Quote

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

Friday, May 27, 2011

Oh, Yeah. It Has So Many Meanings.

Good grief:

CNN's Randi Kaye on Ed Schultz's Rant: 'There Are Mixed Interpretations' of the Term 'Slut'

What? 

Is there no intelligence requirement to get hired bu CNN?

Blind Devotion

That's the only explanation for this bit of idiocy:
LAT Columnist: Obama's Too Smart to Speak Clearly, or Something
By Lachlan Markay, NewsBusters

Liberals are quite fond of chalking up President Obama's shortcomings to his near-inhuman intelligence. His repeated failures to offer policies that are both popular and successful are routinely written off as failures in "messaging." Honestly presented, that translates roughly to "too smart for the rubes he governs."

But now Obama isn't just too smart for the country, he's apparently too smart for…himself! He is so intelligent, in fact, that he has developed a stutter. Sorry, an "intellectual stammer," as Los Angeles Times columnist Meghan Daum dubbed it. Our president's mind moves too fast for his tongue.

"It's not that Obama can't speak clearly. It's that he employs the intellectual stammer. Not to be confused with a stutter, which the president decidedly does not have, the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can't keep up. The stammer is commonly found among university professors, characters in Woody Allen movies and public thinkers of the sort that might appear on C-SPAN but not CNN…"

So Obama has trouble communicating because he's just too darned intelligent. [link]
Honestly, I've never read anything so preposterous in my life.

What is it with these Obama worshipers?

I Can Live With This

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie thinks "global warming" is real.  I don't.  He says 90% of the scientists who study the subject agree with him.  For now, he's right.

Either way, as long as he's not holding a gun to my head or demanding that I change my way of life to suit his whimsy, I couldn't care less what a northeast governor of a liberal state believes when it comes to anthropogenic warming.

More favorably, he's not prepared to waste the taxpayers' hard-earned income in pursuit of that - perhaps - windmill:
Chris Christie: Global warming is 'real,' but program is ineffective
By Darren Samuelsohn, Politico

Chris Christie wants it known he’s not a skeptic on global warming.

Before the Republican New Jersey governor launched into an explanation Thursday for why he’s bowing out of a landmark regional cap-and-trade program for power plants, he first strapped on his layman scientist’s cap to give a brief overview of what’s widely considered accepted climate science.

“In the past I’ve always said that climate change is real and it’s impacting our state,” Christie said at the start of a 14-minute prepared statement. “There’s undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing. This decade, average temperatures have been rising. Temperature changes are affecting weather patterns and our climate.”

Christie said he made his decision to pull the Garden State out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative following a 16-month internal review that included town hall meetings and private chats with climate scientists, academics and environmentalists.

"I’m certainly not a scientist, which is the first problem," he said. "So I can’t claim to fully understand all of this, certainly not after just a few months of study. But when you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts."

Still, Christie argued that RGGI hasn't done the job when it comes to curbing greenhouse gases.

He said RGGI emission allowances have not reached the $20-to-$30-per-ton threshold many experts say is needed to get energy producers to switch to lower-carbon fuels and make other changes to their business practices. [link]
There are actually three topics for discussion here.

1) Is the planet warming?  Over the last few decades, yes.

2) Are humans causing the planet to warm?  As far as I'm concerned those infamous computer models have been woefully inaccurate and have proven nothing.

3) If the planet is warming, has anyone come up with a solution that will stop it, short of sending humanity back into the Stone Age?  No.

And I think that's what Christie is arguing.

He and I disagree about "warming."  He and I agree that the taxpayers shouldn't be wasting their money to make frightened scientists sleep better at night.