January 16th, 2009

#1432: "Double standard" and I'll keep mentioning it whenever it happens

Michelle Malkin on the impending inaugural bacchanalia.

Four years ago we heard all sorts of screaming from the Democrats and the Left and the liberals about how President Bush was spending too much money on his second inauguration.

$42.3 million was excessive, we were told, and it was wrong.

Four years later the incoming Obama administration is spending


to celebrate Barak Hussein "Boss Tweek" Obama's ascension to President. Every reason the Democrats gave for President Bush not to have a big inaugural is still valid yet we're not hearing so much as a single peep from them about an inaugural that costs 3.54 times as much.

Why? Because it's their guy, that's why.

The only reason they didn't like Bush spending $42.3 on his inaugural is that they hate Bush. It had nothing to do with anything other than their hatred for President Bush.

Yes, it's a double standard. And it's one that the press is carefully not discussing, thus displaying its own double standard. No one in the American press is reminding Americans that Democrats were critical of President Bush four years ago over a tab that was less than 1/3 of the current bash's bill. (Michelle quotes a British paper. You can tell this because it gives equivalent costs in the British pound.) And the press sure as hell isn't mentioning its own criticisms of Bush's spending on his second inaugural.

$150,000,000. Jesus.

#1433: Stranglethorn Vale. That's what I forgot.

...found several 30-odd level quests there, ones that are ideal for the Hunter character class: go out and shoot 10 of these, 10 of those, etc. The beasts are worth 170-220 XPs each, and then when you turn in the quest you get another 1200-odd XPs, so each quest makes for about 3,000 XP. I got to level 34 in pretty quick order after finding the right place to be, and it looks like I'll make 35 in a similarly short period of time if I keep grinding away in this area.

And I knew there had to be something, somewhere, that I could handle.

But in the process I found Booty Bay and took a side trip to Kalimdor, where I explored some of the Barrens and Thousand Needles. I didn't get much XP for that part, but it was still neat to see more of the world. (...of Warcraft.)

* * *

Don't blame me; I did my part. I bought a new laptop, remember?

* * *

File this one under "improving stealth technology". I don't know how long it'll be before they can put this stuff on airplanes, but expect it to cost a packet.

* * *

Anyone who takes the label "Vitamin Water" seriously doesn't understand the concept of "water". Okay, if it's "water", it doesn't have "vitamins" in it. If it's got more in it than just water, it's not "water" but some kind of "beverage". Most people are smart enough to figure that out.

And this suit is being brought by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is a group of asinine nutjobs that's more interested in controlling what you eat than the "public interest". This is the group that scared everyone half to death over Olestra, with the result that it's no longer available. Which means that if you like potato chips, you get all the carbohydrates and all the fat; you don't get just the carbs as you did with chips made of Olestra.

CPSI managed to make everyone think that if they ate Olestra they'd shit themselves to death, when nothing could be further from the truth. I never experienced any gastrointestinal symptoms--not one, even with my spooty gut!--after eating chips made with Olestra. The stuff was safe; but by scare-mongering, CPSI managed to make the stuff commercially inviable.

End result: I really hope Coke wins this one.

* * *

Go to McDonald's and piss off a terrorist! Terrorists want people to boycott McDonald's, Starbucks, Pizza Hut, and Marlboro. (WTF, Marlboro? "Smoke Marlboro, the official cigarette of the Zionist Conspiracy"--what the hell do these assholes use for brains? Camel dung?) They apparently think this will cripple the US economy or something.

* * *

Interesting: either there is some kind of life on Mars, or else hydrocarbons can be produced by geological processes--either way, we're going to learn something really fascinating.

The abiotic theory of hydrocarbon generation was proposed several years ago by Thomas Gold, but I have no idea what's happened with the theory since then. Mars making methane through geological processes would be the first observed example of it. (We really can't tell where the stuff we use to fuel our SUVs comes from. We think it's from Carboniferous era plant and animal matter, but we don't really know.)

By the way, I can just hear the eco-nazis freak out about exploring Mars should life be found there: "There's indigenous life there! We have to leave it alone! What if someone had messed around with Earth when there was just bacteria here??"

a) How do you know someone didn't?

b) The solar system has existed for what, five billion years? The sun's not going to get any brighter than it is, and in five billion years Mars is going to roast when the sun enters its red giant phase. If life hasn't evolved by now, it's run out of time anyway.

c) We need Mars now. We need it for the challenges it presents, and for the "test bed" it offers for learning how to terraform planets.

Sorry, martian bacteria: you've been out-competed. It's called "Darwinism"--remember that, guys? You're so quick to say that evolution is "proven" but when it comes to evolution taking place now you get your knickers in a twist faster than you can say "Endangered Species Protection Act". Douchebags.

* * *

To ship cargo from Asia to Europe, you get charged nothing. That's right: shipping rates are zero.

The article discusses demand for Asian goods in Europe but doesn't mention the opposite--what about demand for European goods in Asia? It would seem to suggest to me that if the ships have to go to Europe to pick up European cargo, offering to carry cargo for free make some limited kind of sense.

It also spells bad news for Asian manufacturers--really bad news. No cargo going to Europe means no money flowing in the other direction. Yeech.

* * *

Is this a foretaste of the Obama Nation? Is political speech going to be censored, not by law, but by fiat? By police selectively deciding how to enforce laws?

* * *

Democrats plan to make certain crimes more illegal than other similar crimes. Democrats ought just to call "hate crime" what it is: "thoughtcrime". Convicting someone for a "hate crime" depends entirely on determining and proving that the perpetrator was thinking certain thoughts while committing the crime. This is, of course, impossible, so proxy data is often substituted for real proof. (Such as, "the defendant is white, male, Christian, and said 'fag' a couple times in his life".)

So be careful: if you have to punch someone, make sure he's not gay or black or hispanic or a muslim from lower crotobaltislavonia, because if you do, you're going to go to jail twice as long for it.

* * *

No, guys, it's because the damn thing is too freaking expensive, that's why.

The Wii doesn't have the graphics horsepower of the P3 but it does have a lower price and a more interesting control system. I think that's why the Wii is so popular: it has games that are accessible by everyone, not just 12-year-old gamer geeks who live on Mountain Dew and Skittles.

I mean, come on: $600 to play video games?

* * *

A plush...uterus?

#1434: That's impossible.

"To avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, world carbon emissions will have to drop to near zero by 2050..."

Let's go over this again.

According to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, the annual carbon budget of the atmosphere is 206 billion tons. Of that, 6 billion tons--about 3%--is from man-made sources.

So even if humans stopped emitting all the carbon dioxide they emit, from various activities, the atmospheric carbon budget would still be two hundred billion tons.

In order to drop "world carbon emissions" to "near zero" we would have to destroy the entire freaking ecosystem.

And we're not capable of doing that. Even if we wanted to.

Oh, of course these morons mean "world human carbon emissions" but if they mean man-made, they ought to say "man-made". The problem is, "man-made" only accounts for 3% of the total, and if you conveniently leave off the qualifier it makes it sound as if carbon emissions are all the result of human activity without actually saying something that someone could call you on.

The nutjobs also insist that we have to "go negative"--absorb more carbon dioxide than we emit--after 2050. Why? How much carbon is "enough"? How much is "too much"? Global temperatures have been much colder than they are now, with atmospheric carbon concentrations much higher than they are now--and the ice core data shows an 800-year lag between temperature and its effect on carbon dioxide. Not the other way around: carbon dioxide levels lag temperature by 800 years.

Their entire thesis has been demonstrated to be incorrect, yet they continue to beat the drum because otherwise there won't be any more money or power given to them.

I'll say it again: we don't know why Earth's temperature changes over time. We have some ideas, but the only ones that are allowed to be considered by the science establishment are the ones that say "it's proven that man-made carbon dioxide is causing global warming", something which is patently false.

Not to put too fine a point on it, by the way, it's also impossible for world human carbon emissions to drop to zero. Politically impossible, if nothing else, because how will you make China and India stop their emissions? Or will you force America and Europe to sequester carbon at the rate at which China and India emit it?

Meanwhile the global temperature anomaly has gone through the floor, dropping 0.775° in the past 14 months--despite the fact that the atmosphere has not lost any carbon dioxide. Which anthropogenic global warming theory can account for this? Which computer model predicted it?

I'm still waiting for an answer to that one.

#1435: Jeep didn't start but it worked out for me.

Because Battlestar Galactica restarted tonight.

I called off after I got the "rurr rurr ru..." from the Jeep. The thing has been hard starting in cold weather but never failed me; I think the battery needs replacing. It appears to be the original one. Anyway it's three below right now, after a low of -19°F last night.

The other weather station that I follow says a low of -21° and a current temp of -6°.

Anyway, so I called off, not wanting to mess with it. And then I happened to wonder, "Say, when does Battlestar Galactica start up again?"

The answer turned out to be "9 PM central time, January 16."

...and now there are nine episodes left of the series.

The forecast for Saturday is a balmy 25°, so I'm probably going to end up going to the parts store for a new battery. (If I can get the Jeep started.) And I'll replace it there in the parking lot, because the Escort is not insured and the van got donated.

Ah, winter is so much fun. Blergh.