And that, is why I adore you doll

Not my usual flavor, but it will do. Thanks FAK

Drama, what drama?

Any scotch left?

I did indeed and yes she is, very.

It would have died as a topic if I had not started making a joke out of it. But there was nothing else going on so..........

And I don't swing that way either

Ummmmmmmm.......I have to pass on a male instructor for this course. But thanks anyway.

Does this mean you are unwilling to give me lessons on this?

I can't play.

Where did you come up with I hate the working class? I AM THE WORKING CLASS!

Hey now, that was some funny stuff right there. Come on now, give it up!

I so agree....No, I do not think it is asking too much.

How, exactly, do you have sex with a phone? I am looking at my phone sitting here next to me. It in no way turns me on. However, I can turn it on, with the push of the power button. Hmmm, perhaps I have answered my own question.

The Sky Falls on Environmental Myths

When I told a friend that I was writing a column attacking the environmental movement, she immediately replied, "How can you be against the environment?" I am not against the environment. I am against the environmental movement: a movement rooted in a Chicken Little ideology of scare tactics, lies, pseudoscience, and a flagrant disregard for individual liberties and private property rights. Let's debunk some of theis movement's myths and examine the true roots of the Greens' ideology and agenda.

Myth #1: Global Warming: Despite the rantings of the apocalyptic ecoprophets, the actual temperature records, taken in North America and Western Europe, show no significant or consistent upward trends. There is, instead, a series of highs and lows. According to the Greenhouse theory, the increase in carbon dioxide emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Age should have increased average temperatures by two to four degrees Celsius over the last 100 years. In reality, temperatures have only increased a paltry 0.5 degrees Celsius.

In fact, between the 1940s and the mid1970s temperatures were steadily declining. This led environmentalists in the 1970s to predict global cooling and the coming of a new ice age. They blamed the same industrial economy and pollutants then for global cooling that they now blame for global warming. New ice age or melting polar ice caps, the environmentalists can't seem to make up their minds. It seems as long as they have a crisis to fuel their agenda and keep those donations rolling in, they'll preach anything.

As for the claim that the carbon dioxide emission levels of industry are responsible for global warming, here are some facts. Both historic and prehistoric levels of carbon dioxide have shifted and changed without human intervention. Historic increases in carbon dioxide have occurred about the same time as temperature increases, but a careful study of the data shows the rise in temperature preceded the increase in carbon dioxide, not the reverse. In the prehistoric era, carbon dioxide levels were at times ten times what they are today, and that was during a period when life was evolving and taking shape.

Carbon dioxide is actually a minor greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide, methane, hydrocarbons, and aerosol only account for two percent of greenhouse warming. The main greenhouse gas which accounts for the other 98 percent is water vapor. So carbon dioxide's effect is ultimately insignificant, no matter how much industry has created.

Myth #2: The Hole in the Ozone Layer: Contrary to the environmentalists' claims, there is no permanent hole in the ozone layer and no ozone shortage. Ozone is constantly created and destroyed. The interaction of ultraviolet radiation with oxygen molecules is what produces ozone. In the stratosphere, 10 to 40 kilometers above the earth's surface, several tons of ozone are produced every second.

The amount of ozone present at any one time is influenced by many factors. For example, the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the stratosphere (and ultimately producing ozone) depends upon latitude, solar cycle, and season. Concentrations of ozone may differ drastically from one day to the next, sometimes by as much as 50 percent, depending on the weather. Ozone holes are natural reactions to these ultraviolet light variations. Ozone levels can also be affected by the amount of volcanic matter in the stratosphere. Each volcanic eruption emits roughly a thousand times the amount of ozonedepleting chemicals than all the CFCs man has ever produced.

The ozone hole that appeared over Antarctica and caused all the panic is a natural and annual phenomena. The annual ozone hole was first measured in 195657, long before the ozonedestroying CFCs were in common use. The hole appears at the end of the dark, cold Antarctic winter, lasts about three to five weeks, and then disappears. There is no overall or permanent depletion of the ozone layer.

Myth #3: Deforestation and Clear-cutting: America's forests are not vanishing. There are 730 million acres of forest land in the United States today. The growth on those acres is extremely dense, with a total of 230 billion trees (that's 900 trees for each American). When the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, 45 percent of what is now the 48 contiguous United States was covered by mature forest land. Today, 32 percent is still covered by forest, twothirds of the total before the pilgrims arrived.

Contrary to environmentalist propaganda, clearcutting does not leave behind a scarred and barren wasteland. It is usually done in a checkerboard manner leaving behind large areas of forest. The areas where cutting occurs are then replanted. Trees are a valuable commodity, and companies have an incentive not to overcut them. Today, many companies are planting millions of trees on their own land and carefully harvesting them.

Even the U.S. Forest Service admits that, "Drastic as it may seem, clear cutting plays a legitimate and prominent role in scientific forestry. Properly done, it paves the way for a new, unencumbered and hence vigorously growing forest." Clearcutting was even practiced by the Indians, who burned areas to provide a cleared space for new growth, which was favored by animals they hunted such as elk and deer.

Myth #4 Endangered Species: Environmentalists claim that five species go extinct every day, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that five species, subspecies, and varieties of plants and animals have gone extinct every three and threequarters years since 1620. The fact is that most animals and plants go extinct from natural causes such as climatic changes, food shortages, disease, and competition with more dominant species. It's called survival of the fittest. Some animals are meant to go extinct and some are meant to survive. This is how species perpetuate themselves.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 represents one of the most irresponsible pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress. The law basically gives the government the authority to stop extinction in all cases, regardless of the cost, by any means necessary. Not every species can or should be protected. Do we really need to save every allegedly endangered insect out there? Many creatures on the endangered species list are not really endangered or even a scientifically defined species at all. Yet, we spend roughly $2.6 million a year for each creature on the list.

The environmentalists use their doomsday predictions as a form of political blackmail. They create these ecobogeymen, hold them over people, and then preach the coming of the apocalypse unless their demands are met. Environmentalists see themselves as the Earth's new vanguard class, uniquely capable of seeing the impending doom while the rest of humanity remains blind to the danger.

The greatest casualty of the environmental movement has been the property rights of American citizens. The greatest benefactor has been the Leviathan State. What better way to control someone's property than to subordinate one's private property rights to environmental concerns. Under the guise of "defending the environment," the imperial Congress has been able to enact laws which allow government officials to confiscate private property, levy fines for noncompliance of up to $25,000 a day, prevent owners from using their land, and even jail a land owner who uses his land for any purpose other than that which the government has dictated. This is a clear and obscene violation of the Fifth Amendment which states, "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

The ideology of the Greens has roots in both fascism and Marxism. The Nazis were naturalists and have been described as "the first radical environmentalists in charge of a state." As political writer David Horowitz wrote, "The enthronement of biological imperatives, of the virtues of blood and soil and the primitive communities of the Volk, the pagan rejection of the Judaeo-Christian God, and the radical anti-humanism featured in the philosophy of the Greens" are all derivatives of the Nazi ideology.

From Marxism, the environmentalists derived their hatred of the free market, private property, and the upper classes. The environment has become the new weapon of choice to attack capitalism. Dolphins and trees have become the new proletariat. In order to achieve the ecological balance the radical environmentalists advocate, it would be necessary to progressively narrow "the gap to reduce the differences between the Earth's wealthiest and poorest inhabitants" until there are "more or less equal shares for all people." Sound familiar, comrade? How ironic that it was the totalitarian regimes of Eastern europe and the soviet Union that had the most horrendous environmental conditions on Earth.

Paul Watson, co-founder of the eco-terrorist group Greenpeace, summed up the true face of the environmental movement when he said, "It doesn't matter what's true; it only matters what people believe is true ... You are what the media define you to be. [Greenpeace] became a myth and a myth-generating machine." Amen.

Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax

One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Let's look at some of the "wonders" of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.

Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.

Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.

Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.

There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar beet and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.

Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.

It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot.

The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart -- you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?

Previously posted elsewhere, however this subject requires it's on thread.

Global Warming Hysteria

Despite increasing evidence that man-made CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas and contributor to climate change, politicians and others who wish to control our lives must maintain that it is.

According to the Detroit Free Press, Rep. John Dingell wants a 50-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline. We've heard such calls before, but there's a new twist. Dingell also wants to eliminate the mortgage tax deduction on what he calls "McMansions," homes that are 3,000 square feet and larger. That's because larger homes use more energy.

One might wonder about Dingell's magnanimity in increasing taxes for only homes 3,000 feet or larger. The average U.S. home is around 2,300 square feet, compared with Europe's average of 1,000 square feet. So why doesn't Dingell call for disallowing mortgage deductions on houses more than 1,000 square feet? The reason is there would be too much political resistance, since more Americans own homes under 3,000 square feet than over 3,000. The full agenda is to start out with 3,000 square feet and later lower it in increments.

Our buying into global warming hysteria will allow politicians to do just about anything, upon which they can muster a majority vote, in the name of fighting climate change as a means to raise taxes.

In addition to excuses to raise taxes, congressmen are using climate change hysteria to funnel money into their districts. Rep. David L. Hobson, R-Ohio, secured $500,000 for a geothermal demonstration project. Rep. Adam B. Schiff, D-Calif., got $500,000 for a fuel-cell project by Superprotonic, a Pasadena company started by Caltech scientists. Money for similar boondoggles is being called for by members of both parties.

The bottom line is, serious efforts to reduce CO2 will lead to lower living standards through higher costs of living. And it will be all for naught because there is little or no relationship between man-made CO2 emissions and climate change.

There's an excellent booklet available from the National Center for Policy Analysis (ncpa.org) titled "A Global Warming Primer." Some of its highlights are:

"Over long periods of time, there is no close relationship between CO2 levels and temperature."

"Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual CO2 levels" compared to 96.6 percent by nature.

"There was an explosion of life forms 550 million years ago (Cambrian Period) when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. During the Jurassic Period, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 levels were as much as nine times higher than today."

What about public school teachers frightening little children with tales of cute polar bears dying because of global warming? The primer says, "Polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 in 1950 to as many as 25,000 today, higher than any time in the 20th century." The primer gives detailed sources for all of its findings, and it supplies us with information we can use to stop politicians and their environmental extremists from doing a rope-a-dope on us.