Ok… another global warming post. Ok… it turns out that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have endorced an 80 by 50 (80% recution in CO2 emissions by 2050) CO2 plan. Let’s look at what this would actually mean for Americans… (via WSJ.com)

By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.

It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low – even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood.

If that comparison seems unfair, consider that even the least-CO2 emitting industrialized nations do not come close to the 2050 target. France and Switzerland, compact nations that generate almost all of their electricity from nonfossil fuel sources (nuclear for France, hydro for Switzerland) emit about 6.5 metric tons of CO2 per capita

Today, the average residence in the U.S. uses about 10,500 kilowatt hours of electricity and emits 11.4 tons of CO2 per year (much more if you are Al Gore or John Edwards and live in a mansion). To stay within the magic number, average household emissions will have to fall to no more than 1.5 tons per year. In our current electricity infrastructure, this would mean using no more than about 2,500 KwH per year. This is not enough juice to run the average hot water heater.

If this goes to prove ANYTHING… it is that Democrats are so out-of-touch with facts and reality that neither facts nor reality matter to them in the slightest. They are completely willing to believe that we can have lower carbon footprints in 2050 than we did in 1700… even though there was next to NO industry in the 1700’s. The Democrats who want or believe this is possible suffer from a severe mental impairment. They are delusional. To even suggest this as a matter of public policy is laughable…

Are these the minds we want RUNNING the country? (oh! let’s allow these minds to manage the economy too…)

this is the kind of exhibition I would love…

this is a great example of why I love reading James Taranto’s “Best of the Web Today”

Euphemizing the Enemy
A New York Times story on Gen. David Petraeus’s proposed promotion to head of Central Command contains this linguistic howler:

[Defense Secretary Robert] Gates said he and President Bush settled on General Petraeus for the post because his counterinsurgency experience in Iraq made him best suited to oversee American operations across a region where the United States is engaged in “asymmetric” warfare, a euphemism for battling militants and nonuniformed combatants.
The Times editors apparently can’t tell the difference between jargon (technical language) and euphemism (using an inoffensive term to refer to something disagreeable). Here’s an example:

• Plain English: He died.
• Jargon: His metabolic functions ceased.
• Euphemism: He went to a better place.

“Asymmetric warfare” is jargon. How funny that the Times misidentifies it as euphemism in the very same sentence in which it employs its own euphemism for the enemy–i.e., “militants and nonuniformed combatants” instead of terrorists.

boy, I can’t wait for the Democrats to start micromanaging the rest of our economy!

If you are an environmentalist… don’t read this interesting tidbit from Slate.com

“To track the flame’s slow assault on the atmosphere, we created a map that charts its total carbon emissions as it flies. Through Tuesday’s stop in Jakarta, the relay has traveled an estimated 37,518 miles, burned 202,597 gallons of jet fuel, and released 4,838,021 pounds of CO2. To put this in perspective, the average American leaves an annual carbon footprint of 42,000 to 44,000 pounds of CO2 emissions, according to the United Nations. That means the Olympic torch will spew as much greenhouse gas during its international travels as 153 Americans do a year. Put another way, the four-month torch relay puts twice as much carbon in the atmosphere as you will over the course of your entire life.

Sheesh Bill, You didn’t have to remind everybody…

I’m UNBELIEVABLY busy at the moment… writing a paper… stay tuned to find out what this tease is all about.

Democrats Then:

• efforts to stabilize the country had been a “complete failure” - Senator Barak Obama
• the surge “is a failure,” - Senator Nancy Pelosi
• the troop buildup “is a failure” – Senator Biden
• the surge was an “absolute failure” – Ron Paul (ya, I know he isn’t a democrat but he was still wrong)

Democrats NOW:

• More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq. I think that’s a fact. – Dick Durbin
• The military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq … appear to have produced some credible and positive results. – Carl Levin
• We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it’s working. – Hillay Clinton

I don’t need to add any commentary to this… I am vindicated.

Oh, and this in the New York TImes:

Most things in Washington don’t really surprise me these days.  We’ve been arguing about the same handful of issues now for decades now… and the lines are pretty clearly drawn.  However, sometimes the standards of decency are so ignored… lowered to a point of being immeasurable that it causes one’s jaw to drop. Such was the case yesterday with the statements and actions of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California). She has decended so low, she has fallen off the gutter and into the sewer.  I cannot think of a more damaging blow to the office of the Speaker then the one Ms. Pelosi has inflicted with her unvarnished scorn directed at Gen. David Petraeus.

This from the Politico:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday “not to put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week. 

“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces. 

The Democrats hammered two themes: The war in Iraq has stretched the military dangerously thin, and the enormous cost of the war is threatening the health of the U.S. economy. 

Underscoring the Democrats’ economic points, Pelosi asked why U.S. military in Iraq and Americans back home are paying more for gasoline than the Iraqis are. 

“Our troops in Iraq are paying about $3.25 a gallon for gas in Iraq, comparable to what we pay here, while the Iraqis are paying $1.36 a gallon,” Pelosi said. “This is a raw deal for the American taxpayer.” 

Let me get you straight here, Mrs. Pelosi… Gen. Petraeus better not “put a shine” on Iraq… OR ELSE WHAT??? or else your gonna lecture him from behind the safety of your title and elevated podium?  Spare me.  How dare you threaten the commander of our armed forces to limit himself to the message YOU obviously don’t want the American people to hear.  And why, may I ask, might this be?  What, may I ask would be SO TERRIBLE about the members of congress and the American People hearing good news from Iraq… the success of the joint coalition force in Basra?  Is it not clear to anyone listening to you that the crux of your credibility (what little you have) rests on the failure of the American mission in Iraq?

The fact that you demand a report that matches your preconceived notions of the facts shows that you have no interest in his opinion anyway and are content to believe the academic assumptions of your favorite editorialists writing from behind some Manhattan cubicle instead of the the eye-witness accounts of the person responsible for dramatic changes on the ground.  You’d probably be better off not even showing up given that it’s just going to be a waste of your time.

Oh, And one more thing. The best concern you can muster in fear of the upcoming the Patreus report is the fact that Iraqis are paying $1.36 a gallon for gas compared to the U.S. price of $3.25?  Great… insincere concern from a Representative who has done NOTHING in her 3 years as Speaker to lower gas prices one penny.  They DRILL for it, Mrs. Pelosi…  It’s that simple.  You hypocrite! You put every hurdle possible in front of oil exploration and drilling and then have the audacity to whine about how those who ARE drilling for it are getting better prices.  Just go back to California already.  You have singlehandedly energized more Republicans to vote in this election then McCain ever could.  

Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician and member of the Dutch Freedom party has just released a documentary CRITICAL of radical Islamists called FITNA.  As expected, muslims around the world have condemned Wilders for releasing the film–threatening Wilders personally as well as the lives of any internet site complicit in its broadcast.  LiveLeak.com, a site famous for airing controversial footage was forced to remove the clip from their servers citing “very serious threats“.

If this were not distressing enough, WESTERN leaders also joined with the exreemists in condemning the film.  The EU’s Slovenian presidency said the film only “inflaming hatred”.  The U.N. Secretary-General, Mr. Ban, “condemned” the film “in the strongest terms”.  He also said that, ”The right of free expression is not at stake here… Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility.”  Even the Dutch Prime Minister Mr. Balkenende said the film ”serves no purpose other than to offend”.

Mr. Wilders has just proven himself to be one of the gutsiest men alive.  The threats directed at him and at the free press outlets of the world only reinforce and validate his criticisms.  Mr. Ban just doesn’t get it:  Because those exercising free speech are being threatened with violence, free speech is VERY MUCH at stake here.  The basic message of the film film-that radical islamic terrorists are a very real threat-is what terrorists are affirming at every turn and what European leaders are in denial about.  As Eric Cartman so poignantly pointed out, using fear to get people to do what you want isn’t like terrorism, “it IS terrorism”.  I applaud Mr. Wilders for standing up for these principles… not many people do anymore.