atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#4548: The nicest thing about Sunday.

When I close, it's an hour earlier than normal. Yeah.

* * *

China is so wonderful! The Chinese don't have to worry about having a place to live, or food to eat, or tuition, or anything because the government makes sure they're taken care of!

China is a freakin' paradise compared to the United States!

"The land can not support this mass of humanity without very dire consequences," the article gravely intones, but that's not actually the problem, here. The problem is that the government of China is communist, and communist governments do not enact environmental controls. Full stop.

The result is, of course, manufacturing which dumps all its toxic waste right into the environment, heedless of what is downstream or downwind.

...American environmentalists like to pretend that China in 2015 is what America in 2015 is like, but it's simply not. America's air is clean, particularly compared to China's.

* * *

An article well worth reading on how Woodrow Wilson fucked up the world. It makes a compelling argument for its thesis, I must admit.

I never did really understand why the USA had to get involved in WWI. There was no national interest in the war, except that Wilson desperately wanted to be in it (for reasons enumerated in the article). We had no dog in that hunt.

Well, it's water over the dam now, innit?

* * *

Cops love playing soldier. It is also, as Karl Denninger points out, easier for cops to no-knock someone than it is for them to do actual police work. And the cops don't care who they shoot while the bust is going down, even if they are in the wrong house.

* * *

The Union of Concerned "Scientists" has made up data to "prove" that global warming is ruining everything. Basically, they cherry-picked rainfall data in an attempt to demonstrate a causal link between global temperature and rainfall. Instead of showing the whole graph, they showed the graph starting at its nadir in the 1960s and then claimed that the "warming atmosphere" was leading to "greater rainfall".

Problem: the highest post-1960 point, in about 1998, is four tenths lower than the high point in 1900, near the beginning of the curve.

When you throw out inconvenient data--data that nullifies your claim--you are not doing science, which is why I scare-quoted "scientists", above. They're not.

* * *

I went hog-wild today and got a Little Caesar's deep-dish pepperoni pizza for dinner. I now have a happy stomach.

* * *

We got about half an inch of snow today. It's not even worth shoveling.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.