Not that I ever liked what Democrats do. Ramming a bill through at two in the morning, which time there are few of the opposition in attendance, is a disgusting and childish way to get legislation passed. But you have never ever ever ever ever heard ONE SINGLE Democrat criticize Congressional Democrats for doing it. What's more, no Democrat has ever, to my knowledge, claimed that a bill so passed was less legitimate than one passed in the civilzed and traditional manner.
So why are they now shouting "Shame! Shame!" at Republicans? How dare they?
Will they be held to account for their hypocricy? Does anyone think they will receive hate mail from people claiming to be Democrats but surreptitiously damning their behavior as evil?
Don't hold your breath!
Meanwhile, I can't say I like what the republicans did, but how else were they going to deal with the fleebaggers?
Which brings up another issue. Who will criticize the fleebaggers for running from the vote? Or any of the other several instances when democrats fled from a vote so that it couldn't be held. Again, don't hold your breath.
Oh, and I have a suggestion for legislatures all across the country: pass laws that will make it possible to get bills passed even if the opposition bails out.
Editing to add:
Mary Magdalen Moser, daughter of a former Wisconsin "top democrat" (possibly the party leader in WI? I missed hearing her father's name), is angry about the missing legislators and is speaking up on this issue. She calls what they're doing "cheating", and says that just because you don't like an issue doesn't mean you run away from it. Bless her heart!
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Top Gear
One of the things I like most about this show is the way the fellows keep making fun of Global Warming.
"It's the coldest winter ever recorded [at suchandso site], thanks to global warming."
Ha ha.
The first claims about human-driven climate change began in the Sixties (haha, when else would anything that stupid have started?) when a steady drop in temperatures had been observed for the previous two decades. That was when the great global climate hysteria began. "The planet is going to freeze," they wailed.
As for myself, I had grown up in the Sixties. I taught myself to read at the age of two (just by "picking it up" and learning the rules), so I was an avid reader from a very young age. Almost all my education came at home, years before I was exposed to it in school, hence my name, Autodidact. I skipped two grades in school and still found myself to be ahead of the other kids, but since I refused to do homework in subjects I already knew, I was a horrible student and never learned to discipline my use of time.
One of my favorite books was a Golden Books publication (not "Little Golden Books") on geology and geography. It discussed rocks and the construction of the earth from the core on outward, volcano morphology, fossils, the ancient ages of the planet, and on and on. This was a large book, around 8 x 10, a couple of hundred pages long, written I think at a middle school level, loaded with information and good pictures. If you home school, get that book for your kids and you won't need any other Earth Science books. If you think they should have Earth Science at a high school level, skip the high school texts and send them to the local community college to take introductory Earth Science.
Published around 1964, it came out when the theory on plate tectonics was somewhat new; it also mentioned glaciers and the ice ages. Their thesis was, "The most recent ice age ended only ten thousand years ago, so the earth will continue to get warmer and warmer till the next ice age begins in about fifty thousand years."
From this I learned at age 10 to think of global temperatures in terms of tens of thousands of years. Anything less than that was a pitifully short-sighted. Ten years? forty years? even a hundred or five hundred years? What a joke!
I ignored politics around the time I came of age. Not because I didn't want to know anything but because I didn't bother with the main sources of information. As a seventeen-year-old living on her own, I was too poor to subscribe to newspapers or magazines. I didn't watch TV because I had given mine away. But in 1974 I entered college at the advanced age of 21 and was inundated with political information. It all came from the left. As enlightened human beings, we didn't want to hear anything the evil right wing had to say. They were, after all, filthy, racist bastards who were rich as hell and wanted to keep it all for themselves. Who could listen to such demons?
I'm not joking. We did think that way, if you can call making conclusions of false stereotypes "thinking". We believed that our beliefs were difficult but kind-hearted and well-meaning, because our intentions were to do the most good to the most people. Holding these beliefs made us the good people, and opposing our beliefs meant the opponent was bad, or worse, was evil. That's the most we needed to know. To think any deeper than that, and justify what we stood for, or to explain it to one another, was absurd. Therefore we had no apologetic.*
(*If you don't know the word, it means "offering an explanation for what you believe." It's a good word, write it down.)
We were suckers for social issues. For example, we had been told by our hysterical teachers that both Russia and the U.S. were going to unleash nuclear holocaust on one another and we would all die from radiation poisoning. Not everyone in America believed this, but a lot of the Left sure did. Introduce any idea, frame it as a crisis, a desperate situation needing a rescuer, and instantly a large percentage of us would come running, singing "Here am I, Lord, use me!" because it was the good thing to do. The saviors of the world, we were.
In the Seventies the issue of the day was Global Cooling. Some feared the global cooling would be caused by Nuclear Winter as caused by all the shading ash those nukes were going to cause when they all went off together. Others just assumed that all the dirt we were pumping into the air was going to shade the surface of the planet enough to let it cool. Many figured we were going to destroy the ozone layer (do school children get taught about that today?). In any scenario they came up with, it was an immediate disaster needing immediate remedies.
This endured right into the Eighties. I remember around 1998 finding a certain book listed on amazon.com titled, "The Coming Global Winter (and what you can do about it)" published in 1978, but the author's name I have forgotten. Right next to it was "Coming Global Warming* (and what you can do about it)" It was published in 1991 by the same author. (*I have to admit I have forgotten the exact title, "warming" could have been "thermal holocaust" or "heat disaster" for all I know; regardless, it was about AGW.)
Not one of these people has the depth of knowledge or the ability to see a larger picture, both of which are needed to understand climate change. Of course the climate of planet earth changes. It always has changed. And of course for the last 100 years it has changed a tiny bit. So what? The average temperature of the earth could climb five degrees C and you still wouldn't have a global disaster. Our planet has been a lot warmer and for a longer time than a puny hundred years in the past. Crocodiles once walked on Greenland.
Where do we even get the idea that we have the right (even if we could) to force the Earth to be cooler than it wants to be, if not from human chutzpa? The same source tells us we could change the earth on such a scale. From my experience, it is beyond the scope even of a very powerful human brain to fathom just how much energy goes into a common earthquake or a cold front, never mind turning a hurricane to some new direction or causing the earthquake at a certain time.
But don't underestimate the skill of the Left to change their minds at the drop of a hat and re-define any debate in any way they choose. They never meant JUST global warming, they meant that our actions are changing global climate patterns and making summer and winter more severe, hence "global climate change".
Baloney.
The world has USUALLY been warmer than it is now. We are pouring a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is it more than the trees and algae can convert back to O2 ? Is having less than 1% of the atmosphere as CO2 bad for the status quo? Venus has a 100% CO2 atmosphere and is hotter than it should be, when mathematically considering the amount of sunlight that falls on its surface. But does that mean that a 1%-CO2 atmosphere is also a greenhouse?
And look what fools our pro-AGW lobby are. After denying for 20 years that a century of temperature readings was meaningless, suddenly such short-term temperature variations ARE irrelevant and the bigger picture DOES count.
And they're still belitting and eviscerating the naysayers who have always maintained that the big picture is what counts.
"It's the coldest winter ever recorded [at suchandso site], thanks to global warming."
Ha ha.
The first claims about human-driven climate change began in the Sixties (haha, when else would anything that stupid have started?) when a steady drop in temperatures had been observed for the previous two decades. That was when the great global climate hysteria began. "The planet is going to freeze," they wailed.
As for myself, I had grown up in the Sixties. I taught myself to read at the age of two (just by "picking it up" and learning the rules), so I was an avid reader from a very young age. Almost all my education came at home, years before I was exposed to it in school, hence my name, Autodidact. I skipped two grades in school and still found myself to be ahead of the other kids, but since I refused to do homework in subjects I already knew, I was a horrible student and never learned to discipline my use of time.
One of my favorite books was a Golden Books publication (not "Little Golden Books") on geology and geography. It discussed rocks and the construction of the earth from the core on outward, volcano morphology, fossils, the ancient ages of the planet, and on and on. This was a large book, around 8 x 10, a couple of hundred pages long, written I think at a middle school level, loaded with information and good pictures. If you home school, get that book for your kids and you won't need any other Earth Science books. If you think they should have Earth Science at a high school level, skip the high school texts and send them to the local community college to take introductory Earth Science.
Published around 1964, it came out when the theory on plate tectonics was somewhat new; it also mentioned glaciers and the ice ages. Their thesis was, "The most recent ice age ended only ten thousand years ago, so the earth will continue to get warmer and warmer till the next ice age begins in about fifty thousand years."
From this I learned at age 10 to think of global temperatures in terms of tens of thousands of years. Anything less than that was a pitifully short-sighted. Ten years? forty years? even a hundred or five hundred years? What a joke!
I ignored politics around the time I came of age. Not because I didn't want to know anything but because I didn't bother with the main sources of information. As a seventeen-year-old living on her own, I was too poor to subscribe to newspapers or magazines. I didn't watch TV because I had given mine away. But in 1974 I entered college at the advanced age of 21 and was inundated with political information. It all came from the left. As enlightened human beings, we didn't want to hear anything the evil right wing had to say. They were, after all, filthy, racist bastards who were rich as hell and wanted to keep it all for themselves. Who could listen to such demons?
I'm not joking. We did think that way, if you can call making conclusions of false stereotypes "thinking". We believed that our beliefs were difficult but kind-hearted and well-meaning, because our intentions were to do the most good to the most people. Holding these beliefs made us the good people, and opposing our beliefs meant the opponent was bad, or worse, was evil. That's the most we needed to know. To think any deeper than that, and justify what we stood for, or to explain it to one another, was absurd. Therefore we had no apologetic.*
(*If you don't know the word, it means "offering an explanation for what you believe." It's a good word, write it down.)
We were suckers for social issues. For example, we had been told by our hysterical teachers that both Russia and the U.S. were going to unleash nuclear holocaust on one another and we would all die from radiation poisoning. Not everyone in America believed this, but a lot of the Left sure did. Introduce any idea, frame it as a crisis, a desperate situation needing a rescuer, and instantly a large percentage of us would come running, singing "Here am I, Lord, use me!" because it was the good thing to do. The saviors of the world, we were.
In the Seventies the issue of the day was Global Cooling. Some feared the global cooling would be caused by Nuclear Winter as caused by all the shading ash those nukes were going to cause when they all went off together. Others just assumed that all the dirt we were pumping into the air was going to shade the surface of the planet enough to let it cool. Many figured we were going to destroy the ozone layer (do school children get taught about that today?). In any scenario they came up with, it was an immediate disaster needing immediate remedies.
This endured right into the Eighties. I remember around 1998 finding a certain book listed on amazon.com titled, "The Coming Global Winter (and what you can do about it)" published in 1978, but the author's name I have forgotten. Right next to it was "Coming Global Warming* (and what you can do about it)" It was published in 1991 by the same author. (*I have to admit I have forgotten the exact title, "warming" could have been "thermal holocaust" or "heat disaster" for all I know; regardless, it was about AGW.)
Not one of these people has the depth of knowledge or the ability to see a larger picture, both of which are needed to understand climate change. Of course the climate of planet earth changes. It always has changed. And of course for the last 100 years it has changed a tiny bit. So what? The average temperature of the earth could climb five degrees C and you still wouldn't have a global disaster. Our planet has been a lot warmer and for a longer time than a puny hundred years in the past. Crocodiles once walked on Greenland.
Where do we even get the idea that we have the right (even if we could) to force the Earth to be cooler than it wants to be, if not from human chutzpa? The same source tells us we could change the earth on such a scale. From my experience, it is beyond the scope even of a very powerful human brain to fathom just how much energy goes into a common earthquake or a cold front, never mind turning a hurricane to some new direction or causing the earthquake at a certain time.
But don't underestimate the skill of the Left to change their minds at the drop of a hat and re-define any debate in any way they choose. They never meant JUST global warming, they meant that our actions are changing global climate patterns and making summer and winter more severe, hence "global climate change".
Baloney.
The world has USUALLY been warmer than it is now. We are pouring a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is it more than the trees and algae can convert back to O2 ? Is having less than 1% of the atmosphere as CO2 bad for the status quo? Venus has a 100% CO2 atmosphere and is hotter than it should be, when mathematically considering the amount of sunlight that falls on its surface. But does that mean that a 1%-CO2 atmosphere is also a greenhouse?
And look what fools our pro-AGW lobby are. After denying for 20 years that a century of temperature readings was meaningless, suddenly such short-term temperature variations ARE irrelevant and the bigger picture DOES count.
And they're still belitting and eviscerating the naysayers who have always maintained that the big picture is what counts.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Columbia U
Wow, is it not amazing what Columbia is doing for the horizons of its stupid students?
Universities are supposed to be doing better than this. We teach you to "understand" ther culure, but dare to have a dissenting opinion right here in our own culture, and watch out.
Heckling speakers? I wouldn't eve heckle an idiot like Jimmy Carter. Or Al Gore, come to think of it. And I can't imagine a guest speaker who has less to offer than those two buffoons--in fact, I think what they've been saying is genuinely destructive--but I sure as hell wouldn't try to shout either of them down and keep them from being heard.
Universities are supposed to be doing better than this. We teach you to "understand" ther culure, but dare to have a dissenting opinion right here in our own culture, and watch out.
Heckling speakers? I wouldn't eve heckle an idiot like Jimmy Carter. Or Al Gore, come to think of it. And I can't imagine a guest speaker who has less to offer than those two buffoons--in fact, I think what they've been saying is genuinely destructive--but I sure as hell wouldn't try to shout either of them down and keep them from being heard.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Dog breeders
I love dogs. I always have. I love cats, too, but while cats can be friendly and even affectionate, it's petty generally held that their love is a different kind of love from what dogs pour out. As one poet put it, in the words of the cat: "...And if I thought for a moment the lady next door would feed me one grain more than you do, I'd be out of here so fast your head would spin."
Dog love, on the other hand, is mushy, unquestioning, unconditional, nonjudgemental, and constant. So when I was a young bride, my husband and I decided we wanted a dog.
We scoured the papers looking for an inexpensive dog and didn't have a whole lot of luck. There were dozens of pit bulls, doberman pinschers, chihuahuas, golden retrievers, german shepherds (YES, DAMMIT, IT'S SHEPHERD, NOT SHEPARD), and poodles.
But that posed a problem. Ever since my mother bought and sold a few poodle puppies to supplement the family income, I have been leery of the most popular breeds. At the tender age of eight I had learnt that people who know nothing about breeding, genetics, or dog husbandry but who happened to have an ugly, displastic, pet-quality bitch at home would get the brilliant idea to mate her to the ugly, dysplastic dog up the street. Of course the 12 puppies the poor bitch gave birth to were going to make them rich rich rich! Sadly, usually nine of those puppies end up in the pound, posing for the ASPCA Sadness Shots for their next ad. A few of them get adopted and half of those end up back in the cycle of get adopted, breed, pass on your very bad genes, send the puppies to the pound.
Half the dog owners around here are engaged in this irresponsible crap. Four months ago the eldest daughter adopted a miniature poodle that was one of a litter of four. Here eyes run, her ears flop open, her legs are so long (very unusual for a poodle to have over-long legs, usually they're too short and look like furry dachshunds) her legs are so long she looks like one of the stilt walkers in the Mardi Gras parade. Her coat, instead of being a good, stiff water-dog quality, is soft and silky. Her teeth are bad, and God knows what internal problems she may have. She's sweet but she shouldn't be on this planet because she doubtless got all these faults from her mother, who is ready to produce another litter.
Please, people, this is a job for professionals, not for your incompetent, uninformed hobby. When my mom bought poodles, she bought them already born and instead of buying the long-legged, runny-eyed messes she looked at their conformation, and only bought the best. When she bred Westies, she bought a show-quality bitch and bred her to a champion recommended by an established breeder.
You should do the same. Stop breeding your physical wrecks; you're unlikely to make any money doing it, your puppies will be garbage, and you will be hurting the per world. Resist the lure of money you will probably never see. Stop. JUST STOP.
Dog love, on the other hand, is mushy, unquestioning, unconditional, nonjudgemental, and constant. So when I was a young bride, my husband and I decided we wanted a dog.
We scoured the papers looking for an inexpensive dog and didn't have a whole lot of luck. There were dozens of pit bulls, doberman pinschers, chihuahuas, golden retrievers, german shepherds (YES, DAMMIT, IT'S SHEPHERD, NOT SHEPARD), and poodles.
But that posed a problem. Ever since my mother bought and sold a few poodle puppies to supplement the family income, I have been leery of the most popular breeds. At the tender age of eight I had learnt that people who know nothing about breeding, genetics, or dog husbandry but who happened to have an ugly, displastic, pet-quality bitch at home would get the brilliant idea to mate her to the ugly, dysplastic dog up the street. Of course the 12 puppies the poor bitch gave birth to were going to make them rich rich rich! Sadly, usually nine of those puppies end up in the pound, posing for the ASPCA Sadness Shots for their next ad. A few of them get adopted and half of those end up back in the cycle of get adopted, breed, pass on your very bad genes, send the puppies to the pound.
Half the dog owners around here are engaged in this irresponsible crap. Four months ago the eldest daughter adopted a miniature poodle that was one of a litter of four. Here eyes run, her ears flop open, her legs are so long (very unusual for a poodle to have over-long legs, usually they're too short and look like furry dachshunds) her legs are so long she looks like one of the stilt walkers in the Mardi Gras parade. Her coat, instead of being a good, stiff water-dog quality, is soft and silky. Her teeth are bad, and God knows what internal problems she may have. She's sweet but she shouldn't be on this planet because she doubtless got all these faults from her mother, who is ready to produce another litter.
Please, people, this is a job for professionals, not for your incompetent, uninformed hobby. When my mom bought poodles, she bought them already born and instead of buying the long-legged, runny-eyed messes she looked at their conformation, and only bought the best. When she bred Westies, she bought a show-quality bitch and bred her to a champion recommended by an established breeder.
You should do the same. Stop breeding your physical wrecks; you're unlikely to make any money doing it, your puppies will be garbage, and you will be hurting the per world. Resist the lure of money you will probably never see. Stop. JUST STOP.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)