"Jim Treacher" attacks State Department SUV...

Treacher, who rolled out a tag-along blog (Daily Trawler) to Tucker Carlson's and Neil Patel's Daily Caller online media outlet, started a fight with a black SUV.

It was unclear as to the whether Treacher was upset that the SUV was a product of "Government Motors" (GM), black in color...priced above his pay grade. Therefore, it's hard for me to speculate whether Treacher was acting out as a domestic right-wing terrorist, a racist, or trying out a little class envy. I said it was hard for me to speculate...but I will.

All three!!! Hat trick...baby!!!!

Nah...check out the ongoing story here...and learn how the security folks at the State Department operate when it comes to manning up and taking responsibility for their actions. I don't think we'll be handing out any "good samaritan" awards...but a Nobel Peace Prize has been mentioned.

What would Lenin say?

If you're living a green lifestyle, it turns out you can take it with you.

Cemeteries and funeral homes across the USA are offering environmentally friendly burials featuring formaldehyde-free fluids for embalming and biodegradable caskets made of pine, wicker or even cardboard.

Green burials are available in nearly 30 cemeteries nationwide, up from a handful at the start of 2008, says Joe Sehee, executive director and president of the Green Burial Council, a non-profit organization that encourages environmentally sustainable death care.

Nice! I always thought the funeral scene was a bit subdued. What we need is the slow slake of dry ice fog to gently caress the vistors as they say goodbye to Uncle Henry.

But...one would have to wonder what Vladimir Lenin would look like today in his Мавзоле́й Ле́нина as misguided Russians form long lines to visit with his remains every day from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm, except Mondays and Fridays. Or, what about the sacred bodies of Ho Chi Minh, Chiang Kai-shek and other lefties of that ilk. In fact, lately, Osama bin Laden has been rumbling about ecological impurity in the West.

Of course...in the case of the latter, a quick cremation from a daisy cutter can prove his dedication to the cause.

Should have thrown in some dark cataract glasses...

BOSTON (AP) -- A hearing on an asylum request by President Barack Obama's African aunt has started in Boston.

Kenya native Zeituni Onyango (zay-TUH'-nee awn-YAHN'-goh) is arguing Thursday in U.S. Immigration Court that she be allowed to stay in the United States.

Onyango showed up for the hearing in a wheelchair and with a cane across her lap. Lawyer Margaret Wong says Onyango and two doctors are expected to testify. The hearing is closed to the public.

Wong says she is applying for asylum for medical and ''other'' reasons.

Keep in mind that she had a previous hearing in 2004 and was ordered to be deported. Onyango ignored the decision, and continued to remain in the US while enjoying taxpayer funded public housing all the way to the present.

I'm kind of skeptical about the medical condition. Then again...I'm kind of skeptical about everything (and everyone).

Bad magic...

Senate Democrats are preparing to release a roughly $80 billion jobs program this week, but its prospects are uncertain in a political landscape where voters are angry about unemployment yet fuming about federal spending.

I am reminded of a magician I saw in a comedy club outside of St. Louis about ten years ago. The magician, obviously drunk, wobbled around the stage nearly falling out into the audience a number of times and always fortifying his balance with another belt from the highball glass sitting on a stool.

Eventually, he holds up a sheet, covers the stool and glass with the linen and looks expectantly to the crowd. After a rather shakey count of three he whips up the sheet to reveal...that...nothing had changed. The half empty glass remained centered on the stool.

The drunk magician...not disturbed in the least points out over the audience to the bar in the back of the room and shouts..."Get me another Crown Royal."

(shrugs)

Yeah...I know, it wasn't funny. As comedic magicians go...this one sucked. But, it does parallel well with the Democrat's big reveal on a jobs bill. Nothing changes...and eventually they will ask for more...

I bet I could make the New York Times profitable...

The New York Times is a cesspool of agenda driven "reporting." More often than not, they regurgitate the liberal position and serve as the Democrat Party's mouthpiece to promote and (just as readily) hide the real story. The stubborn (and suicidal) stance has led them to the abyss financially.

So...the question remains...what do they have to do to actually succeed as a viable business?

It's not as hard as you might think:

1. No more opinion in hard news stories. Instead of handholding the reader with a by-line that leads them to a desired conclusion...stick with factual representation only. Instead of using convaluted verbs like "implied" or "alluded" or "suggested"...the journalist should rely on "stated" or "said."

2. No more "well placed anonymous sources." Simply put, the NYT does not possess the credibility to be able to allow the luxury of trust with the reader. The immediate thought of any intelligent consumer should be "I think they just made that up, or secured the information from a politically motivated individual."

3. Page 2 of every New York Times issue should remain totally blank. Page 2 is for corrections, retractions and clarification. If there is nothing printed on that page...then they are doing their job. If retractions or clarifications are required, they are out front and center for the reader providing a sense of honesty and responsibility. On those days when the page is blank for extended periods at a time, the owner of the NYT can reward his valued employees accordingly.

4. The Op-Ed section of the paper should be more transparent (as should the paper in general). NO OP-ED's are written by anyone without attribution to the writer. Op-Ed's attributed to some nonsense reference like "staff" or "Editorial department" are a license to lie and obfuscate. Writers should be held accountable, and if someone in the Op-Ed department pens something questionable, they ought to have the courage to sign their name.

5. ABSOLUTELY NO POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS BY THE NYT. That is not the function of a "newspaper."

6. Continuing with the Op-Ed portion of the NYT. There would be a "left of the fold" section for left leaning writers. There would a be a "right of the fold" section for those leaning to the right. Each contracted Op-Ed contributor would provide a full bio reflective of their politics in that regard.

7. Also, in Op-Ed, there would be a separate section available for guest Op-Ed's reflective of the hot topics of the present. Again, contributors must provide a full bio available to the reader with their piece.

8. With each Op-Ed, the NYT would contract with a number of blogs to critique offerings in the newspaper. The NYT would provide links to at least two blogs under each Op-Ed where the discussion of the topic would be ongoing. The suggested process would be to have blogs from both ideologies addressing the offering. The writer of the NYT Op-Ed would be encouraged to participate in these discussions and compensated by the NYT for substative involvement.

9. All journalists and Op-Ed writers for the NYT (all sections) would be encouraged to participate in internet generated discussion throughout the blogosphere on pieces they produce. In addition, certain blogs (on a rotating basis) would be permitted to reproduce pieces in full (as opposed to an excerpt) to generate interest and discussion. The Fair Use Doctrine is void when a commercial venture is realized (blog collects revenue via advertising on the blog, or donations; LA Times v. Free Republic). However, with permission the reproduction of the full article will generate interest for the NYT and the blog...and a form of revenue sharing can be contracted in advance.

10. Guest writers (primarily Op-Ed) can be solicited from the blogosphere on topics in which they excell. To this point, the NYT and other newspapers have not made a real effort to co-exist with the internet. They have failed to tap into what could be a vast resource (not only of information) but also of revenue via captive readers to specific blogs.

11. For God's Sake...New York City has an absolutely wonderful collection of sports teams, individual atheletes and one of the most loyal fan bases on the planet. CREATE A PREMIER SPORTS SECTION!!!

12. New York has a great reputation for fasion, lifestyle and entertainment, but the NYT relies on self-important and self-proclaimed experts to present their views. The problem is that they fail to tap the resources available to them. How many members of the entertainment industry live in the Upper East Side? Who wouldn't want an inside story or two from actors who happen to be native New Yorker's? How about a human interest story penned by some of the fashion greats once in a while? Instead, we are stuck with ecclectic and elitist drivel from prunes and plows.

13. ENOUGH WITH THE LEAKING OF CONFIDENTIAL AND CLASSIFIED REPORTS!!!



I could go on and on and on. But, to summarize...the NYT could really be a gold mine if someone understood transparency, understood the demographics of their customers...but more importantly realized that the current ideology of the NYT voids an entire market of potential consumers (likely much larger than the current readership and circulation). When circulation increases, advertising rates increase. In addition, if the readership includes both sides of the aisle, the potential advertising base increases as well. Folks on the left do, indeed, purchase different products from those on the right.

Also, there needs to be an innovative effort made to make the blogs benefit the "big media." I provide just a scant portion of views in that regard. There are many (not yet tapped).

Above all...the NYT lost its reputation for straight informative and factual news. She traded in on liberal ideology. The first step in making her profitable is making her trustworthy. That is an earned reward...and the revenue would follow.

Motivation of the means...

The American Thinker has a piece up highlighting Li Xing's evaluation of climate change after attending the Copenhagen fiasco:

It is amazing that Chinese media examine what has recently come out revealing IPCC "mistakes" and conclude more serious examination of its work is in order. Yet the American mainstream media brush aside such concerns seeking to keep an obvious political agenda alive.

As, contributor, John McLaughlin, points out, the US Media is AWOL on the issue of "hide and decline."

The New York Times has a piece out today showing that China is surpassing everyone in "Clean Energy" production and research.

China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.

These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.

I suspect that Global Warming is not the motivation for this exploration. Rather, dominating the world economy and being able to breathe in downtown Bejing without hacking up a lung is more likely...

Curt Schilling on the AGW lemming mentality...

You lemmings that scream as loud as you can, just because. Think about this. If the evidence IS so overwhelming and the science is irrefutable, why would there EVER be a reason to fabricate ANY data? Wouldn’t the overwhelming evidence be RIGHT IN FRONT OF US? Would the data be so concrete we couldn’t debate it? Why would these ‘top scientists’ lie? Hide data? You do those things because you ARE lying and you ARE hiding the facts because both the DATA and the FACTS go against the arguments you are making, that’s why.

Curt Schilling, apparently, has taken up tennis after baseball.

That is GAME, SET, and MATCH...my friends.

The Hole in Global Warming...

Well over two decades ago we, the public, were on the receiving end of the Montreal Protocol. Do you remember what that was? Here's a hint:

The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer is a landmark international agreement designed to protect the stratospheric ozone layer. The treaty was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete ozone in the stratosphere--chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform--are to be phased out by 2000 (2005 for methyl chloroform).

Here's the thing...which I happened to mention on this blog quite a while ago under the very apt titles of "Behold the Idiots" and "I want a refund." I find it hard to believe that the Montreal Protocol served any valued purpose in reducing the size of the Ozone Hole. I base this on the fact that the Hole was bigger than ever just three years ago.

Stratospheric ozone has been depleted by 5 to 6 percent at middle latitudes, but has somewhat rebounded in recent years. The largest recorded Antarctic ozone hole was recorded in 2006.

Gosh!...those climate scientists screwed up the "model." Of course, despite the increased costs of switching over to approved automobile air conditioners that did not use freon and other costly changes that you likely weren't aware that you financed...it was all for naught.

Ah...but have faith...

While most of the world has warmed, parts of the southern hemisphere have remained stubbornly cold—oddly enough because of a gaping hole in the ozone layer. Now new research shows that all the efforts made by scientists and environmental advocates to close the hole may actually increase warming throughout the entire southern hemisphere.

I, actually, pointed this out a little less than a year ago.

June 10 2008 A new study led by Seok-woo Son and Lorenzo Polvani, in the Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics at SEAS, is suggesting that the winds in the Southern Hemisphere will be greatly impacted by the expected recovery of the ozone hole in the second half of this century. In a study that appears in the June 13 issue of Science, Seok-Woo Son, lead-author and a postdoctoral research scientist at SEAS, and Professor Polvani suggest that stratospheric ozone ought to be more carefully considered by the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) round of climate model predictions.

"We were surprised to find that the closing of the ozone hole, which is expected to occur in the next 50 years or so, shows significant effects on the global climate," said Lorenzo M. Polvan one of two principle investigators and professor of applied mathematics at SEAS. "This is because stratospheric ozone has not been considered a major player in the climate system. We believe the closing of the ozone hole is likely to have profound impacts on the surface winds and, also likely, to have an impact on other aspects of the Earth's climate, including surface temperatures, locations of storm tracks, extent of dry zones, amount of sea ice, and ocean circulation."

So, why trot out this "old" study now? Not much attention was paid back in June 2008. Well, the IPCC's agenda driven Climate Change stance is decaying rather quickly due to false premise, unreliable model, activist "scientists," climate-gate and various other idiocy. The whole "global warming" mantra is rather unpredictable (mostly because no one has developed a model that includes all the applicable factors in climate change...and likely never will). Also, as the Earth's climate cools (as it has been for the last decade) the global warming cabal is left looking...silly.

The fact that more press has been given to the Ozone Hole lately,...and it's inverse relationship to "warming" suggests that it's getting more difficult for the activist scientists and the "climate change machine" to hold back reports detrimental to their preconceived goals.

I look at both the Montreal Protocol legislation and the IPCC's Climate Change report and realize that the environuts are zero for two...while costing us all a pretty penny in the process. I, also, find it ironic that the downfall is delivered in cold hard scientific facts; the same type facts the IPCC is supposed to deliver, but decided on agenda driven tripe wrapped up in ulterior motives instead.

“I don’t think I’ve ever heard a female oversell her capabilities,” she said.

OSLO — Arni Hole remembers the shock wave that went through Norway’s business community in 2002 when the country’s trade and industry minister, Ansgar Gabrielsen, proposed a law requiring that 40 percent of all company board members be women.

The message here is that performance and aptitude are not the primary criteria for running a successful company. Boobs and a uterus are far better qualifications.

Well...

Indeed, the world has noticed: Spain and the Netherlands have passed similar laws, with a 2015 deadline for compliance. The French Senate will soon debate a bill phasing in a female quota by 2016, after the National Assembly approved the measure last week. Belgium, Britain, Germany and Sweden are considering legislation.

Full speed ahead in destruction of merit based promotions...and how's that working out?

Using a common market-based measure of corporate governance, known as Tobin’s Q, the study found that companies in Norway actually performed an average of 20 percent worse the year after adopting the quotas, with those companies that were required to make the most drastic changes to their boards suffering the largest negative impact. The measure, named for the late James Tobin, the 1981 Nobel laureate in economics, is a ratio of a company’s market capitalization to the replacement cost of its assets, which economists consider to be the best proxy for investor confidence in a company’s management.

BUT...they feel as if they have struck a blow for equity in the boardrooms...which is...er...important.

It's a "Nice N Easy" root touch-up for TOTUS

State of the Union Address (January 27, 2010)



Address to the Republican House Retreat (January 29, 2010)

Just like the SOTU address...it was a "wash-out."