You're way out of line, Tom. It's not about results, it's about good intentions.

The more I look into this the more it becomes clear that the so called environmental movement is nothing more than a thinly disguised anti-capitalist club. I came across the term "watermelons" (green on the outside, red on the inside) in one of the articles I linked to in a previous post. If the fruit fits...

This is why I don't recycle.

Those geniuses at the UN are warning that it's only a matter of time before Al Qaeda launches a chemical attack. My 3 year old daughter can see the irony and hypocrisy in this statement. The UN seems adept at restating the obvious, but is reticent to take obvious preventive measures. The icing on the cake is this little nugget: "The report concludes that much tougher measures are needed to oblige 'states to take the mandated measures' against known individuals and entities of al Qaeda and the Taliban and their associates." I will now pause so the world can join me in a giant collective DUHHHHHHHHH! It's frightening that the US and a handful of its allies are the only ones left in the world with the stones to actually confront what is a painfully obvious threat to civilization. The UN clearly knows there is a problem, but can't seem to get behind the solution, because that would mean (gasp!) agreeing with the US and admitting they're all a bunch of impotent pansies. Perhaps they could approve some sanctions and resolutions against Al Qaeda. That'll show em!

Here's an interesting article on the London protestors from NRO. This should tell you a little something about those rabid Bush haters on this side of the pond.

Good points, Kerry. Kyoto was an amazing sham that was so biased against the US that you'd expect that it was crafted in the UN. Among some other atrocities, the limitations placed on us by the Kyoto treaty would have made gasoline prices triple within a year. I'm sure that would have had just a dandy effect on the economy that was sliding into recession. It's that old "intentions are more important than results" leftist mindset again.

One other fact that is overlooked in this article is that the UK is heavily reliant an nuclear power, like much of the rest of Europe. It's no wonder they produce far less greenhouse gases, when you couple that with the fact that their industries are crippled with socialism. The fact that Blair thinks they can reduce their greenhouse emissions by 60% only shows that they are going to become more dependent on nuclear energy. You won't hear US environmentalists talking up this fact any time soon. There is no greater Satan to the Sierra Club crowd than nuclear power. To them, we should just go back to a 17th century lifestyle; that will solve everything.

Another pet peeve....or two...

The Independent on George Bush and the environment:

“In the mid-1990s, under Bill Clinton, the US began to take a lead in cutting greenhouse gases. Mr Clinton's vice-president, Al Gore, himself an environmentalist with a well-regarded book, Earth in the Balance,led the US delegation at the conference in Kyoto in December 1997 which drew up the first binding cutback schedule. Mr Gore actually went a lot farther than the US State Department thought was wise.

He committed America to cuts so big they could only be achieved through what was in effect licensed cheating (such as buying emission credits from countries which had a surplus, such as Russia).But at least the US was strongly behind the Kyoto Protocol and its principles. George Bush changed all that. After barely three months in office, he withdrew from the Kyoto agreement.”

The US was strongly behind Kyoto? Here, yet again, is the Senate’s 95-0 vote from August 1997.


1.) They continue to distort facts to support their own agenda.
2.) THE BLAME OR APPRECIATION FOR ANYTHING IN THIS COUNTRY ALMOST ALWAYS RESTS WITH CONGRESS, NOT THE PRESIDENT. (With exception to the Supreme Court, which is such a disappointment these days that the blame WILL be resting with Presidents on that one.) People continue to not understand basic 5th grade US History, the 3 bodies of the federal government, what their roles are, etc. IT DRIVES ME INSANE!

(Thanks to Andrew Strattaford for catching this one, unfortunately one of many...)

Neal Boortz deals a swift kick in the nuts to the ludicrous prescription drugs benefit that congress is contemplating. What people forget is that elderly people weren't born elderly. Last I checked, all of them lived for many many years before becoming elderly, which gave them plenty of time to PLAN FOR THEIR FUTURE. If you walk this earth for 60+ years and then suddenly look up and realize that you're uninsured and can't afford to take care of yourself, then there's about a 95% chance that your own poor decision making got you there. Either that, or you knew that the leftists would come to your rescue (in exchange for your vote) and take money from those who are saving for their own future in order to cover your ass. Actually, that sounds like a good plan. I'm going to go buy a Ferrari.

The energy surrounding the Dean phenomenon, though I haven't yet mentioned this to anyone, reminds me of the mania surrounding the Mc Cain run. Now, I'm not comparing the men, but the way that their supporters feel about them and why. I have the unfortunate, or fortunate depending on how you look at it, reality of dealing with many family members on both sides with differing political views from mine (mother in law is a liberal, one sister of mine and my sister in law are greens, parents are totally screwed up, consider themselves libertarians but with a liberal bend in there--way anti big business--don't even get me started). I heard a lot of the same phrases about Mc Cain that I hear about Dean. "He's a real person." "He means what he says, he's not just saying it to pander to a certain lobby." (nevermind that it isn't true) "He really CARES about people." (proven of course by speak not action) People that love Howard Dean are not unlike the people that loved John Mc Cain. They like that he speaks his mind, doesn't care who he insults, and doesn't back down (until lately at least). There is some hope here, in that what these people are saying is that they are also sick of "political correctness" in speech. However, Dean is obviously much more dangerous to the country than McCain ever was, though I have my issues with him, I agree strongly with McCain's overall stance on foreign policy.

Just a thought that has been germinating and after reading the piece that by Will, with the line of him running as an independant possibly if not nominated as the D, was confirmed in my mind even more.


Thomas, it must drive you crazy to see me blogging while you are slaving away....just remember that tonight you can be watching LOTR 2 Towers Extended while I am stuck at a very boring 2 hour school meeting...that shall be your revenge on me!

Now I'm off to do some "real work"...

Massachusetts just confirmed their liberal status with a decision to allow same sex marriage, just came down at 10 am. Hmm, MA, VT, and Canada, will NH or ME be next? We're pretty well surrounded...

Here's some good observations from George Will regarding the Democrats' conundrum in nominating Howard Dean. One thing I'll add: I'm not nearly as giddy as many non-democrats are about a Bush vs. Dean election. If the election happened today Bush would likely crush him, but I remember a lot of people saying that about a certain Arkansas governor a few years back when there was another Bush in the White House. It's too bad Lieberman is such an inept campaigner. Bush would likely crush him as well, but at least if he won we wouldn't go into a socialist death spiral. We would, however, have to listen to him talk for 4 years. Eeeew.

What you guys said. Sorry, I just wanted to post SOMETHING, I've been quite busy lately....

You're absolutely right Kerry. Unfortunately, the percentage of citizens that fall into the "undecided" and "no opinion" categories seems to get larger every day. They can all tell you who is left on Survivor, though. As Plato said, "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

Here are the key quotes from the President's interview with the BBC.
My favorite: On his most important lessons learned from the Presidency: "Have a clear vision of where you want to lead, and lead."


Also, this report from the Guardian, which suggests that Bush isn't nearly as disapproved of in Britain as suggested. In fact, if you go into the polling data, not only does he have a majority of support for his state visit, but a full 20% of the country either doesn't care or doesn't have an opinion on it. One fifth of the country is so lame that they don't even have a viewpoint...either that or they're the sheep breeders/farmers that don't see it as affecting their life, until of course a terror attack happens in London, and they can't sell their wool, cheese, whatever because the economy goes to shit. Sorry, no excuse for not keeping up with world events.

Rush is back and using what he has learned in his rehabilitation to help people understand things in a different way. He took on the Ted Kennedy issue, and destroyed it. He spoke fleetingly about my fear of the Bush administration starting to worry too much about what other people think with an election coming up. I actually believe that Bush himself would do what he thinks is right, but he of course is surrounded be people more concerned with getting him re elected first. But once we make any concessions, with regard to Iraq, we can't go back on them.

As far as this goes, his vision is "you can't change other people's behavior, you can only change your own." Bush has tried to change Kennedy's behavior by cozying up to him at the beginning of his presidency in the name of non partisanship, again by letting him write the education bill, and yet again by him getting the award for public service last week. Has it changed his behavior? No. Therefore, Bush is lying about how he really feels and who he is every time that he continues this charade. Kennedy just continues being who he is, and getting extra benefits in the bargain.

Now, after some reading on Bush, I feel that there could be another thing playing into things, which is his Christianity, that causes him to want to forgive, to be compassionate, etc. but he has shown that once he is convinced that someone is not interested in reciprocating his goodwill, he is usually quick to take a leadership role in not allowing harmful action to the country or administration by that state or individual to continue.

Anyway, I have to say that Rush has been top of his form today....

John Derbyshire has a piece on NRO today that I really enjoyed, because of it's long range implications. You can read it here.