Peep at all the links and see who seems to be distorting more facts. Hint, his name starts with B.O.
Peep at all the links and see who seems to be distorting more facts. Hint, his name starts with B.O.
Could this be the. best. link. ever?
Tons of info on AGW, climate change, energy reserves, Al Gore, polar bears and the like.
It’s not porn but it’s pretty darn good. I’m barred up.
ANWAR in Alaska overlaid on the lower forty-eight states:
ANWAR is orange, the coastal plain, where we want to drill for the oil we already know it there, is yellow.
Here’s the pic the Democrats and eco-tards (But, I’m being redundant, and am repeating myself) always show to exhibit why we shouldn’t despoil this pristine wilderness:
Of course, no reasonable American would want to ruin that view with oil rigs. Problem is, this is what the coastal plain looks like:
Not only that, but the section of the hundreds of thousands of acres of coastal plain we want to drill on is… a couple of thousand acres.
I say fuck it. Let’s drill the son of a bitch. Someone alert McCain, because he’s an ignoramus about ANWAR.
UPDATE: Plane/Plain. Whatever. English is an idiotic language.
Challenge to any Lefties who stumble across this. We’ve helped you with that second link. Debate the facts he presents.
Note there are three more parts to that vid.
Something more recent and timely. An example of what would have to be done to follow Kyoto and where industry may be headed.
Wait. So the Star Spangled Banner ‘forces’ him to turn away, hands by side. Political pressure forces him to re-adopt the flag lapel. And as for the flag itself?
It seems streamlining as human engineers have understood it thus far, has a few shortcomings.
“Dolphins and whales have evolved over millions of years to maximize efficiency of movement through water. The human species has been trying to perfect streamlined designs for barely a century. Biologists and engineers, applying biomimicry, studied the flippers, fins and tails of whales and dolphins, and have discovered some features of their structure that contradict long-held engineering theories.
The shape of whale flippers with one bumpy edge has inspired the creation of a completely novel design for wind turbine blades. This design has been shown to be more efficient and also quieter, but defies traditional engineering theories.
Dr Frank Fish of West Chester University says that the shape of whale flippers has inspired the creation of a completely novel design for wind turbine blades.”
Well, duh. If you take the natural philosopher’s approach (Newton called himself a natural philosopher), you’ll learn from nature versus your own puny self.
NOTE: A natural philosopher looks only at God-givens, and makes all deductions from that.
How hard do you think the leftards will come down on this guy?
“No. It will not do. Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us, yet again. It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia’s (and Bob Geldof’s) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia’s population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today.
So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none. To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn’t count.
One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of . . .
Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.
There is, no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and sexual system; but I do not know what it is. There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this.
It will win no friends, and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well, the self-righteous, letter-writing wrathful, a species which never fails to contaminate almost every debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority. It will also probably enrage some of the finest men in Irish life, like John O’Shea, of Goal; and the Finucane brothers, men whom I admire enormously. So be it.
But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of our own Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no comparison. Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was down by 30pc. Over the equivalent period, thanks to western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules, Ethiopia’s has more than doubled.”
My mother’s side of our family – Daugherty is mom’s maiden name – were Irish potato famine refugees. I can attest to the event only a few generations removed. People died eating grass and strips of leather in Ireland! Curiously, Bob Geldof was not there to raise money for them, so those who could left… and those who couldn’t died, or barely survived.
This article is almost inhumanly harsh, but it’s right on the money. Expect faux outrage and crocodile tears from all of the usual suspects.
What do the Lockerbie Pan Am Bombing, the Lebanon Marine Corps Barracks Bombing, and the Khobar Towers Bombing have in common? Iran was behind them all.
Per “Kahlil” whose CIA code name is “Wally.” This is a real, actual undercover CIA operative we’re talking about, not some bitch like Valerie Plame, who flew a fucking desk.
“The men who ordered the destruction of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie and the bombings of the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon, the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia are pursuing the nuclear program in Iran and with one goal in mind: to obtain The Bomb.
And they want to destroy you.
After the Iranian Revolution, I was an officer in the Revolutionary Guards. I was also a spy working for the CIA, code name Wally. My position in the Guards gave me access to the Khomeini regime’s deep secrets and a firsthand look at the unfolding horror: torture, rapes, executions, assassinations, suicide bombers, training of terrorists, and the transfer of arms and explosives to other countries to support terrorist attacks. I risked my life and my family’s trying to expose this regime because I believed it should be stopped. Once again I incur such risks to bring awareness that lack of action endangers the world.
In the mid-80s, I reported to the CIA that the Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence unit had information that Saddam Hussein had made a strategic decision to acquire nuclear arms. I heard this from several sources within the Guards and also in a conversation with a member of the intelligence unit, who told me that the Guards were informed through arms dealers in the black market that Saddam was desperately looking for an atomic bomb. It was then that the Guards’ commanders and Iranian leadership decided to go nuclear and actively shop for components in the black market because they made a determination that the Iran-Iraq war could not have been won without a nuclear bomb. Mohsen Rezaei, then-commander of the Revolutionary Guards, requested permission from Ayatollah Khomeini to make Iran a nuclear power. Khomeini agreed.
Some years later, while I was stationed in Europe working for the CIA, I met with three Iranian agents who were shopping for nuclear parts. The agents confirmed what I had heard through the Guards: that Hashemi Rafsanjani had promised retaliation for the downing of an Iranian civilian jet by a U.S. warship over the Persian Gulf on July 3, 1988, toward the end of the Iran-Iraq war. According to the U.S government, an inexperienced crew mistakenly identified the Iranian Airbus as an attacking F-14 fighter; 290 people were killed. The agents said it was Rafsanjani who ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988, which killed 270 people. They also talked about involvement of a Palestinian man and the radio transmitter that carried the bomb, information that I passed on to the CIA. I made an assessment at that time that Iran had ordered, through surrogates, the bombing of the Pan Am flight.
There was not much of a follow-up on Iran’s involvement in that incident because Rafsanjani had become the president of Iran, and my CIA contact told me to consider Rafsanjani the new king of Iran. It was apparent to me that President George H.W. Bush was going to support and trust Rafsanjani as the new ruler of Iran. He was promised cooperation and good relations by the mullahs, and the U.S. administration and the CIA in turn were convinced that the mullahs were open to a new chapter in Iran-U.S relations.
I believed then, as I do now, that the mullahs would never abandon their ambitions, and that after 29 years of negotiations by Europe and world powers, the world has yet to understand that the mullahs will not change direction or behavior. In the early ’90s, the senior Bush administration and the CIA finally realized they were being duped — the mullahs’ promises never materialized. The CIA asked me to look for an Iranian who could testify that Iran was in the process of making a nuclear bomb. That request was later withdrawn.
Iran remains the main sponsor of terrorism around the world. Iranian consulates, embassies, airlines, and shipping line offices are the main hub for terrorist activities. Money, arms, and explosives are transferred through these centers to fund terrorist groups and jihadists. Quds Force units of the Revolutionary Guards use the Iranian consulates as their command and control centers to plan and carry out assassinations, kidnappings, and terrorist activities. The mullahs even transferred money and arms in state visits using their high-ranking officials, knowing full well that because of diplomatic immunity they would not be subject to search during such visits. As I reported to the CIA, these activities were closely coordinated through Iran’s foreign ministry, the ministry of intelligence, and the Revolutionary Guards.”
I fucking double-dog dare any terrorist-loving leftard to read the whole enchelada. It’s three pages of detailed history, which I’m sure is too much for any 25 IQ leftard moron to process.
We should have bombed Iran years ago, or assassinated all of its “leaders.”
Mr Rudd, Mr Garnault, et al: “What effect will Australia’s proposed Emissions Cap and Trade (ECT) program have on Climate Change?”
This is what I don’t understand. The media and the Federal Opposition (the Government, too, but I know where it’s coming from) have a duty to point out to the Australian public that any such policy will have no effect on actual temperatures, local or global. Even if you accept the IPCC’s position, surely the only sensible option for Australia would be to prepare itself for future adverse consequences as a result of climate change. By all means agitate for global emission targets and sign on when the major emitters sign on, but to do so before America, China and India commit is utterly futile on a practical level. As a symbolic gesture it remains awfully expensive and counter-productive, serving only to decrease Australia’s ability to cope with the droughts, sea level rises and the fifty thousand other catastrophes we’re headed for. Why is it deemed too complicated for us to say: “To avert climate change, the world needs to reduce carbon emissions. Individual nations, or even larger groups of nations, will only hurt themselves unless the major players also come to the table. We need to sit down and draft these protocols together.”
Personally, of course, I see no need for that to happen, either. But at least it would be a logical counter-measure if you truly believe the IPCC. What K.Rudd plans to do to us has no logic beyond political grandstanding. This is not being made clear enough. The casual observer is being led to believe that somehow an ECT scheme in Australia will avert climate change in Australia, or perhaps contribute a little to global climate stability, when in truth that contribution would be so small you couldn’t measure it.
Anna Bligh, Premier of Queensland and not exactly a conservative role model, at least seems to know where our money comes from: she and her young Treasurer have based their latest big-borrowing budget on the predicted growth our of coal industry. Interesting how she wasn’t savaged by the media over such a policy. It’s unsettling to now know she’s put us into debt on the promise of returned dividends from an industry her Federal counterpart is doing his best to hobble; I fear Queensland will therefore be particularly vulnerable to Rudd’s ECT therapy. And whilst medical ECT treatments may be used (usually as a last resort) for alleviating depression, Rudd’s is more likely to induce it – mentally and economically.
But I could swallow it all if it had the potential to do what it’s designed to do and reduce climate change. But it won’t. And there’s no debate about that. Not one scientist, or even politician, would publicly claim it would without those big nations I’ve mentioned doing the same. I’ll leave the scenario of world-wide carbon reductions for another time. For now, I simply ask once again: “What effect will this have on climate change, Mr Rudd, Mr Garnault, et al?”
(BTW: where do they find these economists?)
UPDATE: maybe they should read this report.
Employers will be forced to allow staff to discuss what they are paid under plans for “empowering the resentful” legions of underpaid women being set out by the government on Thursday.
An equality bill in the autumn will outlaw the “gagging clauses” being used by one in four employers to prevent staff from discussing their remuneration, Harriet Harman, the minister for women and equality, will on Thursday tell MPs.
But the bill will not require all employers to conduct audits showing the gender pay gap in the company. Ms Harman lost a battle to make such audits mandatory for the private sector – an outcome that will relieve business but incense unions.
The minister said on Wednesday that the equality legislation, being introduced in December’s Queen’s Speech, would nonetheless “set the cat among the pigeons” by ensuring greater openness.
The “British reserve about discussing pay” has contributed to a “lurking entrenchment of discrimination,” Ms Harman said. More than three decades after the Equal Pay Act of 1970, men in full-time jobs are still paid on average 17 per cent more than women in equivalent full-time posts.
Gap between full-time
men and women 17%
Gap between full-time
men and part-time
Gap within some government departments Treasury 26%
Work and pensions 7%
Equalities Office –4%
The percentage gap measures the extent to which the equivalent hourly rates of pay are higher for men than women. The minus sign for the equalities office shows that women are paid more than their male counterparts
“Let’s get [pay] out in the open … of course gagging clauses have got to go,” Ms Harman said. “What is absolutely key to making change is empowering the resentful. Women suspect that men in their own workplace are paid more than them … but it’s quite difficult for them to challenge it when they don’t actually know what the pattern of pay is … ”
The government will encourage the equality watchdog to take action against the City over unequal pay, the minister said. “We’ll have the Equality and Human Rights Commission going after particular sectors which are particularly problematic, like the financial services sector, where it’s a 45 per cent pay gap, or after the construction industry, which is a chronic under-employer of black and Asian people.”
Ministers also intend to use the government’s hefty procurement power to “drive transparency into the 30 per cent of the private sector” that supply goods and services to the state.
Private companies contracting with the state, as well as public sector employers, will be required to produce audits showing the gender pay gap, as well as the proportions of their staff that come from ethnic minorities or are disabled.
* The government will on Thursday again vow to tackle age discrimination. But the Financial Times understands the thorny issue of insurers’ treatment of older customers is likely to be the subject of further talks between the industry and ministers. In principle, the government wants age-related premium increases or policy exclusions to be used only when actuarially justified.
OK, First. Never have understood this one, Brits. A Queen is revered, but women in the workplace are just tolerated? Paid less?
No doubt at least one of your spawn, has the same discrimination in place and I suspect that all of England’s spawn do.
The U.S. hell yes. Same work, less pay. Why?
The Canadians will have to bring me up to speed on their situation. If so, why?
Australia. Under the skirt (you know what I mean) of the Queen. Same work, less pay? If so, why?
I hate to make a comparison such as…BUT when men can shit watermelons, which I believe MAY come close to women giving birth, I have trouble understanding why there is inequality in wages earned for the same damn job or profession.
* I’ll have to do some looking as to who/whom stated this…The term used was ageist. Guess what, whomever was correct.
Discrimination based on age is fine, as long as the OLD MEN that are Presidents of companies (which is typically the case) OR the Boards of Directors, are discriminated against like older MALE workers. Sure let it rip.
By the way, I do understand that the older one becomes the more that could go wrong with the body and mind. Case in point…A 38 year old male drops dead. Poor old shit, 38 years of age. (Ummm, sarcasm, people. Just in case you didn’t recognize it).
Would someone with more brain power then I have, explain this to me? Use small words, please.
The time line of Obama’s flip-flops on Iraq just happens to correlate to his friend’s business dealings in that country.
Barack Obama’s position on Iraq has shifted significantly over the last six years. What is interesting is how his position on Iraq matches up with developments in Chicago. Specifically, there appears to be a direct correlation between the rising and falling prospects of his longtime friend and fundraiser Tony Rezko’s attempts to secure multi-million-dollar contracts to build and operate a power plant in Kurdish Iraq and the senator’s Iraq flip-flops.
On October 2, 2002, Obama gave a speech categorically opposing an invasion of Iraq. He said:
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
But on April 5, 2004, Barack Obama appeared to significantly alter his position on Iraq. A YouTube video of Obama shows the incredulity on the interviewer’s face as Obama unexpectedly sounded almost like President Bush on the subject of retaining troops in Iraq.
Interviewer: But you said that troops should be withdrawn.
Obama: No, no. I’ve never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I’ve said is that we’ve got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly and I don’t think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that. What’s important is that we have a long-term plan in process and short-term security strategy.
It’s been suggested that that change in the senator’s position from opposition to a stern refusal to leave until the job had been finished can be explained by the unexpected ease with which the campaign had gone up till that time. But that doesn’t quite square with the facts. April 2004 was in fact the bloodiest month in the Iraq campaign till then and the start of the Sunni insurgency and Moqtada al-Sadr’s uprising. On March 31, 2004, Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah ambushed a Blackwater convoy and hung the mutilated bodies of the Americans on the bridge. Wikipedia recounts the rush of bloody events which followed:
On April 3, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force received a written command from the Joint Task Force, ordering offensive operations against Fallujah. This order went against the wishes of the Marine commanders on the ground who wanted to conduct surgical strikes and raids against those suspected of involvement in the Blackwater deaths.
On the night of April 4, the U.S. forces launched a major assault in an attempt to “re-establish security in Fallujah” by encircling it with around 2,000 troops. At least four homes were hit in aerial strikes, and there was sporadic gunfire throughout the night.
By the morning of April 5, headed by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, American units had surrounded the city with an aim towards retaking it. American troops blockaded roads leading into the city, with Humvees and concertina wire, and took over a local radio station, and handed out leaflets urging residents to remain inside their homes, and help American forces identify insurgents and any Fallujans who were involved in the Blackwater deaths.
Obama’s change of tone in 2004 was so noticeable that Howard Kurtz couldn’t help but notice how striking the Illinois senator’s position was in mid-2004. Obama was quoted as saying:
There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.
This dude has flipped so many times, he should change his name to “Burger” Obama.