while the Hummer2 costs $1.95/mile.
It turns out, you silly, self-righteous, envoro-zealots, that the Hummer you loathe so much leaves a far smaller carbon-footprint than your Prius that gives you so much self-satisfaction. If you drive a Prius, you'd better contact the Goreacle post-haste, and get a second job to pay for idiotic carbon-offsets, so you can sleep with pride at night, comforted by the knowledge that you're doing your part to save the world from man.
This is one of Canada's strip mines where nickel is mined. I suppose it's OK to strip-mine somebody elses' back yard as long as the result is you getting to drive around smugly gloating about how you're saving the world and everybody else isn't. Do you "greenies" really care about polluting the environment, or is it really just about the sense of smug superiority it gives you over everybody in your imaginary "green" world?
What's Rosie's over/under on MSNBC?
I didn't realize MSNBC was still on the air, but I guess it's remaining 3 viewers(one of whom I hear is wheel-chair bound and can't change the channel easily) will be treated to the blathering of she who displaces roughly the same amount of water as a Chesapeake Bay tug boat. Of course I speak of none other than Rosie O'Donnel...The NYTimes reports Rosie O’Donnell “is in serious discussions to return to television atop a new soapbox: a prime-time show on the cable news channel MSNBC.” Jacques Steinberg and Bill Carter write, “Under one scenario, Ms. O’Donnell would be given the 9 p.m. slot where she would go head-to-head with two heavyweights of cable talk: Larry King Live on CNN and Hannity & Colmes on Fox News.
With increasing political polarization and competitive news outlets too numerous to list, I guess MSNBC will give up all pretense of journalistic objectivity(not that anybody believed they had any) and outrightly root for the extreme wing of the liberal democrat party in an effort to score ratings points. Why else would you give a hysterical bully like Rosie O'Donnel an hour of prime-time TV license to spew her idiotic conspiracy theories? Rosie O'Donnel is as big a failure at TV as she is at squeezing into a size 40 pants-suit. Sure people will watch her out of the same morbid curiosity as they watch a car crash, for about 3 weeks, and then she'll say something outrageous that offends even the most stridently moronic liberals and she'll grow tired of the controversey and quit.
I'll bet you can get the over/under in months in Vegas right now on how long she lasts. I'll say it's 10 months before the advertisers say enough is enough and pull out altogether leaving MSNBC no choice but to cancel her.
Achmed, the dead terrorist
At TRR we make a point of ridiculing the people who most hate being ridiculed....liberals, people who get eaten by animals or hit by trains, and terrorists....
Monday, November 05, 2007
How stupid!
NBC stooped to new lows of idiocy and bewilderment Sunday night as they doused the lights on Bob Costas and the unsufferable bore Keith Olberman, in a moronic effort to draw attention to the imaginary menace of global warming. They actually did part of the broadcast by candle-light. I guess they wanted viewers to ignore the huge plasma screens over their shoulders. Like Michelle Malkin pointed out, at least with the lights out, we had to endure less of Keith Olberman's mug. As if that weren't comical enough, they tossed to the morning show crew supposedly somewhere in the Arctic. Lauer and crew were there to bring attention to the imaginary plight of polar bears or some such nonsense. I guess they wanted viewers to ignore the deisel-powered lights which illuminated the Arctic night like a thousand suns, or the av-gas required to jet the irritatingly smug Matt, Ann Curry, and Al Roker, crew members, and equipment all the way up there just to lecture us little people about how we should be conserving energy. Apparently nobody told Matt that the polar bear population is increasing. Too bad one couldn't have wandered onto the shoot to enjoy a Matt Lauer-flavored appetizer before dining on the main course....Roker.
What everybody's pointing out today is that even in the sub-zero Arctic, you never saw Lauer's breath as he lectured us. They probably staged it in some Hollywood lot. I'm sure their stupid, pointless gesture made Al Gore proud....it showed everybody that returning to the 17th century is what's required to save the Earth....idiots!
The Christian/Jew debate
So we ended last week with a discussion, peripherially associated with Ann Coulter's column, about whether the American conservatives' support of the "state" of Israel is based on biblical self-centeredness, a dislike/distrust of Muslims, actual reverence toward the Jews, or some of each. Obstinate reader and TRR fav, capt. america, directed me to a couple of articles, decidedly left though they were, regarding this very topic. The gist of them was basically that American Christians' support for Jews was analagous to supporting your favorite character in your favorite story. To Christians in America, Jews are the good guys in their favorite story....the story of the second coming of Jesus. I can't say that's wrong. I think it's probably more right than any of the other reasons we Christians claim.
That being said, so what? What difference does it make to the Jews in Israel why we conservatives support their existance as a State, as long as the aid money keeps flowing and the advanced military hardware is made available, but not to the Arabs? I don't seriously think they care as long as they know we will help them defend against Arab aggression.
Now to the more touchy point of Zionist expansion in the region of the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, and Jerusalem. The Arabs who today call themselves "Palestinians" did not "own" the land on which Israel now sits. Jews inhabited and governed that land, historically known as Judea for the last 3,300 years or so, 2000 years before the rise of Islam. Around 2000 years ago, the Romans conquered Jerusalem resulting in the Diaspora in which the Jews were expelled from Judea and fled to various other countries. More recently, say the past 200 years or so, the Jews and Arabs lived in Judea peacefully prior to the official establishment of the Israeli state on Nov 29, 1947. Only then did the other Arab states get upset. All the Arabs who fled prior to the 1948 war became the refugees that now call themselves "Palestinians", thought they are indistinguishable from other Arabs in terms of language, culture, religion, etc.
I know what the argument will be before you make it so let me address it to save us all some time.
"But Ed" you whine, "America, and numerous other countries, were invented too, just like Palestine. If the Palestinians have to give their land back to Israel, shouldn't the U.S. give it's land back to the Indians and Mexicans from whom it was seized? Just because there is no language or culture called Palestinian, does that mean that those people who lived on the land for the last 1300 years, calling themselves Palestinians and speaking Arabic, do not qualify as a nationality? By that logic, Americans don't qualify as a nationality because we don't speak "American", we speak English as in England."
Weak points all. Look, nobody is trying to eradicate completely Americans from the map(except the radical Muslims and we're taking care of that). North America was a vast wilderness when we got here. There was no Indian sovereign nation, with a government, trade partners, diplomatic relations etc. And the U.S. didn't kick the Mexicans out of Mexico, we won some land fair and square in a war. By the way, Israel is the only nation that has ever voluntarily given land back that it won in a war. No Arab nation ever did that. The point is that Israel was a nation over 3000 years ago. The Diaspora happened, followed by hundreds of years of nomadic existence, and finally the holocaust. But for the holocaust, the establishment of Israel might not have happened still. The Jews are unique in their history and attempts to draw analagies with other countries will fail.
Quote from Charles Krauthammer - The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998
"Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store."
I won't deny that biblical relevance played a significant role in Israel's return to her original land, clearly it did. It plays a strong role in our support, financial and military, of her today.
Think about this, if the Arabs were to lay down their arms, there would be no more violence in the middle east. If Israel laid down her weapons, Israel would cease to exist the next day. That's the difference between Israel and any other nation with which you can try to draw similarities.
That being said, so what? What difference does it make to the Jews in Israel why we conservatives support their existance as a State, as long as the aid money keeps flowing and the advanced military hardware is made available, but not to the Arabs? I don't seriously think they care as long as they know we will help them defend against Arab aggression.
Now to the more touchy point of Zionist expansion in the region of the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, and Jerusalem. The Arabs who today call themselves "Palestinians" did not "own" the land on which Israel now sits. Jews inhabited and governed that land, historically known as Judea for the last 3,300 years or so, 2000 years before the rise of Islam. Around 2000 years ago, the Romans conquered Jerusalem resulting in the Diaspora in which the Jews were expelled from Judea and fled to various other countries. More recently, say the past 200 years or so, the Jews and Arabs lived in Judea peacefully prior to the official establishment of the Israeli state on Nov 29, 1947. Only then did the other Arab states get upset. All the Arabs who fled prior to the 1948 war became the refugees that now call themselves "Palestinians", thought they are indistinguishable from other Arabs in terms of language, culture, religion, etc.
I know what the argument will be before you make it so let me address it to save us all some time.
"But Ed" you whine, "America, and numerous other countries, were invented too, just like Palestine. If the Palestinians have to give their land back to Israel, shouldn't the U.S. give it's land back to the Indians and Mexicans from whom it was seized? Just because there is no language or culture called Palestinian, does that mean that those people who lived on the land for the last 1300 years, calling themselves Palestinians and speaking Arabic, do not qualify as a nationality? By that logic, Americans don't qualify as a nationality because we don't speak "American", we speak English as in England."
Weak points all. Look, nobody is trying to eradicate completely Americans from the map(except the radical Muslims and we're taking care of that). North America was a vast wilderness when we got here. There was no Indian sovereign nation, with a government, trade partners, diplomatic relations etc. And the U.S. didn't kick the Mexicans out of Mexico, we won some land fair and square in a war. By the way, Israel is the only nation that has ever voluntarily given land back that it won in a war. No Arab nation ever did that. The point is that Israel was a nation over 3000 years ago. The Diaspora happened, followed by hundreds of years of nomadic existence, and finally the holocaust. But for the holocaust, the establishment of Israel might not have happened still. The Jews are unique in their history and attempts to draw analagies with other countries will fail.
Quote from Charles Krauthammer - The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998
"Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store."
I won't deny that biblical relevance played a significant role in Israel's return to her original land, clearly it did. It plays a strong role in our support, financial and military, of her today.
Think about this, if the Arabs were to lay down their arms, there would be no more violence in the middle east. If Israel laid down her weapons, Israel would cease to exist the next day. That's the difference between Israel and any other nation with which you can try to draw similarities.
Friday, November 02, 2007
It's Friday!
Sorry about the light posting today. I've been out of the lab all day. I'm in the middle of a debate with capt. america about Christians and Jews. I intend to check out the links that he left in his comments which support his position, before I comment further, to allow for the 1% chance he has a valid point. If it gets interesting I'll probably post it as a new topic over the weekend. Anyway, as always consider this an open thread and discuss anything you like. I'll give you a topic...
Was Tim Russert unfair to Hillary the other night in the dem debate? Did the other candidates pile on? Was it fair of her to whine that they shouldn't pick on her because she's a girl? Are male candidates at a distinct disadvantage when running against females because they risk looking like a cad if they attack her and look weak and feminine if they don't?
Was Tim Russert unfair to Hillary the other night in the dem debate? Did the other candidates pile on? Was it fair of her to whine that they shouldn't pick on her because she's a girl? Are male candidates at a distinct disadvantage when running against females because they risk looking like a cad if they attack her and look weak and feminine if they don't?
Thursday, November 01, 2007
It's Ann Coulter Thursday!
This week Ann exposes the Left's hypocritical position(s) on Israel. The Anti Defamation League pretends to stand ever vigilant against anti-Semitism yet their most vocal criticism is against conservatives who're really the Jews' biggest supporters. The ADL can't seem ro reconcile thier loathing of anything remotely Christian in nature, yet it's Christians who support the state of Israel based on biblical teaching. Go here and read the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)