"Poor Hardest Hit" Headline of the Day: Global Warming Threatens to Make Africa Miserable

This morning I ran across something that we see almost every day in the news — the “poor hardest hit” headline, or “Duh!” as they’re known among followers of current events. 

The story quotes U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (at least the U.N. finally got it right and hired a buy with the word “Ban” right there in his name), who says, in essence, that if we don’t curb global warming by capping industrialized nations – and faster than a Reuters writer can apply “poor hardest hit” to any situation – that Africa is in danger of being miserable. 

Does this mean that we should immediately halt any fossil fuel burning vehicle that happens to be carrying aid to Africa? I’m guessing not, but that boat or plane should certainly drop off some cash to the United Nations on the way over. 

That’s right. According to the U.N. global warmists, the capitalistic lifestyle of the United States is polluting the air, where it wafts over and heats up the nirvanic Shangri-Las of Kenya, Somalia, Darfur and many other areas of paradise, making their lives miserable. It’s getting so a continent can’t have a famine, AIDS epidemic and various plagues without some industrialized punks ruining it all from afar. 

Here’s a bit of the story: 

“But it is the poor, in Africa and developing small island states and elsewhere, who will suffer the most, even though they are the least responsible for global warming.” 

Experts say Africa is the lowest emitter of the greenhouse gases blamed for rising temperatures, but due to its poverty, under-development and geography, has the most to lose under dire predictions of wrenching change in weather patterns. 

What’s the answer? First, Madonna had better pick up the adoption rate and get them out of there. The second answer is a conundrum. The U.N. “fix” to Africa’s impending global warming misery will be to get rid of, or vastly reduce, industrialization in first-world societies. Oddly enough, these are the very reasons other areas of the world are not starving and plagued with disease. It’s an idea so good it could only come from the United Nations. 

I once heard Wayne Dyer say, “I can’t get sick enough to make one person who is ill get well.” The U.N. and other global warming alarmists disagree with you, Dr. Dyer. 

Africa needs exactly what they’re being told by U.N. environmentalist ne’er-do-wells is their greatest enemy. A capitalist environment is needed in Africa. But this can only be done after getting rid of despots, warlords, crooked leaders and U.N. pinheads who panic at the thought of parts of Africa starving and dying of AIDS in extreme heat, preferring that the same thing happen when it’s 1.8 degrees cooler and you’re sharing in the misery. 

Some of the performers in the Live8 concert, which took place in the summer of 2005, asked, “If we can spend billions of dollars to kill people, why can’t we spend billions of dollars to feed people?” The sad reality is that sometimes you have to do that first part in order to make the last part possible. You also have to first have billions of dollars, and that’s not going to happen if everybody lives in caves and desert lean-tos while basking in Mother Nature’s arms because the only thing they’re polluting the environment with are the dead bodies of the victims of famine, disease and despotism (biodegradable, thankfully). No SUV’s and no factories though. Heaven. 

I’m one of those people who believe that most of the “man made global warming” theory is a giant power and money grab, and little more, but for a moment let’s assume that the theory is fact. In that case, we should still work to bring capitalism to Africa, and not push the rest of the world into a hole so everybody can empathize. 

Sure, a capitalist Africa would be on the “enemies list” of Al Gore and U.N. Sec-Gen Ban Ki-moon because they’d be “contributing to global warming,” but they’d be freer from disease, have plenty to eat, and have ready access to a neat little invention called “air conditioning.” At least most of them would — the poor would, of course, be “hardest hit.”

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be referenced at DougPowers.com

“Poor Hardest Hit” Headline of the Day: Global Warming Threatens to Make Africa Miserable

This morning I ran across something that we see almost every day in the news — the “poor hardest hit” headline, or “Duh!” as they’re known among followers of current events. 

The story quotes U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (at least the U.N. finally got it right and hired a buy with the word “Ban” right there in his name), who says, in essence, that if we don’t curb global warming by capping industrialized nations – and faster than a Reuters writer can apply “poor hardest hit” to any situation – that Africa is in danger of being miserable. 

Does this mean that we should immediately halt any fossil fuel burning vehicle that happens to be carrying aid to Africa? I’m guessing not, but that boat or plane should certainly drop off some cash to the United Nations on the way over. 

That’s right. According to the U.N. global warmists, the capitalistic lifestyle of the United States is polluting the air, where it wafts over and heats up the nirvanic Shangri-Las of Kenya, Somalia, Darfur and many other areas of paradise, making their lives miserable. It’s getting so a continent can’t have a famine, AIDS epidemic and various plagues without some industrialized punks ruining it all from afar. 

Here’s a bit of the story: 

“But it is the poor, in Africa and developing small island states and elsewhere, who will suffer the most, even though they are the least responsible for global warming.” 

Experts say Africa is the lowest emitter of the greenhouse gases blamed for rising temperatures, but due to its poverty, under-development and geography, has the most to lose under dire predictions of wrenching change in weather patterns. 

What’s the answer? First, Madonna had better pick up the adoption rate and get them out of there. The second answer is a conundrum. The U.N. “fix” to Africa’s impending global warming misery will be to get rid of, or vastly reduce, industrialization in first-world societies. Oddly enough, these are the very reasons other areas of the world are not starving and plagued with disease. It’s an idea so good it could only come from the United Nations. 

I once heard Wayne Dyer say, “I can’t get sick enough to make one person who is ill get well.” The U.N. and other global warming alarmists disagree with you, Dr. Dyer. 

Africa needs exactly what they’re being told by U.N. environmentalist ne’er-do-wells is their greatest enemy. A capitalist environment is needed in Africa. But this can only be done after getting rid of despots, warlords, crooked leaders and U.N. pinheads who panic at the thought of parts of Africa starving and dying of AIDS in extreme heat, preferring that the same thing happen when it’s 1.8 degrees cooler and you’re sharing in the misery. 

Some of the performers in the Live8 concert, which took place in the summer of 2005, asked, “If we can spend billions of dollars to kill people, why can’t we spend billions of dollars to feed people?” The sad reality is that sometimes you have to do that first part in order to make the last part possible. You also have to first have billions of dollars, and that’s not going to happen if everybody lives in caves and desert lean-tos while basking in Mother Nature’s arms because the only thing they’re polluting the environment with are the dead bodies of the victims of famine, disease and despotism (biodegradable, thankfully). No SUV’s and no factories though. Heaven. 

I’m one of those people who believe that most of the “man made global warming” theory is a giant power and money grab, and little more, but for a moment let’s assume that the theory is fact. In that case, we should still work to bring capitalism to Africa, and not push the rest of the world into a hole so everybody can empathize. 

Sure, a capitalist Africa would be on the “enemies list” of Al Gore and U.N. Sec-Gen Ban Ki-moon because they’d be “contributing to global warming,” but they’d be freer from disease, have plenty to eat, and have ready access to a neat little invention called “air conditioning.” At least most of them would — the poor would, of course, be “hardest hit.”

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be referenced at DougPowers.com

Hillary Goes After "Obscene Profits" — Cattle Futures Investment and Book Sales Windfall Oddly Excluded

Another liberal is trying to get her hands on somebody else’s money. This is nothing new, but with Hillary Clinton now running for president and Bill in tow, we’d better get used to it and keep one eye on our wallets and the other on our wives.

In the wake of the announcement of Exxon’s record setting profits in ’06, Hillary Clinton is seeking, yet again, what amounts to a “windfall profits tax” on big oil, though I’ve noticed they’ve tried to avoid using that term this time around. She says the money would go to — well, does it really matter? The government would have it. You know what happens after that. The next time we see the cash is on the back of a milk carton.

The big stink really started back in 2005, when the price of a gallon of gas was as high as a mouse trapped in Willie Nelson’s tour bus. A congressional committee was formed to grill big oil execs. The panel was headed up in part by the Massachusetts duet of Kennedy and Kerry — respectively, a former admiral in the Olds Navy whose family made their fortune running rum during prohibition, and a gigolo – and they somehow managed to sit in judgment of what constitutes “profiteering” without compunction-induced blushing, though the gin blossoms on Teddy did brighten a bit.

At the November 2005 hearings, California Sen. Barbara Boxer was so up in arms that you’d have though those oil execs were trying to talk somebody out of a late-term abortion. Robert Byrd was shocked because he hadn’t squared off with such greedy white men since the time he was in arrears on his Klan dues.

Even “Republicans,” such as Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter — who makes watching paint dry seem like it should be a sport in the X-Games, but nevertheless manages to exude split-atom energy when it comes to cheerleading for bad ideas — called for a windfall profits tax on the oil companies.

And now it’s 2007, the election season is heating up, and it’s candidate Hillary’s turn to shine by wowing voters with her pickpocket skills.

I wish everybody would have been in the “tax big profits” mood back when Hillary Clinton put merely $1,000 into cattle futures, and magically turned it into $100,000. I’d be willing to bet that’s a bigger return on investment than even Exxon could pull off. And how much did Hillary make off her book, “It takes a village to indoctrinate a child”? How much did Bill make off “My Life,” the first book in history to weigh more than its readers. 

How about a “windfall profits tax” on the Clintons? If anybody ever proposes this in proximity to the Clintons, I’d suggest they be wearing a helmet.

All I can say in defense of big oil profits is this: The big oil folks must be doing some hard work to earn all that money. What makes me say this? Because if there were that much money in it, and it was easy, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer and John Kerry would be in the oil business instead of politics – in that case we’d all win.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Hillary Goes After “Obscene Profits” — Cattle Futures Investment and Book Sales Windfall Oddly Excluded

Another liberal is trying to get her hands on somebody else’s money. This is nothing new, but with Hillary Clinton now running for president and Bill in tow, we’d better get used to it and keep one eye on our wallets and the other on our wives.

In the wake of the announcement of Exxon’s record setting profits in ’06, Hillary Clinton is seeking, yet again, what amounts to a “windfall profits tax” on big oil, though I’ve noticed they’ve tried to avoid using that term this time around. She says the money would go to — well, does it really matter? The government would have it. You know what happens after that. The next time we see the cash is on the back of a milk carton.

The big stink really started back in 2005, when the price of a gallon of gas was as high as a mouse trapped in Willie Nelson’s tour bus. A congressional committee was formed to grill big oil execs. The panel was headed up in part by the Massachusetts duet of Kennedy and Kerry — respectively, a former admiral in the Olds Navy whose family made their fortune running rum during prohibition, and a gigolo – and they somehow managed to sit in judgment of what constitutes “profiteering” without compunction-induced blushing, though the gin blossoms on Teddy did brighten a bit.

At the November 2005 hearings, California Sen. Barbara Boxer was so up in arms that you’d have though those oil execs were trying to talk somebody out of a late-term abortion. Robert Byrd was shocked because he hadn’t squared off with such greedy white men since the time he was in arrears on his Klan dues.

Even “Republicans,” such as Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter — who makes watching paint dry seem like it should be a sport in the X-Games, but nevertheless manages to exude split-atom energy when it comes to cheerleading for bad ideas — called for a windfall profits tax on the oil companies.

And now it’s 2007, the election season is heating up, and it’s candidate Hillary’s turn to shine by wowing voters with her pickpocket skills.

I wish everybody would have been in the “tax big profits” mood back when Hillary Clinton put merely $1,000 into cattle futures, and magically turned it into $100,000. I’d be willing to bet that’s a bigger return on investment than even Exxon could pull off. And how much did Hillary make off her book, “It takes a village to indoctrinate a child”? How much did Bill make off “My Life,” the first book in history to weigh more than its readers. 

How about a “windfall profits tax” on the Clintons? If anybody ever proposes this in proximity to the Clintons, I’d suggest they be wearing a helmet.

All I can say in defense of big oil profits is this: The big oil folks must be doing some hard work to earn all that money. What makes me say this? Because if there were that much money in it, and it was easy, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer and John Kerry would be in the oil business instead of politics – in that case we’d all win.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

On Nominating Myself for the Nobel Peace Prize

Emboldened by the fact that I was a co-winner, along with the rest of you, of Time Magazine’s “Person of the Year” accolade, I am now seeking a Nobel Peace Prize. I sent an email to the Nobel Institute in Oslo (SexxyPacifists@Yahoo.com) just ahead of the Feb. 1 deadline and nominated myself.

They say that Al Gore is a leading contender for the prize. No doubt there will be more anger-filled “peace activists” nominated as well. Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams said in a speech awhile back that she “could kill Bush,” so being non-violent isn’t necessarily a qualification required the Nobel committee. This means my love of football and boxing may not automatically disqualify me.

Rush Limbaugh has also been nominated by Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation. The odds of Limbaugh winning an award are right up there with the chance of Joe Biden getting the “NAACP Image Award,” but I wish Rush well.

After reviewing some of the nominees, I concluded that I’m just as peaceful, if not moreso, than most on the list.

Here are just a few of the reasons I gave the committee as to why I should win the Nobel Peace Prize:

–Give money to various charities, including PETA and the ACLU (if they don’t background check, I’m in)

–Don’t support terrorist organizations like some past Nobel Peace Prize winners (wait, that goes on the list of reasons I won’t win the Nobel)

–Against capital punishment. Instead I propose that all violent criminals be housed safely and humanely in the Nobel Peace Center in Oslo, Norway

–If traveling by private jet, I always take along a bicycle and ride it to my final destination after landing

–Never killed anybody, to the best of my recollection

–Haven’t run over a creature larger than a June bug on the highway since 2004

–Recently quit eating meat in between steak dinners

–I’m against testing cosmetics on rabbits, as I believe that “whoring up” a bunny is a perverted hobby and should be illegal

–Gore, Limbaugh, and many others, don’t “need” the $1.6 million prize money as badly as I do. This is a chance for the Nobel people to show that they are indeed “fair”

–I once took part in an anti-war protest, albeit accidentally, after making a wrong turn on my way to buy the swimsuit issue of Guns & Ammo

–My plan to send a humanitarian shipment of 5 tons of Bean-O to Ted Kennedy, if implemented, will cut greenhouse gas emmissions by 35% the first year

–Helped save Africa by purchasing a U2 album. I don’t know exactly how that works, but I’m told it does

–Forward the cause of peace daily by seeking out war mongers and threatening them with extreme violence if they don’t join the peace movement

With all that going for me, how can I lose?

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

San Francisco Shocked At News of Heterosexual Affair

Given what we’re used to coming out of California, and politics in general, this story didn’t turn in the direction I’ve been programmed to expect:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s re-election campaign manager resigned Wednesday after confronting the mayor about an affair Newsom had with his wife while she worked in the mayor’s office, City Hall sources said.

With his wife? Where’s the gay staffer? Where are the salacious emails? Where are the midgets? How disappointing.

Joe “Howza Bouts a Shine, Boy?” Biden Strikes Again

Joe Biden, who as of now is a presidential candidate — at least until the first primary – has now been in so much hot water that his status on the ballot has been officially changed to “Teabag.”

The Delaware Senator’s latest emptying of the verbal bilge tanks was in describing Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.” Whoops! Even the Democrats lead Kleagle-eagle, Robert Byrd, must be saying to Biden, “bo– I say boyyy, what are you thinkin’?”

And all this time we’ve been told that liberals are the racially sensitive ones.

Biden said he’d used the word “clean” to describe Obama as “fresh and new” and didn’t mean any of it as an insult to past black presidential candidates, but Joe is nevertheless expected to offer a retraction at some point. The apology will probably contain the usual Biden charm, perhaps amending the “articulate, bright and clean” comment by telling reporters that Obama is in fact “inarticulate, dim and dirty.” Semi-sarsasm aside, I do fully expect that Biden will release a appeasement statement within a week that says something along the line of “some of my best friends are half black.”

Not long ago, Biden stepped in deep Kathmandoo-doo by saying that you can’t walk into a 7-11 or a donut shop in his state if you don’t have a slight Indian accent. This is a ridiculous statement — what about customer service call centers? At any rate, Biden ended up backpeddling like Lance Armstrong with broken brake cables careening down Filbert Street.

If Biden keeps stepping in it like this, even his lawn jockey won’t vote for him.

Obama, the Delaware Indian population, ex-black presidential candidates, and anybody else Biden may have offended, should be thankful for one thing, however: Anything is better than listening to Biden talk about how he’d rather be making love to his wife while the kids are asleep than on the campaign trail. Cringe if you like, but frankly, it’s nice to find a politician who’s interested in screwing more than just taxpayers.

There must be something in the air in D.C., because Ted Kennedy feels the same way. “Erra, I’d rathah be making love to Joe’s wife, too.”

So, look for Biden to try to make up ground with voters for all these faux-pas, perhaps by attempting to woo the Delaware Muslim community by reminding them how much he’s “brought home the bacon” to the state.

“Psst, Barack, for a black man, you smell terrific!

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Joe "Howza Bouts a Shine, Boy?" Biden Strikes Again

Joe Biden, who as of now is a presidential candidate — at least until the first primary – has now been in so much hot water that his status on the ballot has been officially changed to “Teabag.”

The Delaware Senator’s latest emptying of the verbal bilge tanks was in describing Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.” Whoops! Even the Democrats lead Kleagle-eagle, Robert Byrd, must be saying to Biden, “bo– I say boyyy, what are you thinkin’?”

And all this time we’ve been told that liberals are the racially sensitive ones.

Biden said he’d used the word “clean” to describe Obama as “fresh and new” and didn’t mean any of it as an insult to past black presidential candidates, but Joe is nevertheless expected to offer a retraction at some point. The apology will probably contain the usual Biden charm, perhaps amending the “articulate, bright and clean” comment by telling reporters that Obama is in fact “inarticulate, dim and dirty.” Semi-sarsasm aside, I do fully expect that Biden will release a appeasement statement within a week that says something along the line of “some of my best friends are half black.”

Not long ago, Biden stepped in deep Kathmandoo-doo by saying that you can’t walk into a 7-11 or a donut shop in his state if you don’t have a slight Indian accent. This is a ridiculous statement — what about customer service call centers? At any rate, Biden ended up backpeddling like Lance Armstrong with broken brake cables careening down Filbert Street.

If Biden keeps stepping in it like this, even his lawn jockey won’t vote for him.

Obama, the Delaware Indian population, ex-black presidential candidates, and anybody else Biden may have offended, should be thankful for one thing, however: Anything is better than listening to Biden talk about how he’d rather be making love to his wife while the kids are asleep than on the campaign trail. Cringe if you like, but frankly, it’s nice to find a politician who’s interested in screwing more than just taxpayers.

There must be something in the air in D.C., because Ted Kennedy feels the same way. “Erra, I’d rathah be making love to Joe’s wife, too.”

So, look for Biden to try to make up ground with voters for all these faux-pas, perhaps by attempting to woo the Delaware Muslim community by reminding them how much he’s “brought home the bacon” to the state.

“Psst, Barack, for a black man, you smell terrific!

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com