Sunday, December 13, 2009

GLOBAL WARMING IS NOW 'CLIMATE CHANGE'

The envirowacko fringe has apparently adopted a new tactic in the face of growing skepticism over human-caused global warming: they've de-emphasized the 'human caused' part of their rhetoric, and they've changed the concern to 'climate change.'

Convenient. Now no matter which way the climate changes, they can say they warned us.

New flash: the climate is always changing. Never in the history of this planet has it just sat there, twiddling its thumbs. No, sir. It's always changing - sometimes fast, sometimes slow, but always. So announcing that the climate is changing is comparable to announcing that the dead vegetation littering North America right now will start to turn green in a few months. Both climate and foliage greening are cyclical, and just as certain. And both will take place with or without Man's impact, if any.

So why the big concern by these envirowackos? The short answer is, it isn't about climate at all. It's about sucking tens of trillions of dollars out of the world's productivity in order to create a global serfdom, dependent upon government benevolence for simple subsistence; enslaved to work but not excel; survive but not thrive; obey but not dare to challenge. A humanity of that sort can be easily ruled. So - you think your Ostrich Killer is paranoid again? Well maybe so, but that doesn't mean I'm not right about this. Want proof?

Think for a moment: do you REALLY think that these envirowackos will call for more SUV sales should climate change mean cooling? You remember that these envirowackos and their pet 'scientists' have hammered at us for years that carbon emissions were heating up the planet. So wouldn't it be logical, if we discover we are actually cooling, to want to increase those carbon emissions in order to slow or reverse that cooling? Build more coal-fueled power plants. Burn more wood openly. Oh, there are many ways to increase carbon emissions. But have you heard even one of these guys suggest anything of this nature?

You can certainly think of many more things they've said or pronounced as gospel that they simply will not reverse, no matter whether the climate is cooling or warming. That's because the goal is not reducing the rate of climate change, it's eliminating profit and productivity, thereby 'taming' the human population so that it depends on government for meals and health and transportation and entertainment, which of course means they'll be easily ruled. Got unclean, anti-government thoughts in your head? Your food ration will be cut. Say anything the government might not like? Avoid the hospital . . .

Energy drives the world's economies. Energy comes from coal and wood, nuclear fission, hydroelectric, and oil. All other sources of energy combined make up about one percent of output. But the envirowackos will tell you that coal and wood, nuclear reactors, hydroelectric and oil are unacceptable. So what does that leave us with to drive the world's industries, to light the world's cities, to heat the world's homes, to fuel the global transportation grid?

Exactly. I think you're beginning to get it. Without access to cheap energy, we grind back into a pre-industrial revolution agri-economy. A massive, global feudalism similar to that which existed in King Arthur's time. It would almost seem that the envirowackos are targeting energy on purpose, wouldn't it? What better way to lower productivity than to deprive it of energy? What better way to eliminate profit than to make industry impossible due to lack of energy?

Call it a conspiracy theory if you like, but expect to think about this as you listen to the news about climate change. If you don't believe in this conspiracy now, just wait.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

A Tiger Woods Press Conference (I Wish)

"Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the media. I'm glad you all were able to come out today and allow me to bring you up to date on my personal situation, which all of you have covered in exquisite detail, and my plans for the future. This will be a short conference, and I will not entertain questions when I am done.

"First, my personal situation: That is personal. It's between myself and my family, and between myself and the local police, who cited me for that stupid driving accident. So it's none of your business. However, I realize you don't get paid for not digging up dirt, so dig away and be damned. Publish what you will, but expect no comment from me on any of it. Why? Because - duh - it's all personal.

"Next, my plans for the future: I'm Tiger Woods. I'm the best damned golfer in the world. I win piles of money and even do a little good with it, if you'll bother to look into my philanthropic efforts. So what I'm going to do is play golf, and kick every other golfer's butts as often as I can and as convincingly as I can. I will do this no matter what the media has to say about it, because frankly I no longer give a crap what you have to say. What I have to say, I'll say with my golf clubs.

"In case you missed any of what I just said, you can pick up a transcript outside in the lobby. Good day. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out."

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

DWTS - A WAY TO SELL ADVERTISING, NOT A TALENT COMPETITION

In case some of you might have misunderstood the show, it's not a serious dance contest. It's only partly about talent - dancing talent, that is - and that part is provided by the panel of judges who mostly get it right. The other, apparently far larger part is just a popularity contest fueled by viewers calling in to vote for their favorites. Even Dumbo the Flying Elephant would make the cuts, if kids called in. And this has happened with other talent-challenged pop culture figures (many of them plus sizes, or far too old to be agile). One only has to look at who makes the cuts to figure this out.

And please spare me any complaints about my fatism-ageism comments. They are simply reality: fat, out of condition past their primes people have no business pretending to be dancers. They should be marketing their personal brands of low-calorie popcorn or AARP insurance, or something.

As much as your Ostrich Killer likes to watch some of these shows, he has decided to stop watching DWTS until and unless talent is the sole criteria. That is the only fair way - fairest to viewers who tune in to watch what are often incredible dance routines, fairest to the dancers who work very hard to put on the best show they can. It must be professionally disgusting to the judge panel to see the better dancers get eliminated week after week because they don't get as many phone calls as the Pillbury Marshmallow Man, who fell on his ass twice in one dance but who has a great smile. But hey. Judges are professionals. They get paid to judge. They do that. And then they go home and kick the dog.

Maybe there can be two categories of winners: Judge's Choice, and Viewer's Choice. Cuts would be made based solely on dancing talent (Judge's Choice), but at the end of the show there would be a second award of Viewer's Choice. Any contestant pair, no matter when they were cut, would be eligible for that award. This would show beyond any possibility of doubt that viewers don't care a whit or don't know squat about dancing talent, but so what? The judges already chose the best talent.

Thursday, December 03, 2009

OBAMA'S WEST POINT SPEECH - WHAT PEOPLE HEARD

What General McChrystal heard: "Over 3 months ago you asked for 40,000 troops. I and my other hand-picked roomful of REMFs sat around and tried to figure out how I could appear to support your request and still not support it. Here's what we came up with: I'll loan you 30,000 and ask our NATO allies to send the other 10,000. Being NATO and therefore of no common will or commitment, they won't send that many, so I'll have at least two built-in ways to blame you and them should you fail in your assigned mission. I'll send the troops to you in piddling installments over a period of about six months, and then I'll start taking them away again. In a year and a half you won't have any troops. And in the meantime, you'd better sound convincingly pleased with my plan, and save my ass by finding some way to announce victory no matter the real outcome."

What Afghan Leadership heard: "You people have been lazy and timid and worthless as both political practitioners and overseers of your country's internal security. You've got a year and a half to figure out how to survive our departure, because that's when the Taliban will no longer meet military resistance from the United States. Good luck."

What the Taliban heard: "Honored Colleagues: Please withdraw the majority of your forces to secure locations, and take the next year and a half to recruit, train, re-arm and rebuild. At the end of that time we will announce victory, then you will be free to do as you wish with Afghanistan. In the meantime, though, in order to maintain my personal credibility - important to you, I assure you - we will conduct periodic raids and military strikes upon some of your lesser outlying assets. But don't worry too much, because these raids will be mostly for show, so that back in the US I can appear to be doing something of value. You shouldn't suffer too badly from these photo-op military actions because I will ensure that our troops are severely limited by imposing such strict Rules of Engagement (ROE) that few will dare even pull a trigger. So rest easy, my friends, and plan for the glorious future - a future of Afghanistan, free of American military presence."

What the Afghan citizen heard: "You'd better get rid of any ideas you might have about being helpful to American or allied troops over the next year and a half, because after we leave the Taliban will cut your nuts off and feed them to your daughters before they rape them as punishment for helping us."

What the American citizen heard: "Blah, blahblah, blah de blah blah . . . How do I look? Am I pretty? Do I look stalwart and determined? Do I . . . I . . . I . . . blahblahblah."

What his West Point audience heard: "You future war criminals are going to listen to me attentively because this is an important photo op for me, your commander in chief. Using you as background window dressing for my speech will make my American electorate sob with patriotic pride. But just in case your enthusiasm is less than total, we're taking lots of video and photos of you during my speech, and any of you who don't have smiles on your faces can expect to find your futures a little less bright. So applaud and cheer, you baby killers."

What the troops in the field heard: "I'm not interested in winning or even fighting. I'm interested in appearing to fight and win. Some of you will have to die for that to happen. But that's what you get paid for, so get at it. It's important for my image."