Really, Fox News?

When I want to stay informed about current events, all I want are the facts of the story. I really don't want it to have a slant. I want the journalists that craft their stories to be impartial. The news isn't meant to be reported as if it were an editorial. If I wanted an editorial, I'd read stuff that I write. I want the news and that's all that I want. That being said...Fox News? What is wrong with you?
::: sigh ::: Behold.

Really? "Impeached President"? Yes, yes. Bill Clinton was impeached. Is there a reason that they felt the need to address him in that manner? That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic that they're about the discuss. And if that's what they're going to be about then really, what's stopping them from using other phrasings that would be technically accurate? Let's see...we could have:

Fellatio Recipient Opines About Something Non-fellatious

Big ol' Liar Is Embarrassed For The Country

Adulterer Wants To Strangle Non-Believers

Yes, we could have any of those headlines, but we don't. You know why? Because it's not good journalism, that is correct. And it really irks me because I try to give cable news the benefit of the doubt most of the time. But a headline like that at the "Fair and Balanced" news station just isn't making that possible for me. Keep it classy, Fox News.

Sphere: Related Content

What Caused The Earthquake?

This Haiti thing has been the breeding grounds for ridiculous comments. First we have big, fat Rush Limbaugh shooting off of his mouth and saying that the only thing that you're going to get by donating for Haiti is that you'll end up on the White House mailing list. (Would that be such a bad thing, really? Maybe they have coupons like Bed, Bath and Beyond!) Then we have the (probably) completely senile (perhaps because his brain has been riddled by syphilis) Pat Robertson saying that the earthquake struck Haiti because the Haitians had made some sort of a deal with the Devil in order to get the French and Napoleon III out of town. (I'm still not really all that clear on what the Haitians were supposed to do to uphold their end of the bargain with the Devil. And I'm also not clear on how it is that suddenly the Devil has the power over earthquakes. I thought we left Mother Nature in charge of that. Did the Haitians back out of some sort of a deal with her?) And now we have another fruit loop to add to that mix. And it comes in the unlikely form of a one Danny Glover.

I'm pretty sure that Danny Glover hasn't been thinking straight for a while now. I'm guessing it all began probably right around when he signed up for that The Shaggy Dog movie, but it could have been much earlier (when were the Saw movies?). Anyway, Danny Glover had called into some show that was on something called GRITtv. I didn't have any idea what the heck that was either, so I checked out their website and found that "GRITtv with Laura Flanders is a new, news discussion and take-action show,available in multiple formats, with interactivity, a real relationship with news makers across the world, and a positive take on what's possible in the 21st Century." Now you know as much as I do.

I have the clip below. Mr. Glover begins spouting right around the 1:00 mark. I knew he was going to be a little bit wacky when he started off with ""I believe that this is going to be a defining moment for this administration. What we (something) for...in a new relationship, in a partnership with Haiti." Umm, OK?

I'm not sure how sending aid to another country (one that we're friendly with and all) like we tend to do is going to be a defining moment for President Barry's administration. I'm just not seeing it. Frankly, I'd prefer that a defining moment for any American President's administration be one that is directly related to helping the people of the nation over which the administration sees, but that could be just me. I might be the only one who wants a President's defining moment to actually impact the country which elected him. Maybe. But maybe not.

I'm also not sure how this "partnership" with Haiti is possible. What exactly is it that Haiti is going to do for us? See, because when you "partner" up with someone, you're both helping each other. In this instance, from what I can tell, we're going to help Haiti and Haiti is going to let us help them. That's really not what I would call a "partnership". It's nice, but it's hardly "partnering".

Mr. Glover continued along lines of questionable thinking processes by saying: "That means that other countries in the region — Venezuela, Brazil, Cuba (which he pronounced COO-ba for some reason) and other countries have already accepted the point that this is a great moment for another type of internationalism, you know." Actually, I...I don't know. Do we know about these other countries alleged acceptance of said alternate internationalism? I wish he had some examples. Perhaps a chart. I love charts! But I digress. Onward...

"And I hope we seize this particular moment because the threat of what happens in Haiti is the threat that can happen anywhere in the Caribbean to these island nations, you know?" Um, yes? Yes, an earthquake can happen just about anywhere. The Caribbean. The not Caribbean. Earthquakes are real. Thank you for pointing that out to us, Danny Glover.

Oh, but before you give thanks and leave, please read on! See, I didn't realize that he was going to continue to explain WHY this earthquake happened and WHY this can happen anywhere. And I'm sure you're just dying to find out, right? Whatever. Keep reading.

"They're all in peril because of global warming; they're all in peril because of climate change. When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm saying? But we have to act now." Wait. What now?

What we did at the climate summit? We didn't do anything at the climate summit! Because we didn't do anything, Haiti had an earthquake? I...I don't think that's correct. I'm fairly certain that the climate summit had little or nothing to do with the natural disaster that occurred in Haiti. You know why I think that? Because it's TRUE!

Sad. Perhaps Danny Glover has the same alleged syphilis riddled brain problem that might have affected Mr. Robertson. That's unfortunate. I really liked Mr. Glover in Lethal Weapon. (And by the way...Danny? They're using the 'climate change' term these days. Saying 'global warming' is out because sometimes there's 'global colding' and so if they go with 'climate change', well, change is change! And that way they're never wrong. Now go find your slippers and stop calling TV stations.)

Sphere: Related Content

Step Right Up and Throw Away Your Money!

I guess I'm a little slow. If I were a little faster on the uptake, perhaps I would have thought of this brilliant idea which totally exploits the adage "A fool and his money are soon parted."

At San Francisco International Airport (known for some reason as SFO. Why the "O"? Is it supposed to represent the globe since its the International Airport?) they have installed kiosks that will allow those who so choose to free themselves of the guilt that they carry around by flying around. Wait. What? Guilt? Whatkinda guilt?

The kinda guilt that you have when you fly because you're contributing to global warming by leaving carbon footprint! You know! That kind! Don't you feel guilty when you fly? (NO! But go on!) Well, pack your bags, 'cause you're going on a guilt trip!

Here's the theory: If you fly, you contribute to global warming by getting on that plane. God forbid that you do anything differently (such as not fly), so in order to make yourself feel good (no clue as to whether or not it actually does anything to help the environment) what you're supposed to want to do is to give money to...um, someone and then you're supposed to trust (yes, trust) that they're going to use the money to...um, do something that will help the environment.

In case that was too complicated, let me simplify: There is a machine that takes people's money that they willing put into it and they get nothing in return other than a warm and fuzzy feeling that they've created in their own mind. Is this a great country or what?!

So what's the average cost of being a fool and needing to part with some money? Let's find out, shall we? Of course there is a carbon footprint calculator at the kiosks for you to use. And if you're not at the kiosks (but want to get some sort of an idea as to how far you have to fly in order to lose X-amount of money should you choose to contribute to this project with absolutely no guarantee that your money will be spent for anything useful at all) you can use the handy calculator online to figure out how big of a sap you are how much it will cost you.

For instance, it says that if we take a long flight of 6,000 miles (round trip) that is allegedly using or burning or making 5,608 pounds of CO2 (aka carbon dioxide) that is equal to 2.543 tons and at $13.50 per ton our guilt can be absolved for a mere $34.34. I wonder what it would take to absolve their guilt? Oh, that's right. They likely have none.

Here's my first (but not my last) problem with this: The figure that they're using for a "ton" is 2204.6 pounds. That is not a ton. 2000 pounds is a ton in the US. 2204.6 is a metric ton. Metric? Since when does the US operate on the metric ton principle? I don't think we do! Oh, wait. Is it that damn "International Airport" designation again?! No, I'm guessing that it's that a metric ton is 204.6 pounds more than a US ton (or short ton) and that benefits them considerably. I noticed that we're not calculating the flight length in kilometers, why is that? Because they don't want to, that is correct.

They don't seem to give any sort of formula as to how they have calculated the amount of CO2 which they are claiming per flight. OK, they give a formula as to how to calculate how much money you can give them, no questions asked. But they don't give you a formula as to what was taken into consideration when determining the CO2 amount. How many people were on this plane? What kind of a plane was it? What direction was it flying? Was there a headwind? A tailwind? A side wind? (Is there a side wind? God, I hope not.) Does the plane use the same amount of fuel regardless as to the number of passengers? Do they take the size of the crew into consideration? (I mean how many crew members there are, not if they need to butter their sides to squeeze themselves down the aisle or not.) Shouldn't flights with more people on them cost you less money to throw away than flights with less people on them? Because with a whole boatload, er, planeload of people, all of the sinning can be split up over all of them, but if you only have two people on the plane, then you're going halfsies with the sin. Not good.

And what does your money go toward in order to absolve you from your guilt? Why, according to the website, it goes to the "...Garcia River Forest, a conservation-based forest management project located in Mendocino County, California." It goes on to tell us about that particular forest and how it is "...dominated by native Redwood and Douglas Fir trees that are remarkably resilient to pests, fire, and disease." Well if they're do damned resilient, why is it that money is needed for them? They seem to be doing just fine on their own. With me so far? Of the $13.50 per ton of CO2 that they're charging you, $12.00 of it goes to "...covering costs associated with locating, researching, and verifying high quality projects as well as the other general operating costs typically incurred by any organization." Wait a minute. How is it supporting the forest one minute and then going on to support a bunch of locating, researching and verifying? Wouldn't "researching" cover the "locating" and the "verifying"? You might notice it doesn't say that they're doing anything once they're done with all of the "researching". So they're just looking into stuff and you're supposed to pay for it. Sounds fair. Sure. And do tell, what "other general operating costs" might they they speaking of? Who knows?!?!

But here's the BEST part! According to Anthony Watts over there at Watts Up With That? (catchy) "...you can buy a ton of carbon offset on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) for 20 cents. That’s about 60 times less than what you would pay at the SFO kiosk!" Behold!

Oh, for hell's sake. What?!?! And an article in the Times Online details how the "clean energy auditor" was suspended by the UN because they couldn't prove that they did anything or that if they did that they were qualified to do so.

Look, if you're going to feel that guilty about flying around that you need to just throw your money away, please don't throw it into a kiosk at SFO. Please throw it to me. I promise to detail every little thing that I do with it. Here, I can detail it right now just to save time.

• I bought beer. Then I drank it. I don't remember much after that, but your money was already gone, so it's really a moo point.

Done!

Sphere: Related Content