Climate change alarmism met the infamous Oil for Food scam at the United Nations Tuesday.
As a result, if you had any questions regarding why the U.N. has been the point-man on driving global warming hysteria throughout America and around the world, they were all answered.
In fact, the genie was let out of the proverbial bottle by this Reuters headline: "U.N. Climate Change Meeting Aims at Rich Countries."As Jeffrey Jones was fond of saying in the movie "Amadeus" while playing the part of Emperor Joseph II, "Well, there it is."
More evidence that the U.N.'s interest is just to take money from wealthy nations - mostly America, of course - and redistribute it internationally was found all over the body of the article (grateful h/t NBer dscott, emphasis added throughout):
The first U.N. special session on climate change focused on the world's rich countries on Tuesday, as policy-makers urged long-standing polluters to shoulder much of the burden for cutting greenhouse gases.
Well, there it is:
[British economist Nicholas ]Stern, author of a path-breaking report last year on the economic consequences of climate change, said the global target for reducing greenhouse gases -- notably the carbon dioxide released by coal-fired electric plants and petroleum-powered vehicles -- should be a cut 50 percent by 2050.
"Because of reasons of past responsibility and better access to resources, the rich countries should take much bigger objectives than that 50 percent," he said. "They should be looking for around 75 percent cuts."
But here's the literal and figurative payoff:
That responsibility could extend to financing cuts in emissions in other countries, said Stern, formerly head of the British government's economic service and now at the London School of Economics.
How marvelous. So, America needs to cut its emissions by 75 percent, and, if one reads between the lines, can accomplish this goal in whole or part by sending money to other countries.
Can anyone say "Oil for Food?"
How likely will it be that the U.N. acts as intermediary for these funds as they pass from the rich countries to the poor, always taking their cut - or, paraphrasing Gastone Moschin in "The Godfather: Part II" as Don Fanucci, wet their beaks?
Let the shakedown begin!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
Are we EVER going to kick
August 1, 2007 - 10:45 ET by HelenSAre we EVER going to kick those free-loaders off of our turf? They have got to be the most useless collection of incompetent buffoons that ever congregated at our expense.
Damn pigs.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
I completely agree
August 1, 2007 - 10:51 ET by c5thenOnce the UN cesed to be the proxy battlefield between the US and the USSR, it became a money grubbing corrupt organization who's vast majority of members want to steal as much $$$$ from the US and other "rich" countries as possible.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
SWAG
August 1, 2007 - 10:57 ET by RackieRecent studies show that economists routinely pull numbers out of their asses.
Much like the antiwar groups
August 1, 2007 - 11:13 ET by drillanwrMuch like the antiwar groups do when citing the numbers of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War. What's that magical evil Bush/America number up to now? 76, 000??
What's that magical evil
August 1, 2007 - 11:50 ET by BeowulfWhat's that magical evil Bush/America number up to now? 76, 000??
The last out-of-ass number I heard, from several "credible" sources, was on the order of 650,000.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
UN leeches.
August 1, 2007 - 11:19 ET by Dave RIf the professional leeches at the UN were to somehow succeed in realizing their apparent goal of putting this country into the economic crapper, then who will be left for them to extort money from? China? Russia? The EU?
In a sense, they are attempting to bite the very hand that feeds them.
If the Unted States would just stop feeding this hideous beast, it would wither away and die under the weight of its own corruption.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
Maybe hand tastes good to them?
August 1, 2007 - 11:23 ET by sarcasmoMaybe hand tastes good to them? I think it's time to move them out of NYC, even if we can't defund them entirely, which seems sadly-unlikely. Other nations deserve a shot at all these traffic ticket scofflaws & rapists, too! It's only fair...
JMR
Move the UN HQ to Darfur.
August 1, 2007 - 12:20 ET by Dave RIf the UN wishes to regain at least some respectability, they should move their headquarters over to Darfur. If they could fix that utterly hopeless situation, maybe they could regain at least a modicum of respect.
Nahh, as that would require them to actually do something productive.
Silly me.
Help Fred defeat everybody.
UN HQ- Darfur??
August 1, 2007 - 12:23 ET by misterbillUN HQ- Darfur?? What a perfect solution!!!!
As is usually the case with
August 1, 2007 - 12:03 ET by BeowulfAs is usually the case with hard-core liberals, they are the most short-sighted of all people. Tomorrow is never a concern for them, it's only the now that matters. If there is one blatant difference between liberals and conservatives, it's that conservatives look to the future. They're always saying, "If we do this, then what will happen in ____ years?"
Look at the war in Iraq as the prime example:
Liberal: "Bring the troops home now"
Conservative: "If we bring the troops home now, what will hapen to the Iraqis? What will Iran do with the vacuum? How will the terrorists take advantage of the resulting anarchy?"
Liberal: "[silence]"
You can add things like welfare, taxes, immigration, gun control, and many others to the examples of this disparate mind-set.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
I no longer have the
August 1, 2007 - 11:22 ET by danboI no longer have the section of IPCC. Not only are we to make the biggest cuts. We're to pay for the cuts made by other countries. China, India etc.
Brought to you by the big hearted people who gave us Food for Oil.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods. Albert Einstein
Being the evil Capitalist I
August 1, 2007 - 11:28 ET by dscottBeing the evil Capitalist I am, this could be profitably spun. (would be nice to have the avatars back, hint, hint) We could get a two-fer out of this, by building lots and lots of nuclear power plants which then would let us economically usher in the electric car. It would throw the environmentalists in a tizzy by dividing them over the electric car/nuke power, confound the UN wealth redistribution plan and make the Dems look utterly stupid as they weren't for it. (That's a three-fer!)
BTW- you can't have the electric car without nuclear power because using fossil fuels to make electricity would only transfer the tail pipe emissions to the smoke stack. Secondly, just imagine the cost of electricity skyrocketing due to all the increased demand that must be powered by natural gas fired generators to keep down the emissions. What a delicious irony. And to think Al Gore, representing the nuke interests via the TVA had this in the back of his mind all along... Al isn't a stupid dolt, he only plays one on TV. snicker, snicker, snicker.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
I hope you'll agree, then,
August 1, 2007 - 11:37 ET by sarcasmoI hope you'll agree, then, with my little-commented idea from the other day about how to get electric cars on the road right now. Deregulate our roads, especially in areas like mine.
I daily use a car that's capable of going all the way across the state of Florida to travel just about 2 miles to & from work. This is a transportation job an EZ-GO brand golf cart could do for cents worth of power a day, never mind the source (for now) and inventory's THERE. And CHEAP. Used golf carts abound, they could easily be optimized for road use, and they don't take a Prius-sized budget. Why don't we use them for this kind of thing? Well, I don't because the cops would stop me about halfway there and give me a ticket. Is that logical, in an age where the Saudis are spending the profits on all the gas I buy to spread hate against me?
Must I choose between a ticket and an anti-American hate subsidy? Apparently so, because "environmentalists" and the safety nazi lobby agree I should not have a golf cart choice. Would golf cart users get killed every once in a while under my "ideal" system where they'd have survived in "real" cars? Yes. Life's not a risk free proposition. I just wish the environmentalist left were not so damned religiously dead-set against ANY deregulation whatsoever...
JMR
Sarc
August 1, 2007 - 11:58 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
I had meant to comment about this in the other thread, but got sidetracked.
I've been saying to folks for several years that virtually 90 percent or more of my family's driving needs -- including my and my wife's work commuting -- could be accomplished with electric cars/carts.
Most of my driving now is five miles to and from my office, and errands within likely a 10 mile radius of my house. Ditto my wife. Why do we each need a gasoline-powered car for that?
Without sounding like a lib, the idea that Americans are still driving gas-powered cars as much as we are 34 years after the first energy crisis is a total disgrace.
One other thing: in that previous thread, several people mentioned that they should be able to buy any car they want. Well, but that's not true. You can no longer buy a car that runs on leaded gasoline. There are a number of other required features in cars that are government mandated. So, the idea that the free market is in complete control of automobiles is nonsense.
Moreover, we have laws and regulations in this nation controlling many behaviors. For instance, I'd really rather drive about 120 mph to my office on the country road its kind of situated on. Alas, I can't, for I'd lose my license.
This is but one example of government determining what is in the best interest of the entire society. Is there anything wrong with this? Are those preaching automotive anarchy doing the same for all aspects of our lives?
Such a concept seems incompatible with conservative constructs of law, order, ethics, morality, and religion. Or, am I missing something? ns
Thanks for your comment. I
August 1, 2007 - 12:07 ET by sarcasmoThanks for your comment. I don't want automotive anarchy, but a relaxation of rules that would allow me to drive a golf cart around would be very nice. It's also congruent with conservative principles to be against big government's one size fits all, regulator-imposed solutions, right? Taking one step back from massive over-regulation does not put our society in danger of anarchy. Any-less-government != "anarchy," and generally that argument's getting pretty laughable these days IMO, given the size of huge government at all levels. I like my idea ESPECIALLY if it lets poor folks have golf carts, which means things need to be cheap & simple.
As I said the other day, if I got my way on this issue, I'd probably get rid of my gasoline car and rent those on weekends when I actually wanted one, at substantially lower cost to me and with substantially less CO2 emitted by my exact same lifestyle. I think part of the objection is an unwillingness of the regulation-worshippers to admit they're wrong at all and even allow one town to TRY this idea, despite the profusion of golf carts.
JMR
Sarc
August 1, 2007 - 12:30 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
Well, what was REALLY funny and ironic is that this discussion I think took place either last Friday or Saturday. Anyway, on Sunday, I'm finishing a very difficult bike ride, on my way home on a four-lane somewhat major road. I had just passed one of the major country clubs in the area, and in front of me was a gentleman in his golf cart doing what I would guess was 30 to 35 mph. Didn't seem to be a big problem for any of the auto drivers. Didn't bother me. Seemed kind of natural actually.
Anyway, as cars were passing me, folks were staring at the bicyclist laughing his head off thinking about what one of his website members had recently written concerning golf carts. :-)
Also, interesting what you said about getting rid of your car and renting when you needed one. To a certain extent, that's where I am. I've got a 94 Z-28 convertible that I love. However, because it's got 150k miles on it, I don't feel comfortable driving it too far from home. So, when I drive down to my southern office in HB, I rent a car for the week.
Trust me, the cost of doing that is significantly less than buying a newer car that spends most of its time either in my garage or in the parking lot of my office five miles from my garage.
The dollars Americans waste on their cars shocks me no end. ns
Delayed humor is always the best
August 1, 2007 - 13:28 ET by sarcasmoDelayed humor is always the best, but what's also funny to me is the dollars certain veddy-rich folks -- like Warren Buffett -- tend NOT to spend on cars. Anyway, I'm trying to bring this deregulation-might-not-be-evil idea up to my lefty-enviro friends in a non-insulting way (they don't much like my attitude, either, at times...). It really doesn't seem like "my" (I'm sure it's not!) idea is all that brilliant, but the fact that I'm able to come up with this dumb stuff off the top of my head and others aren't debating or even considering it is, well, annoying, and that annoyance tends to show on me at times when I'm discussing it...
JMR
Sarc
August 1, 2007 - 13:38 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
The wealthiest people I know don't buy new cars, and never borrow or lease. I'm talking about folks worth hundreds of millions. They buy quality used cars with cash for 50 cents of the original dollar "value."
Anybody that buys a new car is insane...said by a man that owns Ford stock. :-) ns
I know of a
August 1, 2007 - 13:45 ET by sarcasmoI know of a multimillionaire who kept a Chevy station wagon going the distance to the moon, back to earth, and then part way back to the moon for more than a decade before he finally was forced by the rest of his family to get rid of the damnthing after a minor crash (he wanted to repair that heap, or at least he considered the idea!).
JMR
Jetson-type hover jet
August 1, 2007 - 12:12 ET by Jack BauerJetson-type hover jet packs. That's the answer.
"Scientists" have been promising them for fifty years.
I'm getting disillusioned.
Two points: 1. What
August 1, 2007 - 12:22 ET by dscottTwo points:
1. What separates a Libertarian from a Republican is the underlying premise and degree of government. Just for your edification I provide this link to the writings of John Locke - I believe he captures the essence of what Republicans believe in versus the seeming anarchy of Libertarians. http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm Sarc, recently you said you became a Repub, if you're going to accept that label you should understand what you are getting into. Sec. 22. THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it. Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Observations, A. 55. a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.
2. The point of licensing any vehicle to operate on the road is to ensure a minimum of acceptable features so we are all safe. I would suppose if your golf cart had turn signals, back up lights, break lights, a horn, etc. you would be able to put a license plate on it and thus the police won't bother you. The point of any thing that the government should do is to be a facilitator or infrastructure for society, not the director of society as Dems (Statist Party) want to be.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
1. I understand about
August 1, 2007 - 12:28 ET by sarcasmo1. I understand about government. As I told Noel, less government != "anarchy." I'm proposing less government.
2. I assure you, even with all the horns, bells, lights, and whistles, the golf cart rider would be stopped before he got from my place to my work despite your supposition. We need fewer laws and regulations to be left alone from the two statist parties whether or not I joined one of 'em to vote in its primary and hopefully bring the number of statist parties down to one. This may lead to more individual freedom and less costs and less CO2 out there, but given the IMMENSE size of government, I think the fear of libertarian "anarchy" is about as silly as any fear possible these days, even the silliest fears of the far-left.
JMR
You missed my point, the
August 1, 2007 - 12:38 ET by dscottYou missed my point, the reason why the police stop you is that you are operating a motorized vehicle without a license plate. Check with the local DMV office to see what it would take to put a license plate on it. They require plates for motor scooters, engines with less than 50cc size. As long as you have a Bill of Sale for the golf cart showing the serial number of the vehicle, they may just issue a license plate. It doesn't hurt to ask.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Hmm. It's an interesting
August 1, 2007 - 13:20 ET by sarcasmoHmm. It's an interesting take on this whole thing, but "my" idea is so damn simple it MUST have been thought-of by some Florida geezer who only plays golf all day anyway, and I've never seen it implemented. Therefore, while I agree that it's possible in theory, maybe, under the current maze of rules, laws, and regulations, a reduction in said rules/laws/regulations would not be a bad thing, and might allow for this idea to actually become practical, which it clearly isn't right-now due to said maze.
Do golf carts need turn signals and reverse lights? Turns, at least, can be signalled by hand IMO. Each new requirement keeps poor people out of 'em, so I'd say let each community decide, but clearly I'm biased for "cheap" so the idea will actually have widespread adoption.
JMR
Noel,
August 1, 2007 - 12:36 ET by Dave RI have no problem with the concept of electric cars, but, in practice, I don't think it will fly, at least not with the current state of the power grid in this country.
Let's say that just twenty percent of the drivers in your area were to begin driving electric cars for commuting to and from work and running short errands. What happens when all of them decide to plug in their vehicles for the obligatory recharge at around 6:00pm or so. Given the brown-outs that are not exactly infrequent occurrences out there, would that not overload the power grid, which is struggling as it is to keep up with the current demand?
Help Fred defeat everybody.
Modular pebble bed reactors,
August 1, 2007 - 13:22 ET by sarcasmoModular pebble bed reactors, currently being made by the South Africans and the capitalist-Chinese instead of in the USA, for reasons beyond me... The power grid needs small, safe, modular nukes that will not support the Saudi dictatorship.
JMR
This could be a money
August 1, 2007 - 12:09 ET by mattmThis could be a money making opportunity. You could notify the news media (you'll have to hide your identity as a Newsbuster), drive to work on a golf cart, get arrested in full view of the media, do interviews, write a book, go on Oprah...Dude, you could be a star!
Seriously though, there are tons of deregulatory things they could do, starting with lifting bans on off-shore drilling, and drilling in ANWR, to making fuel out of garbage...
Another idea I had, at least for certain areas, would be a wind up vehicle. Don't laugh... I believe it's possible to create a vehicle that could run on springs... it would be worth looking into, anyway...
I'm for all that, too, but
August 1, 2007 - 12:19 ET by sarcasmoI'm for all that, too, but offshore drilling seems a lot more politically controversial than golf carts (which, to me, are the only good thing about golf, but I understand & respect others' love of the game!). Aside from upsetting the big government is always good types, "my" golf cart idea shouldn't really upset either political party too much, but despite a wonderful inventory nobody seems to even want to consider it, for some reason. And despite my occasional dustups online, I'm not the right guy to get arrested for this, but I'd be glad to follow the guy and videotape the incident. But I'm really not targetting cops here, I'm targetting their safety-nazi overseers, so I'd want the cop on film to come-off good, and not be wanting to issue the ticket. (I know a few local cops, too, so that might be do-able!) I'd want the same film to do a "mean," Michael Moore style stalking-job of the useless Tallahassee regulators who'd be against this idea, though.
And I've also thought of windups. I go exercise, anyway, so the vehicle's "charging" system could even have human health benefits! I LIKE all of these ideas a hell of a lot better than I like paying the Saudi dictatorship.
JMR
Being the evil Capitalist I
August 1, 2007 - 12:11 ET by BeowulfBeing the evil Capitalist I am, this could be profitably spun.
It's already being profitably spun dscott. Unfortunately, the spinning is being done by the Globull Alarmists. A small percentage of GW believers truly believe what they're preaching. All the rest, especially the leaders, are simply cashing in. As others have remarked in other posts on this subject, "follow the money". It's so simple - if you're selling a product (or idea), do you really want anyone to stand up and shout that your product (or idea) sucks? That's why the "concensus" and threats towards opposing views.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Well yes Beo, the libs are
August 1, 2007 - 12:28 ET by dscottWell yes Beo, the libs are very clever in what they are attempting, however my point was we could spin this the other way and everyone benefits despite the libs.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Nuke plants, hydroelectric plants, reforestation are out.
August 1, 2007 - 12:39 ET by Galvanicdscott: ". . . We could get a two-fer out of this, by building lots and lots of nuclear power plants which then would let us economically usher in the electric car. . . "
Sounds good, if they allow us to count our nuclear plants. Under Kyoto, developed countries could not count offsets from nuclear power plants, hydroelectric plants, and, at least for a while, reforestation (Trees being one of the best carbon-sinks). That's because Kyoto is about wealth redistribution and not carbon-reduction, and the Third World knows we could accomplish a lot of offsetting through those three messures.
dscott: "It would throw the environmentalists in a tizzy by dividing them over the electric car/nuke power, confound the UN wealth redistribution plan and make the Dems look utterly stupid as they weren't for it. (That's a three-fer!) "
You're right. And getting rid of pounds of nuclear waste is certainly easier than find places to stash billions of tons of carbon every year. That's why nukes are off the table according to the Greens.
But that's the diabolical
August 1, 2007 - 13:37 ET by dscottBut that's the diabolical beauty of the plan, we cut our so called CO2 emissions to whatever they set, but they don't get squat $$$ out of us. Kyoto or not, their excuse was CO2, how we achieve that is our choice not theirs. The carbon credits are only a legal means to pay off if you will the regulations if you don't meet the targets. By not signing and meeting the targets we toss their plan in the crapper.
The added benefit would be a major blow to OPEC because then they would have to lower the price of oil to compete against each other. The Iranians can drink their oil for all we care. Remember the biggest fear of the oil producting states is the day when the oil runs out, this is just a subtle way to achieve the same ends. Once we go nuclear for electricity then every industrialized country will follow suit because they will be at an economic competitive disadvantage of our cheap electricity.
btw-the breeder reactor will convert the spent fuel rods back into usable fuel rods for the commercial reactors, hence a major reduction in nuclear waste.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Do we (the USA) have ANY
August 1, 2007 - 11:28 ET by HelenSDo we (the USA) have ANY incentive for keeping them around? Isn't it painfully and disgustingly obvious to everyone what parasites they are? Why, in a genuine quest for information, do we keep them in NY? Why can't they move elsewhere?
Surely they don't get to vote who they suck dry. We should have the privelege as host to tell them when they've out-stayed their welcome and boot their sorry butts out.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Unfortunately, because of
August 1, 2007 - 11:51 ET by dscottUnfortunately, because of the Socialist premise of, those who have the means must pay for everyone who doesn't, we were suckered into not only giving them the property but putting up the building as well. It was all apart of the largess at the expense of the US tax payer because somehow we have to be magnanimous for being successful system and make up for the economic failures of Tin pot dictators and Socialists around the world. The Dems followed their mentor's teachings (From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need. - Karl Marx) You will notice that every Dem agenda and piece of legislation is predicated on this line of thinking. Until we criminalize Socialism, we will be stuck with the UN and the Dems as well. Socialism is just a euphemism for the State stealing from the people. What do we get out of this? A seat on the Security Council to block any idiotic resolution some self important foreigner offers up. But don't feel to bad, the Japanese have it worse, they are the number two major contributor to the UN budget and they don't even get a seat on the Security Council, they get to be the silent partner.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Reparations, anyone?
August 1, 2007 - 11:33 ET by ThisnThatSounds just like the Reparations scam that our Congressional Black Congress and NAACP bigots are trying to impose on the U.S. "You not only have to pay for your sins; you have to make us whole in the process".
If Obama gets elected, I'm sure these UN terrorists are going to be one of our first enemies/dictators he will want to cozy up too as President.
As Jeffrey Jones was fond
August 1, 2007 - 11:33 ET by chuckshickAs Jeffrey Jones was fond of saying in the movie "Amadeus" while playing the part of Emperor Joseph II, "Well, there it is."
Or as Col. Henry Blake from M*A*S*H said, when they were trying to get an incubator: "There she blows."
I think Jeffrey Jones would
August 1, 2007 - 11:54 ET by Roger the ShrubberI think Jeffrey Jones would say something simliar when he was perusing his extensive "collection".
The UN
August 1, 2007 - 11:49 ET by tymanI think they should be moved to either Cuba, Iran, Darfur, Syria or other great countries similiar to these ones. They support these countries more than supporting the USA or Isreal.
I'm from the government and I'm here to help you!
Last sentence.
August 1, 2007 - 13:35 ET by Dave in TexasAnd isn't the last sentence in the article just wonderful.
"The gathering is carbon-neutral, with all
emissions from air travel and the operation of the U.N.
Headquarters building in New York being offset by investment in a biomass fuel project in Kenya."
I'd love to see someone follow the paper trail (if there is one) on how Kenya was chosen and who exactly is involved in the project.
I hope that if these guys ever meet in Kenya, they offset all that with something here in the U.S.
Having grown up in Kenya, I
August 1, 2007 - 14:05 ET by HelenSHaving grown up in Kenya, I can assure you that there is a tribe there called the Masai who were put on this earth to own all the cattle (any cattle in the possession of other tribes stand a good chance of having the cattle returned to their "rightful" owners by whatever means necessary, at least during the dark ages when I lived there).
So, cattle having been determined to be complicit in CO2 production, one is left wondering just what form Kenya's offsets could possibly take.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Helen -- growing up in Kenya
August 1, 2007 - 14:15 ET by Jack BauerHelen -- growing up in Kenya -- you didn't, by any chance, meet Barack Hussein Obama's dad and his three wives?
Sure didn't. Fortunately.
August 1, 2007 - 14:26 ET by HelenSSure didn't. Fortunately. :o)
In fact (minor confession alert) I don't remember meeting any muslims in Kenya of the African persuasion. Or is that Africans in Kenya of the Muslim persuasion...?
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
one is left wondering just
August 1, 2007 - 14:53 ET by dscottone is left wondering just what form Kenya's offsets could possibly take.
Converting cattle into hamburgers and steaks? Its that or a methane capture device on the back of the cattle.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Hey Noel... Your story
August 1, 2007 - 14:46 ET by bigtimerHey Noel...
Your story here just got reported on El Rushbo on his AGW update!
I love it!
Ya beat me, BT
August 1, 2007 - 14:50 ET by RJYa beat me, BT. ha.
Plus, Rush used the story to generally laugh at the AGWers and said "we can beat these people".....
I heard that too RJ... I
August 1, 2007 - 15:24 ET by bigtimerI heard that too RJ...
I love it when he says "from my good buddies at NewsBusters"....
I grin from ear to ear.
The Vast Right Wing
August 1, 2007 - 15:31 ET by dscottThe Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Muhuhahaha Are you afraid yet Hillary? You should be, we're organizing to be your worst nightmare...
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
Hah! That's great news!
August 1, 2007 - 14:51 ET by sarcasmoAs sarcasmo dreams of my obvious "legalize golf carts around town to keep from paying Islamofascist dictatorships like Saudi Arabia" idea being seen/stolen by millions...
JMR
Your dreams have come
August 1, 2007 - 15:19 ET by dscottYour dreams have come true: I did a little research on this, the answer is yes you can put a license plate on a golf cart and make it "street legal" with some caveats. You can't go on a road posted above 35 mph and you must put on certain signaling devices. Here's a couple of links discussing this: http://www.ladylake.org/Police%20Dept/golfcartpamphlet.pdf and this one is a forum thread that has the specifics of what you need to do: http://server1.buggiesunlimited.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=9356&
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
This is incredibly cool
August 1, 2007 - 15:25 ET by sarcasmoThis is incredibly cool news, but for some reason, at least here, it's just not happening. Without knowing for sure, I suspect a slight loosening of regulations is the answer. For example, to get to work I could travel on 35mph streets exclusively, but I'd need to cross a couple of 45mph ones. If that moment of crossing is a ticket, that kills the idea. And in one of the links, a guy talked about a reg. where carts must do at least 20mph but can't do more than 25. This seems like a needless restriction to me. But I'm glad it's at least being contemplated in the law, even if no Floridians around here seem to be actually doing it yet.
JMR
BT
August 1, 2007 - 15:59 ET by Noel SheppardBT,
Excellent. Will catch it when the MP3s are put up at his website. About what time? ns
Noel...It was about the
August 1, 2007 - 16:03 ET by bigtimerNoel...
It was about the quarter to the last hour of his show...in that area...about fifteen minutes before the show was over.
Hope that helps.
BT
August 1, 2007 - 16:30 ET by Noel SheppardBT,
That's great! He even liked my "Genie Out of the Bottle" line! :-) ns
It's quite gratifying when
August 1, 2007 - 16:40 ET by dscottIt's quite gratifying when something you work on makes it to the next level. Now if we could only get nuclear power and electric car issue off the ground we'd be solving the problem. We have the technology, we have the money, we just need the national support to make it happen. Make energy independence a national security issue.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
It always just tickles me
August 1, 2007 - 16:47 ET by bigtimerIt always just tickles me pink Noel when I hear NB's mentioned on Rush!
We know how big of an audience he has too...even the leftists secretly listen...heheheee
As an aside...I too liked you 'Genie out of the Bottle' line...along with the Oil-for-Food issue comparison...the good ol' UN...along with all of their graft.
I wish before I leave this earth that is one place we get out of...
JMO.
BT and Dan
August 1, 2007 - 17:42 ET by Noel SheppardBT and Dan,
http://www.rushlimba...
Enjoy! ns
Noel...Way to go!!!
August 1, 2007 - 17:46 ET by LionKingI noticed that Rush had a link to your blog post on his page.
Noel/LK
August 1, 2007 - 18:00 ET by bigtimerThanks Noel...
Pretty great when he or just anything about NB's gets mentioned isn't it LK?
That is how I heard about this site long ago...
Thank goodness.
global warming myth and CO2
August 1, 2007 - 14:53 ET by a12iggymomI saw a global map from space showing where the CO2 concentrations are and it ain't the US. It's central south America and central/south Africa where the infrared clouds are shown. If it's the US that is the major contributor to the fictional global warming, why isn't the cloud hanging over us and drifting into Europe?
Sounds more like...
August 1, 2007 - 16:40 ET by Wildcatter1980it's mass deforestation of the rain forests.
Why don't we hear "The Goreacle" and his ilk telling the equatorial nations to stop cutting down their rain forests? It is known science that trees absorb carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, Al, and we all know you base all your position on sound science.
Just my $0.02
And The Believers Will Say...
August 1, 2007 - 16:36 ET by Wildcatter1980it's the rich nations who are causing the most damage and can most afford to pay for these efforts.
Put another way, the UN and their ilk are trying to make the masses feel guilty enough to not only accept, but demand that their taxes be raised!
Just my $0.02