Posts Tagged ‘stupid’
According to Democrats, climate change will affect women worse than men and could force poor women into the sex trade.
“[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health,” the resolution says.
Democrats also claim that changes in the climate will put added stress on female farmers and will hurt “marginalized” women like refugees, sexual minorities, adolescent girls, and women and girls with HIV.
“My resolution will affirm the commitment to include and empower women in economic development planning and international climate change policies and practices,” Lee told The Hill. “This will help communities adapt to climate impacts, and embark on a path towards clean and sustainable development.”
The resolution says the ability of women to adapt to climate change is “constrained by a lack of economic freedoms, property and inheritance rights, as well as access to financial resources, education, family planning and reproductive health, and new tools, equipment, and technology.”
It calls on Congress to use “gender-specific frameworks in developing policies to address climate change” and encourages President Obama to “integrate a gender approach in all policies and programs” related to climate change.
A post at BizPacReview says the resolution “comes at a time when climatologists are beginning to come to grips with the fact that the planet is not warming — global temperatures have remained essentially steady for well over a decade.”
“While some climate scientists continue to resist the obvious that the climate system is more complex than they assumed, others are starting to accept that the multi-decadal climate projections provide very incomplete simulations has to how the real climate system works,” Roger Pielke, Jr., environmental studies professor at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told the Daily Caller.
BizPacReview said that just as scientists have not been able to provide a direct link between human activity and global warming, Rep. Lee has not been able to prove that climate change will lead to prostitution.
Yes, General Motors really is giving $600 million to an English soccer club. Actually, as the team involved, Manchester United, is the most valuable team in sports, an investment in the club wouldn’t be a bad idea, considering how everything else is going at General Motors. No, the $600 million GM is giving to Man United over the next 7 years is a sponsorship deal. In return, Man United will wear “Chevrolet” on their jerseys and GM will be able to call itself Man United’s “global automobile partner.” It will immediately have the edge with all those consumers who look to their favorite soccer club for car buying advice.
Manchester United Owner – Malcolm Glazer – is a large Barak Obama contributor. Strange how Obama’s money people get rewarded. Dirty, Dirty, Dirty
There is a very good reason government shouldn’t bailout failing companies with buckets of taxpayer money. The money simply allows them to keep on making the disastrous decisions that got them to be a failing company in the first place. At least straight-up bankruptcy would have probably rooted out the kind of people who would think spending $60-70 million a year to have your logo on a soccer jersey was a swell idea.
The other problem with people whose pockets have been lined with lots of taxpayer cash is that they will overspend on their crazy ideas. Man United’s current sponsor, AON, an insurance company was spending around $30 million a year to have their logo on the players’ jerseys. So, they are throwing around twice the cash to advertise a brand that has almost no sales in Britain.
The Navy’s efforts to use alternative fuel to power its ships, aircraft and installations are coming under increasing scrutiny in Congress from a representative who’s doubtful about the $1 billion being spent on initiatives over the next year and questioning whether greening the fleet is something the Navy can actually accomplish, let alone actually use to become a mightier service.
However, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who has compared his work and the skepticism he’s facing with the resistance other secretaries faced when switching from wind to coal, from coal to oil and from oil to nuclear power, is confident the Navy’s investment in the burgeoning green fuel industry will develop the alternative fuel market and drive down costs. Beyond that, he says, it will make the service stronger.
“If we made all of our decisions on the cost of a new technology, we wouldn’t have nuclear submarines today. We wouldn’t have nuclear carriers today. We wouldn’t have computers today because they’re a lot more expensive than typewriters,” he said in an interview.
But Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., doubts Mabus’ goals, particularly the plan for 50 percent of the Navy’s energy to come from alternative sources.
“We don’t know where he came up with 50 percent — if he did it on his way to work one day, if he did it talking around the water fountain, or if there’s a study,” Forbes said during a March 29 House Armed Services subcommittee hearing. “Secondly, he says this is a goal, but it may not be a realistic goal, it may be a stretch goal, whatever that goal would be. And the thing is we, the committee, have no idea what that would cost.”
Biofuels are generally several times as expensive as petroleum-based fuels — the Navy, for example, paid about $26 a gallon in December for 450,000 gallons of a blend of used cooking oil and algae — and there’s a concern among Republican lawmakers that their use would never become economical.
SHIPS VS. BIOFUEL? NAVY SAYS ‘FALSE CHOICE’
Forbes, whose district includes a large portion of the nation’s shipbuilding workforce, questioned why Mabus wasn’t as enthusiastic about making a bigger Navy as he is about his energy programs. He said the Navy should set as challenging a goal for building new ships as it has for expanding the alternative fuel market.
“When I look at shipbuilding, I see the secretary coming over here with a shipbuilding plan, and he won’t take a stretch goal on shipbuilding, you know, but we’re cutting down and we’re cutting down the goal that we had of 313 ships and saying no, 300 is enough,” Forbes said.
The Navy questioned Forbes’ reasoning that less spending would mean that there would be more money to build ships.
“Rep. Forbes is comparing apples to oranges. He is trying to create a false choice between fuel and shipbuilding. It’s not a choice of fuel or ships. We need both,” said Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, assistant secretary of the Navy for energy, installations and environment, at the hearing.
The shipbuilding plan is based on defense needs and fiscal limitations. Meanwhile, increases in fuel costs have resulted in a $939 million shortfall in fiscal 2012. Investing in alternative energy and reducing the dependence on the volatile fuel market is aimed at insulating the Navy from price spikes, Pfannenstiel said.
The Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan, which Congress received in late March, slightly reduces the shipbuilding rate. Through 2042 there will be an average fleet size of 298 ships, seven fewer than last year’s plan. Today’s Navy has 282 ships.
Further, when the Navy set its 50 percent fuel goal, 17 percent of the energy used in operations came from nuclear power. Another 19 percent of power at installations came from alternative sources, Pfannenstiel said.
While Forbes is combing over the Navy’s initiative, other congressional representatives are praising the Navy’s energy program, and the other services are looking at the Navy’s work for guidance on their own initiatives. Rep. Madeleine Bordallo, D-Guam, said the service has the best approach because it considers all the potential benefits of its energy programs.
Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment, said the Navy is leading the military’s efforts to monitor energy efficiency at installations. And the Air Force is in the process of testing all of its aircraft types with alternative fuels.
The Navy finished testing every aircraft model last year and has also tested surface ships.
The decision by the State Department today was praised by environmentalists, who said the pipeline would add to U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions, and was decried by the U.S. oil and gas industry and Republican lawmakers, who had pushed President Barack Obama to approve the project as a way create jobs.Obama acted before a Feb. 21 deadline Congress set after Obama in November postponed a decision while a revised Nebraska route is reviewed. TransCanada said the 1,661-mile (2,673- kilometer) project would carry 700,000 barrels of crude a day from Alberta’s oil to refineries on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast, crossing six U.S. states and create 20,000 jobs.
“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration’s commitment to American-made energy,” Obama said today in a statement. “We will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security.”
TransCanada fell 47 cents to $41.27 at 3:24 p.m. in New York, and earlier today touched $39.74.
Canada Backs Pipeline
Canada will continue to support TransCanada Corp.’s plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline, Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said, adding that it is in the best interests of both Canada and the United States.
“The Department of State recommended to President Obama that the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline be denied and, that at this time, the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline be determined not to serve the national interest,” according to an e-mailed statement. “The president concurred.”
The denial of the permit application doesn’t preclude any subsequent permit applications for similar projects, according to the State Department’s statement.
Environmentalists said the pipeline will add to greenhouse- gas emissions tied to climate change and endanger drinking water supplies in Nebraska. They have staged demonstrations outside the White House and vowed to withhold financial support to Obama’s presidential campaign if he approves the pipeline.
The entire purpose of the pipeline is to move Canadian oil to the crude refineries in the Gulf so that it can be shipped overseas,” Jeremy Symons, a National Wildlife Federation vice president, said today in a phone interview. “If the pipeline is built, Canada gets the jobs, China gets the oil and American families get the oil spills.”
Protests in Nebraska and at the White House focused on the risks of a spill tainting the Ogallala aquifer in the state’s Sand Hills region. TransCanada has discussed alternate routes with state officials that would pose less risk to drinking-water supplies.
“We’re glad Keystone hasn’t been approved, but we’d like to see the pipeline rejected outright,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species program director for the Center for Biological Diversity, in a phone interview. He said producing petroleum from oil sands releases more greenhouse gases and requires more water than conventional oil production.
Canada has patiently waited for Americans to help themselves improve our energy policy by installing a pipeline from Canada’s oil sands to our refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, but this week Prime Minister Stephen Harper signaled that their patience has limits. Speaking to CTV, Harper reminded the US that they have a very thirsty China as a potential customer, too:
Canada could sell its oil to China and other overseas markets with or without approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline in the United States, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
In a year-end television interview, Harper indicated he had doubts the $7-billion pipeline would receive political approval from U.S. President Barack Obama, and that Canada should be looking outside the United States for markets.
“I am very serious about selling our oil off this continent, selling our energy products off to Asia. I think we have to do that,” Harper said in the Monday interview with CTV National News.
Harper’s comments were released a day after the White House sent signals it might kill TransCanada’s oil sands pipeline if it is forced to make a decision on the project in 60 days, saying there wasn’t sufficient time to complete a new environmental review.
Clearly, Harper isn’t enamored with Barack Obama’s stalling on the Keystone XL pipeline. Kelly McParland got the same impression, and writes at the National Post that Harper kept it friendly but made no mistake about playing political and economic hardball if Obama continues to stall:
Stephen Harper sent a none-too-subtle shot across the bow of our American friends and allies Monday when he indicated he’s dead keen on selling Canadian oil to buyers in Asia. He didn’t put it in so many words, but he was telling Washington this: “You don’t want our oil, no problem. We’ve got lots of markets across the Pacific where we don’t have to beg to get a sale.”
It was a timely message and a good one for the Prime Minister to send. There is no need to be rude to the U.S., which is and always will be Canada’s best market. But there’s also no need to sit around and wait for the political circus in Washington to pause long enough to recognize the attractiveness of the opportunity Canada is offering. Given the state of absurdity that has the U.S. capital in its grip, there’s no telling how long that could take.
Of course, the compromise in the Senate over the payroll tax “holiday” would have solved the Keystone XL issue, or at least forced Obama to bite the bullet and make a decision on it. Unfortunately, the House GOP has thrown that solution into doubt with its rebuke of their GOP colleagues in the Senate this week. McParland aces the description of the standoff:
The ins and outs are too complex to get into, but it comes down to this: President Barack Obama wants to extend a tax break he introduced to offset the effects of the recession. Despite supporting tax cuts, Republicans don’t want him to get credit for this one. So they’re opposing the extension, even though they support it. In search of a compromise, the Senate voted on the weekend to extend the break for just two months, meaning everyone could go home for Christmas and renew the battle later. But Republicans in the House couldn’t bring themselves to accept the deal approved by Republicans in the Senate, insisting the extension should be for a full year, not just two months. But rather than vote down the deal — which would let Obama blame Republicans for refusing a tax cut, they simply refused to vote at all. The just cancelled a vote scheduled for Monday, and did nothing at all. Nice work, guys. Another vote was held Tuesday, which led to a House demand for negotiations, but the Senate has already left town.
Meanwhile, China is growing thirstier, and Canada grows impatient to sell its bountiful oil to someone who really wants it. Maybe everyone should concentrate on the real economic benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline instead of the illusory differences between a 2- and 12-month extension of a tax holiday that produced no economic stimulus at all over the past year.
The Obama campaign has outdone itself again. First the creepy tapping e-mails. Now this — Attack Watch, a site designed to “Get the facts. Fight the smears . . . and help stop the attacks on the President before they start.”
This, like most features of the Obama reelection campaign, is a less appealing version of Something That Worked in 2008. In 2008, it was called Fight the Smears. The interface was friendly and hope-colored.
This time, it’s dark and angry and Web 1.0. It looks like the guy who designs 9/11 conspiracy Web sites finally got his big break.
Nothing says, “Wow, we’re feeling really good going into the election season” like “HERE IS AN ANGRY PREEMPTIVE WEBSITE WITH ATTACK IN ITS NAME.”
Who designed your page interface? George Orwell?
But seriously, 1998 sent an AOL Instant Message; it wants its page design back.
“Join Attack Wire – and help stop the attacks on the President before they start.”
Before they start?
I’m fine with stopping them after they start.
Terror threats and fires and M. Night Shyamalan films, for instance, should be stopped before they start.
But this is like telling your audience not to think about elephants. “Especially do not think of voting for elephants,” Attack Watch adds.
Who thought this was a good idea?
I would just like to see the committee meeting where this happened.
“Hey,” someone said. “Remember how awkward it was when people claimed the President wasn’t born in the United States, and we had to go door to door with copies of his birth certificate patiently explaining things?”
“Yeah!” Everyone nods. “Donald Trump was especially obdurate.”
“People will probably make more scurrilous attacks! And sometimes those attacks sway people! But if people know that attacks are going to be made, we can cut them off at the pass!”
This is patently silly. The group of people most likely to sign up for Attack Wire is by far the group of people least likely to be swayed by scurrilous attacks on Barack Obama. Nothing says, “I am unlikely to believe negative things said about the president” like “I just signed up for a list where he can explain to me why any attack made on him is wrong.”
The 100,000 people who have already signed up are essentially saying that they are definitely planning on voting for Barack Obama, no matter what anyone says.
Attack Wire doesn’t even need to send them any e-mails. In fact, it might be better if they didn’t.
Consider: How will this work?
Stop attacks before they start? This is like that old trick where you ask political candidates, “And how many times did you murder your wife?” We all know how this turns out. We’ve seen “Inception.”
And this time the e-mail will come from the Obama campaign.
Are Attack Watchmen really going to get a message every few weeks that says something like, “You may have heard that Barack Obama has a half-bat lovechild in a cave many miles to the south. Rest assured that this is false”? “If anyone has told you that Barack Obama is actually a homicidal robot from the future, do not believe him!” “Barack Obama is definitely not behind the nabbing of those Scarlett Johansson pictures, no matter what you’ve heard.”
Nothing spreads a rumor faster than vehemently denying it.
But I’m sure they thought it through more thoroughly than that.
Or did they?
If they put as much effort into the concept as into the site design, then we can only hope.
Your taxpayer dollars protecting Barry.