Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow

Well, I've put this up on Facebook and Twitter, might as well do it here, too.

Hair:

No hair:

From the longest my hair has ever been (that I can recall) to the shortest (i was born with more hair than this).... oh well. No more Einstein or nutty Professor jokes.

Here's what i cut off, hope it's not too gross...quarter for scale:

Reason #eleventythousand i will never be a liberal democrat

This brief editorial from the Wall Street Journal is touching and pointed.

"This is the story of how my husband's circumcision saved my life.


It's a personal story, but let it also serve as a public health rebuttal to the proposed ban on male circumcision that will be on the San Francisco ballot this November. 

San Francisco's ballot initiative would prohibit circumcision on all males under the age of 18. It would allow no religious exemptions, and it apparently gives no regard to the numerous studies demonstrating that male circumcision can substantially reduce—by more than 50%—the transmission of the HIV virus during sex."


Sooooooooooooooo, San Francisco, it's okay to terminate a pregnancy for any reason, but no family can choose circumcision for their boys, even though the health benefits to the sexual partners are documented?

Two interesting articles while we're talking about environmental stuff

Polar bears are stable, population wise. Duh.


The ever-interesting John Stossel has this to say about a "fracking" documentary, oh wait, I mean "documentary." Didn't know about it at all, the practice or the movie, and it leaves me with one question:

Who in their right (or left) mind would believe these so-called documentary makers? Supersize Me was a crock, and Food Inc. was better, but still had typical deceit, Michael Moore always lies to make his point, and this? At least Waiting For Superman admitted the point of view (which is one that I happen to agree with) and admitted that by far, most charter schools do no better, or do worse, than the public schools.

If you have to lie or exaggerate or manipulate to make your "point," I think maybe your point isn't very valid. Either way, you are still a liar, exaggerator, or manipulator, aren't you?

Another Hysterical Man-Caused Global Warming Statement is Wrong

"In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source."

 

This is just one stellar sentence from the article by a former believer, now Man Caused Global Warming skeptic scientist from Australia. You can read and follow links, so i won't post it all, but here's another chunk.

"This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters."

Nature is Mocking Me

So, we have two lovely Cooper's Hawks nesting next door, a repeat from last Spring when they were in our huge front oak...here's one:

and Sunday, after I spent time cleaning out our little fish pond of the muck the chipmunks dumped in there during their winter digging so that our one, lonely, large feeder goldfish that has survived 3 winters now wasn't swimming in brown goo....


...the hawks must have decided snakes, chipmunks and whatever birds they were eating were boring so uncharacteristically (according to my research) they took the fish.

Then, this morning, my wife looked at the lovely window box of pansies her mother had just commented on last night to see that the deer had eaten the blossoms during the night.

I consider myself a friend of nature, but it mocks me....


***Update**
so, the next day, one of the hawks took our neighbor girl's pink headband off of her head at the base of the tree in which they are nesting...they called the zoo, who tagged one and said the chicks should be around for about 6 more weeks, then things should be safer!

(If you read me much, you should know I am joking: nature is. It doesn't hate, mock, ridicule, punish, or love. It is. One earthquake and Japan moved. Towns that used to be above the tides now get wet. Try to do that, globalwarming believers, you'll never accomplish it. Never. Nature did it.)

Tuesday. It's Like Monday, Part 2, the Sequel

Well, since no one reads this blog of mine, today I will whine!

1. Ladies, a tanktop and undies is not pajamas, it's an invitation, especially if you wear it around the living room before bed. I call the actual pajamas "your armor" for a reason.

Not in the mood and don't want me to attempt to get you in the mood? Wear the armor, I get that signal, ok?

2. My job is slowly sucking out my brain. I need to work to either make the job not do that, or make the necessary changes.

Another Hysterical Man Caused Global Warming Statement timed out

Here's the link to this wonderful post that I like so much, I'm pasting all the content here, so you can read it here. You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Please go to the original site via the link, though, they deserve the traffic.

Flashback 2005: UN Predicts 50 Million Global Warming Refugees By 2010

By Noel Sheppard | April 12, 2011 | 10:31

To give you an idea of the kind of hysterical predictions the global warming crowd have made in recent years, the United Nations in 2005 actually forecast that by the end of the previous decade, there would be 50 million environmental refugees around the world as a result of climate change.
Britain's Guardian reported October 12, 2005:

Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.

"There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations." [...]

Hans van Ginkel, UN under-secretary-general and rector of the university, said: "This is a highly complex issue, with global organisations already overwhelmed by the demands of conventionally recognised refugees. However, we should prepare now to define, accept and accommodate this new breed of refugee."

As Gavin Atkins of the Asian Correspondent noted Monday, the U.N. back in 2005 provided a handy map to identify "places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean."
Atkins chose to look at census figures for some of these "at risk" locales to see whether the U.N.'s predictions - pun intended - hold water. What he discovered was that far from seeing a population exodus, many of these areas are growing in their number of homo sapiens.
These included the Bahamas, St. Lucia, Seychelles, and the Solomon Islands. Atkins continued:

Meanwhile, far from being places where people are fleeing, no fewer than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China, Shenzzen, Dongguan, Foshan, Zhuhai, Puning and Jinjiang, are absolutely smack bang within the shaded areas identified as being likely sources of climate refugees.

Similarly, many of the fastest growing cities in the United States also appear within or close to the areas identified by the UNEP as at risk of having climate refugees.

More censuses are due to come in this year, and we await the results for Bangladesh and the Maldives - said to be places most at risk - with interest.

However, a very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world.

Kind of like predicting a team to come in last place at the beginning of the season that ends up winning the Super Bowl, wouldn't you say?
Climate realists are also ticking down Nobel Laureate Al Gore's prediction that "the world has 10 years or less to turn things around before it is too late."
Although this is from his pathetic schockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" released in August 2006, he apparently made this claim at the Sundance Film Festival in January of that year.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has been counting down the days since January 27, 2006:

In four years, nine months, and roughly fifteen days, when we're all still standing here and the world hasn't come to an end, Gore's going to have some serious splainin' to do.
(H/T Global Warming Policy Foundation)

Looming US Government Shutdown

I just want so badly for each story I hear, each radio or tv blurb to mention that this is THIS YEAR"S BUDGET that LAST YEAR'S CONGRESS didn't get passed, but kicked the can down the road, so we are looking at the 2011 budget in April.

Blame that on the Koch brothers, salad tossers and coffee stains!

Now I have looked and listened for mentions of this fact and have yet to be satisfied. Sure, the commentators are all over it, but as an example, I just want the demon FoxNews to include it in a radio update, since they are so "faux news and uber conservative" and all. I won't hold my breath.