The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
It wasn't global warming? Well, how about Blackwater?
The mainstream media blamed global warming for last week's wildfires in California. I'm no scientician, but in high school we learned that fires need three things: fuel, oxygen and a spark. It was never quite explained how a 0.06 degree annual increase in temperature, which is the rate the Earth has been warming since we started to emerge from the Little Ice Age 150 years ago, could "cause" wildfires.
The global warming theory has been grudgingly abandoned by the left as the cause of the fires, now that arson has been conclusively proved.
Not to be deterred, the American left has found a new culprit: Blackwater, the private-sector security firm that has done work in post-liberation Iraq.
According to Air America (yes, they're still on the air!), it's all a part of Blackwater's tricky scheme to build a new office!
This is the second spectacular fantasy this month from Air America's Randi Rhodes. Earlier, she implied that she had been mugged by right wing enforcers, when in fact she had simply fallen down drunk in front of a bar.
Besides the sheer weirdness here, there are two serious points:
1. Randi Rhodes is one of Air America's "stars", and Air America is the flagship liberal talk network. Are these kind of wild-eyed conspiracy theories really the best of liberal political discourse in the U.S.?
2. Why is it a characteristic of the left to turn every personal matter -- a slip and fall accident; a wildfire -- into a political moment?
Posted by Ezra Levant on October 30, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It wasn't global warming? Well, how about Blackwater?:
"Why is it a characteristic of the left to turn every personal matter -- a slip and fall accident; a wildfire -- into a political moment?"
We all know why -- so bad stuff that happens can be blamed on somebody else.
Scientician Jamie Lee Curtis also thinks the fires were caused by global warming.
I agree with this:
"There is no such thing as global warming. Chuck Norris was cold, so he turned the sun up."
Posted by: Joan Tintor | 2007-10-30 4:04:11 PM
It has also been reported that the reason those California fires were burning so out of control is because the Leftist environmentalists had laws passed that forbid the clearing of brush (fuel) in those areas. Where do those protesters find time to earn a living?
The reason for that? Not because the equivalence of sage brush is so beautiful, nor is it an endangered plant-life (as I like to think these lefties are), but rather it is the habitat of some rodents who are on the endangered list.
What of the endangered humans in that area? Oh, wait, I said humans and most of them are white and I think they are also the more motivated in our society who worked to buy those home.
But, what do I know.
Posted by: John | 2007-10-30 4:05:52 PM
John is right about the same people forbidding the cleaning of brush. However never expect them to admit to their mistakes.
Air America, that is funny for I thought it was air-head america.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-30 4:13:56 PM
I expect a lefty to show up fully denying that the media, environmentalists, or leftist in general ever blamed the fires on AGW. Then I expect them to turn around and blame it on AGW anyway.
Watch. It's an amazing thing to behold.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-30 4:28:34 PM
Well it isn't any wilder than Fox blaming it on Al Queada....in general partisan nass messaging has gotten surreal.
Like the disinfo floating around about Blackwater ( no they ain't just little blue smurfs doing loose end work for the US forces, they are active in the operations against targets amd do anything from small arms assaults to armor support)
BTW, if I were to believe anything blurted out by partisan media on just a hunch, I can believe a corporate mercenary outfit like Blackwater has the steroid pumped paramilitary goons to do whatever they are paid to do...including carrying off CIA black ops which may call for false flag domestic terror events like starting wild fires....and blaming it on Al Queda cells.
Blackwater is corporate paramilitary muscle for hire ( the mafia only does this on a limited basis these days so someone had to fill in the hole in the market for armed muscle)...how evolved is that? Last time there were professional mercs on US soil they were Hessians rented by Mad King George.
Posted by: Bill | 2007-10-30 4:41:10 PM
" I can believe a corporate mercenary outfit like Blackwater has the steroid pumped paramilitary goons..."
Tell us how you really feel.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-30 4:52:30 PM
"I can believe a corporate mercenary outfit like Blackwater has the steroid pumped paramilitary goons to do whatever they are paid to do...including carrying off CIA black ops which may call for false flag domestic terror events like starting wild fires....and blaming it on Al Queda cells."
Yeah. I could believe that too. IF there was credible evidence pointing to this. Do you have this evidence, Bill?
Ok. How about this one then.
I can believe that a leftist partisan would come on a blog and make up a story about how they believe that Blackwater could set the fires for the CIA and do it while blaming Al Qaeda.
Do you like that one, Bill?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-30 5:14:51 PM
>"2. Why is it a characteristic of the left to turn every personal matter -- a slip and fall accident; a wildfire -- into a political moment?"
Posted by Ezra Levant on October 30, 2007
Because everything IS political, Ezra.
That's a fundamental tenet of Marxist/Leninism.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-30 5:22:18 PM
You are correct as I recall a quote the left has used in the past was
"the personal is political"
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-30 5:45:02 PM
holy crap! i understand your political philosophy, and i tend toward libertarianism myself.
there's a saying: "wanna hear a conservative defend the welfare State? talk like a libertarian.
but, there's also another saying; it doesn't quite roll off the tongue, but: "libertarianism is the hot tea that cools in the saucer of conservatism". libertarians and conservatives are brothers.
balance, Bill, balance. ;)
Posted by: shel | 2007-10-30 6:29:07 PM
Ezra Levant - The mainstream media blamed global warming for last week's wildfires in California.
What mainstream media are you referring to? I followed your links and other than the CBC I wasn't able to find a report from the MSM that blamed the fires on global warming. Maybe the links are broken. If they are could you relink to them.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-10-30 6:31:43 PM
What do you think is responsible for the fires?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-30 6:42:25 PM
CNN is also making that connection. That's fairly mainstream. Anderson Cooper tied it into his ongoing rant about the "planet in peril". In fact the planet isn't in peril, just the poor suckers on it. And not from global warming but the same problem we identified 40 years ago, overpopulation.
The fires are getting worse because the natural cycle of burning has been interrupted. It's the same all over the world. Whether it's trying to prevent forest fires for economic reasons, or brush fires for social reasons, we're allowing the kindling to build up. Yellowstone had this argument a few years back. Some environmentalists were against fighting the fires. They may have been right.
Posted by: dph | 2007-10-30 6:57:50 PM
One section of LAKE ARROWHEAD had little damage done to it this week because the locals ignored the law and cleared all the brush and dead wood from around their homes.
Those who obeyed these stupid envirowhacko laws lost their homes. Case closed.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-30 6:59:15 PM
"Yellowstone had this argument a few years back."
One third of Yellowstone which spans over three huge states was burned to the ground in "observance" of envirowhacko rules. It will take two generations before it is naturally restored.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-30 7:05:14 PM
"And not from global warming but the same problem we identified 40 years ago, overpopulation."
I'm pretty sure nature burned Grog out of his cave a million years ago when there were only a few hundred thousand little Grogs running around the world.
I'm not even sure how one could even objectively define over-population and show how we suffer from it currently.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-30 7:09:01 PM
Overpopulation is a serious problem, claim the Leftoids. I say that they should help solve the problem by volunteering to depart from the planet today.
The line forms on the left for all you worrywarts.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-30 7:14:08 PM
h2o273kk9 - What do you think is responsible for the fires?
Carbon atoms that are heated up so that they release their bonds, the resulting energy causes a fire. Any other questions that you need answered?
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-10-30 7:47:00 PM
Talk about arrogance & condescension! Here is the poster boy!
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-30 7:48:59 PM
That's the answer I was hoping for. Thx.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-30 7:56:58 PM
And see what happens when diligent "scientists" are in charge:
"Scientists Find Oldest Living Animal, Then Kill It"
British marine biologists have found what may be the oldest living animal — that is, until they killed it.
The team from Bangor University in Wales was dredging the waters north of Iceland as part of routine research when the unfortunate specimen, belonging to the clam species Arctica islandica, commonly known as the ocean quahog, was hauled up from waters 250 feet deep.
Only after researchers cut through its shell, which made it more of an ex-clam, and counted its growth rings did they realize how old it had been — between 405 and 410 years old.
Another clam of the same species had been verified at 220 years old, and a third may have lived 374 years. But this most recent clam was the oldest yet.
"Its death is an unfortunate aspect of this work, but we hope to derive lots of information from it," postdoctoral scientist Al Wanamaker told London's Guardian newspaper. "For our work, it's a bonus, but it wasn't good for this particular animal."
YEAH - let's entrust everything to these "ethical" scientists who are so much wiser than the rest of us.
"Its death is an unfortunate aspect of this work, but we hope to derive lots of information from it." Sounds like a quote from "Dr." Mengele himself.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-30 8:46:46 PM
God you're a fool obc. You agreed with what I said, then made it sound like I was wrong. Wasn't it you who accused someone of making a strawman argument?
For thousands of years the forest has burned and recycled. If the cycle is interrupted the next fire is hotter and does more damage. Two generations would have been less than ten years if the forest hadn't been allowed to get a buildup of kindling. It was an overly strict environmental policy that created the problem, and nature that solved it.
Overpopulation doesn't exist? Really?
Posted by: dph | 2007-10-30 9:59:54 PM
I am wondering who you blame the earthquakes on, GWB maybe?
Tin hat is too tight buddy, cutting off the blood to your brain.
Posted by: missing link | 2007-10-30 10:34:51 PM
"Overpopulation doesn't exist? Really? "
Define it. Objectively! Then show me how we suffer from it.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-31 5:21:41 AM
"Wasn't it you who accused someone of making?"
Nope - not me, but thanks for the compliment!
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-31 7:45:30 AM
"Overpopulation doesn't exist? Really? "
Define it. Objectively! Then show me how we suffer from it.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 31-Oct-07 5:21:41 AM
An area is over populated if the land cannot sustain the population with it's own resources, water, food etc.
Obviously humans have managed to "engineer" their way out of a few of these limitations, but if you would lose the technology you would have a die-off / mass migration at your hands.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-10-31 11:58:22 AM
"but if you would lose the technology you would have a die-off / mass migration at your hands."
. . . and if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-31 12:06:04 PM
that's the answer i was hoping for. thx"
heh heh. subtle, h2o, very subtle.
Posted by: shel | 2007-10-31 3:10:29 PM
"An area is over populated if the land cannot sustain the population with it's own resources, water, food etc."
This is a good start but it is incomplete. I live in the suburbs and my population on my land is unable to sustain me. Hence, I require cooperation with my neighbours, gov'ts, etc. to provide services, etc. that ultimately will get me the resources (finished and raw) that I need to survive.
This can be extrapolated, of course, to nations.
Looking globally, the entire population currently is sustainable. Yes, it requires technology.
Where is the technological cutoff for determining above which a population levels is at risk.
I say it's the use of fire. You?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-10-31 3:31:27 PM
No obc, if you aunt had testicles--she would have BEEN your Uncle--that is until she had the operation, and was sent to get a total tuck-job--hehehe!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-31 10:35:44 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.