The comments really add spice to the question:
"It’s all about hating Christ. Don’t over-think it."
"'The bill seeks to recognize “the rich religious, scientific, cultural and artistic contributions” that Islam and the Islamic world have made.'
"Like destroying the religiously, culturally, and historically priceless buddhas in Afganistan???"
And the best?
"Why not just celebrate “Islam Day” on 9/11 itself??? Why wait 2 weeks???"
Amen to that, brother.
* * *
Also from Michelle Malkin, I really hope the eco-tax fails. I really do. Not only is it a solution in search of a problem; cap-and-trade schemes do nothing to prevent "global warming", man-made or otherwise, because China and India are going to keep on dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere regardless of what we do.
(Not, of course, that the carbon output of humanity has anything to do with global climate. I's just sayin', is all.)
Though all Democrats appear to be on board with the "global warming=man-made=apocalypse" stupidity, some of them have to face the political realities that they face re-election and they come from states where energy is a big priority. States, for example, which have large coal reserves--where industry is actively exploiting those reserves--are not likely to cotton to any kind of tax which makes coal more expensive. Mining means jobs and taxable income, and no politician can safely ignore that.
The energy policy of the United States has been--but for a few years--utterly incompetent since the 1970s. (The early 1970s.) Ours is a highly industrialized nation, and we need fuel to power it. Econazis and libtards have seen to it that nuclear power is not an option even though it is the cleanest and safest form of electrical generation Man has ever invented. We must get energy from somewhere; seeing as we've got billions of tons of coal just waiting to be dug up, what sense does it make to attempt to place artificial limits on its use?
We use as much oil as we do, in part, because of how we have handled the increase in demand for power. It's easy to build an oil-fired power plant, and cheap...but they're not as efficient as coal-fired plants, and they drive up the price of oil. A good coal plant takes longer to build, and costs more, but ends up being more efficient and cheaper to operate.
And we don't have to buy coal from abroad.
We have both the technology and the money to build clean coal plants. "Clean" is a relative measure, as a coal-fired plant will dump soot and junk (and, ironically, more radioactivity than a nuclear plant!) into the atmosphere, but we can make an effort to keep as much of the junk out of the air as possible.
In 1978 my parents kept their sailboat at the Michigan City municipal marina, which was right across the river from a big NIPSCO coal-burning plant. It's right on the shore of Lake Michigan and it has a cooling tower, leading some people to think it's a nuclear plant. (Why would a nuclear plant have a smokestack?)
In 1978, the smoke coming from the stack was yellow, because the place was burning high-sulfur coal. Every Friday evening when we got to the boat, the first thing to do was to wash the gritty precipitate from the power plant off the thing. Some of the particles left little yellow stains which--fortunately--were easily washed off with Soft Scrub. There were instruments sited around the marina which monitored the air quality, specifically the sulfur content.
In 2009, the plant appears non-operational but for the huge plume of steam that continues to rise from the cooling tower. You can see a slight haze to the air coming from the smoke stack, but otherwise the main evidence that the place is running comes from the cooling tower and the stentorian roar that the place constantly emits. (And even that has quieted down.)
Coal power can work, if we let it.
* * *
Aaron at Eternity Road writes an incisive piece on the Chrysler-Fiat-merger-bankrupcy-thingy that's being ramrodded down everyone's throat by Obama. If he's right it doesn't look good.
I mean, it doesn't look good for anybody who is involved with this. Aaron makes the point that this won't even benefit Obama in the long run.
This is going to shock some people, especially those who know how fervently I support the idea of buying American...but if I were in the market for a new car right now, I would not buy a GM or a Chrysler. I probably wouldn't even buy a Ford.
Why? Because I don't want to deal with the UAW or the federal government when I need warranty service, that's why. Obama has said that the government will make sure the warranties are honored etcetera, etcetera, and that's the last thing I want to deal with.
Realistically speaking, as a consumer, you've got to look out for yourself. Look at service availability, parts availability, support services, and so on; if GM is on the skids, will you be able to get that warranty problem fixed? Will the dealer you bought the car from still be there next week? What about the next-nearest dealer? How far will you have to travel next year to get warranty service done, if you need it? Will you even be able to get it?
Parts should not be a problem for recent models. Should not. (Not "won't be" but "should not be", and that's not good enough when you're talking about something that costs $20,000 or so.)
The worst aspect of all this is that I know plenty of people are going to come to the same conclusion--people who are in the market for a new car--and are going to go look at Honda, Toyota, Kia, Subaru, Mitsubishi, et al. This comes at a time when domestic manufacturers can not afford it.
The Obama administration's meddling in this affair is not helping the situation. If the automakers were allowed to go straight to bankrupcy without his interference, the situation would be straightforward and easily navigated. Unfortunately, Obama is believing his own press releases and thinking he knows better than anyone how to fix the problem--when, in fact, the opposite is true.
It's true that Obama is helping out his buddies in the UAW--union leadership is 100% pro-Democrat--and that's why he won't let this stuff go past without monkeying with it: "bankrupcy" lets GM and Chrysler tear up the union contracts and start over, with a judge watching new negotiations. A judge, it must be added, who has the power to tell the UAW, "This contract is reasonable, given the circumstances. You can accept it, or you can suck it." (Democrats love judicial activism, so long as it doesn't go against their interests.)
* * *
Wednesday morning I was able to get the grass cut. It was supposed to rain but it hadn't by 8:30 AM, so I decided I might as well get it taken care of before it did rain.
It didn't quite take an hour.
The push mower, however, is quite literally buried under an avalanche of boxes, source unknown, so I wasn't able to trim anything. *sigh* I'm going to have to excavate, dang it.
Still pending is the "spring maintenance", though. Both mowers need oil changes at least, and the riding mower actually has a spin-on oil filter which--ironically--costs more than the filter for my Jeep.
I woke up around 3 AM Wednesday morning and played WoW for five hours, then did the grass, then played WoW for three more hours before finally realizing I was too tired to continue playing. Scythandra, my death knight, hit 63rd level while I was in the middle of everything.
Hit the hay around 1-ish and then slept with only minor interruptions for 10 hours--I was more tired than I thought.
Tomorrow--Friday--is the "season finale" of House, MD, and supposedly it has a shocker that will stop the very stars in their tracks! As used to TV hype as I am, I'm willing to bet that the "shocker" will be "meh" at most. I don't remember the last time I was startled by a development in a TV series. Maybe it was the time Carter got stabbed on ER, but that wasn't all that damned shocking, even so.
Anyway, I plan to tape House, MD because of how last week's ep ended; I can't wait to see the fallout from that one.
* * *
Incidentally, there's something about TV which has bothered me for quite a while, now: the way people kiss.
Man and woman are parting until later in the day: they lick each others' tonsils for thirty seconds.
Man and woman are going to go to bed: they wrestle each other around and frantically grapple at clothing while licking each others' tonsils.
I see that stuff and think, "This is 'way overblown." It's too much; I don't recall seeing anyone give a "see ya later" kiss that involves tongue. Ever. Not in real life, I mean.
I understand--I guess--that the intention is to show the passion in the relationship...but unless I am sorely mistaken about people they don't go around ready to jump into bed at the slightest whim, and "licking tonsils" involves a level of arousal that the human mechanism can't just switch off when the kiss is over.
And as for going to bed--two people want to have sex, okay, I understand that there's lust and passion involved in that. But just because two people are going to have sex it does not automatically mean that they're going to be so frantic to get into bed that they'll have trouble undressing quickly enough while kissing. We have brains, and they still work while we're mating--at least well enough for us to be able to step away from each other long enough to unbutton our shirts.
I suppose it's just because it's like that on every show I watch, but I'd wager it's not any better on the shows I don't watch. (In fact, I'd bet it's worse.) It gets tiring, seeing people go at each other in frenzied lust every time someone puts the moves on someone else. There's no tenderness; it's all YARRG GOTTA GOTTA GOTTA....
Then again, this is Hollywood. WTF do they know about real people, anyway?