Did you watch it?

I'm talking about Al Gore's Live Earth global warming concerts. I didn't even though I am a huge music lover, and I'll tell you why.


I think Al Gore is an attention seeking crank who has cottoned on to global warming as a cash cow. He's like a televangelist preaching outrageous sermons to a sycophantic, unintelligent (that is what our schools produce nowadays) boot licking crowd. All televangelistic prosperity teachers work a pyramid-like scheme that has one kingpin at the top and the rest of the peons and poor suckers giving to the cause of the kingpin. Gore has used the music industry to work the young, uneducated and inexperienced masses to an environmental froth all for his own profit. And forget the fact that the musicians and bands want to give lip service to global warming while living their lavish lifestyles. Forget the fact that global warming green means money money money.

There are far better ways to reduce the dreaded carbon footprint than by attending a 'global concert' designed to line the purses of the demigods and soak the poor kids who love music and who are trying to do something right with their young lives.

You can do what we do: Grow a garden, use a wood stove in the winter for heat, don't buy designer clothes. Use your bikes when you can. Don't eat out much, and eat less processed food. Turn off the TV, video games and i pod like devices and spend time with your family, neighbors, and friends instead of the artificial and mind numbing stimulus addiction to such devices afford.

Our future plans include installing a greywater system to recycle water (important here in the Southwest, moving to a smaller house (the kids are growing up), purchasing more land to grow more food and to live simpler.

So, you can follow our example.....or Al Gore's, whose house uses more power in a month than a normal family uses in a year! We can't afford to buy off our carbon guilt like Gore can with the money from his Global Warming products!

I'm seriously glad he never won the presidency.

Radiant

Fanaticism Trumps Numbers and Wins

I sometimes wonder what the majority of Americans are willing to die for. Particularly when I see so many young people (and I have teenagers as well as very extensive access to the university) sliding through high school and the first few years of college without accepting the challenge of excellence or the rewards of hard work and personal self discipline. Many of these young people act as if they are the center of their own universe, and when things go wrong they blame those around them for their own failings.

Their behavior is only a symptom of what Ralph Peters calls the dream of a happy-face, godless world where nobody quarrels.

Let me put this article, which really is an article about the conflict in "Palestine," in context now.

Peters states in his article that the reason Hamas won was that they are religious fanatics willing to die for what they believe. Here's a quote:

Hamas won because its fighters are religious fanatics ready to die for their cause. Fatah runs an armed employment agency under the banner of Palestinian nationalism. Most of the latter's security men are on the payroll because relatives or ward pols got them jobs. And they want to stay alive to collect their wages.

The result was predictable. Our government pretended otherwise. Now hairs should be standing up on the backs of thousands of necks, from the White House to the Green Zone.

I look at this wide eyed passion to die for allah (lower case on purpose) and compare it to the apathy of Americans, and it does make me worry!

Our children and our current generation has been taught to "Believe in Yourself" since infancy and through television and our school system, rather than to believe in a higher purpose and a more noble calling. One's self esteem and comfort is more important than the unity and defense of the nation that gives us the freedom to live the lifestyles we enjoy. The values of our founding fathers - well - they are old fashioned and we are "more enlightened now". Bah!

As a Choral Director, I see this all the time in new choral music produced for the consumption of music programs from the elementary level through high school students. The texts are so watered down and "feel good" and do not raise the spirit of the young student to higher sights other than their own emotions and very limited experience. (Consider the fourth grade students in Maine who boldly declare that global warming is the worst problem in the whole world - even as we stand on the brink of WWIII) They speak of "putting our differences behind us" as if living in denial is going to make things better. Children sing about "looking inside" as if that will bring "light to the darkness" and solve all our world problems will bring. What are the children of the fanatics singing and chanting? "Kill America! Kill Jews! Kill Infidels!" None of this mamby-pamby "why can't we all get along" crap!

I could get off on a rant about the extreme political correctness of our government schools, but that will have to wait for another blog entry. I will say I am grateful that choral directors may still use sacred music as an educational tool as it is part of the culture of our Western Civilization.

What if a fanatical Hamas like group were to attack here - perhaps on one of our college campuses. I'm afraid we would see our young men and women cowering and screaming like children. Forgive me for this allusion, but they would be as cowardly as many students at Virginia Tech when "Hammer Boy" Cho went postal on them. (I know I'll get some flak for that statement)

We are not encouraged to be strong and brave and to face our adversaries head on, no matter what the cost. Why? Our faith is weak. Many have no faith except in themselves. I'm not trying to be an evangelical preacher, just a humble blogger. So many of us here in America, while we give lip service to words like Liberty, Freedom, Honor, Courage, Country, God, and Family, don't have enough gumption to be willing to lay it all on the line to defend what we do have.

Here's more from Ralph Peters:

Our problem is that, of those who rise in government, few have witnessed the power of revelation or caught a life-changing glimpse of the divine. They simply can't imagine that others might be willing to die for all that mumbo-jumbo. Our convenience-store approach to faith leaves us numb to the passion of our enemies.

The true believer always beats the feckless attendee. The best you can hope for is that the extremist will eventually defeat himself.

And that does leave us some hope: Fanatics inevitably over-reach, as al Qaeda's Islamo-fascists have done in Iraq, alienating those who once saw them as allies. But the road to self-destruction can be a long one: The people of Iran want change, but the fanatics have the guns. And sorry, folks: Fanatics with guns beat liberals with ideas.

Faith is the nuclear weapon of the fanatic. And there's not going to be a religious "nuclear freeze." It doesn't matter how many hearts and minds you win, if you don't defeat the zealots with the muscles.

The quoted article comes from Ralph Peters' new book, "Wars of Blood and Faith," which comes out on July 25. Yes I'm advertising for him, but he speaks truth to life. Read it and take it in. Our whole nation needs to.

Radiant

UPDATE:

Found a great quote:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
John F. Kennedy 1.20.61

Open Letter to Ford Executives

Dear Ford Executives that have been sucking on the backs of the American Consumer for decades:

The problem is not with lack of consumer confidence If that were true, then ALL auto sales would go down proportionately. The problem with your sales figures is that you build crummy cars. We don't want big fuel-guzzling, unsafe, unreliable mechanically , aesthetically pleasing only to an army veteran who loves tanks, and with the ergonomics in comfort seating of a plastic seat in RFK stadium. Did we mention your over inflated prices for any vehicle throughout your fleet . Your commercials are insulting to the intelligence of the American people.

Not only this, exalted Ford executives, your anti-family values have disgusted many potential customers - like us - and your flagrant promotion of the pro-gay, anti-family agenda is not a good business decision. And you dare to blame consumer confidence for your multitudinous woes? Maybe consumers have lost confidence in you!

How is it that the Japanese, who have to spend 60% of their income on basic needs like food and clothing build wonderful, fuel efficient, safe and comfortable vehicles that are, as a matter of fact, much more aesthetically pleasing than the over priced, over sized, uber-hyped rolling products that come off your assembly line. Why can Japanese auto companies produce their vehicles for a much fairer price than your vehicles? How can they make deals with their laborers, and how can they build factories here in your back yard and keep their laborers happy? Maybe you guys are just greedy.

Why can't American Auto Makers respond to the hybrid situation. Why do you keep putting your hybrid motors in your giant carbon footprint monstrosities? Why don't you listen to the American auto buyer, and make a car more like a Corolla or Camry? Because you can't and you won't. Your arrogance won't allow you to do it. Why didn't you plan for energy problems? Why do you keep churning out vehicles that contribute to "global warming?" Your Fusion, despite some improvement in reliability, is still one of the ugliest cars we've seen.

Here are some interesting stats for you to chew on:

Top 5 Most Fuel Efficient American Cars:

1. Ford Escape Hybrid - 36 mpg city / 31 mpg highway
2. Chevy Aveo - 26 mpg city / 35 mpg highway
3. Ford Focus - 26 mpg city / 34 mpg highway
4. Chevy Cobalt - 25 mpg city / 34 mpg highway
5. Ford Fusion - 24 mpg city / 32 mpg highway

Top 5 Most Fuel Efficient Japanese Cars:

1. Honda Insight - 60 mpg city / 66 mpg highway
2. Toyota Prius - 60 mpg city / 51 mpg highway
3. Honda Civic Hybrid - 49 mpg city / 51 highway
4. Toyota Corolla - 32 mpg city / 41 mpg highway
5. Toyota Matrix - 30 mpg city / 36 mpg highway

Here is a little blurb from Car Talk:

Again...Toyota and Honda are making the MOST reliable vehicles....But some vehicles like the Ford Fusion seems to be as reliable as the best cars made. All I can say..."IT'S ABOUT TIME".

Many of us older car-buffs who LOVED American made vehicles and have been greatly disapointed in the past 30 years are very happy to hear this news.

The problem is that a good number of Ford, GM and Chryco vehicles are still VERY UNRELIABLE.

We have lost confidence in Ford. So have a lot of people, apparently. What will YOU do about it?

Here's what you can do to correct your problems:

Take emergency action to save your jobs and the Company now.

1. Cut your prices to competitive levels. That means Toyota pricing *gasp* or something even better - beat their prices.

2. Roll a Camry into your design engineer's workshop and tell them simply this "If you don't beat this design in one year you are fired"

3. Reduce the size of your vehicles. Make them lighter. Make them easier to handle. We don't want the Tank.

4. Consider hybrid technology as a stopgap solution and work toward the completion of plug in electric technology. Then quickly accelerate plug in technology to the Fusion, which is your best hope to save Ford Motors. Do not put your hybrid technology in heavy SUVs and Trucks. It's counterproductive unless you intend to make this technology as an option fleet-wide.

5. Consider a little humility in your customer sales department. Perhaps publicly admitting that you have made design mistakes in the past. Do take polls. Stop listening to your own propaganda. Stop repeating the mistakes of the Edsel, which you are making in the Excursion, and build cars that people need. People need fuel efficient, highly reliable, maintenance free vehicles. They would also like them to be safe and they would like them to be comfortable and fun to drive.

6. Please, Please, PLEASE stop building ugly cars!!!! The crossover phenomenon has created a bastardization between a truck and a car, and it is hideous.

7. Please stop trying to make retro cars that look like a '67 Volvo. You are just not very good at it.

8. Work with labor in good faith to empower the worker. Perhaps stock sharing, or a company worker/ownership plan so that the worker feels an investment in the company. If you do these things that the Japanese have already been doing, you just might survive.

9. Consider firing anybody that says "We just can't do it". You don't have the time or money to tolerate naysayers at any level of management, and your jobs and the integrity of the American Auto industry is on the line.

10. In your dealerships, make sure that you really serve your customers, and that you meet or exceed their expectations. Eventually Customer loyalty will return.

11. Drop the pandering to the special interest groups. You are an American Company, not a political action committee.

This Scam Was Forseen

As the wealthy and various companies seek to buy their way to carbon neutrality, thus proving their concern for the welfare of the planet and improving their status among the worshipers of the Goracle, the Financial Times has conducted an investigation of organizations that peddle 'ecological indulgences," as Charles Krauthammer calls them. These organizations have been found wanting, succeeding only in cashing in on the consciences of the rich in a lucrative green "gold mine." This whole scam was forseen by Krauthammer, who described some of the practices of carbon offsetting companies.

Here are some of the Financial Times findings:

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

The FT article mentions how some companies are working on their own in-house carbon offsetting, rather than trusting a separate entity to wash away their globally wasteful and polluting sins. This would make more sense, as concern for the environment should be personal and not shoved off to some profiteering third party.

Money Saturated Stupidity

It's too much! I have to quote Sheryl Crow directly:

I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming.

Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, whose judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, "how bout just washing the one square out."

I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a "dining sleeve." The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another "dining sleeve," after usage. The design will offer the "diner" the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.

This next idea I have been saving but I will share it with you if you promise not to steal it. It is my latest, very exciting idea for creating incentive for us all to minimize our own personal carbon footprints. It's a reality show. (I feel pretty certain NO ONE has thought of this yet!). Here is the premise: the contest consists of 10 people who are competing for the top spot as the person who lives the "greenest" life. This will be reflected in the contestant's home, his business, and his own personal living style. The winner of this challenging, prestigious, contest would receive what??.... a recording contract!!!!!

This is ridiculous. Here I am an average person trying to be a good steward for the environment, and there she blows about a removable sleeve (Never heard of a cloth napkin, lady) and a "reality show"! This woman has more money than sense and little compassion in my book.

Hat tip to JammieWearingFool for pointing me in this direction!

Something to Crow about!

Well, Sheryl Crow is having another media moment by suggesting the restriction of toilet paper usage as a way to save the planet. If every Hollywood star were to start restricting their toilet paper usage, do you think it will make a significant difference in the lives of polar bears and penguins? Probably not.

Why don't those celebrities who, in their self importance, want to do something for the planet choose to take the Personal Energy Ethics Pledge:


This is the same pledge former Vice President Al Gore refused to sign when Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla) presented it to him during his sermon at the Washington Global Warming Hearing.

I doubt if those Hollywood celebrities would dare lower themselves from their luxurious lifestyles to make a significant change for the sake of the planet. Instead, they can assuage their guilt for their wasteful lifestyles by purchasing more carbon credits in the hope of saving their environmental soul.

Personal Energy Ethics Pledge

Here is the document that Al Gore refuses to sign. This pledge was presented to Al Gore by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) during yesterday's global warming hearing.


Like I mentioned in my previous post, Ecological Indulgences, those like Gore seek to offset their energy usage by buying into the carbon credit scam to ease their consciences. If this country is going to make real change toward the use of alternative fuel sources, wind bags like Gore have to "lead the way. " Until they do, they have no credibility in my books. As for me, I will personally do my part to use energy wisely.

Ecological Indulgences

"Ecological Indulgences" That's what Charles Krauthammer called the practice of the rich buying "carbon credits" in offset their wasteful lifestyles. God forbid the wealthy actually ride a bus to get anywhere, or turn off their heated pools, or sweat at any time except when they work out on their expensively produced and energy consuming exercise equipment! Perish the though of Gore cutting back the energy consumption of his own home (one month's energy bill for him is about 20 times one of our energy bills for a YEAR).

The Carbon Credit business is a total scam that is thriving on the guilt of the wealthy. They can somehow "buy" their way out of global warming. HA! All the while the real work of ecological change is being done by those who live the simplest - the poor. It's hard to waste energy when you can't afford to keep your lights on for long. It's mighty hard to blow horrible carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when you can't even afford a car and have to walk, bike, or ride a bus everywhere.

Krauthammer's article also demonstrates the negative effect "carbon credits" have on developing countries, citing the forcible taking of farmland so "carbon credit" trees can be planted. From the article:

GreenSeat, a Dutch carbon-trading outfit, buys offsets from a foundation that plants trees in Uganda's Mount Elgon National Park to soak up the carbon emissions of its rich Western patrons. Small problem: expanding the park encroaches on land traditionally used by local farmers. As a result, reports the New York Times, "villagers living along the boundary of the park have been beaten and shot at, and their livestock has been confiscated by armed park rangers." All this so that swimming pools can be heated and Maseratis driven with a clear conscience in the fattest parts of the world.

The liberal infatuation with environmentalism is proving to be a hypocrisy. And why should concern about the environment be an exclusively liberal issue. I'm an unabashed conservative - in our household we use a wood stove for heat so we don't burn too many dinosaurs, we ride our bikes, live simply and are not consumed by greed and "keeping up with the Jone's". My kids don't vegetate in front of video games, nor are they inoculated from life by i-pods and other such devices. We use an energy efficient evaporative cooling system, and recycle cans. All this while the liberal wealthy purchase and travel to excess and buy 'carbon credits' to "offset" their indulgent lifestyles.

If they want to spend their money on excesses, let them go ahead. But puh-leeze don't put on the self righteous pall of concern about the environment while you do. BE HONEST!

Cowering for Research Money?

Does this Cox and Forkum cartoon demonstrate one reason why more scientists are not coming forward against the cult of global warming???

The view of adherents of Global Warming is narrow and non scientific. They call those who question their views "deniers" while they are unwilling to follow their own scientific training to verify all scientific evidence that exists. Why don't they look into the influence of the sun's solar maximum cycle on global warming? Is it because they have chosen an agenda to follow? Are they trying to give scientific justification to their political views? I don't believe science should be either right or left wing politically, but should be a continuing search for quantitatively and independently verifiable truth. It should be completely seamless from political view to another; you should not be able to discern a scientist's politics from their research. Science wants to know what is true, not what is politically expedient. Scientists should never have their research grants withheld or ever have their reputations be threatened just because they are researching an arena that is not the current political "fad."

Global Warming Extremists are more religious and political figures than they are scientists. What they believe has only partial proof and is more of a fantasy, like the "Global Cooling" hype of the 70s. What if they put their efforts into developing cleaner, low cost forms of energy? Wouldn't this be much more productive (and even profitable)? Then their work would have a more significant impact on the global ecology.

UPDATE:

Here is an article from Real Clear Politics by Thomas Sowell discussing the Channel 4 documentary "The Global Warming Swindle".

Mandated Environmentalism vs. Good Stewardship

Watching the rise of Al Gore to the status of Prophet of Environmentalism, and observing his personal hypocrisy in his own energy usage has given me a jaded and skeptical view of his message.

Don't get me wrong - Americans are very wasteful! We use energy like we own the planet with no thought of the negative consequences of such over use. We consume and discard goods and resources at a record rate. The methane from our trash piles alone has the potential of making a significant dent in our oil consumption. The grease we use to fry our fast food can easily be converted to biodiesel - only emitting water and the pleasant smell of French fries. The food we waste and throw away could have fed several third world countries. There is much we can change, and we should.

Environmentalism, in itself, as well as the looming threat of Global Warming, has become the religion of the left. The Czech President Vaclav Klaus made this statement this week: Environmentalism is a religion that is based more on political ambitions than science

"Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences," much like the idea of communism or other "-isms" such as feminism, Klaus said, adding that "environmentalism is a religion" that seeks to reorganize the world order as well as social behavior and value systems worldwide.

As for government spending on global warming studies, the former finance minister and of the Eastern European nation and trained economist said that such efforts were a "waste of money," adding that there was already sufficient scientific evidence for those seeking policy change to back up their proposals.

Meanwhile, he pointed out that those seeking to protect the environment could do a great deal under the existing political framework and with existing technologies, such as importing less goods from far-flung regions that require enormous jet fuel use."

Richard Linzen is not so friendly in describing Gore's claims:

"given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade."

I would rather make the personal choice to cut back on my energy consumption rather than have environmentalism become a Gore-driven government policy by a man who craves the political limelight.

....I wonder where Tipper is nowadays?


UPDATE: Here's a Video you may want to watch relating to this subject:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Another Sad Sack global warming story.

Look at both sides and make up your own mind, I always say!

Finally - For your Amusement:

I'm not a huge Limbaugh fan, but he has an AlGore Doomesday Countdown clock on his homepage in the upper right hand corner that is worth a grin.

Call it "Limiting the Carbon Footprint"

With all the fuss about global warming nowadays, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is complaining that she cannot have a huge jet to traipse across the country with her immediate family and political supporters. Does she realize what a huge government jet would cost the taxpayers? Maybe not, and maybe she does not care - who knows?

According to the Washington Times, the Pentagon has limited the jet she can use to a commuter jet that needs to be refueled once to make it from San Francisco to Washington DC. She is not allowed to have a fawning bevy of supporters with her, and family members would have to pay the US treasury to fly on that aircraft. They would be better off going to cheaptickets.com to get their flights arranged, honestly.

While she may accuse the administration of slighting her (she is the third in line to the presidency after all), I would think she would accept this jet as leadership in environmental stewardship and encourage the personal reduction of dependence on oil. This airborne humbling can be an example for all of us to "limit the size of our carbon footprint" in the world.