Scene from the “Progressives Innovative Sustainable Solutions And Recycling” Trade Show

This years Keynote Speaker at PISSAR

This years Keynote Speaker at PISSAR

ht Sean

UPDATE: Other variation of the towel spotted:

use4self

Who actually pays the taxes in America?

Where does the Electricity come from to power Electric cars?

Look, I think electric cars are a great idea -SO LONG as we allow more energy to be produced, which the big proponents of electric cars, for some reason, oppose. I remember posting about this irrationality before. Allow me to quote myself:

The three main components of Obama’s [energy] plan are:

— Get 1 million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on U.S. roads within six years.

— Require that 10 percent of U.S. energy comes from renewable sources by the end of his first term – more than double the current level.

Reduce U.S. demand for electricity 15 percent by 2020.

Which brings us to this rather comical audio from the Mark Levin show:


“You plug it in at night!”

So I guess magical ‘green’ electricity comes from “the night”…and evil fossil fuels then must come from Dick Cheney.

Seriously though, the real solution is Nuclear power, as environmentalist Gwyneth Cravens (a former opponent of nuclear energy) points out in her book: Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy:

My book is fundamentally about prejudice based on wrong information.

I used to oppose nuclear power, even though the Sierra Club supported it. By the mid-1970s the Sierra Club turned against nuclear power too. However, as we witness the catastrophic consequences of accelerated global temperature increase, prominent environmentalists as well as skeptics like me have started taking a fresh look at nuclear energy….

[...]

When I began my research eight years ago, I’d assumed that we had many choices in the way we made electricity. But we don’t. Nuclear power is the only large-scale, environmentally-benign, time-tested technology currently available to provide clean electricity. Wind and solar power have a role to play, but since they’re diffuse and intermittent, they can’t provide baseload, and they always require some form of backup–usually from burning fossil fuels, which have a huge impact on public health.

[...]

was surprised to learn that:

  • Nuclear power emits no gases because it does not burn anything; it provides 73% of America’s clean-air electricity generation, using fuel that is tiny in volume but steadily provides an immense amount of energy.
  • Uranium is more energy-dense than any other fuel. If you got all of your electricity for your lifetime solely from nuclear power, your share of the waste would fit in a single soda can. If you got all your electricity from coal, your share would come to 146 tons: 69 tons of solid waste that would fit into six rail cars and 77 tons of carbon dioxide that would contribute to accelerated global warming.
  • A person living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant receives less radiation from it in a year than you get from eating one banana. Someone working in the U.S. Capitol Building is exposed to more radioactivity than a uranium miner.
  • Spent nuclear fuel is always shielded and isolated from the public. Annual waste from one typical reactor could fit in the bed of a standard pickup. The retired fuel from 50 years of U.S. reactor operation could fit in a single football field; it amounts to 77,000 tons. A large coal-fired plant produces ten times as much solid waste in one day, much of it hazardous to health. We discard 179,000 tons of batteries annually–they contain toxic heavy metals.
  • Nuclear power’s carbon dioxide emissions throughout its life-cycle and while producing electricity are about the same as those of wind power.
  • Nuclear plants offer a clean alternative to fossil-fuel plants. In the U.S. 104 nuclear reactors annually prevent emissions of 682 million tons of CO2. Worldwide, over 400 power reactors reduce CO2 emissions by 2 billion metric tons a year.

[...]

As I learned more, I became persuaded that the safety culture that prevails at U.S. nuclear plants and the laws of physics make them a safe and important tool for addressing global warming. Clearly many of my beliefs had originated in misinformation and fear-mongering.

Introducing the latest in Green technology: The Gaia-Christo-Verde Suit

As everyone well knows, the Earth is on the way to destruction because of man’s careless action. Every decision man has made throughout human history has, in effect – set up us the bomb, and has now clearly shown to directly link to catastrophic global climate change.

What Happen?

With the recent decision by the top scientists of the US Supreme Court to list CO2 as an air pollutant, it is clear that if we do not act we have no chance to survive make our time. It is now the duty of every one of us to shed any critical thoughts of critical-ness and make a move to become green today.

The question is, what can you do?

Introducing – The Gaia-Christo-Verde Suit (GCV)

GlobalWarmingKit

Global Warming Kit - Obviously, this embarrassing product is designed to make people feel they are contributing (though the outcome is so immeasurable minute as to be a gimmick rather than a real product) to the Earth by becoming 'green' with the absolute minimal amount of effort and actual real change to their lifestyle.

The Gaia-Christo-Verde Suit is a new product from the EarthPlanetGood Inc. (Don’t worry, EarthPlanetGood is a good and green corporation like Apple, Target, and Ikea – not like Walmart, ExxonMobil, or Microsoft). The basic idea behind the GCV is the total reduction of an individual’s carbon footprint. The idea for the technology sprung from the marriage of several ideas.

There are currently products available that are aiming to reduce carbon footprints – such as the laughable Global Warming Kit (seen on the right). Unfortunately, these products fall far short of achieving any real measurable change to our precious Earth, instead simply filling an emotional gap for most people as a way to feel less guilty about their destruction of the planet.

We at EarthPlanetGood Inc know that anyone who really cares about effecting global climate change must do more than purchase simple trinkets.

Secondly, EarthPlanetGood Inc is concerned about the actions taken by what are considered ‘green’ protesters. For instance, notice the blatant disregard for CO2 emissions exhibited by Earth First’s so-called ‘Mourning for Old Growth Forests’:

earthfirstpollution

Note the blasphemous, frivolous, and copious release of CO2 emissions. And yet, all this is done in the guise of the 'environmentalism'

This wasteful and careless disregard for our planet cannot be tolerated.

It was for these reasons, EarthPlanetGood Inc. invested in creating the Gaia-Christo-Verde Suit with the goal of completely eliminating CO2, and any other destructive emissions. So, without further ado:

Continue to the Gaia-Christo-Verde Suit…

Oligarchy? Who decides unreasonable and excessive compensation?

The President’s Irrational Answer: I’m fixing the deficit by quadrupling it…

At the recent Press event, President Obama was asked why increasing the deficit would fix the deficit. Dennis Prager analyzes his response:


I wonder if this would work for credit card debt? Imagine if you could decrease your credit card debt today simply by spending 4 times as much on your credit card – and just calling it ‘investing’ instead of spending.

Celebrate Human Achievement Hour

Here are the goals of Earth Hour:

“THIS IS THE WORLD’S FIRST GLOBAL ELECTION, BETWEEN EARTH AND GLOBAL WARMING.
On March 28 you can VOTE EARTH by switching off your lights for one hour.
Or you can vote global warming by leaving your lights on.
The results of the election are being presented at the Global Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009. We want one billion votes for Earth, to tell world leaders that we have to take action against global warming.”

And here are the goals of the Human Achievement Hour:

This week CEI announced the creation of Human Achievement Hour (HAH) to be celebrated at 8:30pm on March 28th 2009 (the same time and date of Earth Hour).

Our press release described ways people might celebrate the achievements of humanity such as eating diner, seeing a film, driving around, keeping the heat on in your home—all things that Earth Hour celebrators, presumably, should be refraining from. In the cheekiest manner, we claimed that anyone not foregoing the use of electricity in that hour is, by default, celebrating the achievements of human beings. Needless to say, the enviros in the blogosphere didn’t take to kindly to our announcement.

Matthew Wheeland, an environmental journalist called the holiday “mind-blowingly strange” and pondered if Earth hour folks are including in their numbers people in countries that don’t have enough electricity to make the choice to turn out their lights. Of course, they don’t have the choice to acquire electricity whereas anyone can choose to stop using human technology if they wish…

…Green and private conservation are fine. We have no problem with an individual (or group) that wants to sit naked in the dark without heat, clothing, or light. Additionally, we’d have no problem with the group holding a pro-green technology rally. That’s their choice. But when this group stages a “global election” with the express purpose of influencing “government policies to take action against global warming,” we have every right as individuals to express our vote for the opposite

If our Human Achievement Hour is at all a dig against Earth Hour, it is so only by the fact that we are pointing out what Earth Hour truly is about: it isn’t pro-earth, it is anti-man and anti-innovation. So, on March 28th I plan to continue “voting” for humanity by enjoying the fruits of man’s mind.

Touche.

Bailouts and Bull with John Stossel


Best part from this section: What if the public is wrong?

‘Well, we live in a democracy…’

Wrong. Consitutional Democratic-Republic. Our Founders railed against the mob-rule of democracy
But I guess being an elected official means you can just say ‘who cares what the nation was founded on’.

Continue watching Parts 2-6 Below the fold…

A Question about a ‘Progressive’ Idea

Rather straightforward:

So you take issue with the current U.S. health care system: Why is it considered ‘Progressive’ to nationalize it?

Nationalizing anything is about as non-progressive as it gets. Actual progress in human government was made when America was founded and power was taken away from government and divided with the separation of powers – but for some reason – it is referred to as ‘progressive’ (i.e. making progress) to go back and hand power back to government.

It’s like The Chewbacca Defense. That does not make sense.

America: A Nation of Laws, or a Nation of Men?

Here is a great little video segment on the different views of the Rule of Law (click image to watch):

ThomasSowell

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.