And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: �Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?�

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered �Hosanna� and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: �Yes, We Can.�

No "and it was good," ending?

-Marc-

In the Fall of 2000, many of us learned that just because you are winning the popular vote in a presidential elections contest like Al Gore did, does not necessarily mean that you will emerge as the winner of said contest.

We all know what happened then.

So earlier this year during the democratic primaries between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, when observers realized that Senator Clinton was ahead in the popular votes, they were certain she would have been the winner there.

But once again the popular vote led us astray. Certainly, it gave Senator Clinton’s supporters some level of optimism, but that’s about all that emerged from it. As we all know, Senator Obama secured enough delegates and Super Delegates to become the presumptive Democratic Nominee.

And as this presidential elections year progresses, one might wonder, since the candidates with the popular votes failed to secure a victory twice in the same decade, is it suffice to say that the popular vote is no longer what it used to be?

You know, you are ahead in the votes and as a result, you are the supposed winner. And maybe that will happen in some other country. For in the US in a presidential elections year, a candidate needs to win two sets of victories to secure his/her place in the White House; during the primaries it’s the delegates, on elections day in November, it’s the electoral college votes.

If the candidate who is popular with the votes cannot bring him/herself to victory in the primaries with the amount of delegates he/she needs, or acquire the number of electoral college votes needed on elections day, his/her efforts might seem just as meaningless as the popular vote seems today.

In most western democratic countries in the world, the candidate who has the lead in the popular voting category, is usually the winner. It’s not so simple in the US, is it? Not when you have to acquire delegates and electoral college votes in order to win, that is.

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain’s Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth’s recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Global Warming Conclusively Debunked As Gore Calls For CO2 Tax
The seven graphs that dispel alarmist claims about climate change

Global corporations and governments have joined forces to launch a united propaganda assault about how we must turn “green” while all the real environmental crises - deforestation, GM crops, chemtrails, genetic splicing, and cancer-causing cellphone tower radiation - are completely ignored.

Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
July 22, 2008

Read Full Article Here

Two Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Debunk CO2 Myth

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
July 16, 2008

The paper concludes, “CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100.”

Recent News:

Either characterization is mistaken (PUMA, by the way, generally stands for "Party Unity My Ass," though one group has claimed "Party Unity Means Action."). PUMAs obviously are wrong and misguided, in my view, but passionate. And now they're getting what many of them want most, some media attention.

PUMAs are angry people, mostly women, many of whom now say they'll support John McCain over Barack Obama. There's no denying that there are quite a few of them (though how many are GOP fronts can't be determined) or that many are bitter. A quick scan of some of their blogs comes across such charming comments such as, "Whenever I see one of those stupid “O”s on the back of someone else’s care [sic] I just want to RAM THEM!!!" and "Isn't 'barack' that noise people make when they puke?" and "Do obama supporters still get headaches after they had their lobomy? [sic]" and "Even if Hillary should publicly--in person--denounce all 527s who are trying to get her nominated and elected, we can't give throw [sic] in the towel. Clearly, the Chicago political mafia is strong-arming her to disown us."

One blog post is titled, "If we're PUMAs, then Obamaphiles are CHEATahs." Cute, huh? Of course the difference is that PUMAs proundly claim the title before going on to disparage those who would prefer a different candidate. (This might be an appropriate time to remind readers that I was not an Obama supporter in the primaries, though I can't imagine not voting for him over McCain in the general election.)

The CHEATah post comes from a blog that in its "About Us" section states: "We will start with the Democratic party and then work to bring together the rest of the country. We will come together at our common goals and go forward together, strengthened and mighty." Its "credo," in part: "We will all need to come together before the fall. Let’s craft a message that even wingers will envy. … Some of us have lost our minds lately. We are putting conditions and litmus tests on our candidates. We are getting lost in the trees while failing to see the forest."

All of that may sound good, but the blog actually devotes much of its attention to PUMA promotion and Obama bashing, and also has a heading titled "PUMA Power" that states: "There will be a lot of calls for 'Unity!'. But let us acknowledge what this really is. 'Unity' is a weapon that the party is going to use against us." Perhaps it’s time to update one or two of the above categories.

Despite their real or manufactured fury PUMAs probably will have no meaningful effect on the Democratic Convention as far as preventing Obama from claiming the nomination, especially since Clinton likely will speak on his behalf at the convention. Still, in a tight general election (the kind we typically have) they might conceivably make a difference. Sadly and ironically, it would be a difference that goes against most of their own primary interests (at least those who aren't secretly McCain supporters to begin with--like perhaps Fox's favorite PUMA spokeswoman and 2000 McCain donor Darragh Murphy).

PUMAs might make a difference in the same way that Ralph Nader did against Al Gore in 2000, Ross Perot did against George H.W. Bush in 1992, Ted Kennedy did against Jimmy Carter in 1980, and Ronald Reagan did against Gerald Ford in 1976--drawing just enough attention and votes to help put the candidate their supporters disliked most in the White House. The difference in each of those cases was that the candidate's supporters actually had a candidate who obviously still sought the position, while Clinton likely will--as she has repeatedly on previous occasions--exhort her supporters to do what they can to avoid a continuation of the Bush policies. A McCain presidency would have a good chance of turning those 5-4 Supreme Court votes against progressives into 7-2 votes against them.

Thus far, consistency, except in avoid-Obama-at-all-costs rhetoric, has not been a key part of PUMA power. Even Fox News, which would undoubtedly love to see PUMAs help swing the election for McCain and which has aired more about the group than any other network, can't help but point out the contradictions. For example, see the YouTube videos below. The last one starts out much the same as the first, but adds some interesting context (though it doesn't explore the disconnect between, "I don't think it's just to prove a point; I think it's a very important point we're making.").

It's difficult to tell how much influence the PUMAs will have, especially since many of those now complaining will swallow hard, hold their noses and vote for Obama in the general election, perhaps without telling their fellow PUMAs. The influence of blogs on elections also is unknown, though I don't believe the vast majority of blogs are very representative of much of anything since most tend to have a limited following of serious but somewhat cowardly anonymous supporters who talk mostly to each other--a sort of ooh-look-at-me-aren't-I-clever form of text messaging with less emotional commitment and no added wireless fees.

PUMAs do have cause to be unhappy, though not nearly as much cause as many of them claim. The Democratic primary system was a mess, but it was a mess that Clinton helped create. Interestingly, some of her supposed staunchest supporters now hope to make a bigger one.

Then Al Gore lost the election.  

Poor Al needed to do something he felt would garner him a place in history.  And, he needed to make America feel guilty about robbing him of his turn in the Oval Office.  So he bought a copy of the Cliff Notes for the Global Warming Theory, an overhead projector and an army of film editors and created An Inconvenient Truth (his title, not mine). 

The press, feeling guilty that they couldn't swing the election his way no matter how long they kept it in the headlines, ate it up.  They followed Al where ever he went and reprinted press releases containing any wacky prediction of global climate catastrophe.  Suddenly, environmentalism or "going green" was hot!  Advertisers and marketing gurus jumped on the bandwagon and started telling us how much greener their product was than the other guy's.

And, typical to how advertising and mass media works, the average American is made to feel inadequate if they're not "living green", "buying green" and otherwise doing everything the media tells them to.  Discovery has even started broadcasting a "green" television channel Planet Green TV which includes such programs as a reality show that follows Ed Begley, Jr. around as he tries to live a green lifestyle.  Here's a description from Planet Green's own website describing one scintillating episode: "As one might expect, Ed goes nuts over the solar power at Jackson Browne's home..."  

Now we've arrived at the "Green Guilt" stage, where people begin making irrational behavioral choices simply to assuage the guilt they feel over how we've destroyed our planet.  The only problem is that most of the behavioral changes that people make don't help the planet at all, but simply line the pockets of those who have decided to capitalize on the trend.  And, sadly we're raising an entire generation of kids who are being taught this as a way of life.  They have their own green guilt if Mom buys them a Happy Meal at McDonald's because they read somewhere that McDonald's is killing the planet.

Congratulations Al.  You've started something you might be remembered for here, and at the same time made us feel guilty--not about how the election turned out for you, but guilty nonetheless.

· According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland's largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.

· What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?

· Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses.

· And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.

· The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.

· Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

· When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.

· And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.

· To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.

· Our economy cannot stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil.

· Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year.

Source: We Can Solve It

While Obama has shared his moments of controversy, what is meant to hurt him ultimately turns to Obama gold. Even in his European trip to Iraq, Israel and in a recent segue to Germany, the heads of state, people and wannabes on every level gather around him like a moth to a singular flame of light. To the chagrin and frustration of conservatives, he already carries the mantle of both president and statesman in the eyes of millions, and now this has been passed overseas. To Obama’s opponents, that is what makes the usually unflappable, logical and charismatic Obama a great political danger. He aptly catches the imagination while addressing greatness of unity, even the importance of morality, as he embodies a vision for a new world.

The religious right and many conservative Christians have been strangely reticent this election. Clearly, none of the candidates really represent true conservative views and desires. This writer is surprised that some "right-wingers" haven't made the connection between the charisma of Barack Obama and the perceptions by some religious Christians of the expected antichrist, whom they believe to be a singular man destined to change history, promote one-world government and result in the second coming of Christ.

His rock-star appearance in Germany was well received by an international crowd of nearly 200,000. His speech was well delivered and yet, curiously compared to President Reagan. Perhaps the comparison is inevitable. While Obama is no Reagan, his personal connection to his audience rests more in his intellect than in his personal demeanor, but like Reagan, doesn’t take himself too seriously to relate to others.

He plainly paints himself as a world citizen, to many, a moniker for a globalist. Yet, his appeal isn’t elitist; born from the very roots of simplicity and humility; infused with the multiple cultures of two divergent Americas. Like many, he paints the dream of freedom that he offers to share with the world, a message of prosperity, optimism and grit. If we can dream it, we can do it.

Barack Obama successfully captures the idea that people work together, struggle, and sacrifice for a better life. A life of commitment to ideals and common value is what America has forgotten about. The good life was handed to many Americans for forty years during the middle of the last century. America could do not wrong in its' own mind. Life could only get better. The idea that any kind of sacrifice was required was forgotten. In life’s struggle, America forgot the importance of human value. Most Americans bought into secularism, materialism and self. Entitlement was born and flourished. It still does today.

Obama aptly pointed out that Berlin, like America, has struggled through dark times. He spoke of duty and unity, a commonality of humanity against fear and tyranny. The word tyranny captures the attention of many Americans that see the current political scene in America as one of corruption and tyranny against freedom itself. Ultimately, the depth of his desire to really fight corruption and the perception of tyranny truly remains to be seen.

“Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.” Is Senator Obama speaking of a new world government or is he simply speaking of working independently as sovereign nations for the good of the whole? The fact that he shares the same political space as Al Gore makes many uncomfortable. Yet even John McCain buys off on much of Al Gore’s legacy of global power, cooperation and causation. What makes Obama different is that Obama says that he is about tearing down new walls that humanity builds to separate itself. This inspiration of presentation makes him unique. John McCain doesn't claim to represent any such moral order. Barack Obama, like this author, knows what it is like to live between two separate worlds that have slowly come together in sometimes uneasy acceptance.

Barack Obama emphasizes the need to listen and has portrayed that need persistently to the embarrassment of many. The pride of politics is deep in America. What Obama is suggesting on the surface is counter-cultural, even dangerous to established old guard policies if he is truly honest about garnering change through the support of fellow Americans. Americans must buy the dream for change. Many do.

While he has separated himself from the preponderance of old guard politics, he is still dependent on those foundations for his existence, which in theory holds great danger if he holds to his projected ideals without compromise. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is required for the change that America really needs.

On the issues, never have the two parties been closer together on more issues. With few exceptions, voting Republican is quite similar to voting Democrat. There is more agreement than divergence on central cores of life application and political policies. Republicans have settled into a vision of benign financial neglect and political protection. As a result, Republicans have been forced to buy into a few remaining issues to hold the line of their significance: for example, the Second Amendment, national security and abortion. Most Republicans have taken on the appearance of Democrats and have proved little better where the rubber meets the road. Global warming, compromised policies, lack of creativity, moral ineptitude and self-serving politics has blurred the lines of government to a scary sameness. That is the danger of selling out. There is little distinction between the opposites except the old tired cornerstones of virtue, hidden corruption, self-satisfaction and ideas that hardly hold the imagination. The nation at-large is tired of lies, lack of hope, low expectations and blandness.

Obama isn’t talking about selling out. He is one of a few that admits that freedom is a journey, a trial, not a one-time event. In an election of sameness, he doesn’t have to work hard to sell the issues. This may be the Achilles heel of the election process this year. The Democrat debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has consumed the desire to speak about the issues. Much of the country has decided that old guard issues simply don't matter. Most Americans perceive politicians as being sold to the same policies, a political rut commandeered by behind-the-scenes fear and desire for personal benefit. Whether the political opposition likes it or not, the vision and energy of Barack Obama is really the largest idea that sets the political world apart. More of the same old mess just isn’t going to work anymore for America. Barack Obama is young enough to believe his own words without focusing on self-satisfaction. Like it or not, that is the gold behind Barack Obama. ~ E. Manning

The Arctic could hold 90 billion barrels of oil and enough to supply U.S. demand for 12 years, the U.S. Geological Survey reported today.

One-third of the undiscovered oil is in Alaskan territory, the agency found in a study released on July 24, 2998. By contrast, a geologic formation beneath the North Pole claimed by Russian scientists last year probably holds just 1.2 percent of the Arctic's crude, the U.S. report showed.

Energy producers such as Shell and Chevron have increased exploration of the region for untapped reserves amid record prices and receding access to deposits in more hospitable climates. Russia's move last year to scrap a United Nations convention and carve out an exclusive Arctic zone sparked protests from Canada, the U.S., Norway and Denmark.

``Most of the Arctic, especially offshore, is essentially unexplored with respect to petroleum,'' Donald Gautier, the project chief for the assessment, said in the report. ``The extensive Arctic continental shelves may constitute the geographically largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on Earth.''

(Except for the thousands of miles of continental shelf of the U.S. that has been virtually shut off by the Democrat party since the time of Jimmy Carter).

Imagine the wealth that is being wasted. It's enough to wipe out the national debt and build a new Dubai. It's time to vote out every Democrat and any Republican who will not drill here and drill now.

According to National Post, while Al Gore lectured the unwashed masses about abandoning fossil fuels, his

two Lincoln Town Cars and a full-sized SUV that sat idling with the air conditioners blasting while the Gore party was inside.

It was 34 C in Washington. Al Gore can't be expected to get into an overheated vehicle after he's worked up a sweat telling others how to save the planet.

After all, he did need a cool SUV to take him to his private jet.

yojoe (in Green mode) out

Tennessee’s name comes from the Cherokee Indians. It got it’s start when the chief of the Cherokee saw a beautiful white woman. He couldn’t think of what to say, so asked her if she was from Tennessee. When she denied the allegations, he replied that she was the only ten he saw. Thus not only did Tennessee get it’s name, the first pick up line was born.

Like many of the other states near Tennessee, it has weather like a woman, it can never decide what to do. Am I right guys? Guys???

There was once this huge storm, but it sort of covered the whole area. Tennessee felt a little left out so it decided to join in and declare that it had really low temperatures during that time. Tennessee residents were forced to put on an extra blanket.

-The Great Smokey Mountains. Come and see the beautiful mountains, stay to see the residents in the rural mountains see a book for the very first time.

-Dollywood. It took everything within me to not supply you with a Dolly Parton boob joke. I am trying to run a mature website here………but wow, how are those comfortable? It’s like she was stung and they became swollen…

-Graceland. This is where Elvis lived, ate, slept, ate some more, did a comeback schedule, then ate some more, then died. Many 45 to 55 year olds flock to this site to remember their good ole’ days of rebellion, when they went against their parents and wore skirts that went up to their knee caps and listened to that blasted devil music, otherwise known as Elvis and Buddy Holly.

-1780: West North Carolina and East North Carolina have an argument. West North Carolina got mad and went to it’s room, drawing a line in permanent marker that North Carolina cannot cross. Thus Tennessee was born. Tennessee and North Carolina still hang out sometimes, though their conversations are mainly filled with many awkward silences and some slight swearing.

-1838: The Cherokee Indians are uprooted. They are promised that if they go, they’ll get a new sharpened stick. Many Cherokee to this day have not received their sharpened stick, but many do not care since they are getting their jollies by watching the white man come to their casinos and push themselves ever closer to a divorce and suicide.

-1920: Tennessee became the 36^th state to ratify the Amendment that gave women the right to vote. Causing many Tennessee residents to declare “Tennessee has women?”

Whites: 65%

Off Whites: 20%

Guys hoping to be the next Brooks and Dunn: 43%

People who claim that “the volunteer state” is a good nickname: 33%

Memphis: The home of something….something has to be there…come on think…I really should of actually done research for this.

Nashville: Where country music lives and where your dog dies, your tractor breaks down, and you push all your friends away with your alcoholism.

85% are able to read

19% think Garth Brooks should be President

-Tennessee doesn’t actually even exist. It’s a figment of your imagination.

-Tennessee is the only state in which you can never find a signal for your cell phone.

-Tennessee claims that even though it’s nickname is “The Volunteer State” that does not mean you can take advantage of it.

-Tennessee is actually a really big fan of the Johnnyism blog, and you aren’t going to let Tennessee be better than you now are you? ARE YOU???

-in a sworn statement at a Tennessee police department, Johnny signed a sworn affidavit claiming that he did indeed not actually know anything about the state of Tennessee and that he’s never even read a book before.

Al Gore: tried to be president once, now spends his free time pretending to save the universe from a more tropical climate.

Morgan Freeman: Hi. My name is Morgan Freeman. I got a cool voice that reminds everyone of documentaries. I’m a better actor than Samuel L. Jackson. Without me, there would be no March of the Penguins.

Miley Cyrus: the fifteen year old with questionable judgment that your 11 year old daughter likes to imitate.

Elvis: The one man who single handedly went against the “man” by shaking his hips. Not only did he invent music, but he is credited with improving race relations. He actually freed the slaves. See Also: Eminem

If you turn this statue on it's head, you can almost hear the ocean. 

This man is soley responsible for how great race relations are right now. 

3 out of 4 residents of Tennessee are involved in a country music band.  If you are not, you are considered scum and not allowed to vote. 

Some think that this is a photo of a football game.  Actually, it's a photo of a riot at a Shania Twain concert.  It's just a coincidence that there are people wearing orange football jerseys. 

This is what most people from Tennessee swear by.  Most residents swear that if this did not exist, then they would move.  Or probably just eat a different brand of ice cream.

If you somewhat enjoyed this blog, then please feel free to vote for it over at http://humor-blogs.com/

By doing so, you admit freely that you are a good person.

Well, well. Congress learned something shattering today, which will have the Church of Al Gore/IPCC running in fear of their lost credibility. It has been scientifically demonstrated that 70% of the Global Warming in the last century (and cooling in the last decade) is due to the Pacific Ocean Oscillations, not CO2:

The gentlemen making this claim is the lead investigator one of NASA’s flagship Earth Observing Observatories (H/T Ice Cap).

I posted on some of these effects yesterday. What this means is no matter how much you change your CO2 footprint, how much you try to be CO2 green, no matter how much liberal governments tax you - you cannot save the planet from its natural cycles. Remember, the draconian actions being proposed by the Church of Al Gore/IPCC, which will run into the tens of trillions of dollars and cripple the world economies, is only meant to reduce today’s CO2 levels by a fraction.

Imagine that!  A model which explains things and you dono't have to pay extortion to the Great and Wonderful Algore!

I'm sure that most level-headed people would agree with me that Barack Obama is an articulate, intelligent and thoughtful politician, which seems to be all the proof that news dorks like Chris Matthews need to accuse him of having no personality. But it's not like John Mc Cain is fucking Bob Hope or something. It's not like he comes bounding out onto the stage and starts slinging one-liners around with Miss Piggy. We've been down this road before with both Al Gore and John Kerry. When did it become a political necessity for our potential leaders to be entertaining? And if that's the criteria, how come we don't see Carrot-Top and Gallagher make a run for The Oval Office? Sure, they're a couple of hacks, but look at who our president's been for the last 7 years! A coke-snorting, drunk-driving, prisoner-frying, oil-guzzling retard; the political equivalent of Eddie Munster (no offense to Eddie Munster). I suppose that's entertaining in a rubber-necker kind of a way. Personally speaking, I found it pretty entertaining when I discovered that the Dubya in his name stood for Walker, because it lead me to nickname him Wally, which is a western European term for an idiot. I bet his middle name really is Wally, and ‘Walker’ is just another example of Republican spin-doctoring: "No, no, no, his middle name can't be Wally, that just won't cut the mustard. We need to make it into something a little more suave...say, for instance, Walker. Yes, Walker, that's a suitable middle name... closely related to Wally, but with a more Chuck Norrisy sound to it. It makes him sound like a tough-as-nails kind of Wally."

I had a strange encounter at a bar a couple of months before the 2000 presidential election that kind of under-scores my meandering point. 2 very drunken fellows were sitting beside me criticizing Al Gore, so I got involved in their conversation and asked one of them about Wally. I believe I said to the guy that Bush is "like a dumb dog with its tongue lolling out of the side of its mouth frantically humping your leg", and the guy actually said to me, "Well, who would you rather drink with?" And I said to him, "Keith Moon...Keith Moon is who I'd rather drink with. And Keith and I would go pick up Bon Scott and John Belushi and head on over to the Playboy Mansion for a night of drunken, drug-fueled whore-mongering". Actually, that last bit was bullshit, what I actually expressed to this person, with the seemingly kill-joy point of view, was that I didn't think that was a good approach to deciding who should be the next Commander-In-Chief. And the guy looked at me all cock-eyed and said, "Well I know who I'd rather drink with...Bush! Fuck Gore! Bush don't bother me with no save the planet, tree huggery-buggery, po-lit-ically correct boolsheet. Bush talk all 'bout how much fun it is to fry retards! Why, just the other day he was talkin' 'bout how the Texas Senate was fixin' to stop killin' retards and Dubya told them there mutherfuckers, Hell no, I like the law the way it is!!! Kuh-ch-ch-ch! That's muh boy raht there, man. Dubya don't take no shit from no-body!!!" Okay, so most of that was bullshit too, but the first part of the quote was true. However it did disturb me to think that there were actually people out there who were going to be voting based solely on whom they'd rather get shitty with. Having said that, it would be pretty cool to see a president stumble out onto the White House lawn and puke all over the podium, and then start crying and talking about how his father didn't love him. Anyway, don't get me wrong, it's not like I considered Gore a much better candidate for president. He would have made a better candidate, but not a much better candidate. Ralph Nader would have made a much better candidate.

 But let's get back to Barack Obama, and his apparent lack of personality. What's he supposed to do, start addressing the public with Richard Pryor-like anecdotes about freebasing Columbia and lighting himself on fire? What the fuck? I will say one thing about him though, have you happened to notice that his lips are blue? Maybe the real Obama actually drowned several years ago and the man we see running for president is actually part of some top-secret Government re-animation project directed by Herbert West. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll name Cthulhu as his running mate. Never mind negative campaigning, Cthulhu will just devour McCain with that menacing tentacled head of his.

Then again, at times Obama reminds me of that black albino chick from the Omega Man. If you removed Barack's irises and gave him a set of hooters, he could almost pass for her double, couldn't he? Just picture Barack with a brown robe and no irises and voila! But even this crap that I'm spewing forth doesn't detract from the fact that the man would make an excellent president. They keep saying he has no experience. Well, Bush had no experience either, other than fucking up the State of Texas with blatant pandering to big Industry and frying women and handicapped people. So Barack has no experience of making America an unhappy place to live in... good !!! Elect Obama and his lack of personality and maybe we'll witness his desire to do the right thing negate his lack of experience.

Help me maintain my status in the realm of humor by clicking on humor-blogs.com and rating my post.

My only question is what took him so long to realize democrats were communists?

<a href="

Stern described a phone conversation he had with his agent, who he described as a “liberal Democrat kind of guy.”

“The fact that these Democrats on the FCC are communists,” Stern said. “They’re for communism. They don’t want to see companies – this is gangsterism. I said, ‘This is crazy.’”">

How is everyone enjoying the scam so far?

From Strata-Sphere

Well, well. Congress learned something shattering today, which will
have the Church of Al Gore/IPCC running in fear of their lost
credibility. It has been scientifically demonstrated that 70% of the
Global Warming in the last century (and cooling in the last decade) is due to the Pacific Ocean Oscillations, not CO2:

One necessary result of low climate sensitivity is that
the radiative forcing from greenhouse gas emissions in the last century
is not nearly enough to explain the upward trend of 0.7 deg. C in the
last 100 years. This raises the question of whether there are natural
processes at work which have caused most of that warming.

On this issue, it can be shown with a simple climate model that
small cloud fluctuations assumed to occur with two modes of natural
climate variability — the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon (Southern
Oscillation), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation — can explain 70% of
the warming trend since 1900, as well as the nature of that trend:
warming until the 1940s, no warming until the 1970s, and resumed
warming since then.

The gentlemen making this claim is the lead investigator one of NASA’s flagship Earth Observing Observatories (H/T Ice Cap). I have the honor of working on this mission on the periphery (Aqua), it is operated out of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD.

I posted on some of these effects yesterday.
What this means is no matter how much you change your CO2 footprint,
how much you try to be CO2 green, no matter how much liberal
governments tax you - you cannot save the planet from its natural
cycles. Remember, the draconian actions being proposed by the Church of
Al Gore/IPCC, which will run into the tens of trillions of dollars and
cripple the world economies, is only meant to reduce today’s CO2 levels
by a fraction.

Say they reduced the CO2 25%. Say the CO2 is the driver for the
remaining 30% of Global Warming (which it cannot be, but let’s just be
only half as ridiculous as the IPCC), then all that effort would only
impact 7.5% of the forces driving the global climate. The other 92.5%
would roll on, impervious to the effort. And since CO2 is not 100% of
the remaining 30% of the equation (more like 10%), a more realistic
expectation is that all the suffering that would go into dropping CO2
levels by 25% would result in a less than 1% change in the forces
driving our climate.

In other words, you might as well light a match to all that money
because it would have no effect, you would be throwing it away on a
fool’s errand.

Must be the week to bust myths, because this means all those efforts
to drive down CO2 emissions are a scientifically proven waste of time.
From Strata-Sphere

I know all around he's a good guy, but can we really handle the hypocrisy?

Our Economy is, as we all know, not doing too hot right now. I work for a non-profit charity organization and I don't make a lot of money, but I do believe in what I'm doing enough to stick with it. I mean if Al Gore worked for NIKE he would probably wear NEW BALANCE.

We need to find alternatives in all of our lives. We do need better, more fuel efficient, environmentally friendly vehicles. (We used to use them years ago. They were called feet, horses, and bicycles.) I know people that work two and three jobs just to make ends meet. If a job doesn't pay enough just get an extra or an alternative job. If the train you usually take is not running you find an alternate route. If there is construction on the highway or traffic your GPS can give you an alternate direction. I think we need to find an alternative to Social Security for people who will need it but won't be able to get it when its gone because of its being abused by the government. However you look at it most of our alternatives we are faced with are simply to help us make money or live a more comfortable life.

I mentioned earlier that I don't make a lot of money where I work. I had to find an alternate way to take care of my family, pets, house, vehicle.... Sometimes you just got to be creative. I have a web site that is a great alternative for some extra income. Not just supplemental income I'm talking about you could quit your job and live on the beach income. The only reason I work is because of the inner city kids I help other than that I wouldn't need a job. Visit my site if you are interested. Click Here

The Palo Alto dump has caught fire.

Palo Alto, Calif., one of the "greenest" cities you could hope for, has long been known for all of its feel-good environmental policies, one of which is its recycling program, which has been known to elicit fits of fanaticism from the local citizenry. (Seriously. If you drop an aluminum can in a regular trash bin and one of the local enviro-nazis catches you, watch out.)

Naturally, the city's dump, er, "landfill," would be no different.

The dump -- excuse me, landfill -- features huge piles of compost for use by the good people of Palo Alto in their organic gardening. (Marijuana and such, judging by the behavior of many of them.) As huge compost piles are wont to do, one of them spontaneously started smoldering Tuesday night and finally caught fire Wednesday.

The dump -- landfill -- fire, which is next to one of the town's protected swamps -- er, wetlands -- has been sending out huge plumes of acrid smoke (nontoxic, the town earth mothers have assured us), and is expected to continue for days.

Palo Alto, where Al Gore gave a speech immediately after winning his Nobel Prize for whatever it is he's supposed to have done, has not issued word yet on how big the carbon footprint is on a compost fire.

Editor:
Picken-s your pockets and Gore-ing your rights. What a team.
Are Picken's TV ads part of Al Gore's 300 million media campaign?
They're sitting back counting their sheep. Are you one?

Jerry Taylor,
Financial Post

Published: Thursday, July 24, 2008

Virtually every claim made by T. Boone
Pickens to justify the lavish subsidies he is seeking for his wind
energy investments is flat wrong.

First, oil imports are not the
cause of high gasoline prices. On the contrary, oil imports serve to
keep gasoline prices down. After all, we import oil for a reason --
it's cheaper than the domestic alternative. If we were to restrict our
energy diet to energy produced in the United States, it would make
domestic energy producers (like Mr. Pickens) far richer and energy
consumers (the rest of us) far poorer, and GDP would be reduced as
well. While one can understand why Mr. Pickens is attracted to the idea
of "energy independence," for the rest of us, keeping the country open
to imported goods is pro-consumer, whether we're talking about oil,
steel, textiles or athletic shoes.

Second, we are no more forced
to rely on the "goodwill" of foreign oil producers when we shop for
petroleum than we are forced to rely on the "goodwill" of supermarkets
when we shop for eggs and milk. Oil producers export crude oil because
it's a great way to make money -- and for many, the only way to make
money. And once that oil is in the global marketplace, market actors,
not oil producers, dictate where it goes. Hence, we are betting on
producer greed -- which is a pretty safe bet.

Third, if wind
energy were a sensible economic investment, it would not need the
lavish federal and state subsidies already in place or the additional
largesse sought after by Mr. Pickens. Likewise, if compressed natural
gas (CNG) vehicles are an economically sensible alternative to
conventional gasoline-powered vehicles, then no government "master
plan" is necessary to deliver them to market. Price signals will induce
investors to invest and consumers to buy, without government having to
lift a finger. The same goes for all the other energy-related R&D
Mr. Pickens would like the taxpayer to dole out. If that R&D is
promising, it will be pursued, whether government subsidizes it or not.

Fourth,
if reducing our carbon footprint is the goal, then the most direct and
efficient means of reducing that footprint is to impose a tax on carbon
emissions and then leave it to the market to sort out how to most
efficiently order affairs under those new prices. Maybe it will mean
windmills and CNG, but maybe not. Perhaps it will mean more nuclear
power, new hydrogen-powered fuel cells, "clean" coal, the emergence of
cellulosic ethanol, battery-powered cars or hybrids -- or a
continuation of the existing energy base but less consumption as a
consequence.

Of course, if the market were to go into any of
those directions, Mr. Pickens would be out a lot of money, which is
probably why he wants to hard-wire the market to consume the things
he's investing in and have the government lavish him with subsidies in
the course of doing so. I wish Mr. Pickens well in his wind energy
business, but I see no reason why taxpayers, ratepayers or consumers
ought to be forced to sacrifice in order to fatten his already ample
bank account. - Jerry Taylor is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

More From National Post

Photo by Brandi Bratrude. Vue Dale Drive-In, Wenatchee, WA.

What's Playing:

1. Bicycle Safety by Robust Flavor - "Make it big, make it bold, make it bright, make yourself seen!"

2. 1Sky Public Service Announcement - "We are all powerfully connected...we share this earth."

3. Supporting Women Coffee Farmers in Mexico - Sustainable Harvest podcast from Oaxaca, Mexico.

4. Gore on Energy Policy - Al Gore's Challenge to Repower America, July 17, 2008

5. Trees Invade the Arctic | ZapRoot 046 - Reforestation may not be the best bet.

Check out all of seattleDIRT's DIRTy Movies here.

In a speech in Washington, DC he laid out what many of us have already seen happening and have already realized: the situation in this country is rapidly spinning out of control.  While politicians are saying that the recession is all in our heads and we're a "nation of whiners," people are struggling to find enough money for food and gasoline. 

He makes references to the slow collapse of our economy, namely the descent of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well as the stress that airlines and car manufacturers are under.  He talks also about the climate crisis and how it's progressing faster than we predicted.  As he states, "According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland's largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City."

He paints a bleak picture of our current situation, but then again, anyone who's been paying attention can see that we're in a hell of a lot of trouble as a country. 

When he turns to possible solutions, he makes several excellent points: "it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them...to offer old solutions to each crisis separately - without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective - they almost always make the other crises even worse."

But what to do?  Here is where Al Gore makes another challenge to America, very similar to the one he made when he agreed to make his slide show about global warming into a major motion picture.  He challenges us to think outside the box, to set big goals, to see the surprisingly simple "common thread" to our problems, and to "commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years."

Never has this been proposed and endorsed by such a prominent figure, though it has been proposed before.  Scientists and activists the country over have proposed this very solution and have plans in place that could do it.  I truly hope that Obama, as a presidential hopeful, will rise to this challenge as well. 

It's emminently doable and a much more permanent solution than any offshore drilling could ever be.  If you think about it, the estimates say that offshore drilling won't bring gas prices down until 2013 at the least, so wouldn't it be better to have a solution that will take less time, with less risk of environmental harm, and actually END our need for more oil? 

Wouldn't it be better if Al Gore was chosen as Obama's VP?  Hey, a girl can dream, right?

Go to http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=6070 to check out their article and video concerning the speech!

In his speech, he claimed that if we don’t get completely off the use of carbon fuels in the next 10 years, it will be catastrophic for the nation and the planet.  I don’t understand why he has set 10 years as the deadline.  Even some of the scientists who have supported Gore’s Global Warming thesis have said that there has been no warming at all since 2001 and, in fact, the planet has actually cooled slightly since then.  They say that the cooling will continue for 10 years.  So, Mr. Gore, what is the 10 years to doomsday speech about.

I tend to believe that Vice President Gore is in a rush for one of  two reasons.  Either he and his friends are afraid that too many scientists will prove his inconvenient theories wrong and make him look foolish to the world or he and his friends, have invested a lot of money in companies that specialize in “green technology” and companies that stand to capitalize on the world accepting and converting all forms of energy to “green energy” based on his inconvenient theories.  The latter theory would cause him to lose the millions of dollars his stands to gain through his investments.

I think, before we the people spend all of the money that is going to be required to convert to Gore’s demands, we should hear out the scientists who are currently speaking out against his Global Warming theories.  We should also conduct public hearings, either in Congress or with a Presidential Commission to determine if Vice President Al Gore stands to gain so much money from the planned changes that there might be a conflict of interest in what he says.  

But these things won’t happen.  We won’t want a little thing like the truth to stand in the way of Al Gore making a boatload full of money.  That might be why Al is quick to say, “The debate is over.”

The utterly abysmal "efficiency" of photovoltaics is impressive, as long as
- there is no night
- the substantial energy to make the photovoltaic is paid for by government
- batteries are free and
- installation is free
- everybody lives at low latitude
- atmosphere at low latitude remains clear

For direct solar conversion, Arizona is nearly ideal, except for that nasty 34 degree offset (in North latitude) from the equator. (How unfortunate; we should all live at the equator). But solar conversion produces less than 1% of the electric power in Arizona, after 50 years of advanced scientific development.

Another essential ingredient to the success of photovoltaics in Arizona even WITH GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY is the invention of an efficient battery; and they've tried it all, including pumping atmosphere into a hole into the ground (popular especially among government bureaucrats who get a cut). Then there is the intermittency . . .

Tasmania's South latitude of 41 degrees, a little more discouraging, but from the standpoint of solar generation, matches Italy. Read below about the reality of solar energy at similar latitudes where most of us live:

Solar power realities

A comment by someone who knows from professional experience -- received via a reader. The report focuses on Tasmania, which is in roughly the equivalent latitude to Italy. So what is bad in Tasmania will be worse in Britain (for instance). As for Sweden or Canada, stop laughing!

I am one of those people who supply and maintain solar and wind power installations to power electronic systems at remote (unpowered) sites -- e.g. two way radios up on mountain tops.

Twenty plus years ago, a couple of us had a good look at the possibility of making a dollar or two out of flogging this emerging technology to the great unwashed. We didn't bother because it didn't stack up energy wise or financially. I admit the efficiency of the solar panels us mere mortals can afford has improved a bit since then (at least 8%) but the figures are still similar.

A loose look at the energy required to make the things verses the energy output of them during their average lifetime was not really surprising. The panel would return enough energy in the first year to smelt the aluminum in its frame and its mounting and transport the manufactured panel to us. We could not get energy figures for melting the silicon so the wafers could be grown and then cut up to make the semiconductors but overall it will be high so we guessed that it would take at least 100Kwh . This equates to 3 years output from the panel used up by the time it is delivered on site.

But it doesn't end there. Over the life of a set of panels the owner will probably need 3 or 4 sets of batteries. These are full of nice things like lead and acid and plastic and are very heavy. Then there is the magic box called the inverter. This is the box that converts the panel power up to the 230 volts mains power that we use. These are full of electronic things that take a lot of energy to make and have a reasonably short life span - say 10 years. You must include the energy costs for making and transporting these items to site in the overall energy that the solar panels must return during their lifetime. A battery pack of say 13kw h weighs in at approximately 500kg. So during the life of a set of panels you are going to have to transport 2 tons of them from (say) Sydney to Hobart and back again. Do the energy calculations on that one considering that the energy output per annum from each panel equates to about 4.5 litres of petrol.

I must qualify the above by saying that in our lovely clean green (work in the tourism industry or starve) state we don't get a lot of sun for large chunks of the year. When we are working out the energy budget for a solar site we allow an average of 3.5 hrs a day full output from the panels and have battery backup to allow for 14 - 28 days (site dependant) with no output. When the batteries are fully charged you can store no more so you effectively get no output from the panels. Therefore the extra output in summer is not usable unless you seriously upscale the battery capacity. Up in Queensland you can get away with less than half the number of panels for the same load. In drier climates panels seem to last a bit longer as well.

There are some interesting practical considerations that must be considered when using these things. It never ceases to amaze me how many people seem surprised to discover that a solar panel needs to get actual direct sunlight on it to give a worthwhile output. This can be a simple task of (wait for it - shock horror - sit down Rev. Bob in case you have a nasty turn) cutting down the trees to the height of the panels because the sun gets pretty close to the horizon down here in winter. Or if you have built your house on the southern side of a hill or taller building it is even simpler - you need to move the house or increase the number of panels to compensate. An extra $10k - $40k will usually suffice.

In Tasmania more than 50% of houses don't have a clear enough view north to make solar panels worthwhile and if you elevate them you begin to shadow the house to the south of you. This means you can never optimize the energy return from the panels. And what about our nice green leafy suburbs? When your northern neighbour's trees get high enough to shade your panels you lose output. Or if a leaf blows onto one of your panels the output goes down. (if you cover approximately 5% of the face of the panel the output will drop to almost zero.) The government will have to bring in draconian chain saw laws and you will have to have a photo license and a chainsaw safe to own one. Panels need to be cleaned regularly. Feathered airfoil excrement is especially effective in stopping them working.

Every time you need to have the system serviced the serviceman will use petrol in his van to get there. This will probably average using the equivalent energy output of one panel for a year for each trip and that does not count the energy required to make the van in the first place.

There is little doubt that in Tassie a solar installation as a collective item over its life is a net energy sink not a source. It is no different financially. My last electricity account for my workshop lists the cost as 18.5c per kwh or 21.4c including supply charge and for this my installation costs can be amortized over a 50 year life span. Over a 20 year life an $800 panel will return me 900kwh or $166.50 worth of electricity. Don't forget that out of the massive savings you have made there you must buy batteries, inverter, have it installed, pay the interest on the money you borrowed to buy the system and maintain it.

Note that this energy consumption would require 136 panels ($110,000.00), 14 day battery backup $13,500.00 (weight 1.6 tons, life 10 years), three phase inverter $15,000.00 (expected life 5 - 10 years). Interest alone would exceed $1,675.00 for the same period I paid the electricity authority $334.95. (Don't forget that if the batteries went flat and I had no electricity to run the workshop I would still have to pay my employees so a system failure could wipe me out. I would have to have a generating plant and/or duplicate equipment to allow for that. Even if you quadrupled the energy output from the panels the figures don't add up.

Coming: Why not build a GIANT PHOTOVOLTAIC in the Sahara?