atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#656: Demokkkrats

One of the things which has bothered me for a long time is the tendency some on the radical left have to spell "America" with one or more K's: "Amerika" or "Amerikkka". They do this to imply that America itself is inherently racist and evil, you see.

Then there's this article about a book which links the Demokrat (er, "Democrat") Party to the Ku Klux Klan.

None of the information presented in the article is even news to me. It simply reminded me that, yeah, the South was largely Democrat, and yeah, the KKK came from the post-Civil War South.

And yeah, it was Republicans who won the Civil War for America. How ironic it is that that was the birth of true federalism in the USA.

Hell, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by Republicans, too--over the votes of people like Al Gore Sr, the Prime Warmista's father.

It's a pretty impressive con job, hiding such an inconvenient piece of party history, isn't it? Of course, it helps when you have the press on your side.

Larry Elder talks a bit about that. He echoes--with facts and figures--my own discussion of the CNN poll that said half of Americans believe the US is in a recession. No surprises there.
Two professors, John Lott, economist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Kevin A. Hassett, the Institute's director of economic policy studies, looked at newspaper articles on the economy. They wrote, "We found that newspaper headlines reporting economic news on unemployment, gross domestic product (GDP), retail sales and durable goods tended to be much more frequently negative when a Republican was in the White House. And this was true even after accounting for the economic numbers on which the stories were based and how those numbers were changing over time." So bad economic news becomes less bad economic news with a Democrat sitting in the White House. With a Republican in the White House, however, good economic news becomes less good, and bad becomes even worse.
No surprises there, either. I've observed that myself.

Time to ditch Kyoto. Because it doesn't work.

Oh, not the way you think they mean that; no. They mean it hasn't actually done any good at reducing carbon emissions. It should be replaced with a plan which targets the top 20 carbon emitting nations, which produce 80% of the man-made carbon dioxide contribution to the carbon cycle in the atmosphere. (That is, by the way, 80% of 3% of 0.78% of the total atmosphere. It ends up being 0.01872% of the entire atmosphere. If a forcing of 0.01872% is going to ruin the ecology, we're fucked anyway.)

Well, guess what, anus? The "top 20" are the same countries which aren't meeting the targets now and changing the plan slightly isn't going to fix that. China is #1 these days; do you honestly think China is going to give a rat's ass about your ideas?

It is time to ditch Kyoto, because it doesn't work, but not the way the "experts" in that article mean it.

  • 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.