We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
You can easily tell if someone is a true environmentalist, i.e. an advocate for a healthy planet – he is one who is happy to hear the news that the arctic ice content has stabilized. He is one who celebrates when the recent climate data show the alarmist’s predictions of catastrophic warming might be wrong. The denier, if he is an eco/political activist, always denies new data that show the planet may be healthy after all. The Media usually defines deniers as those who deny the scientist’s computer model predictions. However, denying the measured climate data meets a better definition in the world of science.
The problem with AGW is not that is false, it is that EPA and others are long down the path of correcting a Non-existent problem. Merely their power plant rules are going to cause massive economic disruption...
Bird Dog: UK's Global Warming Office Issues New Temperature Data: No Warming in the Past 15 Years
MET: "Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled 'Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about'. This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading."
Re: Don't blame the rich. I positively HATE articles like James Q. Wilson's in the WaPo, not because I think he is wrong, but because what he writes is already so well documented and so widely known. I'm not disputing Wilson, mind you, because I agree with him. I'm just frustrated that the same message has to be repeated over and over to remind people that there is a high degree of economic mobility in America. Detailed statistics that are published annually by the IRS certainly bear that out.
When I see someone like Oprah Winfrey rise from absolute poverty to become a BILLIONAIRE in my short lifetime, I am simply in awe of how well our system works. I find it amazing that someone can do what she did. And since I am not jealous of her wealth, I can only admire her accomplishment and applaud her for her personal success. Good for her!
Funny though, when Obama demonizes the rich as though they are the reason for poor people's problems, he never mentions his friend Oprah, a 1-percenter if there is one. Why is that? If economic inequality is so intrinsically unfair, does Obama also think Oprah is undeserving of her good fortune, that she should be much poorer than she is? Why, I wonder, does he rail about income inequality rather than wealth inequality? Shouldn't he be campaigning against old wealth like that of the Kennedy clan and inherited/married wealth like that of John Kerry? Puzzling indeed.