Dodge trucks made what just might be the worst Stupor Bowl ad ever. If not, I don’t want to see what’s worse. But, Funny Or Die made a good parody of it. Unfortunately, to get the parody, you must first waste two minutes of your life watching the original ad. If you’ve already seen the Dodge Trucks Stupor Bowl ad, by all means, spare yourself. You do not need to watch that crap again.
I’m sure many who read my blog have been convinced for a while that I’m somewhat of a fear monger with respect to climate change and overpopulation. Perhaps. Before you make up your mind, read this:
The figures come as one of the world’s leading environmentalists issued a warning that the global food supply system could collapse at any point, leaving hundreds of millions more people hungry, sparking widespread riots and bringing down governments. In a shocking new assessment of the prospects of meeting food needs, Lester Brown, president of the Earth policy research centre in Washington, says that the climate is no longer reliable and the demands for food are growing so fast that a breakdown is inevitable, unless urgent action is taken.
Good thing climate change is just a hoax. Dig hole in sand. Insert head. Fill in hole. Ignorance is bliss.
“Armed aggression is no longer the principal threat to our future. The overriding threats to this century are climate change, population growth, spreading water shortages and rising food prices,” Brown says.
Under the influence of the painkiller Dilaudid, and dog-tired after another day of fighting for my life with my private health insurance company, I glimpsed Mitt Romney and his running-mate, Paul Ryan, entering my Los Angeles hospital room dressed in surgical gowns with scalpels in their hands ready to fatally operate on me.
It was a drug-induced hallucination, of course. But the mirage made me sit bolt upright in bed and, fully awake, start to rethink my previous, bitterly dissenting view of Barack Obama.
250 million years ago, this planet suffered the greatest mass extinction of multicellular life in the long history of the planet. The ocean conveyor current stopped. The ocean became anoxic, meaning it had little or no oxygen. Fish died; sulfur producing bacteria thrived. As the anoxic layer of the ocean reached the surface, hydrogen sulfide gas was released into the atmosphere in toxic quantities. The sky turned green. The mass extinction was brought onto land.
95% of all species on the planet died. This was due to global warming.*
Well, not actually Christ. But, some who actually read the bible are finding little or no support for the Republican budget created by Paul Ryan. They’re claiming that, while he claims to be a Christian, he is instead a follower of Ayn Rand, a renowned atheist. In fact, Ryan also claims to be a Randroid. So, how can one reconcile his Ayn Randian politics with his stated Christian beliefs? One can’t.
I, for one, am not a Christian. But, as was Jesus Christ, I am a liberal. So, just as Jesus Christ would be, I am appalled by Republican politics. Anyway, here’s a couple of good clips from the Colbert Report about the Ryan budget.
Here’s an excellent write-up that describes the ways in which we are stealing from future generations to feed ourselves and the parallels between doing so and any other Ponzi scheme.
I’ve read Plan B 2.0, an excellent book, and notice that there is a link to a new version Plan B 4.0 by Lester Brown.
Don’t forget, the article doesn’t even mention the fact that not only is the oil at the pump a subsidized and limited resource, so is the oil we pour on our corn as fertilizer.
That’s right, industrial fertilizers are petroleum products. We’re eating oil!! That can’t be good for either our health or our long term prospects in terms of a very large population dependent on a fossil, non-renewable, resource.
Still current years later …
Correction, after posting this, I did some more searching and found that this is a current campaign from California One. I had thought it was from SNL. Is still hilarious. Somehow when I watched it the first time, I failed to notice the California One statement at the end.
Should that be Randroids or Randorrhoids? Either way, here’s a very good write-up about the Objectivist cult, only slightly mentioned by name, and the fact that these people are still of the belief that Objectivism can get us out of the mess it got us into.
I’ve plugged this blog here before when giving credit for things he’s found and have this on my blog roll as well. But, this post is so terrific I just had to share it. Don’t cheat and only watch the Colbert video at the end though. The post is way too good and well worth reading in its entirety. So, I won’t embed the video here.
Pay special attention to the chef metaphor. It’s brilliant.
Please read this article about Carter’s 1977 speech and tell me now that Carter was bad for the country and Reagan was good. Go ahead. Tell me now which of those two presidents had the right long term plan for this country. Tell me how much worse off we would have been had we continued with Carter’s energy plan. Tell me that this speech of Carter’s didn’t detail a large chunk of the events that have now come to pass as a result of not following his plan.
Read the rest of this entry »
I’m not sure why the press doesn’t blast this guy every time he opens his mouth. He just keeps continually contradicting himself. Perhaps the press just finds him too easy a target. Perhaps it feels too much like kicking an old dog. Regardless of where you stand on the issues, you can’t believe a word the man says.
We love to complain when our politicians flip-flop on an issue. Sometimes, especially when the opinion changes dramatically over a short time frame, it is justified to get upset about a candidate changing views. Sometimes, however, it seems that flip-flopping may be a good thing. Wouldn’t it be nice if Bush would flip-flop once in a while, instead of obstinately maintaining a failed course of action.
Regardless though, despite the awful cover* from the New Yorker in this particular issue, the article inside is actually an interesting take on flip-flopping, what really qualifies, and when it is better than not.
Here’s yet another incredibly eloquent speech by Obama. I find it very refreshing that we have a candidate that can correctly pronounce place names and even the word nuclear. Further, some of the sentiments expressed in this speech are sentiments I’ve been hoping to hear expressed for a long time. Here is someone who can show real leadership, something we have been sorely lacking for 7 years.
I you prefer to read the text, rather than listen to a 36 minute video, the text is available on the Obama webiste.
See Foreclosure Phil in the current issue of Mother Jones for details on how Phil Gramm is largely responsible for our current economic problems and further how John McCain thinks this is the person who can fix our problems. From the article, ‘Media accounts have identified Gramm as a contender for the top slot at the Treasury Department if McCain reaches the White House.’
When you’re done being sickened by the above article, add this related article in the same issue regarding The GOP’s December Surprise that may be on its way. There appears to be a really good chance that the Repugnicans are propping up the economy to the best of their ability right now for the short term to make themselves look better until November. Come December …
If you still think McCain has the answers, take the Bush-McCain Challenge and learn why many of us are starting to call him McBush.
Top U.S. Scientists and Economists Call For Swift, Deep Cuts In Global Warming Pollution
More than 1,700 Say Early Reductions Can Benefit Economy
I must admit that this is in the pattern ordinarily used by the climate change skeptics. They love to quote a large number of scientists that dispute that climate change is real or dispute that it is human caused.
However, it has been my experience that such claims are often made when the scientists listed largely fall into one of three categories, scientists in a field not related to climatology, names of people who may or may not be scientists but have no peer reviewed papers to their names, or known ExxonMobil employees.
Perhaps you might say that these 1,700 fall into similar categories on the other side. However, in this case, according to the League of Conservation Scientists, among the names are:
The signatories, compiled by UCS, include six Nobel Prize winners in science or economics, 31 NAS members, and more than 100 IPCC authors and editors
In The Weather Makers, there is a chapter called “The Last Act of God”. The premise is that storms and the like were all considered acts of god from a legal standpoint. This meant that no one could be held responsible. However, in light of anthropogenic climate change, these things are now foreseeable consequences of actions of corporations, nations, and even to a very small extent individuals.
This means that these entities may now be open to litigation in international court for damages that result from climate change as a foreseeable outcome of the actions of these entities.
Of the three presidential candidates, only Obama has this one right. Here’s an excellent write up from Newsweek about the issue. This may be the best of the links here regarding the issue.
My personal favorite paragraph from the article above is this one, though the bullet points are the real convincing part:
I could highlight a long debate among economists on suspending the gas tax, but there is no debate. Not one respectable economist—and not one environmentalist or foreign policy expert—supports the idea, unless they are official members of the Clinton or McCain campaigns (and even some of them privately oppose it). To relieve suffering at the pump, send another rebate check or provide tax credits or something else, but not this.
Please click this link to a petition site to say no the the gas tax holiday. We must try hard not to get stuck with this horrifically bad idea. There are more links to other great articles below in case you are not convinced by a single source. Read the rest of this entry »
First read this article from the New York Times, McCain Differs With Bush on Climate Change. One thing is clear from this article, all of the remaining candidates want to reduce carbon emissions.
However, what is not clear from this is the magnitude of their differences on the point. Take the following paragraph that I believe to be very poorly written on the part of an otherwise fairly good news source.
In his speech, Mr. McCain advocated cutting emissions 60 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050; Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama propose cutting them by 80 percent in the same time frame while the Lieberman-Warner bills calls for a 70 percent reduction. Scientists say reductions of that magnitude are needed to slow and then reverse production of the gases, chiefly carbon dioxide, which are heating the atmosphere and causing long-term climate changes.
This last sentence is patently false. Scientists say that a reduction of emissions to 80% below 1990 levels is required to avert catastrophic warming and to avoid a tipping point. The planet will not negotiate on politics. So, let’s see just how different are 60%, 70%, and 80% reductions?
When did you stop beating your wife? This is one of the classic examples of a loaded question. This survey is a mix of both leading questions and loaded questions and probably some that are both. I’ve seen Democratic Party surveys and have never reacted this way to one. Perhaps this is because I’m a liberal.
However, I tend to be pretty fair about such things and would likely notice if they had questions that were this deliberately targeted toward proving that the constituency wants what the party is already feeding them rather than trying to find out what the constituency really wants. Of course, the next Democratic Party survey I get will likely prove me wrong since I’ll be looking at it more closely after seeing this shocker.
Note that I checked for copyright notices as well as admonitions regarding the reproduction of this document and found none.
Read the rest of this entry »