Oh Noes! Kitchen Scraps Cause Global Warming!!

So I'm looking up leeks online, trying to learn a little more about ways to prepare them, when I come upon an "article" about the fact that you can use the dark green parts of the vegetable.  Toward the end, we get a list of reasons to do so, winding up with this:

"Finally, putting this valuable food stock to your benefit means it doesn’t end up in landfills where it becomes a contributor to global warming. "

...What?  
Am I missing something here?  

...How on earth could putting part of a vegetable into the garbage-- and by extension in a landfill-- contribute to global warming?  Does this writer think that (the very natural process of) vegetable matter decaying in/on the earth leads to global warming?  Quick!  Someone gather up all the fallen leaves and withered plants from all the gardens and parks and forests of the world!  Do... something with them, before they start to decay and contribute to global warming!! 

It is possible that s/he meant the gas used to transport the leek trimmings to the landfill would contribute to blah blah blah blah, but that's not what s/he said-- and even so, how much extra gas will a few measly leaves require of the garbage truck?  

I wonder if tossing them on the compost pile causes global warming...

- - - - - - -

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!  ;o)

Keeping It All in Perspective

Joe Klein (of Time, according to the article) has stated that the Benghazi attack (and, one presumes, the resultant deaths of four Americans, including an ambassador) "has been like the October mirage-- it really isn't an issue". 

No, but he's right.  The attack and the coordinated attempt to pin it on some inane video-- them's small potatoes compared to the BIG BIRD CONTROVERSY and that shocking-- and quite frankly, stomach-turning-- incident in which Mitt Romney spoke of having (~whisper~) "binders full of women"*. 

Let's keep the focus on the real burning issues of our times!


* Are there really women out there who are truly-- somehow, inconceivably, illogically-- offended by that phrase, taken in context (or, really, out of context)?  I mean seriously, honestly offended, not just making a show of it because it's the best they could come up with on short notice.  Because I'd like to stare at them with a look of mingled disgust and disbelief.  Then point and laugh.  And then walk away with a shrug.  Girl power!  ;o)

Just Because...

Just because I never want to forget that (apparently) making someone drink Ensure is torture, I'm posting this:

(For the future, when the embedded video no longer works, Leslie Stahl refers to sleep deprivation and "dietary manipulation"-- in this case, the practice of giving detainees Ensure to drink-- as "Orwellian stuff".)

I wonder if it's "Orwellian stuff" when parents "manipulate" a child's diet by requiring him to eat his meat and vegetables before he's allowed to have a cookie...

Also:
"Sesame Street Songs Used to Torture Guantanamo Detainees, Al Jazeera Reports"

The man who composed music for the show for many years is upset by this report.  In the article linked, he is quoted as referring to "the horror of music being perverted to serve evil purposes".  Ha!  Look, man, music's been used for evil purposes plenty of times over the course of history.  (Propaganda, anyone?)  And anyway, making someone uncomfortable with loud (annoying, mind-numbing) music in order to persuade him to give up potentially life-saving information hardly seems "evil"-- especially when you compare it to the sorts of things these same people were/are so eager to do to as many Americans as possible.

(Evidently, music from Barney has been used similarly in the past.  I don't know what the guy who wrote that music thinks about it, but I'll be sure to blog about it as soon as I find out. ;o))

Looking at History...

Looking at history through Obama-tinted lenses!

"Obama Drops His Name Into the Other Presidential Biographies".

"...it turns out Obama has added bullet points bragging about his own accomplishments to the biographical sketches of every single U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge (except, for some reason, Gerald Ford)."

That is just hilarious.  And pathetic.  And the sort of thing that ought to be somewhat shocking/embarrassing, but at this point, is simply what we've come to expect from this administration.

Well, thanks for the laugh, WH.org!

The Stupidity of the World Hurts My Head

Come on.  You know, things like this are a reminder that, really, it's no wonder it sometimes feels as though the whole world's falling apart... 

Someone on Twitter has been tweeting about how it's not right that Skittles profit because so many people are now buying them as part of demonstrations regarding the Martin/Zimmerman story.  It's just not right that they profit "unfairly" from Martin's death.  In fact, they really ought to make some huge donation to this or that cause.  Otherwise, they're getting all this free publicity for, well, free.  And that's Wrong.

And even more amazingly, people are jumping on board.  Yeah!  Skittles is profiting unfairly!  Just another sign of how Corporate America is evil!  They hate people of color!

Seriously?  So some of these people think Skittles is somehow responsible for the incident?  Unbelievable.  And for those who don't take it quite that far, did Skittles ask to be used as a symbol?  (I have a strong feeling they'd rather not be involved at all, supposed increased profit notwithstanding.)  Also, is anyone forcing people to buy Skittles?  No?  Then-- if you'll excuse my rudeness-- shut up about it.  If you're that upset, stop buying Skittles and make a donation yourself to whatever cause you think should be benefiting.

Is there even any point in trying to reason with such people? 

The idiot in question, when someone pointed out that Skittles never asked that its candy be bought in connection with the protests/demonstrations, replied, " It's irrelevant that Skittles didn't ask us to buy. Should they profit over accidental association with a tragedy?"

. . .Well, if you insist on an answer, yes.  Yes, Skittles should profit any time someone makes the decision to purchase the candy.  Skittles is selling a product.  They don't much care why I buy Skittles or what I'm going to do with the candies.  I can eat them myself-- share them with others-- toss them out the window of a moving vehicle, one at a time-- throw them away unopened.  Skittles doesn't care whether I'm buying their product because I want to taste the rainbow or because I'm using them as a prop to make a statement-- and they aren't required to care.  (Nor should they be, since no-one's getting hurt.)  Why shouldn't Skittles make the same profit from bags bought by a demonstrator as they do from a bag bought by someone in search of a sugar high? 

Now, if Skittles decides to make a donation, that's fine.  But it's certainly not their responsibility to do so.  If you don't like it, well, too bad.  Go on a no-Skittles diet for the rest of your life.  (I prefer M&Ms, anyway.)

The Sci-Fi Approach to the Economy

LOL.

It's the economy, Earthling. 

Real Mature

"Yearbook causes controversy after it names George W. Bush in a list of 'worst people' of all time".

RUSSELLVILLE, Ark. - A middle school yearbook in Arkansas has created controversy around the country after it named Former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in a list of the "worst" people of all time.

The yearbook included a list titled the "Top 5 worst people of all time."  The list begins with Adolph Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Charles Manson, but then lists Bush and Cheney.

Students didn't vote on the list, and it was taken from an opinion website.  Parents in the community are outraged.

"I'm furious as a parent and as a board member and as a tax payer and as a resident of Russellville," resident Chris Cloud said. "It's wrong."

Parents spotted the list after the yearbooks were printed. The school's solution was to cover the list with tape.

The superintendent said the yearbook's editing process is under review.

I saw "Arkansas" and was surprised (despite it being the origin of Clinton).  Then I read that the list wasn't even the result of a student poll.  Aha.  Well, that would explain that...

What was the teacher in charge of the yearbook staff thinking, putting some random (not to mention ridiculous and pointless) list off a website in the school yearbook?  Maybe, "I need an excuse to leave this job, but my wife-husband-whoever would never forgive me if I out-and-out quit"?  Actually, it's possible s/he never even saw it, but that's not much of an excuse. There's a reason the student yearbook staff needs a teacher to guide them and approve what goes in and what doesn't. 

Another Very Important Issue

"Calling animals 'pets' is insulting, academics claim"

Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as “companion animals” while owners should be known as “human carers”, they insist.

Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals concerned – who should instead be known as “free-living”, the academics including an Oxford professor suggest.

Good grief.
Don't these people have anything more important to think about?

So far, Molly and Daisy haven't released a statement regarding their preferred title.  I'll keep you posted, though.

Preferred Parking

Somewhere in town, there are a couple of these signs marking parking spots in a particular (not-to-be-named) parking lot:

The funniest part?  They're closer to the building than the handicapped parking spots!

This type of preferential treatment is important, because people driving low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles are special and deserve to be treated as such.  After all, they're saving the planet. 

Oh, Good Grief.

"Woman's candy egg seized at border"

The gist (in case you don't want to click the link and read the whole thing) is this:

Linda Bird, a Canadian woman, was caught trying to enter the U.S. with contraband.   Some sort of weapon?  Illegal drugs?  No, much worse.  It was-- *gasp* --a Kinder Surprise egg.  (I've never seen one in person, but I understand they are chocolate eggs with a small toy-- the "surprise"-- very, very visibly "hidden" inside.)

Bird learned U.S. authorities have banned the candy because they come with a plastic toy inside that could, if eaten, choke a small child.

"It's just a chocolate egg," Bird said. "And they were making a big deal. They said 'if you were caught with this across the border you would get charged a $300 fine,'" she said.

...

The U.S. takes catching illegal Kinder candy seriously, judging by the number of them they've confiscated in the last year. Officials said they've seized more than 25,000 of the treats in 2,000 separate seizures.

Thank goodness they caught that wicked woman before she brought her scary candy into the country and choked some innocent American child with it!!!!!!!

Come on.

We can't ban everything that a child could possibly choke on.  Parents should have enough common sense to know how to take care of their children, including keeping them away from choking hazards.  How many people do you think manage to get their hands on a Kinder Surprise egg without knowing that there's a tiny toy inside?

What about Cracker Jack?  Do those still have tiny toys hidden in the box?  (Of course, these days it's probably nothing but a sticker, if even that...)  What about the Golden Age of Cereal, when kids' (sugary) cereals often came with a small toy at the bottom of the bag?  (Probably another thing of the past.  When I was a baby/kid, they didn't know about all these things, apparently.  I wore my pacifier like a necklace, on a piece of yarn, for instance.  It's a wonder I didn't end up strangled.  Yet here I sit, typing silly little blog entries.)

Maybe Kinder Surprise eggs are banned because, since they're made and packaged overseas, our government can't regulate that they come with a choke hazard warning printed on them...

Does anyone sleep easier at night knowing that Kinder Surprise eggs are illegal in the U.S.?  ;o)

Two Ridiculous Things

(Courtesy of Neal Boortz... though technically I first read about the bake sale thing over the weekend...)

Thing the First:

"Toy guns will have to be licensed in Queensland (Australia)."

"Any item that looks like a gun will have to be licensed under several changes to the Weapons Act being considered by the Queensland State Government.  Even guns made out of materials as unlikely as soap or plastic may have to be kept under lock and key if they could 'reasonably be taken to be a weapon'."

I wonder how long it would take to get something like that passed here, too...  As long as there are toy guns on the streets, no-one's safe!!  Something must be done!!!


Thing the Second:

CNSNews reports, "A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama - and championed by the first lady - gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom."

Thank goodness!  It's about time someone regulated this sinister practice!!  The Rice Krispy treats!  The chocolate chip cookies!  The brownies!  (Lord love a duck, the brownies!)  I know I'll sleep better at night knowing the children aren't eating as many bake sale brownies.

Grief Counselors? Seriously?

Heard about this?:

A staffer for a congressional Democrat who came up short on Tuesday reports that a team of about five people stopped by their offices this morning to talk about payroll, benefits, writing a résumé, and so forth, with staffers who are now job hunting.

But one of the staffers was described as a “counselor” to help with the emotional aspect of the loss — and a section in the packet each staffer was given dealt with the stages of grief (for instance, Stage One being anger, and so on).

“It was like it was about death,” the staffer said. “It was bizarre.” The staffer did say the portions about the benefits and résumé writing were instructive.

Yeah, that does sound pretty bizarre.

Look, I'm all for good mental health.  If you're having problems, find someone to talk to.  Don't be ashamed to admit you're having trouble.  But this?  This is just ridiculous.

Oh, man. . .

"[Milwaukee] County Supervisor who supports boycott doesn't know that Arizona borders Mexico":



How embarrassing!  You have to wonder, though, if this woman is intelligent enough to even realize how idiotic she just made herself look. . .

Even if you're no good with geography, take a minute to "google Arizona" (as she herself mentions doing) and make sure your brilliant observation about the state's border situation is accurate.  It's really not that hard.

All I ever do here is complain. . .

Annoying things seem to be all that have the power to spurn me into action, here on this blog.

The annoyance this time is this story.

For the time when it's no longer available online, here's the gist:

An opinion writer defends Michelle Obama's statement that food manufacturers should "rething the products that [they]'re offering, the information that [they] provide about these products and how [they] market those products to our children".  She (the columnist) doesn't like it that Mrs. Obama "has been accused of 'federalizing fat' and labeled 'the first nanny'".  No, she doesn't like it one bit, because "it's not the federal government that's playing the role of nanny here".   That role has been filled by the evil food and beverage marketers. 

So then she goes on for several paragraphs about how most ads targeted at children "hawk the least healthy foods".  Blah blah blah, "as a sedentary activity, television-watching alone doesn't contribute to childhood obesity; rather, it's the incessant bombardment of ads associated with television-watching that "robustly" correlates with obesity".  It's those wicked commercials!  PBS good, commercial TV bad!

Here's one direct quote:  "So when a child begs for fruit-free Froot Loops, he's simply doing what he's been commanded to do, clean-your-room style, by the marketing nanny."

My answer:  So when your child begs for fruit-free Froot Loops, it's simply part of being a responsible adult that you, the lucky parent, must make the decision whether or not to buy the Froot Loops.

(Incidentally, don't you bet that Froot Loops loves being the first product that comes to mind when people think of sugary, bad-for-you foods that kids love?)

If you decide that your child doesn't really need the "fruit-free" cereal, you get the joyous job of teaching your little sweetie-pie the meaning of the word "NO".   If you find that you have trouble telling your kids "no", I feel sorry for you.  You're really in for it.  Maybe you should consider curbing their "commercial TV" time.  (Heck, if you have a TiVo, you can just fast-forward through the commercials, right?)

Of course, the columnist has already thought of this, but she's not swayed.  She still thinks it's the responsibility of someone other than a child's parents to monitor what food commercials s/he sees-- and by extention, what foods s/he craves.

"Only today is the federal government demonstrating a willingness to risk the nanny state accusations."  (Oh, that's the least of their problems.  They're being accused of much, much worse-- such as ramming through legislation against the will of the people-- dragging us down into debt so deep that it will take generations to dig our way out-- need I go on?)

"We could do without manipulative, profit-driven nannies. But we do need the FTC as a cop on the beat of wayward marketers."

Seriously though, lady!

I mean, are there unscrupulous advertisers?  Yes, there probably are, as there seem to be some unscrupulous people in every profession, if you go looking for them.   But are marketers really the root of the problem, here?  What would you have them do?  Their job is to sell their products-- and there's nothing wrong with their products (if we're just talking sweet foods).  Eaten in proper moderation, even sugary cereals are ok.  ("*gasp*  No.  She couldn't really believe that, could she?  She's finally lost her last shred of sanity. . .")  It's not like they're pushing drugs and alcohol.

At what point do parents take over responsibility for the well-being (including eating and exercise habits) of their own children?  You can't force someone to overeat just by showing them commercials-- and that is doubly true for children, who (generally speaking) do not purchase their own food.  It doesn't matter how many times little Emma sees those commercials for Froot Loops-- doesn't matter how much she decides she wants them-- doesn't matter how she cries or begs Mommy to buy them for her or to let her eat them every day (and in jumbo portions).  Until Mommy (or Daddy or Auntie or whoever) gives in to her every whim on a daily basis, none of it matters.  No-one is forcing Mommy to buy the Froot Loops, and you'll not convince me otherwise.

Obama-Lover Commits Racially-Motivated Murders? Really?

Whenever I hear or see it come up in the news, I try to follow along with the unfolding story of the recent University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) shooting.  It's close enough to home to have special interest for me, and it's proving to be so bizarre that I'd probably be interested even if it hadn't happened in my home state.

I'll assume you know most of the details.  (If not, they're easily located.)  For the purposes of this entry, the pertinent facts are that Amy Bishop, a female professor (a native of Massachusetts and Harvard-educated, as they insist on telling us every single time, like it's almost impossible for someone from Harvard to be mentally unbalanced... *eyeroll*), brought a gun to a board meeting and, somewhere in the middle of that meeting, began shooting at her colleagues.  Three were killed and three others seriously injured.  This appears to have been motivated by a tenure denial.  Since then, disturbing stories about Bishop's past behavior have come to light.  Let's just say that it seems that the woman has some serious, long-running instability and that she has sometimes acted out violently. We've also read that she is extremely liberal and such an admirer of Obama as to be described by some as obsessed.  (Make of that what you will.)

Now some would like to say that Amy Bishop's attack was racially motivated-- and more than that, they're linking it (by covering it in the same article) to the Tea Party movement.  (Yeah, makes perfect sense, doesn't it?) 

In November of 2008, a prime debate was whether the United States – with Barack Obama’s election – lived in a post-racial society. Fifteen months later, the answer is a resounding, “hell, no.” The proof: last week’s shooting in Alabama, where a disgruntled white professor murdered three minority professors; and the growing success of the Tea Party movement, which is overwhelmingly white and increasing vocal in its violent dislike of the nation’s first black president.

The author goes on to point out the race of the three people who died in the UAH shooting-- two were black and one a native of India.  And-- dun dun DUN!-- Amy Bishop was . . . (wait for it. . .) . . . white.  That's it. What more proof do you need?  It must've been racially motivated. (Though one wonders about the race of her other intended victims.  What about the three who were seriously injured?  What about the ones Bishop was still attempting to murder when her gun mercifully jammed?  Were they all minorities?  Surely not.)

According to the brilliant mind behind this story, "Bishop may have been, in the words of a Boston Herald report, a 'far-left political extremist who was "obsessed" with President Obama,' but she may still have had issues with non-white people in authority."  Well, yes, I guess she may have.  It's possible, I suppose, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely. If she had "issues" with "non-white people in authority", why would she have been so vocal in her support for a non-white person in the ultimate position of authority?  Why go bonkers for Obama, if she was secretly seething with hatred for minorities?  Doesn't it make much more sense that she was outraged over her situation and lashed out at the people she felt were to blame, regardless of race?  Do you honestly believe she wouldn't have started shooting if all of the faces looking back at her had been white?  I don't believe it, and I don't believe the author does, either. 

If we go by this type of logic, every time a white person kills a member of a racial minority, it may be because that person was racist-- even if on the surface they had no appearance of it-- even if they practically idolized a minority leader.  Does it work the other way 'round, too?  Is it an act of racially motivated violence every time a white person is killed by someone who isn't white?  Every time a man murders a woman-- or a woman murders a man-- should we question whether the crime was at least partially motivated by a hatred of the opposite sex in general?

This type of logic is not logic, and (though I'm sure they march under the banner of equality for all and peace among all races) it feels like people who suggest it are secretly hoping to further engender distrust and strife.  What can be their motivation, I wonder?

"The Loony Left"-- Vintage 60 Minutes

(This won't be for everyone, but here it is, anyway. . .)

Here's a little something I saw linked to on Twitter this morning:

The following YouTube videos present a circa-1987 story from 60 Minutes titled "The Loony Left".  Some of the issues are very familiar.  I suppose the point of posting it in the first place was to highlight those similarities between Britain at that point in history and the US today.  The sad thing is that for many of us-- those my age and younger-- it's difficult (and for some, impossible) to remember a time when we weren't always being bombarded with such sickening political correctness and the politicization of everything.  (Math can be racist, for example.  What?  Didn't you know that?  Those wicked numbers and formulas-- you can't trust 'em for a minute!) 

Part 1 of 2:


Part 2 of 2:


If it weren't so dangerous, parts of it would be funny.

For instance, take the bit in the first video where the committee of book-banners explains how bad that one book is. The horse that behaves badly just happens to be black.  "It's not a white horse," the annoying woman feels compelled to point out-- not that there appear to be any white horses in the book... (Coincidence? I think not!) And then he's "tamed" by a little white girl. (White, I tell you! How can you not see the blatant racism when it's there before your very eyes?!) 

And it's not just racist-- it's sexist, too, because the little girl tames it using sugar instead of force to overcome it, as a little boy might have done.  But isn't that using her brains?, Mr. Interviewer asks.  Isn't that preferable to her beating the horse into submission?  Would you rather she hit it instead?  One woman answers, "I'd rather she had the choice."

. . .Had the choice?  What on earth do you mean?  This isn't a choose-your-own-adventure book, lady.  The author has to make the choice for the character in his/her book. 

And then there's math (as I mentioned before). 
Direct quote from some guy (who, forgive me, doesn't look like someone I'd instinctively trust, what with his hippie hair and humongous messy beard) interviewed in the story:  "Math isn't neutral, and it isn't culture-free, but is a product of the society in which it exists.  It transmits the messages of that society-- the political ideas of that society."  Apparently this man was commissioned by someone-or-other to help them in their goal toward "non-racist mathematics".  *gag*

Interviewer (whose name I ought to know, because I recognize his face):  "In teaching percentages, the questions are phrased in terms of exploitation of the workers."

Mr. Scruffy Non-Racist Mathematics Dude:  "There are people who gain from profit and people who lose from profit in society.  You can't understand profit without actually centering it in a particular form of society."

Interviewer:  "So beyond learning how percentages work, there is a social message..."

Mr. Scruffy:  "Yes."

Interviewer: "Or a political message..."

Mr. Scruffy:  "Yes.  Yes.  Yes. . . Yes." 

Then there's a charming example of a math exam where one question compared the spending on arms in the Soviet Union and the United States, "showing an enormous increase in expenditure by the United States".  You can't afford to waste a single opportunity to cram in a little more indoctrination.  Not even in the traditionally (comparatively) sterile environment of the mathematics test.

Obama-- the Musical!

Obama Musical Thrills Audiences in Germany. 

• An actor portraying Obama is "thrilling audiences with a rousing chorus of 'Yes We Can' in a country still charmed by his message of hope." 
•  The producers hope to take the show to the US, someday.  (Cross your fingers!)
• The actor who portrays Obama said that "the qualities he admired most in Obama were his eloquence, strength and vision, adding that it was amazing how 'he moved a world'."
•  "John McCain" and "Sarah Palin" "did numbers of their own, the latter singing 'Ich bin ein Pitbull' (I'm a Pitbull)."  (Well, isn't that charming?)
• "Set in Chicago, where Obama worked as a community organizer, the plot portrays how his message helps reconcile residents of a multi-cultural neighbourhood and propels a young black politician to the White House in 2008."
• "Two other shows have already put the US president on stage meanwhile, 'Obama On My Mind' in London, and 'Obama: The Musical' in Nairobi." 
•  A 21-year-old in the audience "thought an early scene where women go to a spa to relieve the tension of daily life was 'pretty confusing'.  Having visited the United States, he said: 'What's up with that? I don't think they go to the spa that often.'"  (Only the fancy Americans do that, young man.  Only the fancy ones. . .)
  

 (Ok, maybe that last bullet point was unnecessary, from a news standpoint, but it was the best part of the whole article.)

Has the world gone mad? (Don't answer that...)

I hope you're in the mood for a heapin' helpin' of "climate change"-related nonsense, 'cause that's all that's on the menu today.  But don't worry!  It comes in three delicious flavors!

First up, there's a story from the Wonderfully Weird World of Wikipedia-- an uplifting tale in which a single man, one William Connolley, rewrites (literally) the history of climate change.  After that, we have a scrumptious pet-owner's guilt-fest.  (People who have pet rabbits are sure to love it.)  And finally-- as a special treat-- some videos from Build-a-Bear wherein the little children are simultaneously brainwashed and terrified by a charming story of how the North Pole is on the verge of melting, which could lead to the *gasp!* cancellation of Christmas!  (Trust me, you don't want to miss it.)

- - - - - - -

Earlier this week, Donald brought a news story to my attention. He thought I might like to blog about it, particularly after my delicate slamming of Wikipedia in a recent blog entry. (You know, the one where I said we shouldn't take everything we read there as Gospel? Yeah, that's the one.)

The short(ish) version of the story is this:

So there's this Green Party (read far, FAR Left) activist named William Connolley. Somehow or other, he wound up with Special Wikipedia Powers and effectively rewrote the history of global warming-- er, I mean climate change. He erased the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period-- both of which, as you may already know, cast doubt upon the effect of industrialization upon the planet's climate. (You know, seeing as both of these happened long before industrialization. Almost as though-- historically speaking-- climate change may have little or nothing to do with the actions of us mere mortals.) He rewrote other articles relating to global warming/climate change-- and we're not talking a handful of articles here. No, apparently he rewrote "5,428 unique Wikipedia articles".

According to the National Post, "when Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."

Yes, that sounds about right.

Now, Wikipedia says Connolley's Special Wikipedia Powers-- um, I mean "administrator status" has been revoked after the discovery "that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming."  However (as I learned from this article in the Telegraph), as little as three days ago, Connolley was spotted messing around with climate-related Wikipedia articles.  (He's also been deleting criticism of himself.  Very noble behavior!) Oh, and he just happens to be a friend and peer of the lovely scientists involved in the Climategate scandal.  (You aren't really surprised by that, though, are you?)

(Here's another article on the story, if you want to read about how Connolley averaged 27 Wikipedia contributions a day during June 2009, and so on.)

- - - - - - -

Want to read more about inaccuracies and other problems with Wikipedia?

This looks like a good resource, for starters.

- - - - - - -

Then this morning on Twitter, I saw a link to an article about a book titled Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living.  Apparently "the carbon footprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle".  Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, it sounds like they base their calculations on a much more luxurious-- and expensive-- meat-heavy diet than most dogs enjoy-- but let's just put that aside.  (Because, really, who cares?)

What's your point, Robert and Brenda Vale (the authors of the book)?  If you're trying to say that we shouldn't feel guilty about having an SUV if we want one, I don't have a problem-- but if, on the other hand, you're insinuating that people with pets (because it seems that cats are also an eco no-no) should give up the dirty habit of keeping animals. . . Trust me, you really don't want to go there.  I love my two little dogs, and I don't take kindly to someone threatening my right to own a pet. 

It really does feel like these people have completely lost it.  For instance: "Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say."  Yeah, I've always kind of thought that animals mucked things up-- killing plants and other animals just so they can live-- pooping everywhere (disgusting!)-- procreating like rabbits (especially the, you know, rabbits).  I mean, seriously, what was God thinking when he made all these little consumers of Nature's Bounty?  (Ok, ok, so they didn't mean all animals-- but doesn't that sound like lunacy?)

Then there's this: 

And pets' environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say.

With a total 7.7 million cats in Britain, more than 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by feline predators per year, or an average 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat, according to figures in the New Scientist.

Likewise, dogs decrease biodiversity in areas they are walked, while their faeces cause high bacterial levels in rivers and streams, making the water unsafe to drink, starving waterways of oxygen and killing aquatic life.

And cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo -- owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease.

 We should all be ashamed of ourselves for sheltering these destructive little monsters in our homes. 

However, the article offers a ray of hope.  We may be allowed to keep our pets-- if we feed them less "impactful" foods (less meat for dogs or fish heads for cats), keep them away from "wildlife-rich areas", and so on.

Better yet, "get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs"-- or (and lovers of rabbitkind may wish to skip this bit) get rabbits, which evidently are "prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table". 

The story boils down to this:  "As with buying a car, humans are . . . encouraged to take the environmental impact of their future possession/companion into account."

I'm generally not one of those people whose first reaction to every global warming / enviro-impact story is to say, "Oh yeah?  Well, now I'm gonna buy extra seats on the airplane every time I fly-- and I'm gonna buy the biggest SUV I can find-- no, two of 'em-- and I'm gonna make it my goal to have the biggest carbon footprint on the block!"  Usually, my reaction is "Grr."  (Or something along those lines.)  However, we each have our breaking point, and I may be reaching mine.  No, world.  I don't have to take my so-called "environmental impact" into account.  I can have an SUV, if I want one, and I don't even have to feel guilty about it.  I can adopt ten or twenty more dogs, if I want them.  I can keep rabbits with no intention of ever eating them.  I can even keep cows as pets-- not for dairy, not for meat, but because I like them.  I can raise chickens, then take the eggs they lay and throw them at hybrids as they drive past.  . . .I would likely be fined or arrested, but there'd be nothing stopping me from doing it, that first time.  Obviously I'm not planning to do that-- or any of the other things I've listed-- but that's not the point.  The point is this:  Basically, I can do any darn thing I want to do, so long as it's legal.  It's none of your business, world-at-large. 

But I do wonder how long before we have to pay an enviro-tax based on the number and size of our pets.

(And apparently I'm still not done venting my frustration. . .) Sheesh.  No more Fido or Kitty?  Some of these wackos won't be satisfied until we're living in individual bubbles (Matrix-style, perhaps), with no contact with the outer world, because apparently we ruin everything we touch.  *inside joke* "Don't hurt it!  It's just Nature!" *end inside joke*  Until Mother Nature herself materializes from thin air,  bends down (because obviously she's about twenty feet tall, minimum), wags a finger at me and scolds, "Bad human! Bad! You'vee been vewy, vewy naughty!", I'm going to keep on doing just as I see fit.  (Environmental crazies, I'm sticking my tongue out at you.  Right now.) 

- - - - - - -

One last story, also found today on Twitter:  "Build-a-Climate-Scare:  Why You Should Boycott Build-a-Bear" by Maura Flynn. 

Attention Santas:
This missive is directed at the guardians of, and donors to, tiny humans. If you fall into that category you likely are already familiar with Build-A-Bear, a world-wide corporation that provides the most innocent of services. They sell customizable stuffed animals. Make your own bear, dog…penguin. Cute concept.

So cute, in fact, that the Build-A-Bear empire sweeps across nearly every state and into 17 other countries. You’ll find their outlets in shopping malls everywhere and even some ballparks. The company also has a website called Build-A-Bearville.com where children can play an interactive video game that, on it’s surface, is unlikely to raise suspicion or sound alarms.

But when your unsuspecting tot logs on and hops a virtual train to the North Pole…you should know that he or she will be informed — by Santa Claus — that Christmas may be canceled this year due to Global Warming.

. . .

Girl Elf: Santa, it’s gone!

Papa Elf: It’s gone, It’s gone!

Santa: What’s gone?

Girl Elf: Tell ‘em, Dad!

Papa Elf: The North Peak.

Santa: A mountain? A mountain’s gone? How is that possible?

Ella the polar bear: Santa, sir, that’s why I’m here. That’s why we’re here. The ice is melting!

Santa: Yes, my dear, we know, the climate is changing. There’s bound to be a little melting.

Ella: It’s worse than that, Santa, a lot worse! At the rate it’s melting, the North Pole will be gone by Christmas!”

Santa: My, my…all of this gone by next Christmas? I don’t think so.

Ella: No sir, not next Christmas, this Christmas! The day after tomorrow!

And this is merely the tip of the dialogue iceberg, if you’ll forgive me for putting it that way.  . . . Children of the world can look forward to priceless exchanges such as, “Oh my! Where will the polar bears live?” and my personal fave: “Where will the elves live?”

I suspect you’d like to think it can’t get any worse than that. Thus, it pains me to tell you that animated characters actually break into a discussion of satellite photos and that Mrs. Claus conducts a rather unscientific experiment involving ice cubes.

Needless-to-say, this constitutes brainwashing on the sleaziest and most sinister level. The good news is that this nonsense isn’t coming from our government this time and the rocky economy is our friend here. People, we have the means, if we have the will, to topple these charlatans who shamelessly prey on little children. So boycott Build-A-Bear. And, more importantly, tell the world why.

Go tell it on the mountain, and hurry, before it melts.

Click the link above, if you want to watch the videos.
Those who have a weak stomach may prefer to skip it. 

- - - - - - -

Well, that's it.  I hope you enjoyed yourself as much as I did.  ;o) Nothing like this sort of garbage to put you in a right jolly Christmas-spirit mood, eh?   (And I didn't even mention the health care reform mess!  Just imagine what I could've accomplished if I had. . .)

*Insert Wolf Whistle Here*

(If there are any children present, they should be shooed from the room.  There is adult content near the bottom of this post. ;o) YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.)

In case you missed it, Obama visted a Home Depot today to speak about the very important issue of home insulation and retro-fitting.

According to the Prez, "The simple act of retro-fitting is one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest things we can do to put Americans back to work while saving money and reducing harmful emissions."

Really?  Ok, if you say so.  (I'll let it pass.  There are more important things to get to, today. . .)

He went on to say, "I know the idea may not be very glamorous, although I get pretty excited about it."

(My response:) "Um, alright. . . To each his own way and all that, but maybe you should just keep those kinds of things to yourself. . ."

But he wasn't finished:  "Insulation is sexy stuff."
(I regret to report that he added, "Here's what's sexy about it: saving money."  I regret reporting it because it ruins the flow, but I'm too honest to leave it out. ;o))

First, ugh.  Can people please stop saying things are "sexy"?  It's an incredibly un"sexy" way of expressing yourself.  Was Obama "off-prompter" on this speech, or did someone actually think this was the best way to say things?  Anyway, putting aside my pet peeves. . .

Maybe this new way of looking at insulation will inspire some daring fashion designer. . .
I can almost see it now. . .

Internet Tidbits

Belly up to the bar, boys!  Tidbits all 'round!  They're on the house!  ;o)

Very few things could make an article (?) titled "Child Stars: Then and Now" and featuring What's-Her-Name (oh, right, Lindsay Lohan) look interesting, but congratulations, NBC Connecticut!  By putting it alongside "Michelle Obama Style Guide: Nobel Wardrobe", you just may have found a way!

Yes, NBC Connecticut, where "Locals are intrigued by icy roads".

That's right, they said "intrigued".  By icy roads. 
Hey, don't ask me.  I live in southern Alabama, where we know that icy roads only exist in fairy tales.  Maybe some kindly Northerner will explain what's so "intriguing" about icy roads.  "Stressed", I could see-- or "concerned".  "Locals are intrigued" makes the icy roads sound like a tall, dark, and handsome stranger from an old film.  What's next?  "Locals are dazzled by wild fires"?

Those were all very well and good, but my favoritest tidbit of them all (today) is this one we found over the weekend on good ol' Wikipedia, where the facts are only as reliable as the latest random person to log in and type them up. 

 

Wikipedia wants us to dig into out pockets and pay to keep the site running, so they've put up ad banners soliciting donations.  This one (in case the photo above ceases to display) reads as follows: 

"As a professional scientist, Wikipedia is my go-to source for ideas and concepts new to me.  Donate for this?  You bet!"

Ok, ok, I admit it!  I look at Wikipedia fairly often, myself.  (It's hard not to, considering how highly it's rated in Google, which is another story altogether...)  However, I've learned not to take everything I read there as The One and Only Truth.  You know how they say you should check out any information you read on the Internet-- not just assume it's all accurate?  Well, that goes double for some of the stuff I've seen on Wikipedia.  But now I'm rambling. . .

What I find funny is that this person felt it necessary to identify himself as a "professional scientist"-- presumably to impress upon us that if he-- a professional scientist-- considers Wikipedia as his "go-to source", then surely the rest of us ought to see its incredible value and donate to keep it going.  It smacks of a sad lack of modesty (and leads me to wring my hands over the implied research abilities of modern Professional Scientists).  But then again, maybe I'm just reading too much into it. . .

ETA:  Last night, Donald pointed out that the Wikipedia testimonial isn't even grammatically correct.  (Good job! (g))  As the ad (or whatever it is) is written, Wikipedia itself is the Professional Scientist!  (I guess grammar isn't important in a Professional Scientist's line of work.)