24 December 2010

Stop Global Warming Sign Buried in the Snow

Found this over at "JammieWearingFool".  This is just HILARIOUS!!

Sign of the Times: 'Stop Global Warming' Sign Buried in the Snow

This amusing photo goes hand in glove with this idiocy:

That snow outside is what global warming looks like
There is now strong evidence to suggest that the unusually cold winters of the last two years in the UK are the result of heating elsewhere.
Who says something so stupid? Why, a renowned "expert" who was exposed as a total fraud during ClimateGate, of course. But wait, ten years ago we were told snow was a thing of the past. Oops.

Daniel Hannan is amused.
For all I know, Monbiot may be right. It just seems remarkably convenient that any climatic trend is the fault of greenhouse gases . Getting hotter? Global warming! Getting cooler? Global warming! Average overcast October day? Gaea is on her last legs!
But ... but ... NASA is telling us the truth!
Ye-e-s. There’s just one problem with this. Can anyone spot what it is? That’s right: the clue is in that phrase “published by NASA”. See, going to NASA GISS for reliable, unbiased temperature data is a bit like asking Charles Manson for tips on how best to set up a commune where everyone’s happy and no one gets ritually murdered or anything. James Hansen, the guy in charge of NASA’s dataset, is so committed to the religion of AGW he makes Al Gore sound like Viscount Monckton.
Can't wait to see them explain Australia's white summer.

It just turned to winter today here in the United States. We in the northeast have been freezing since at least Thanksgiving. I can't wait for spring. Just hope it warms up a bit by then.

Update: Submitted for further amusement.
posted by JammieWearingFool @ 8:50 AM
 Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam

21 December 2010


Talk about holy cR**!!!!


The FCC has voted 3-2 along political lines to extend the government’s reach and regulate the internet via net neutrality.
The vote to institute net neutrality rules marks the first time the government has stepped into the world of internet regulation. Proponent’s of the net neutrality rules say that the move allows the government to stop companies from controlling too much of the internet, while opponents view it as a scary example of government control and an impediment of private business.
“As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet are unprotected… . That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said at a commission meeting on Tuesday, according to The Hill.
The paper says the new rules “create new transparency standards for wired and wireless carriers,“ while also preventing ”wired carriers from blocking lawful applications and services.” For example, “wireless carriers are prohibited from blocking websites as well as applications that compete with their services.”
The rules have drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle, with Republicans arguing that it marks too much government oversight, and Democrats saying that rules don’t go far enough. Instead, Democrat commissioners wanted stronger rules for wireless companies, but said they would settle for today’s new rules.
But the move enraged the commission’s Republican members.
“The FCC is not Congress. We cannot make laws,” said Republican Commission Robert McDowell, describing Tuesday as “one of the darkest days in FCC history.” He also suggested that new rules may be in for a court battle.
“The era of Internet regulatory arbitrage has dawned,” he said.
Fellow Republican Commissioner Meredith Baker accused the chairman of smarmy political and manipulative tactics to pass the order, saying she only received her a copy of the proposal in the late hours of last night.
“I think we can all do better and let’s do so in the New Year,” she said.
Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine



Are we REALLY surprised by this?

Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine
Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of ObamaGlenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine

How Much Euro Membership Has Cost Ireland In Terms Of GDP

This is the problem with having a single currency.  You're not letting the Market set a value on what your economy is worth, and so your currency ends up being managed by a bunch of ministers in a far off land.  Instead of what's best for each individual country, they're concerned with what's best for the collective.
How many times after the fall of the Soviet Union do we need to prove that Collectivism doesn't work?
Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure
Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure

20 December 2010

So they're using Assange as a scapegoat for imposing censureship on the Internet.  Oh well, so much for Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
Freedoms We Lost
Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.
How did the FCC get here?
For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.
David Klein
Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.
Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.
It wasn't long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet's privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.
Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court's April 6 rebuke of the commission's regulatory overreach.
In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.
Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation. Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by . . . consensus.
After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net.
Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty?
To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.
On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.
Mr. McDowell is a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.
Freedoms We Lost


Here comes the Censors

What I don't get is he claims that Rush and the others offend others because of "who" they are, I'd like to see a SINGLE example of what he's talking about, because from what I've seen and heard from Rush, he attacks others based on their BELIEFS, specifically, if they believe in Socialism, he's going to explain WHY they are wrong.

19 December 2010

Cash Cow Disease: The Cognitive Decline of Microsoft and Google

Our Sponsors