But, on to the bloggerating.
* * *
Another example of the a warm year is because of global warming, but a cool year is just a blip defense of global warming stupidity. The ironic thing is the paragraph lede about halfway through that says "pick your trends carefully"--the notion of man-made global warming is based on people doing just that:
So, as you can see, "pick your trends carefully" because the past 100 years show warming even though longer time scales show cooling!
* * *
"Twenty years ago, I remember people driving hours to see the one Carolina wren in the state," said Jeff Wells, an ornithologist based in southern Maine. "Now, every year I get two or three just in my area." And it's because of global warming! It has nothing to do with the recent West Nile epidemic or anything like that; it's all because of global warming!
...this area used to have a ton of crows--so many that some municipalities were thinking of putting bounties on the things to control their numbers--and then West Nile hit. In the last five years I have seen two crows near here. Two. Is that because of global warming, too?
In the same time period I've seen a greater variety of birds than I recall ever seeing. It used to be that we had robins, some sparrows, blue jays, mourning doves, and crows. Now we have robins, sparrows, three varieties of finches, woodpeckers, catbirds, and hawks--and I've even heard the cry of a barred owl, which is rare.
The fact is, the crow population here was crowding out all the other birds. Now that the crow population has been whacked back, other birds are moving back in.
* * *
Sirius XM filing bankruptcy? Well, I guess if your business model relies on cheap credit, the recently-bolluxed credit market will cause that kind of thing.
* * *
"We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down." No comment needed.
The wildfires in Australia seem to be a particularly nasty example of why the modern ideal of "leave the forest alone but put out small fires" doesn't work. If you want the forest to remain, you have to clear out the brush. If you don't want to clear out the brush, let the little fires burn and expect that there will be big fires.
The model that current "conservationists" follow isn't "letting nature be natural". It's a model which interferes only in certain politically correct ways. You're not allowed to cut down trees or clear deadwood or brush out because that is "logging" and it's evil. Left to its own devices a forest will have small fires sparked by lightning that will clear out the underbrush; putting those fires out means that the underbrush builds and builds and builds until one day there's a fire that only God could put out...and then you lose houses and people to it.
* * *
Trooper disciplined for making fun of Boss Tweek on his own computer on his own time. That's right. We're now scheduled to have a five minutes hate tomorrow morning at 12:32 AM. Everyone down with that?
The mugshots in question.
I LOL at the guy in the upper left corner. He looks so indignant: "You fascists are only arresting me because I speak truth to power!" (And, come to think of it, he looks like he's about to cry.)
* * *
Speaking of political correctness taken to ludicrous extent, kid faces expulsion for having hunks of wood shaped like guns in her car on school property.
That's right: a rifle-shaped piece of wood is a "dangerous weapon".
* * *
Neal Boortz on the Obamaton's plan to fix the economy. Tim "I Got Away With Cheating on my Taxes--Ask Me How!" Geithner told us that "We will have to try things we've never tried before."
...and when, pray tell, were you going actually to do that? Because so far all I've seen from you guys are things that were tried seventy years ago and didn't work then. (And have been tried a few times since then, and never worked.)
Considering that the Democrats still run using the playbook they had in the 1930s, though, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that "the New Deal" seems like a fresh new idea to them.
The fact is, what Geithner meant is, "We will have to try things that we personally have never tried before." The implication being that those old fogies from the 1930s screwed it up and that it'll work fine when the modern day young hipster Democrats try it.
Politician's hubris: the condition where one thinks that if only he can do something, everything will work out fine. ("If only I could have talked to Hitler!") This is why Democrats insist that their socialized medical plan will work even though socialized medicine fails every time: "We are smarter and better than those other people. We care more, so it'll work fine when we do it."
And of course, the "stimulus" won't do jack shit except for neutron-bomb the deficit.
....and while I'm on the subject of the deficit, which party was screaming about the "huge" budget deficits due to the war in Iraq? I seem to recall the Democrats were beside themselves with angst over the huge budget deficits that the war was generating...and now they're preparing to dump one trillion dollars on top of whatever other budget deficit we'll have for FY 2009? What happened to their need for a balanced budget?
Oh, but this is different, you see, because we have this emergency....
It's always "different" when the Democrats are in charge. When they're running things the deficit doesn't matter; it's just when Republicans are in charge that the deficit suddenly becomes a problem.
2008: Bush is prosecuting the war on terror, but $400 billion is a huge deficit!
2009: The Democrats won! We have to run a deficit to fix the economy now. One trillion, two trillion...who cares? We have an emergency!
* * *
I'm not really all that enthused about this trip. Oh, it'll be good to get out of town and go see my sister and her kids and all, but I'm worried that it's going to be a major emotionally-grinding ordeal. I hope I'm wrong.
On the plus side, I get to play D&D with my niece and nephew. I might get to go skiing, too, and on a real mountain for once. Unexpectedly, I find myself actually needing the new laptop I bought. And so on.
On the minus side I'm going to miss work for three weeks. (Or is that a minus? The monetary aspect certainly is, even though Mom is helping me out.)
Oh well. The important thing is to get there in one piece with all luggage intact, and the rest I can worry about after that's accomplished. I just have to remember that I'm going there to work (basically) not to relax. I doubt my sister is going to make me dig ditches and mine salt, but I won't have the luxury of saying, "Well, I don't feel like doing that today...."
Could be worse, though. I think it will, on balance, be fine.
Friday night I shopped at work (on break) for sweatshirts and such. Naturally all we had was summer wear; it's February! WTF was I thinking?? It's time for swim trunks and shorts and t-shirts you know, not sweaters! It's not like it's still winter or anything!
...so I got three sweatshirts at K-Mart for $8 each, on clearance, which wasn't bad.
* * *
This will be the first time I have ever flown on a commercial airplane in winter. (Back in 1994 when I was taking flight lessons, it was during the winter months.) I'm not sure what to expect. I'm not sure what the hell to do with my coat, either, but I think I've got that one figured out: stuff it in my carry-on.
This time I'm taking my medium suitcase, which will be checked, and a smaller one as a carry-on; and my "personal" bag will be the laptop case. That should work. The carry-on will have snacks and books and miscellany in it, thus saving weight on the big one, which must weigh less than 50 lbs lest I incur a $50 weight penalty charge, argh etc.
My girlfriend will give me a ride to the bus station tomorrow morning, so that's covered.
...and I'm out of words, and just realized I've got to go to the bank and cash a check. Later!