atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#1015: I know how Rush Limbaugh feels!

When Limbaugh predicts something, he's usually right. I'm not so lucky. However, this time I was 100% right. As Limbaugh would say, "I was not just ahead of the curve; I was the curve!"

Here's the Atomic Fungus post in which I discussed American Airlines' major flight cancellation snafu.
I also read a piece about the American Airlines snafu. If I am correctly reading between the lines, it appears that the Demokrat-controlled congress has leaned on the FAA which some people have criticized for not being tough enough on airlines. The article I read merely touches on the issue of congress and focuses mainly on the FAA, so I am writing primarily about my impressions.
Yes, I added the emphasis here. Boortz:
On April 3rd [Oberstar] nailed the FAA in a congressional hearing. He announced beforehand that he was going to do it .. and then he did it. He slammed the FAA for being, in his words, too "cozy" with the airline industry and not having an sufficient inspection program to keep the flying public safe. Some think that Oberstar was grandstanding; more interested in attention than in aviation safety. So, or so the story goes, the FAA decides to show Oberstar that if he wants to browbeat them on the inspections issue, they'll by God call for some inspections. The result? The American Airlines debacle of last week.

Don't you just love it when politicians flex their muscles for show?
The real story here is what the Chicago Sun-Times article did not say--what I had to infer from reading between the lines: they didn't say a Democrat had prompted this debacle, but sure enough....

Thomas Sowell also touches on this issue.

Boortz starts out today with an excellent critique of our current "let's burn food!" ethanol initiative. He's almost always worth reading.

This portable videogame emulator can emulate all kinds of video game systems (and even a C-64 or Atari ST), display text and photos, and do a variety of other things besides play videogames. At first glance it seems really interesting and I wouldn't mind having one, especially if they added PDF support to the thing.

Interesting and too short discussion on how Carter's foriegn policy during his presidency led to 9/11 and other disasters. It'd be better if it was about 3x or 4x as long, especially if it were just as meaty.

Barak Hussein Obama plans to ask his attorney general to investigate the Bush White House. Barak Hussein Obama reportedly "...worried that such a probe could be spun as 'a partisan witch hunt'" but apparently didn't worry about the fact that it would, in fact, be a "partisan witch hunt".

Just look at the graph. It shows the global temperature anomaly and plots carbon dioxide concentration along with it. And guess what? The carbon dioxide concentration rises by 20 parts per million (PPM) from 365 in 1998 to a bit above 385 in 2008. 1998 was the second-hottest year on record, to hear some people say it.

Yet with carbon dioxide at a record high, the temperature anomaly is fully 0.6°C cooler than it was at its highest point.

If carbon dioxide "causes global warming", if the concensus is right, if it's "proven", if there is a strong and obvious correlation...why is the temperature decreasing while carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing?

The fact is, we don't know why the Earth is warming (or cooling) nor do we understand all the ins and outs of the atmospheric energy cycle. We don't know what the Earth's climate is doing, much less why.

Finally, today's Chicago Sun-Times splashed a story about police shooting a wild cougar all over pages 2 and 3 of the paper. I guess people are being critical of them for shooting a wild animal.

This is what we used to do, though; we used to shoot things that had or would kill people. It's a wild animal, doing what wild animals do? Tough shit--you don't get to endanger people. Blam.

When an animal killed a person, that animal was killed--no exceptions, especially if the animal ate a person. We used to understand that animals which have killed someone are likely to do it again, particularly if they're predators and have eaten human flesh.

These days?

A couple of years ago someone found a black widow spider in his home. Did he take off his shoe and kill it? Oh no, that would have been cruel. No, instead he had the local zoo come and get the thing. You can't kill an animal--even a really dangerous one--because some limp-wristed pantywaist will get upset about it. "It's just doing what comes naturally! It's just trying to survive!" Fine, then: you go throw yourself in front of the thing and let it eat you. 'Cause I know you wouldn't be saying that if it ate someone you cared about, pissweed.

We continue to wussify at our own peril.
Subscribe

  • #7685: If I knew then what I know now...

    There are so many things that I thought were more complicated than they actually are. My favorite example is digital logic. When I was a teenager,…

  • #7684: Cherry???

    Went to bed, a bit hungry, around 12; woke up around 4 needing food. PBJ and a cold diet Pepsi--it's the breakfast of this champion. Sandwich went…

  • #7683: It's raining now

    I took Friday off because I was worn fine, but I didn't really get any extra sleep. What happened is that I got up a little while after my wife left…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    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.
  • 0 comments