Any honest person with eyes can tell that this is clearly a bow. I'm not even saying it was appropriate or not (which I don't think it was), but the fact that the administration is now trying to say that Obama did not bow to the Saudi Arabian King is ridiculous. Oh, and by the way...State Department protocol is that the president does not bow.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
What Exactly ARE The Democrats For???
I was thinking about our energy situation the other day, and how Republicans seem to be the only ones that are for any solution at all. Let's review what the Democrats have been against as far as energy solutions, even though they claim to be the party of alternative energy.
1) Wind. Granted there are definitely some Democrats in favor of wind power, there are many environmentalists (beholden to the Democrat party) that oppose expansion of wind energy. Most cite interference with bird migration patterns and bird deaths. Robert Kennedy Jr. and John Kerry both killed a proposal to build a wind farm off the coast in Nantucket Sound. Windmills must be too unsightly for them when they're cruising around on their yachts. Here's some more details...
2) Hydroelectric. Dams are one of the better and more reliable sources of renewable energy. Not only that, they create reservoirs which can help the local economy with fishing and recreational activities. Democrats also block these opportunities, such as this example from California. Democrats cited that there are other ways to meet California's water and electricity needs...such as conservation. In a state with that many people, I hardly think that shutting the water off when Californians brush their teeth and keeping plasma TV watching time to one hour each day will solve their energy/water needs.
3) Solar. This is probably my favorite example. We have the massive desert region known as the Mojave desert, which consists of vast expanses of land in California, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. Several solar energy companies have been working to turn a 500,000 acre expanse of the desert into a huge solar farm that would supply millions with clean, renewable energy. Senator Diane Feinstein of California opposes this and has proposed legislation to make the whole desert a national monument, rendering it untouchable by solar energy companies. They cite concerns over tortoise populations. If we can't build a solar farm in the desert, where else is it even possible to do so?
4) Nuclear. Many people get nervous when it comes to nuclear energy, and visions like the Chernobyl incident in the Ukraine flash into peoples' minds. The reality is that nuclear technology has progressed a lot since that time, and we use much safer methods. Chernobyl enriched their uranium to a more explosive and dangerous level (around 14%, if I remember correctly from chemistry). Nuclear plants now enrich to a much safer level, around 3-5%, according to the United States Regulatory Commission. Democrats have even opposed the project in droves, as well as opposed creation of new nuclear power plants.
5) Clean Coal. Democrats themselves can't agree on clean coal, mainly because it stems from a fossil fuel. Clean coal technology drastically reduces the so-called "greenhouse gases" emitted by coal plants that produce electricity, which should alleviate some environmental concerns Democrats have...yet they still can't fully support use of any source of energy that involves fossil fuels.
All this opposition, when coupled with opposition to increased oil drilling, carbon taxes on citizens (the cap-and-trade program), and opposition to increased domestic refining capacity leads me to this one question: what are Democrats suggesting we use for energy???? There are not many other options left once we take all those options off the table, and other solutions are not very feasible everywhere in the country.
So unless we're all going to ride our unicorns to work under the rainbows and butterflies approach to energy the Democrats have, perhaps we need to look at some of the solutions Republicans have been proposing and take all the environmental alarmist talk with a few grains of salt.
And the towing capacity of unicorns sucks...or so I've heard.
1) Wind. Granted there are definitely some Democrats in favor of wind power, there are many environmentalists (beholden to the Democrat party) that oppose expansion of wind energy. Most cite interference with bird migration patterns and bird deaths. Robert Kennedy Jr. and John Kerry both killed a proposal to build a wind farm off the coast in Nantucket Sound. Windmills must be too unsightly for them when they're cruising around on their yachts. Here's some more details...
2) Hydroelectric. Dams are one of the better and more reliable sources of renewable energy. Not only that, they create reservoirs which can help the local economy with fishing and recreational activities. Democrats also block these opportunities, such as this example from California. Democrats cited that there are other ways to meet California's water and electricity needs...such as conservation. In a state with that many people, I hardly think that shutting the water off when Californians brush their teeth and keeping plasma TV watching time to one hour each day will solve their energy/water needs.
3) Solar. This is probably my favorite example. We have the massive desert region known as the Mojave desert, which consists of vast expanses of land in California, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. Several solar energy companies have been working to turn a 500,000 acre expanse of the desert into a huge solar farm that would supply millions with clean, renewable energy. Senator Diane Feinstein of California opposes this and has proposed legislation to make the whole desert a national monument, rendering it untouchable by solar energy companies. They cite concerns over tortoise populations. If we can't build a solar farm in the desert, where else is it even possible to do so?
4) Nuclear. Many people get nervous when it comes to nuclear energy, and visions like the Chernobyl incident in the Ukraine flash into peoples' minds. The reality is that nuclear technology has progressed a lot since that time, and we use much safer methods. Chernobyl enriched their uranium to a more explosive and dangerous level (around 14%, if I remember correctly from chemistry). Nuclear plants now enrich to a much safer level, around 3-5%, according to the United States Regulatory Commission. Democrats have even opposed the project in droves, as well as opposed creation of new nuclear power plants.
5) Clean Coal. Democrats themselves can't agree on clean coal, mainly because it stems from a fossil fuel. Clean coal technology drastically reduces the so-called "greenhouse gases" emitted by coal plants that produce electricity, which should alleviate some environmental concerns Democrats have...yet they still can't fully support use of any source of energy that involves fossil fuels.
All this opposition, when coupled with opposition to increased oil drilling, carbon taxes on citizens (the cap-and-trade program), and opposition to increased domestic refining capacity leads me to this one question: what are Democrats suggesting we use for energy???? There are not many other options left once we take all those options off the table, and other solutions are not very feasible everywhere in the country.
So unless we're all going to ride our unicorns to work under the rainbows and butterflies approach to energy the Democrats have, perhaps we need to look at some of the solutions Republicans have been proposing and take all the environmental alarmist talk with a few grains of salt.
And the towing capacity of unicorns sucks...or so I've heard.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Glen Beck: On Ceding Our Feedoms to Unelected International Bureaucrats
For Facebook readers, click here
Midwestern Niceness
But I thought we were all intolerant, racist, sexist, redneck, ignorant, bigoted, inbred, fat, lazy, fascist, Nazi homophobes that hate everybody? Here's a couple letters to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader where out-of-state individuals took the time to express how good of impression they got from their time in South Dakota:
Apparently we're not pompus, deluded jerks after all. Maybe the rest of the country could take a note out of our book and try to be truly interested in the well being of our fellow men and women, rather than going through life with a contented disconnect. There's a pattern of thought around the country, where if you don't know a person personally, they don't matter as much and someone else will take care of them. Here, we truly care for others and genuinely care about what is going on with them. Once you leave the midwest, in my expericence that attitude disappears, and as these articles show, people are impressed when they come here to visit.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
It's The Host's Fault?!
Here's an article I found in some newspaper (I forgot which one, I apologize to the author in advance). Apparently if someone drinks alcohol at a party you hosted, it's your fault if anything happens to that person.
Again, personal responsibility in this country has gone out the window! It's THEIR fault if they get a little tipsy and do themselves harm. The host did not force anything down the person's throat...the individual made the decision to have too much to drink and do themselves harm. It's ludicrous to hold someone else responsible for the decisions and choices of others. It also goes to show how much reform we need to our legal system.
Again, personal responsibility in this country has gone out the window! It's THEIR fault if they get a little tipsy and do themselves harm. The host did not force anything down the person's throat...the individual made the decision to have too much to drink and do themselves harm. It's ludicrous to hold someone else responsible for the decisions and choices of others. It also goes to show how much reform we need to our legal system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)