People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Message of the Day

Environmentalists Are Fools

Now they want your air conditioner:
In the heat wave, the case against air conditioning
By Stan Cox, writing in the Washington Post

Washington didn't grind to a sweaty halt last week under triple-digit temperatures. People didn't even slow down. Instead, the three-day, 100-plus-degree, record-shattering heat wave prompted Washingtonians to crank up their favorite humidity-reducing, electricity-bill-busting, fluorocarbon-filled appliance: the air conditioner.

This isn't smart.

A.C.'s obvious public-health benefits during severe heat waves do not justify its lavish use in everyday life for months on end. Less than half a century ago, America thrived with only the spottiest use of air conditioning. It could again. [link]
More evidence that environmentalists want us to return to the caveman days.

This is so idiotic that it's not even worth debating.  We have air conditioning, stupid, because we can.  Civilization has progressed to that point.  You want to give up on the amenities afforded us by the progress made in human survival efforts over the centuries?  Move to Zimbabwe.

And leave the sane world alone.

Uh Oh

This can't be good:

Maybe they could start printing money. Seems to work for the U.S. Treasury.

(And you think it's not a possibility.  Look at it this way: It's all nothing more than paper.)

What's With These Democrats?

Do they think they're God's gift to the world or something?

Someone needs to get the message to these jokers: You're employees, fellas.  Nothing more.  So get over yourselves.

And They Don't see The Hypocrisy

America's premier group of, by, and for modern-day malodorous racists, the NAACP, is considering a resolution condemning the Tea Party as ... racist.

May God have mercy.

On Thoughtless Democrat Politicians

Just ask them.  They'll tell you they act before they think:
On second thought...
Boston city councilors backtrack on Arizona boycott bid
By Jessica Van Sack, Boston Herald

Red-faced Boston city councilors who boldly voted to shun the state of Arizona over its new immigration crackdown are now showing signs of boycotter’s regret.

The grandstanding pols kept a low profile when the target of their boycott came to their city on Saturday. Some acknowledged taking a pass on the much-hyped protest of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer for weekend vacations and other engagements - while one councilor even admitted the embargo was ill-conceived.

The non-binding measure, sponsored by Council President Michael Ross and Councilor Felix G. Arroyo, calls on city officials “not to participate in any business activities substantially connected with the State of Arizona and municipalities in Arizona.”

“If it had to be done all over again, there’d probably be more thought put into it and perhaps a hearing,” said Councilor John Tobin of West Roxbury. “It was an emotional issue and an emotional time. I think the sponsors were getting a lot of pressure to say something, to file something.” [link]
Great moments in American legislating.  They did it, but didn't mean to.


Headline of the Day

From Michelle Malkin:

My only question: Obama's going on vacation again?

Quote of the Day

From James Taranto:
An editorial in yesterday's New York Times offers an unwitting clue as to why environmentalism has lost its power to persuade: "Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming," the Times begins its utterly predictable screed, which goes on to assert that revelations of scientific misconduct are "trivial" and "diversionary" and global warming is the unquestionable truth.

Environmentalists' appeal to authority is no longer effective except with those, like the Times's editors, who have an ideological stake in accepting it. For the rest of us, it only further diminishes their credibility.
As far as I'm concerned, they have no credibility to diminish, James.  But point taken.

The Bloom Is Off The Rose

Obama isn't all that popular in Nevada, it seems.  From a Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial:
Two years ago, the majority of American voters supported freshman U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for president. Today, neither he nor his party seem that popular. Why? No one supported candidate Obama based on his achievements—military, legislative, administrative, or creating jobs in the private sector. There weren't any. What they embraced was his vow to move past race and partisanship, to seek not merely Democratic solutions or Republican solutions, but bi-partisan solutions, multi-partisan solutions, American solutions. . . . Instead, Mr. Obama was here to raise funds for one of those aforementioned graying partisans of the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid. And Mr. Obama continued to blame all his—and our—problems on the mess he inherited two years ago.
A few questions: Do you suppose Obama will still be blaming his failures on Bush when he runs for reelection in 2012? If he was unable to overcome any of "Bush's problems" by then, should we have kept Bush in office? The outcome would have been the same - or better - right?