About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Humans a Virus?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, November 23, 2009 8:22:54 PM
In response to an article touting the discovery of water on the Moon, Russell Blinick of Encino wrote in to the Los Angeles Times:
Alas, we are taking another step in our attempt to infect all of the cosmos with the human virus. Isn't it enough that we are on the verge of destroying the Earth?
That's the way too many people on the Left look at humanity, folks. We're not just mere accidents of nature - we're a virus. We're destructive. The implication is that the universe is better off without us. This is a good reason to keep the Left from having too much power.
If there were an intergalactic police force, it would be well advised to put yellow crime tape around our planet, much like Michael Moore's action around Wall Street.
This makes the assumption that if intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, it would be less of a "virus" than we are. On what basis, I wonder, does Mr. Blinick make that assumption?

Everything I've heard about the universe from science indicates that eventually, the universe is going to die. Now, that doesn't make it okay to be irresponsible with natural resources. However, I worry much less about our environmental stewardship than I worry about our behavior in other areas. As some theologians claim, we are fallen creatures.

Thank God we have a Redeemer who makes all things new. I believe He will renew us, and renew the universe.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Kalifornia Comes After Your TV

Posted by Playful Walrus on Friday, November 20, 2009 2:55:30 PM
The Nanny State marches on. Now the controllers are coming after your big screen televisions in the name of saving the planet.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Attention Environmentalist Whackos

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 1:00:09 PM
If you are concerned about your carbon footprint or otherwise are certain that human beings are dooming the planet with our use of fossil fuels, and you use that as a reason not to have kids (or kill your kids in the womb), or to have fewer kids than you'd otherwise desire to have... Go right ahead and get your ovaries removed or undergo vasectomies.  We don't need people like you raising more of the next generation anyway.

Just remember that "reproductive rights" are a superduperprecedent, so you can't limit how many children the rest of us have.  And I know you're counting on control of academia and media in the hopes of brainwashing my children with your foolishness, but I am inoculating them against your idiotic notions.  You know what inoculations are, right?  They are those things you think are causing all of your mental illnesses and health problems.

Thank you.

I could really go for some spotted owl roasted over redwood.  Mmmmm.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will Bert From Sesame Street Do This?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:00:00 PM
The City of Santa Monica is trying to stop pigeons from defecating into the Pacific Ocean.  No, I'm not kidding.  Melody Hanatani has the story on he Santa Monica Daily Press.
The City Council tonight is expected to approve a $107,758 contract with Bird Busters to install a net directly beneath the Santa Monica Pier where pigeons roost and frequently defecate, creating challenges for City Hall to meet bacterial levels set forth by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.
But who is going to stop the fish, shellfish, and aquatic mammals from defecating in the ocean?

Long before Europeans made it to the Left Coast, birds were... blessing the ocean with their biological processings.  And while clean water laws and regulations are prompting municipalities and the state to frantically implore people to pick up after their pets (as well they should anyway), my guess is that plenty of excrement from land-based wildlife made to the Santa Monica and Long Beach areas in the past without the aid of the human-engineered flood control system.

(H/T: LATimes.com)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Please Consider the Environment Before Printing This Blog

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, May 18, 2009 7:00:00 PM
Consider the marvel of the natural, human, and capital resources that allow me to write this blog, and for you to read it, for you to bookmark it, for you to print it out if you’d like.

Think about how trees were put to productive use by human beings, who turned them into paper, that you can place in your printer.

Think about it.

Then, go ahead and print out this blog and make many, many copies.

Leave copies with those people who have those silly environmentalist whacko bumper stickers on their hybrid cars.  I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

And let's adopt "Please consider the environment before..." in our daily lives.

Please consider the environment before watching Obama's next press conference.
Please consider the environment before spraypainting your gang moniker on that bench.
Please consider the environment before accepting bailout money.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Prince Charles is at it Again

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, March 09, 2009 12:47:15 PM
Will he put his status where his mouth is?  From Andrew Alderson of the Telegraph:
In Thursday's speech, the Prince will warn that a failure to act in the next eight years will have catastrophic effects for the planet.

In the country that is home to the world's largest rainforest, Prince Charles will urge world unity to combat deforestation in the run-up to the UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen in December this year.

He will say there is not necessarily a clash between the needs of big business and the environment. He will argue that being green can be good for businesses and can create jobs.

The Prince will say that tackling deforestation in the 3.5 billion acres of rainforest on the planet is a key priority.
I want specifics.  Tell us exactly how much of the rainforest must be saved (and define what you mean by “save”).  Tell us exactly what will happen and when it will happen if less of the rainforest is saved.  And I want a pledge that Prince Charles will abdicate all current and future royal positions, as well as some sort of financial commitment, should his warning prove false.

Previous entries here and here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Warming Switcheroo

Posted by Playful Walrus on Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:08:54 PM
Have you noticed how many people have started using the phrase "climate change" instead of "global warming"?  I knew "global warming" had jumped the shark when megachurches and parachurch organizations started adopting it as an issue, as too many of them tend to "buy high and sell low" when it comes to pop culture.  And, of course, if conservative churches started coming on really strong on the issue, the Left would be forced to abandon it for the sake of "separation of church and state".  After all, anything that those churches want can't be allowed to be addressed in law.

But the switch to "climate change" as the magic mantra is the clearest sign yet that those who want to control our lives and transfer our wealth in the name of environmentalism are starting to lose at this part of the game.

All of these people who told us we were all going to fry in the heat and then drown from the rising sea levels (even though they are certain there never ever could have been a worldwide flood) insisted that the problem was going to be rising temperatures.  Now, they are hoping we will forget that, because they have been exposed as needlessly alarmist and of the same ilk as those who warned of a coming ice age a few decades ago.  Now, they hope by saying "climate change", they can point to anything, including blizzards, as evidence of why we need to pass intrusive and restrictive laws that straightjacket what we can do in every aspect of our lives.  "See that fat kid?  Yeah, his childhood obesity is a result of climate change!!!"

I don't know about where you live, but where I live, the climate changes every day.  It has been that way since I was born.  Every year it gets cold in the winter and warm in the summer.

Don't let these folks get away with the switcheroo.  Call them on it whenever they say "climate change".  They should be forced to admit that they were wrong about global warming and thus are suspect when it comes to dire climate change predictions.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rate of Amazon Deforestation is Up

Posted by Playful Walrus on Friday, November 28, 2008 10:05:34 PM
This is great news!

How so?

Well, I remember back in the 1980s when the environmental alarmist groups told us that the Amazon would be gone by 2000.  Here were are, almost to 2009, and it is still around.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Los Angeles Times is Anti-Choice

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:05:28 PM
The editors at the Los Angeles Times are anti-choice.  Oh, they still support a woman’s “right” to have someone else slaughter her baby.  They are against choices when it comes to food and bags.

They argue that it makes sense to arbitrarily ban new “fast food outlets” in an arbitrarily defined part of the City of L.A. called “South L.A.” (which means South Central, or the hood) when:
When the area suffers from a historic lack of the kind of planning ordinances and design guidelines that govern traffic flow, development and general livability in places such as Westwood and Pacific Palisades.
C’mon.  This is not a traffic issue.
When the failure of the planning process leads to such a concentration of drive-throughs -- with their garish signage, cookie-cutter design, street-fronting parking lots and idling cars -- that it dissuades supermarkets and other businesses from locating nearby.
Business go where they can make money.  The fast food business are there because people there choose to use them.  The main reason a business, such a supermarket, would not locate there is because the regulations and crime (including riots) make it too difficult to operate at a profit.
When developers and investors mentally write off the area for anything other than fast-food franchises, figuring that residents must want them or there wouldn't be so many.
They do want them.  What franchisee is going to open up where there are no customers?
When the city's economic geography, politics and practice create a self-perpetuating business wasteland and catch-as-catch-can projects that never match the aspirations of its neglected populace.
The editors think the people of this area are too stupid or too lazy to go after what they want.

They also think we should all be punished because some people litter, arguing for a ban on plastic shopping bags.

I like plastic shopping bags.  They can be recycled, they are convenient, they are made out of a natural substance (petroleum), they have many convenient uses, and they help prevent the kind of food contamination possible when reusing non-plastic bags to carry food.

Why not punish the people who litter?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Okay, Warners of Global Warming: We’re Listening

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:17:50 PM
We can’t go a few days without some politician, government official, paid pandering advertisement, or celebrity giving us dire predictions about global warming unless we make radical changes to our lives right now.  Conveniently, these changes always involve giving government agencies more power and money, restricting the freedoms of the people, and the need to buy one company’s products.

The latest in NASA’ James Hansen.
Exactly 20 years after warning America about global warming, a top NASA scientist said the situation has gotten so bad that the world's only hope is drastic action.

James Hansen told Congress on Monday that the world has long passed the "dangerous level" for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels. He said Earth's atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises.

"We're toast if we don't get on a very different path," Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences who is sometimes called the godfather of global warming science, told The Associated Press. "This is the last chance."
I wonder if he has ever said that before?  I know others have.  I remember from the 70s and 80s that by now, we were not supposed to have drinking water, we were going to have no landfill space, the oceans were going to be deadly to the touch, the Amazon was going to be gone, and the air would be so smoggy we’d all be choking constantly throughout the day.  I’m sure there is something “we” did, of course, to prevent or stave off these disasters – by “we” I mean government  restrictions and Hollywood stars holding fundraisers.
This guy starts to give some specifics – specifics that can be tested.  That’s important.
Burning fossil fuels like coal is the chief cause of man-made greenhouse gases. Hansen said the Earth's atmosphere has got to get back to a level of 350 parts of carbon dioxide per million. Last month, it was 10% higher: 386.7 parts per million.
Man-made is the key here.  Things like erupting volcanoes and naturally-occurring wildfires and animal flatulence are other causes, so even if we stop our output, we're still going to have greenhouses gases.  I fail to see what the big deal is about carbon dioxide.  Are we all supposed to hold our breath?  You first, alarmists.  Our planet has a system that balances itself out – sunlight, winds, rains, ocean currents, trees, microscopic life – it is quite fascinating stuff.

Fossil fuels are good for very few things.  Fossil fuels are efficient.  They can provide more energy than it takes to use them, unlike some “alternatives”.  Let’s use them for energy as long as we can.  The planet will be just fine.
Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.
I like specifics.  This is good.  I asked Prince Charles to provide specifics in a prior entry here.

Two questions I want all of you warners to answer:

1. What exactly do we need to do and by when?

2. What exactly will happen if we don't and when?

I want observable, testable, measurable specifics, such as “We need to stay below X parts of carbon dioxide per million in our atmosphere for at least 90% of the next 10 years.” And “If we don’t, the sea levels will rise X feet.”

And then, if you are proved wrong, I want you to shut up and pay up.  I don’t want you trying to deflect accountability for your statements in the future with charges of racism, or “failed policies”, or “this doesn’t put food on my child’s plate” or “Americans are tired of this kind of division.”
But Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., committee chairman, said, "Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet."
This is from a guy who thinks the federal government should regulate theme park rides.  Obama should be making sure that Space Mountain is safe.  Yeah… right.  Well, he does spend most of his time in Fantasyland.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lost Actors in the Amazon?

Posted by Playful Walrus on Friday, May 30, 2008 1:23:42 PM
Anyone else think this may be staged?  I wonder if this photographer also finds polar bears drowning, and "extinct" plant species on sites scheduled for development?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Put Your Status Where Your Mouth Is, Prince Charles

Posted by Playful Walrus on Monday, May 19, 2008 12:53:37 PM
So Prince Charles says we have 18 months to stop a climate change disaster.  Here are my questions:

1. What will this disaster look like?  Give us specifics that will be observable and measurable, including a timetable.  By the way, "warmer temperatures" are not enough.  It has to be something that is actually bad, as in destructive to people, animals, and property.  Also, if there are the same number of hurricanes as there have been in the past, that won't be enough either.

2. What exactly do we have to do to prevent such a disaster from happening?  Again, give us specifics, including deadlines.

3. If we do not fulfill what you say is needed in response to my second question, and what you said in response to my first question also doesn’t come to pass, will you issue an apology, abdicate all claims to any title you have or may be in line to receive, and withdraw from public life?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Just in Case You’re Wondering What’s Going on in California

Posted by Playful Walrus on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 5:36:40 PM
Today, our Supreme Court heard arguments about whether or not the people of California should be forced, against their vote, to issue marriage licenses to couples missing a bride or a groom.

In the City of Los Angeles, a harmless firehouse prank continues to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.  First, a black firefighter got a seven-figure settlement because he was the victim of a prank after being a perpetrator himself for years.  Now, two white firefighters are getting a combined seven-figure judgment because they were reprimanded for the incident more severely than the Latino firefighter who actually carried out the prank.

Really, why are the taxpayers responsible?  In these cases, shouldn’t the individuals be held responsible?  Sure, the pockets aren’t as deep, but isn’t this supposed to be about justice, and not making people rich for hurt feelings?  I know the reasoning for why the taxpayers are responsible.  Because someone higher up at the Fire Department didn’t prevent these things from happening (I mean, they should be able to be at all places at all times, right?), and the people who hired the Fire Chief didn’t stop it from happening, and those people are elected by the taxpayers, who didn’t elect people who would hire the right Fire Chief who would hire and promote the right people to prevent this sort of thing from ever happening.

But really… how realistic is that?  The taxpayers get burned again, pun intended.

From getting burned to getting soaked, the County of Los Angeles and various cities (the taxpayers, really) are facing lawsuits and fines for not keeping “pollutants” out of the Pacific Ocean.  This is just a scam to redistribute public funds.  The County and the cities have been working in good faith.  But they are still supposed to be able to magically keep fecal matter from animals from being washed by the rain into the Pacific Ocean.

Do these environmentalist wackos not realize that 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 1000, 5,000 years ago animal waste and other “pollutants” were regularly finding their way from the land into the Pacific Ocean?  And who is going to stop the whales from excreting in the Santa Monica Bay?

Just another day in California.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »