Joke of the Week

Tip O' the Hat to the Patriot Action Network for the videos used in this week's "Joke of the Week" post.  When the truth of the subject matter penetrates the humor it is couched in, that sometimes it is best to laugh to keep from crying. I particularly love the last one featuring the great Ronaldus Magnus.  The Great One's quip is more true today than ever before. 

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES!

Memorial Day

Happy Memorial Day to all. Again, as you go about your Memorial Day activities, spare a thought for those who gave everything for our freedom, and those who continue to do so at home and abroad.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES!

A Needed Change in EPA Motives - A Guest Article

Instead of ripping off borrowing this weeks Global Warming post, I have a Guest Article. This weekend Ryan H. emailed me and asked if he could post a guest article here. I do not know Ryan, but I like his style, and his post saved me from having to search for a post about green tyranny. I will not postulate why Ryan does not have a blog of his own, but I am not above capitalizing on helping a fellow writer. I am sure Ryan would like feedback, so please leave all suggestions in the comments, and I will make sure Ryan gets it. So without further adieu..........

Alright, a little more adieu:

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the original author. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of Right Wing Extreme, the RWE Staff, (RWE's alternate personalities) and/or any/all contributors to this site (there are no other contributors except for the previously mentioned alternate personalities).

Republican Party representatives on a committee for energy have put the EPA under fire this week, questioning them on future power regulations. This is yet another assault by the Republican Party who has revealed the EPA as a megalomaniacal organization that is out dated in the current year.

The regulations placed on the power sector are being brought to light as the next primary issue for debate, and have previously attacked the EPA budget, restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, and the Clean Air Act. What’s the relation of all three? Stagnant revenue and employment growth largely related to those relying on power plants and factories.

Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has been a proprietor of EPA criticisms on their restrictions and the impacts they have caused. Inhofe said "I think everyone is aware of the huge cost to the American taxpayer on these huge bills that the Democrats are trying to push through, but they're not as aware of the cost of over-regulation. These regulations are the EPA, having to do with industrial boilers, having to do with ozone requirements, the endangerment finding. They would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the cost is just tremendous. We cannot be globally competitive as long as we have over-regulation in America." Inhofe definitely does make a strong argument, pointing out the amount of regulations and problems the EPA have imposed on business leaders.”

Even the federal budget agreement was yet another failure by the EPA in recent months. The EPA had their budget slashed by 16% in the agreement, although not to any of the larger programs in question. The agency has spent a large part of 2010 and 2011 defending some seemingly useless regulations. The fight they have engaged to keep taxes up on costly regulations and restrictions has averted a lot of the attention from programs that directly affect health in the United States like asbestos removal and water contamination, preventing illnesses like leukemia, and mesothelioma, a deadly cancer directly related to asbestos exposure. Reallocation of resources towards these programs instead of restrictions with financial interests in mind would greatly help the EPA return to its original purpose.

Granted, support of the Clean Air Act and attempting to reduce the chances of global warming is one thing, but the continual support of stifling greenhouse gas emissions seems to be more motivated by money than with improving the health of Americans. These restrictions allow the EPA to enforce cap and trade taxes on the industries leaders, forcing them to pay out colossal amounts of money while the regulations themselves have a very minute impact on actual health issues.

As the EPA seems bent on keeping the course in regards to costly regulations, they have frequently discussed the “sensibility” of these rules. It can be expected for the [R]epublicans to continue to restrict the agency and it can be assumed that even more cuts are to follow in the coming years.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES

Joke of the Week

A little silver-haired lady calls her neighbor and says, "Please come over here and help me. I have a killer jigsaw puzzle, and I can't figure out how to get started." Her neighbor asks, "What is it supposed to be when it's finished?"

The little silver haired lady says, "According to the picture on the box, it's a rooster."

Her neighbor decides to go over and help with the puzzle.

She lets him in and shows him where she has the puzzle spread all over the table.

He studies the pieces for a moment, then looks at the box, then turns to her and says,

"First of all, no matter what we do, we're not going to be able to assemble these pieces into anything resembling a rooster."

He takes her hand and says, "Secondly, I want you to relax. Let's have a nice cup of tea, and then," he said with a deep sigh...........

"Let's put all the Corn Flakes back in the box."

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES

Adios Douchebag (And another one gone, and another one gone. Another one bites the dust )

I love waking up to good news. A big round of applause to The Navy Seals, the CIA and even to The President for a job well done. My only regret is that The President treated this scum's carcass with dignity befitting a human, rather than the animal Bin Laden clearly was. Personally I do not think I would have just dumped him out to sea. I would have put that slime's head on a pike outside the White House where I could see my trophy from the windows of the Oval Office, and the American People could see it as well. I would also have sewed up the rest of the offal, read that as the rest of the asshole's body, in a pig's carcass after having a Marine piss on it and jam a pork chop up the ass. Then, just to make my point to all the other wanna-be terrorists, I would have aired the festivities on all the news channels, as well as on a constant repeating loop, complete with laugh track, on the White House Blog. I know it is supposed to be shameful to glory in the death of another, but I just do not have it in me to feel bad about it. Adios fucker! Justice is served, if a bit quickly for my preference. By the way, the weather where you are going is always HOT. Sun block recommendation, SPF 1,000,000.

-----UPDATE-----

Yes, I know the picture is a fake, but it still makes my point.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES

Global Warming Wednesday

This week's post was brought to my attention by Climate Depot, but was originally posted by the staff at CTV News.

EurekAlert withdraws climate change paper

A study warning that the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020, creating deadly consequences for the global food supply, is being debunked as false and impossible.

The study came from a little-known, non-profit group based in Argentina, called the Universal Ecological Fund. An embargoed copy of the study appeared on Eurekalert!, a news service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that's followed by many journalists.

The study was picked up by a number of international news organizations Tuesday. But it appears the study's claims were erroneous.

The AAAS says that after receiving complaints that the study's conclusions were impossible, it has removed all references to the study from its website.

"EurekAlert! deeply regrets the accidental posting of an erroneous news release on 18 January 2011," the news service wrote in a notice to journalists who subscribe to the service.

"The news release was swiftly removed from EurekAlert!, and staff are taking steps to set the record straight with all reporters who had seen it."

EurekAlert! notes that it is a non-profit news service that relies on staff members to determine the eligibility of up to 100 news release submissions. These staff proofread submissions for typographical or common-sense errors.

"But we rely mostly on the submitting organization to ensure the veracity of the scientific content of the news release; we try to exclude unreliable information providers on the front-end of our screening process," the notice says.

"…We deeply regret that the system failed yesterday, and we appreciate the help we received from reporters who are now setting the record straight."

The correction came after The Guardian newspaper in the U.K. published a reaction piece to the study. The paper said it had interviewed climate scientists who told them that rapid global warming at the rates projected by the study was impossible.

"2.4 C by 2020 (which is 1.4C in the next 10 years – something like six to seven times the projected rate of warming) has no basis in fact," NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt told the newspaper in an email.

According to The Guardian, the study's lead author Liliana Hisas, who is the UEF's executive director, erred by overlooking how the oceans, which absorb heat, will compensate for global warming by delaying the effects of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.

Hisas said she stands by her report's findings, which have been endorsed by Nobel Prize-winning Argentine climate scientist, Osvaldo Canziani.

She said the UEF did not intend to withdraw the report.

"We are just going to go ahead with it. I don't have a choice now," she told The Guardian.

"The scientist I have been working with checked everything and according to him it's not wrong."

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES

Global Warming Wednesday

This week's exposure of the Global Warming "BIG LIE" come to us from a blogger going by the handle of hauntingthelibrary and his[her?] eponymous blog. This site should be required reading for any and all the [enviro]mental deficients you come across.

Scientist: Farming Causes Obesity, Mental Illness, Overpopulation and Global Warming – Says Eugenics “Inevitable”

Posted on January 20, 2011 by hauntingthelibrary

In an article that makes you roll your eyes and wonder “where do they find these people?” the BBC interviews Dr Spencer Wells, explorer-in-residence at the National Geographic Society and in charge of their Genographic project, about his new book Pandora’s Seed

Dr Wells tells them about the claims he makes in the book:

In the book, I talk about global warming and overpopulation. I trace a lot of these issues back in time to the dawn of the Neolithic. This was a period when humanity made a sea change in its culture. We settled down and started growing our own food.

BBC. Sting in the Tail of Farming Revolution.

Wow! That’s a pretty big claim to make – that late stone age man caused global warming and overpopulation by inventing farming! But the invention of farming is a good thing, right?

Wrong, says Dr Wells. People were worse off with farming, becoming more malnourished. Which leads one to ask, well why did they keep farming then, if it was such a disaster for humanity? Dr Wells has the answer for that as well: they had to invent farming because of climate change:

It turns out the reason we became agriculturalists is that we were backed into a corner – a climatological corner. At the end of the last Ice Age, things were warming up, population densities at some locations increased significantly. And some people started to settle down.

And then, Say Dr Wells, the climate switched again and got colder, forcing people out of the lands they had previously settled:

we had too many people moving on the land at the time, and they couldn’t support themselves as hunter-gatherers so they had to develop an innovation. And that innovation was agriculture.

So let’s summarize: Dr Wells is arguing that agriculture caused climate change and overpopulation. Okay. He argues that agriculture wasn’t a step forward for mankind but a step backwards from hunter-gather living. Okay. But what does he think gave rise to agriculture? Climate change and overpopulation. Brilliant! What a great argument.

Pick your jaw up off the floor, though, because Dr Wells has more great ideas for humanity. Asked what he thinks about the invention of farming – the ‘neolithic revolution’ – he pins a whole host of ills on it, but then goes on to reveal some of the concluding thoughts of his book:

PR: So what in your view are the main costs of the Neolithic revolution?

SW: Diabetes, obesity, mental illness, climate change. I talk a little in the book about genetic engineering – re-engineering ourselves and eugenics. It’s the fact that we now have the tools to choose the genes for the next generation. People will start to make decisions on that basis – what they want their children to look like genetically.

Okay, now you’re getting scary Dr Wells. Eugenics to help decide what our children will look like? And what sort of aspects will this include?

There is a company in California that early last year announced that it was going to test not only for medically relevant conditions but also hair colour, eye colour and genes which pre-dispose to lower or higher IQ.

Sounds horrific if you ask me. But Dr Wells thinks that managing the genetics of the human population may be essential, we may need to manage the population for the common good:

PR: Then, do you think genetic engineering of humans is inevitable? Are we now into management rather than prevention?

SW: I think it is inevitable. I think it is something we have always done. I liken it to those simple decisions about growing crops and manipulating the genes of the crops to make them more efficient – produce more calories – that was done during the Neolithic.

Did you spot the beautiful circularity of the argument there? Eugenics, Dr Wells informs us, may be forced upon by circumstances. What circumstances might those be? The interview doesn’t specify exactly, but surely it’s a safe bet to say that global warming and overpopulation are among those circumstances.

Interestingly, in his interview with National Geographic, Dr Wells discusses another future for us he’d like to see, based on a new “mythos” that would be focussed on us wanting less, very much as tribal people in Africa (apparently) do:

Q:You mentioned tribes in Africa wanting less, needing less, focused on a quest for meaning, not consumption. Do you think this sensibility could creep into our society?

A: Yes. That’s the reason I entitled the final chapter of the book “Toward a New Mythos.” The term refers to accepted wisdom, what’s been passed down through the generations from your ancestors, including somewhat mystical explanations for why things are. In contrast, logos is hardheaded logic we use to solve problems. And I think a lot of people sense that we’ve lost too much mythos in the modern world. I argue in the book that we do need to make room at the table for mythos.

National Geographic. Growing Pains.

Or maybe we could just genetically engineer people to want less, learn to love the new “mythos” and accept “mystical explanations” for the way things are?

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES