Mood:  bright

It's been about 2 months of trying to keep the crippled laptop alive... but now it's in the habit of shutting down at any time. So being here one second and gone the next isn't conducive to bloggin' and chattin, so...

Here's my origional statement, my yahoo chattin' goodbye to all the PL regs, even the libtards.

Posted by yaahoo_ at 1:30 PM EST

Updated: Tuesday, 23 January 2007 1:36 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  silly

Tough month

On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.

"In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "

"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."

Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.

Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.

"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.

The chairman's "double-talk" did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant "hypocrisy" undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.

Unfortunately for the new House intelligence chief, this is his second (some would argue his third) major blunder in the space of one month. When asked by Congressional Quarterly reporter Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda was a Sunni or Shi'ite organization, he answered: "Predominantly, probably Shi'ite."

As Mr. Stein wrote later: "He couldn't have been more wrong. Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shi'ite showed up at an al Qaeda clubhouse, they'd slice his head off and use it for a soccer ball."

The reporter added: "To me, it's like asking about Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: Who's on what side?"

In the same interview, Mr. Stein had asked Mr. Reyes about the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

His now-infamous reply: "Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah? ... Why do you ask me these questions at 5 o'clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?"

Washington Times ~ Inside the Beltway - John McCaslin ** Tough month

Related: Then & Now... If Bush Wants More Troops, Then the Dems Are Against It
Doing the job the mainstream media used to do, we find sound bites of Democrats pleading for more troops...

If Bush Wants More Troops, Democrats Are Against

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

(story) "On December 5th, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with the incoming House Committee on Intelligence Chairman, Sylvestre Reyes as an exclusive, and for good reason. 'In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq,' the story began, 'Mr. Reyes said that he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 US troops,'" this is back on December 5th, ''as part of a stepped up effort to dismantle the militias. 'We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, he said, to take out the militias, stabilize the country. I'd say 20 to 30,000 more.' Then President Bush came up with his announcement last week, virtually matching Reyes' recommendation, and wouldn't you know, hours after Bush announced the proposal, Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was 'unthinkable'"! Just a month and a half later he's totally changed his mind just because of a Bush idea! So we have examples of this. Vulture Politics: if Bush is for it they're against it even if they used to be for it. Here are the first two examples, October 3rd, 2004, Late Edition, Chris Dodd.

DODD October 3, 2004: Certainly I think today people realize here that -- that the number of troops we have there, given the magnitude of the problem, given the problems we're facing, probably has to be increased.

RUSH: Okay, that's Chris Dodd October 3rd, 2004. He said we gotta get more troops. But last night on PBS The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill said, "Is increasing the number of troops on the ground the best chance for success?"

DODD January 17, 2007: I don't think it is at all. The idea that further military, escalating military, involvement is going to produce the desired results will work -- I'm very much opposed it.

RUSH: Okay, so we're going to anyway play these two back-to-back, four and five back-to-back, number four is from October 3rd of 2004. The next cut, number five, is from last night.

DODD October 3, 2004: Certainly I think today people realize here that -- that the number of troops we have there, given the magnitude of the problem, given the problems we're facing, probably has to be increased.

DODD January 17, 2007: I don't think it is at all. The idea that further military, escalating military, involvement is going to produce the desired results will work -- I'm very much opposed it.

RUSH: What does this remind you of? The thing it reminds me of first and foremost is how in '98 when Clinton was talking about how Saddam was such a horrible guy and was working on WMDs and everything, every Democrat said, "We gotta get on board with this. We gotta stop this." Bush comes along and says it, and it's like they never said it. "Bush lied. People died." Up next, Joe Biden with the same thing, November 11th, 2003 on Hardball, Matthews said, "Senator, do you think we need more troops in Iraq?"

BIDEN November 11, 2003: Because we haven't won the war yet. Everybody talks about winning the peace. We haven't won the war yet. There's a real counterinsurgency out there. It's genuine. It's made up of forces. It is more than just outside forces, more than Al-Qaeda, and we have to stamp it out, and we need more forces. There are not enough forces there.

RUSH: Yesterday, the same man had a press conference on Capitol Hill.

BIDEN January 17, 2007: Mr. President, do not send more troops! It would have the exact opposite impact you intend.

RUSH: Okay, let's place these back-to-back, first number six, then number seven: Biden from November of 2003 and then yesterday.

BIDEN November 11, 2003: Because we haven't won the war yet. Everybody talks about winning the peace. We haven't won the war yet. There's a real counterinsurgency out there. It's genuine. It's made up of forces. It is more than just outside forces, more than Al-Qaeda, and we have to stamp it out, and we need more forces. There are not enough forces there.

BIDEN January 17, 2007: Mr. President, do not send more troops! It would have the exact opposite impact you intend.

RUSH: Why would anybody trust them? These people are not interested in what works. In fact, they're probably being more honest back in their previous statements than they are today. It's just "oppose Bush, oppose Bush, oppose Bush." Finally, Mrs. Clinton. She said this December 7th, 2003 with George Stephanopoulos on his Sunday morning program.

HILLARY December 7, 2003: What I have said is that I do think we need more troops.

RUSH: Yesterday, she unveiled her big plan at a press conference on Capitol Hill.

HILLARY January 17, 2007: Rather than escalation of US troops -- which I do not believe will contribute to long-term success in Iraq -- we should be begin a phased redeployment of US troops as a way to put pressure on the Iraqi government to take responsibility to its own security and future.

RUSH: Okay, now we do the same back-to-back treatment with Hillary Rodham Clinton December 7th, 2003 -- just over three years ago -- and then yesterday.

HILLARY December 7, 2003: What I have said is that I do think we need more troops.

HILLARY January 17, 2007: Rather than escalation of US troops -- which I do not believe will contribute to long-term success in Iraq -- we should be begin a phased redeployment of US troops as a way to put pressure on the Iraqi government to take responsibility to its own security and future.

RUSH: Do you realize if it weren't for us -- me -- here in the new media, you would never hear these comparisons.? Media knows Hillary said this, and Biden, and Dodd, and Reyes. They said these on media shows! They could go back to their archives and ask these people why they're changing their minds. They don't dare. We do. We have no fear, because truth is our objective here!

END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
(WT: Inside the Beltway- Tough month)
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
Rush Limbaugh.com ** If Bush Wants More Troops, Democrats Are Against

Posted by yaahoo_ at 11:51 AM EST

Updated: Friday, 19 January 2007 10:02 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  smelly

Viagra May Decrease Ability to Smell

NEW YORK -- Higher doses of Viagra (sildenafil) may impair the ability to smell, which is possibly related to an increase in nasal congestion, German researchers report in The Journal of Urology.

A team led by Dr. V. Gudziol at the University of Dresden Medical School studied 20 healthy, young male volunteers who received Viagra, at a 50- or 100-mg dose, or inactive "placebo" and then were exposed to an odor-dispensing device.

The researchers tested the subjects' odor detection threshold, odor discrimination and odor identification ability.

They found that the 100-mg dose caused a drop in smelling or "olfactory" ability, specifically odor discrimination and odor threshold, compared with placebo. The 50-mg dose, by contrast, had no effect on olfactory function.

"In our subjects, the most likely reason for impaired...olfactory function was nasal congestion" brought on by Viagra, the authors write. They note that, while it was not evaluated in this study, previous reports have linked Viagra with a drop in nasal airflow.

News Max.com ~ Reuters ** Viagra May Decrease Ability to Smell

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Updated: Thursday, 18 January 2007 12:33 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  spacey

Posted by Marc Morano

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen’s blog, very entertaining.] CLICK HERE. This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society’s Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week, CLICK HERE.

"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement," Cullen added. [Note to Cullen: As the resident ‘climate expert’ at TWS, you should know that Hurricanes in the Southern Hemisphere do rotate clockwise. Also, Cullen and the media have ignored the growing climate skepticism by prominent scientists, CLICK HERE.

Cullen’s call for decertification of TV weatherman who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." CLICK HERE & HERE.

Cullen Featured Advocate of Nuremberg-Style Trials for Climate Skeptics

In addition, Cullen’s December 17, 2006 episode of "The Climate Code" TV show, featured a columnist who openly called for Nuremberg-style Trials for climate skeptics. Cullen featured Grist Magazine’s Dave Roberts as an eco-expert opining on energy issues, with no mention of his public call to institute what amounts to the death penalty for scientists who express skepticism about global warming, CLICK HERE.

Cullen’s call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money. The United Nations Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process has also steadily pushed scientists away who hold inconvenient skeptical views and reject the alarmist conclusions presented in the IPCC’s summary for policymakers, CLICK HERE.

Cullen also participated in the New York premiere of the fictional Hollywood global warming disaster film The Day After Tomorrow in 2004 and has routinely promoted celebrity environmental views, CLICK HERE. The Weather Channel, which has billed itself as itself as the "pre-eminent provider of weather information," also served as a consultant to The Day After Tomorrow and allowed the use of its name and logo in the movie.

Broadcast meteorologists (TV weatherman) skeptical of climate alarmism have -- up until now -- been unburdened to speak out on climate issues. Cullen’s call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige. TV weathermen are truly the last of the independent scientists and past surveys have shown many of them to be skeptical of manmade global warming claims. Their independence is being threatened now. For more info on the background of the AMS seal, CLICK HERE.

Intimidating scientists with calls for death trials, name calling and calls for decertification appears to be the accepted tactics of the climate alarmists. The real question is: Why do climate alarmists feel the need to resort to such low brow tactics when they have a compliant media willing to repeat their every assertion without question, CLICK HERE.

The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.

Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget.

In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)

The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for "action" to combat their computer model predictions of a "climate emergency?" CLICK HERE.

That may be the real Inconvenient Truth. After all, even the UN is reportedly downgrading man’s impact on the climate by 25% and now concedes that cow "emissions" are more damaging to the planet than C02 from cars. CLICK HERE.

Related Links: INHOFE SPEECH ON POLAR BEARS AND GLOBAL WARMING

UN DOWNGRADES MAN'S IMPACT AND COW 'EMISSIONS' MORE DAMAGING THAN CO2 FROM CARS

SENATOR INHOFE ANNOUNCES PUBLIC RELEASE OF "SKEPTIC’S GUIDE TO DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMING"

INHOFE SAYS NEW UN ASSESSMENT PROVES FEARS OF MANMADE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING ARE ‘UNSUSTAINABLE’

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ~ Press Room **
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

Related: LIBTARD "GLOBAL WARMING" ALERTS... California Freeze Kills up to 75% of California's Citrus Crop, Yet the Algore "consensus" is that the world is burning up
WINTER KILLS ---- 5 die in car wrecks across Texas
300-mile stretch of I-10 still closed ---- Ice plays havoc with power grid
Cold Ruins Nearly $1B of Calif. Citrus; Schwarzenegger Seeks Disaster Aid
NOW IT IS SNOW IN MALIBU

Posted by yaahoo_ at 10:05 PM EST

Updated: Wednesday, 17 January 2007 11:03 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  loud

Baby Noah and Democrat "Moral Obligations"

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: As you people remember, one of the first items on the agenda for the Nancy Pelosi Democrat House was legislation to expand the use of human embryos for stem cell research. They passed that legislation on January 10th, a week ago today, 253 to 174. It has to go to the Senate and then to the president. It will be vetoed -- well, hell, I can't say it will be vetoed, but it's got a tough road ahead. There's one inarguable fact about embryonic stem cell research, and that is in order for scientists to manufacture the stem cells that they want for research, the embryo must be destroyed. Notwithstanding that, the new House Democratic leader Steny Hoyer claimed that the Democrats' legislation did not seek to destroy life. “No, no, we're not destroying life when we destroy those embryos.” What are they doing? Well, he insisted that the legislation preserved and protected life. He said, “We have a moral obligation to provide our scientific community with the tools it needs to save lives.”

So, see, this is how the Democrats define moral obligation. You snuff out the embryo, you slice it up, you smash it, you kill it, and you wipe it out. You don't even bury it, you just wipe it out, and then you save lives in the process, even though no research indicates that that will happen yet. Six days after the Democrats passed their bill -- and you heard about baby Noah? AP ran this headline: Embryo Saved After Katrina is Born. The long and short of the story was that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, extraordinary measures were taken to rescue 1400 embryos frozen in canisters of liquid nitrogen at a New Orleans hospital which was flooded and was sweltering, and one of those rescued embryos was later implanted. And yesterday, in the early morning hours, a baby boy named Noah by his parents was born. Of course, everybody was all warm and fuzzy and touchy-feely and, “Ah, ah, isn't it wonderful! They named him Noah, after the flood of Katrina, oh, oh, oh.” And it was. It's a beautiful thing, don't misunderstand, not making fun of anybody here. A lot of people congratulated the parents. A lot of people were moved deeply and emotional by this. But what had to happen? An embryo was not destroyed, folks. An embryo was implanted. Embryo became Noah.

I can only imagine that our newly elected friends in the Democrat Congress have to be unhappy here. Noah was a potential tool to cure diseases, and Noah was just stolen right out from under them. Steny Hoyer ought to be flipped out today. The minute Noah was born, when he found out that there were 1400 of these frozen embryos, “Look at the possible research tools there!” Instead, one of them was saved and implanted, we've got a human being named Noah, a little boy, and you've seen his picture on TV. What does he represent? The denial of a research tool to the Democrat Congress! If they were honest in what they actually say and believe, they would be outraged today that Noah exists.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...
(AP: Embryo saved after Katrina is born)
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
Rush Limbaugh.com ** Baby Noah and Democrat "Moral Obligations"

Posted by yaahoo_ at 8:52 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  loud

Critics See 'Slippery Slope' in Reintroduced Federal 'Hate Crimes' Law

As the new Democratic majority continues its 100-hour legislative blitz in the U.S. House, one Democrat has quietly reintroduced controversial legislation that would give the federal government more authority over so-called "hate crimes."

On Jan. 5, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas introduced a bill that would create federal guidelines for the sentencing of violent criminals who were "motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim."

It expands the scope of current federal hate crime law, which extends federal oversight to crimes that prevent the victim from engaging in a federally protected right - such as voting - and that are motivated on the basis of race, color, religion or nationality.

The new bill expands the definition of a hate crime to include sexual orientation, gender and disability and allows for any violent crime to be considered a hate crime regardless of whether is affects a victim's ability to engage in a federally protected right.

According to the bill, Congress has the authority to oversee hate crimes because of its constitutional powers to supervise interstate commerce. "Such violence affects interstate commerce in many ways," the bill states, and "instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence."

Jackson-Lee has introduced similar legislation in the past. Since 1999, she has introduced the same bill every two years. None of the bills made it out of the House Committee on the Judiciary to see a vote on the House floor.

The bill passed the House in 2005 as an amendment to the Children's Safety Act, but the Senate did not pursue its full passage.

Opponents of the bill believe it threatens free speech by opening the door for legislation aimed at curbing offensive speech.

The National Prayer Network (NPN), a group that encourages Christians to pray for the country, calls the bill "the most dangerous legislation ever to come before Congress" and charges that "it leads directly to an end of free speech."

The bill specifically addresses violent crimes that result in bodily harm, but NPN Director Ted Pike said it "sets us on a slippery slope" toward limiting speech that is offensive to the protected groups.

Pike told Cybercast News Service the bill "is not as far-reaching in its formative state" as hate crimes legislation in Canada that has been used to limit criticism of homosexuality.

"But it does set up a bias-oriented federal justice system ... and it can inevitably be broadened to involve speech crimes as well as physical crimes," Pike argued.

"It will be up to judges ... to begin to interpret and adjudicate from the bench and inevitably they broaden out the definition of a hate crime," he added.

Opponents of the bill also insist that hate crimes are not a serious enough matter for Congress to address.

According to data collected from local law enforcement agencies by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, there were 7,163 incidents of hate crimes in 2005. More than half of the crimes were motivated by race. Fewer than one in five were motivated by religion or sexual orientation.

Jackson-Lee's office was unavailable for comment on Monday, a federal holiday.

Cybercast News Service ~ Nathan Burchfiel ** Critics See 'Slippery Slope' in Reintroduced Federal 'Hate Crimes' Law

The new Demented-crat congress has nothing better to do than legislate "feelings"...

This country needs more hate crime laws like it needs a nuclear strike. And a nuclear strike might just do less harm than this law.

Under her bullshit law -- without making any attempt to physically harm anyone -- you could be tried, convicted, and imprisoned just for uttering offensive words.

For years, the libtard left keeps proulgating hate-crime legislation, in one form or another, not so much to 'protect' anyone, but in an effort to muzzle those who don't have the proper attitudes, and to eventually control what we say and speak.

Just how many of these things are the moonbats going to roll out? There's the law that turns churches into lobbies and thus restricts their ability to speak out against moral wrongs before an election, and then there's the resurrected "Fairness Doctrine," and now there's this. All this crap in their first two weeks on the job... Unbelievable.

Posted by yaahoo_ at 5:57 PM EST

Updated: Wednesday, 17 January 2007 6:08 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  surprised

Attorney Found Naked In Courthouse With 14-Year-Old

PHILADELPHIA -- A criminal defense lawyer was arrested after a sheriff's deputy found him naked with a 14-year-old girl in a courthouse conference room, authorities said Tuesday.

Larry Charles, 49, has been charged with solicitation, attempted statutory sexual assault and related counts, said Lt. Dan Bagnell of the Police Department's Special Victims Unit.

A sheriff's deputy making his rounds in the Criminal Justice Center on Monday afternoon looked into a lawyers' conference room on the third floor and discovered Charles and the girl, Bagnell said.

"He had asked for sex. But there was no physical contact we're aware of by the time the deputy arrived at the scene", Bagnell said.

Bagnell said the girl was not a client of Charles, but their exact relationship was not clear.

Charles was awaiting arraignment early Tuesday afternoon and bail was not yet set. A woman who answered the phone at his office said she could not immediately comment.

Courts were closed Monday for Martin Luther King Jr. Day and it was unclear how Charles and the girl got into the conference room.

Though court proceedings were not in session, the courthouse was open for attorneys who might want to conduct other business in the building.

NBC10 Philadelphia ~ Assoc. Press ** Attorney Found Naked In Courthouse With 14-Year-Old

Posted by yaahoo_ at 4:00 PM EST

Updated: Wednesday, 17 January 2007 4:12 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

Fidel Doesn't Trust Great Cuban Health Care

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: "Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro is in 'very grave' condition after three failed operations and complications from an intestinal infection known as diverticulitis, a Spanish newspaper said Tuesday. The newspaper El Pais cited two unnamed sources from the Gregorio Marañon hospital in the Spanish capital of Madrid. The facility employs a surgeon ... who flew to Cuba in December to treat ... Castro." Apparently what happened there is Castro had diverticulitis. Diverticulitis is not life-threatening. It's life changing, but it's not life-threatening. What they did is they had three famed operations to deal with this. They took out part of the large intestine and they had to rewire the plumbing, and it broke, and there was flooding of waste matter and all kinds of infections set in. The point is, he's in very grave condition now and may not survive this -- if all this is true. He had three surgeries, and all done by Spanish doctors. The question is: I keep hearing about what a great health care system Cuba has.

The Cuban health care system, we keep hearing about it from the American left, "Why, why, everybody has free health care, and it's really good," and so forth. I've never noticed any leftists going to Havana for their own medical care, or sending their kids there, and I guess when it came time to save his own life, Fidel decided he didn't want access to the Cuban health care system as well.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...
(AP: Spanish paper: Castro in grave condition after 3 failed operations)
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
Rush Limbaugh.com ** Fidel Doesn't Trust Great Cuban Health Care

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Updated: Wednesday, 17 January 2007 4:28 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  chillin'

California Freeze Threatens Citrus Crop

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

As you know, the Al Gore movie, an Inconvenient... Well, lie, truth, they're trying to show it in as many schools across the country as possible. In Seattle, some parents have finally said, "Wait a minute! This is propaganda! If you're going to show this, show the alternative point of view on this. This is by no means concluded science." It's "scientific consensus," which is not science. Again, I say, folks: if there is consensus in science, there's no science.

"What do you mean Rush? We all have to agree and get along."

It's very simple. I'll be happy to explain this. Consensus is nothing more than a bunch of wusses getting together and coming up with a proposition they can all agree on for whatever reasons. Usually they have political biases or some other thing and just want to avoid controversy. Let's say that a bunch of scientists got together and said, "You know what? We have formed a scientific consensus that the earth is flat." Would the consensus make it right? No, because science has told us we now know the earth is round. Science is what it is. It's not the result of consensus, and the only reason people think that there's global warming is because a whole bunch of scientists are have agreed and they come up with a consensus. So this movie's all over the place, and finally some people are stepping up, like parents, of all places in Seattle, to try to stop this. Well, in the midst of all this global warming we keep hearing about all the mild temperatures in the Northeast and so forth:

"Three nights of freezing temperatures have cost California up to three-quarters of its billion-dollar citrus crop, according to an industry estimate given Monday as forecasters warned that the cold weather could batter groves through midweek. Other crops, including avocados and strawberries, also have suffered damage in the cold snap," as well. "'This is one of those freezes that, unfortunately, we'll all remember,' California Department of Food and Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura said. Damages from the latest freeze will likely surpass those caused by a three-day freeze in December 1998 that destroyed 85 percent of California's citrus crop, a loss valued at $700 million..." Now, the global warming advocates can say, "See? It is warming because in '98 when they had the freeze 85% of the crop was destroyed. This time only 75% of the crop will be destroyed. So it is getting warmer."

They'll twist it and turn it however they choose, but the fact is if we have global warming (sigh). I just get tired of trying to make this case. "Citrus growers already have lost between 50 and 75 percent of their crops to the cold snap, said Philip LoBue, a Tulare County farmer and chairman of California Citrus Mutual, a 2,000-member trade organization. 'When you're already cutting ice within the oranges, you know those are gone,' LoBue said. While growers hastened to pick as much of the $960 million in fruit still hanging on trees before the cold hit Friday, an industry labor shortage meant much of the crop went unharvested," and yes, there is in association with this freeze, in the California citrus industry, a desire for more "undocumented workers" to do the picking. They just don't have enough, despite all of the illegal immigrants in town and in the state, the citrus growers are still saying, "We could have gotten to save a lot more of the crop if they'd have just had some more undocumented workers!"

Read the Background Material...
(Warning! Rising levels of science abuse)
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
Rush Limbaugh.com ** California Freeze Threatens Citrus Crop
Related: WINTER KILLS ---- 5 die in car wrecks across Texas
300-mile stretch of I-10 still closed ---- Ice plays havoc with power grid
Cold Ruins Nearly $1B of Calif. Citrus; Schwarzenegger Seeks Disaster Aid
NOW IT IS SNOW IN MALIBU

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Updated: Wednesday, 17 January 2007 10:17 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  silly

Oil drops 3.4 percent, Saudi says don't panic

NEW YORK -- Oil prices plunged more than 3 percent on Tuesday after Saudi Arabia said OPEC production cuts were working well and there was no need for an emergency meeting of the producer group.

U.S. crude <CLc1> settled down $1.78 to $51.21 per barrel after touching $50.53, the lowest level since May 26, 2005, in earlier activity. Brent futures <LCOc1> shed 86 cents to $52.26.

The price has fallen around 16 percent since the end of last year, in part due to warm weather in the U.S. Northeast, the world's top heating oil market, in early January.

"We took measures in October in Doha and measures in Abuja (in December) and I believe these measures are working well. Inventories in the fourth quarter have come down ... which puts the market closer to balance," Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said in New Delhi.

"Do not panic. Actually there is no reason for a meeting."

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) agreed to cut 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd) of output from November 1 and then to cut another 500,000 bpd from February 1.

There has been speculation OPEC could hold an emergency meeting before its next scheduled conference on March 15.

Venezuelan Energy and Mines Minister Rafael Ramirez has said oil prices had fallen "too much" and that he would favor an extra meeting.

Other commodities have also faced a rocky start to the year and base metals fell in early trading on Tuesday before stabilizing around midsession.

"We should not underestimate the global mood on commodities," said Frederic Lasserre of SG CIB in Paris. "There is not as much appetite for commodities anymore."

He predicted oil prices would test $50 in the near term, but then fresh buying interest could emerge.

Analysts said OPEC would also brake the slide and deeper price falls could drive the cartel to implement further cuts.

"We don't really see a collapse in prices. The further it goes down, the more hesitant the market will be about going even further," said Eoin O'Callaghan of BNP Paribas. "OPEC still has an impact on the market."

(Additional reporting by Fayen Wong in Sydney, Mayank Bhardwaj and Unni Krishnan in New Dehli, Barbara Lewis in London)
Reuters ~ Matthew Robinson ** Oil drops 3.4 percent, Saudi says don't panic
Related: Oil falls to 20-month low, eyes key $50 mark

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Updated: Wednesday, 17 January 2007 4:16 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink