My Latest Unassuming Victim? Greenpeace.

About 10 minutes ago, I finally confronted Greenpeace.

They come around every couple of days or so, but I usually just ignore them.

"How's it goin', buddy?"

"Want to save the world, man?"

"Want to stop global warming, man?"

"Hey, buddy, care about the environment?"


"No. Drill here, drill now. Pay less."

"What!? Aw, come on, man."

"I'd totally debate you on this, but I'm going somewhere right now. Later."

"Whatever, man."

"Stupid hippie."

(that last one is always muttered under the breath, don't worry)

Today was different, though. I wasn't going anywhere, I was coming back. And this time, I had time to spare.

"Hey, bro, you wanna save a polar bear?"

"What?"

"Yeah, you know. Hey, I'm from Greenpeace."

"Right."

It was at that moment that I decided to have some fun. He asked me if I'd heard about Greenpeace before, and I unassumingly replied
"Yeah, I have. I've heard a lot of things about you guys."
So he started to tell me about Greenpeace. I was getting bored. I knew something had to be done, and quick. He then mentioned their fight against "climate change."

"Oh," I said, ever so cleverly, "you mean anthropogenic global warming?"

He was taken aback.

"Anth...what? What do you mean?"

I was taken aback myself. How could he have not heard the term "anthropogenic" (man-made) even while working at a freakin' environmental special interest group? The ignorance was unbelievable. So, I put on a slightly annoyed face and explained the concept to him.

"Oh, yeah, you mean global warming," he stuttered.

"Not just climate change. You guys advocate against man-made global warming," I said, "but I'm so glad you're an expert on anthropogenic causes of global warming. I've been looking for one of you to clarify a couple things."

He looked at me warily, and said, "Go ahead."

I asked, "Last year, your anthropogenic global warming models anticipated that there would be no Arctic ice this summer. In fact, the mainstream media had also bought into it. When the results came back from satellite imaging research, however, it turned out that the ice hadn't decreased, nor stayed at the same level as last year. It in fact increased by a great level. How do you explain this?"

Obviously agitated that I knew so much for what looked like a naive student, he started to answer. Then I matter-of-factly interrupted him;

"Not only that, but it turns out that Antarctic ice has increased from last year, as well. So the ice increase isn't in just one localized location. Go ahead, explain anthropogenic global warming for me."

He stared at me, and then laughed and looked at his friend. He said to me,

"You like using big words a lot, don't you?"

I was not amused. I gave him a condescending glare and said, "It's not my fault if you don't know what I'm talking about, much less what you're talking about."

The only response he could come up with was questioning my sources. I explained to him that these sources were just done by satellites, unmodified and anything but tampered with. The scientists who did the research clearly did not have a motive. In what could have been the most idiotic thing I've heard since Barack Obama's last debate performance, he told me to go to a site called ExxonSecrets.com, or .org, or something like that.

"Oh, yeah," I scathingly responded, "they surely don't have a motive. I can tell by the site name. This research wasn't done by oil barons, it was purely uncompromised."

He brought up how we haven't signed the Kyoto Protocol (well, he actually couldn't remember the name. I was glad to inform him). I told him in response that the US economy doesn't work the same way as the other nations who have signed it. If we start cap-and-trade policies now, especially right now in an economic crisis, we'd be trashing our economy because of lack of resources.

In response, he exclaimed,

"The economy? The economy's already been trashed thanks to the last 8 years."

I knew that if he didn't even know his environmental science that well, then he really wouldn't stand a chance against me on domestic affairs. I explained to him that the crisis wasn't caused by deregulation, and that the economy is still fundamentally strong after years of growth. He dismissed that because the DOW had gone down earlier today. I was tempted to backhand him for stupidity, but instead I replied that the DOW doesn't affirm the state of the economy. To that, he could only say,

"I think we're talking about different things here."

I sighed, and said,

"You know, you couldn't be more right."

So he brought up that all it would require is for us to stop producing carbon dioxide for global warming to stop. Being a science major, I corrected him:

"Actually, CO2 only contributes a tiny amount of effect to the atmosphere. Methane, on the other hand, has more than twice as much effect. The oceans release huge amounts of metric tons of methane into the atmosphere. Same with cows. What do you propose?"

Getting angry, he dissed the US and said, "Scandinavia has balanced their carbon emissions. They're perfect."

I simply said, "We make up 25% of the world's economy. We take in and also produce more than any other nation. Can any Scandinavian countries say they're anywhere close to doing that? Absolutely, 100%, categorically no."

He was confused and frustrated. I smirked. Finally he just said,

"Well, man, I have a job to do. Have a nice day."

Yeah, I will. I surely will.


Heck, I bet he's voting for Obama. Who'd a thunk it?

Another Blowhard Gets Annihilated

So, while I was taking a break from practicing "Por Ti Volare", I stumbled upon an article. Well, editorial, I should hope. But those dang Canadians, man, you never know what they're gonna do next.

A la Robert Remington, from the Calgary Herald, comes this gem. "Sarah Palin's Candidacy is Insultin', Dontcha Know?"

Well, gosh darn it anyway. Geez, that there Sarah Palin sure can charm them Republicans. They're so gol-dang happy she didn't screw up Thursday night they actually think she won the debate against Joe Biden.

Trouble is, this ain't the Miss Alaska competition. Gee willikers, folks, this is a contest to see who's best suited to lead the U.S. in the event the president becomes incapacitated or dead. And Palin -- who prefaced one of her answers by saying "I've only been at this, what, five weeks" -- just doesn't have what it takes.

Well, that's quite a mouthful, Remington. Obviously, this slack-jawed Canuck doesn't like Palin's "folksy demeanor", as it must remind him of another President who pronounces "nu-clear" as "noo-kyoo-lur". Well, once he pulls his head out of his ass, he'll realize what's really happeneing around here.

In reality, that's all she had to do to win, was hold her own. And hold her own she did, even referencing how much of a crap job Biden was doing keeping up with her when she said "I've only been at this [campaigning], what, five weeks", when Biden's campaigned at least twice for President and failed, having been in far more debates than Palin.

And how does Remington evidence his claim that she "just doesn't have what it takes"?

Well, I've searched through the entire article for that, for anything, for a quote, but came up with nada. Unless you count his disparaging of the "the embarrassment of the Katie Couric interviews" as qualification. Hmm.

So, we press on, and he says:

Like many American expats, I opted to forgo the Canadian leaders debate Thursday night for a front-row seat at a car crash that never happened.

His objectivity is just oozing through those words, isn't it?

Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, did not implode in her TV debate with Democrat opponent Joe Biden. Instead she proved, after weeks of tutelage, she can perform just as well as any bright high school senior, which was good enough for the idealogues at Fox News to declare her the victor.

So, he's praising her for not imploding. Like anyone was really expecting that. But comparing her performance to a high-school senior? Buddy, I just graduated from high school. The only high school seniors able to connect that well with the American people and display intelligence at the same time were almost nonexistent. All subtle humor aside, I find it quite ironic of the writer to say anything condescending like this to Palin, when he makes such a fool of himself later.

Oh, that's coming up soon. Don't worry.

And how can he be so sure that only after "weeks of tutelage" Palin knew the issues? It's an absolute unsubstantiated rumor that has no merit at all. In fact, those "weeks of tutelage" might have just reinforced what she knew coming into the campaign.

After the embarrassment of the Katie Couric interviews, Republicans were so relieved Palin was able to string her answers together in coherent sentences they've started to actually believe John McCain didn't make a colossal blunder in choosing her. Well, sort of.

The reviews on Redstates.com are surprisingly tepid. "I honestly don't think she did that bad," read one.

So, if she was able to "overcome the embarrassing Katie Couric interviews," then what's the problem? As far as I can tell, that's the only reason the author called Palin out on "not having what it takes." As if doing well in interviews matters when being a great leader. Just ask Dwight D. Eisenhower, world-class mumbler, world-class President.

As for Redstates (sic), I have to disagree. On the other monolithic conservative forum, FreeRepublic, reviewers were ecstatic and piling heaps of praise on her performance. I think what Remington's done here is look for a tepid review amongst excellent reviews, and then post it to claim that Redstate thought it was "just OK." I'd have to call that complete dishonesty.

So, then we have:

The spinners in the Grand Ol' Party, the ones who drink most deeply of the party Kool Aid, were more delirious, praising Palin for rediscovering her "inner barracuda." Declared Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan: "She killed. It was her evening. She was the star."

So the majority of reviewers have to have "drunk the party Kool-Aid" to actually like her performance. Well, in Remington's opinion anyway. Do me a favor, and visit TownHall or National Review Online. Those are aggregated conglomerates of leading conervative columnists. And they were all over Palin's performance, whether you want to mislead us or not.

Many average, demoralized Republican supporters saw it differently. Their attack dog in designer glasses was more like a well-trained puppy. Said one Republican blogger from the Midwest: "She won on style, he won on substance."

Once again, I really don't know where Remington's getting his info. I spend loads of time on these conservative papers and blogs, and I've only tallied an extremely small minority of columnists and writers who'd have that same opinion. Yet Remington has led himself to believe (and tries to lead you all to believe) that the average Republican supporter is "demoralized...seeing it differently." Which is, of course, absolute BS.

So now that I feel like I've repeated myself needlessly, we press onward:

Republican strategists were quick to paint Biden as the ultimate slick politician and Palin as the candidate of the people. They, and Palin, accused Biden of dwelling in the past by focusing on the record of George W. Bush and linking McCain to it.

These are the same people who look back decades to the the administrations of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter as the root of America's current economic mess. The hypocrisy is stunning.

In a strained attempt to misdirect blame for the current financial mess, they cite the Community Reinvestment Act -- a law passed in 1977 to eradicate discrimination in lending in poor neighbourhoods -- as the culprit. This is laughable. The CRA covered commercial banks and savings and loans institutions, not the loosely regulated non-bank mortgage companies that are largely responsible for the sub-prime mortgage mess. But, then, blaming poor blacks and immigrants has always been a favoured tactic of cold-hearted, fear-mongering U.S. conservative idealogues.

Heh, heh. I told you it was coming. This is where Remington makes himself out to be a total idiot, and I'll explain why.

Biden is, indeed, a smooth liar. Want an example? OK, there's 24 and counting out of the VP debate. Want more? Clarence Thomas hearings, Presidential run plagiarism, law school plagiarism, history of pandering, and more recently, lying to the face of a supporter who hated coal, saying Barack's plan was "no coal plants in America," laughing and grabbing the supporter by the shoulders, telling her not to worry about a thing.

Smooth.

As for the idiocy about conservatives' "hypocrisy", well, that's not exactly hypocrisy. For one, that's what actually happened, you moron. The original Community Re-investment Act under Carter, Reagan, and Bush (which is what Remington refers to) actually increased home ownership by an infinitesimal amount. But then, under the Clinton administration, Democrats added huge amendments to it that led to the crisis today, and President Clinton gladly put it through. Funny how Remington just dismisses that and doesn't go in deeper.

But hey, we're conservatives. We just blame immigrants and black people. Boo-hoo, we're racist fascist fear-mongers.

In what you may percieve to be a "strained attempt to misdirect," Mr. Remington, you are misdirecting yourself. I'd advise you to actually look into the facts next time, instead of ignoring them to help out the US political party you like the best. Stay out of our politics unless you actually have something to contribute. Until then, keep covering your Canadian leaders, like you're supposed to.

Expectations of Palin were so low all she had to do was show up and run out the clock without fumbling the ball. That she did, buying some time for McCain. He needed the U.S. Congress to pass a $700 billion economic rescue plan, which it did on Friday, to salvage his sputtering campaign. But the good news didn't last long for the Vietnam war hero.

The bailout bill was to SAVE his campaign? Remington, are you INSANE!? Conservatives and liberals alike hate the bailout bill. It's not good publicity that McCain supports it, especially since polls show opposition to the bill. It's not some political opportunity bill. It's a bill to stabilize (or attempt to stabilize) the economy.

U.S. employment figures released Friday showed a loss of 159,000 jobs for September, the largest single month drop since the current period of job loss began. For 2008, the U.S. economy has now lost 760,000 jobs, a grim statistic for the incumbent party that is increasingly spiraling back to the era of Herbert Hoover, dragging the rest of us with them.

But, gee golly, Sarah will save us all, dontcha know. If the Republicans win and the old McCain ticker gives out, the GOP thinks she'll be just dandy.

It's not the Bush administration's fault. If the myth of "too much deregulation" would finally pass, the "incumbent party" would be looked to as heroes for trying to stop the real culprits like Barney Frank and other Democrats who blocked the "good regulation" that the Republicans like Chuck Hagel and John McCain tried to enforce.

But what do you know, you're not exactly objective.

And what's this? Sarah Palin isn't saying anything stupid like "she'll save us all." No, things like that are actually said by the top of the Democratic ticket. Using the "old" argument, well, isn't that "fear-mongering"? I thought that's just what we racist conservatives do. Stupidity. It's what's for lunch.

And what may be the most laughable part of the article:

Jeff Fischer, a Phoenix cafe owner and Obama supporter, begs to differ. He was so upset during Thursday's debate, he threw his chair at the television. "I felt I was being insulted as a citizen of the United States -- the potential for Sarah Palin to represent us," said Fischer.

So, now we've got a truly great representation of the average American. A fanatical Obama supporter who is so mentally unstable he throws his furniture into expensive electrical appliances. Well, Remington. I feel insulted by this. I feel insulted that a hack such as you can attain a job at a respectable Canadian newspaper. What is the world coming to?

EDIT: It has come to my attention that this Robert Remington fellow is unmistakeably ugly. See for yourself. Remarkable.