Thursday, July 06, 2006

Can I Help You Pack?

So, it comes out from starving-leftist-media-darling Cindy Sheehan, that she would rather live in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez than in the USoA.

Five words.

Let. Me. Help. You. Pack.

I've got a feeling that there are going to be more than a few offers of one-way, first-class tickets to Caracas to the Queen Moonbat in the next 48 hours. Of course, much like Alec Baldwin, she won't really leave. I mean, the media coverage down there isn't near what it is up here.

In other news, set your TiVo's, kids! Everybody's favorite Congressional Jihadist-turned-Cop-Assaulter is going to be on TELEVISED DEBATES!

Something tells me this will end up being the sort of comedy gold of legends, in the pantheon of 'More Cowbell', 'Awkward white guys in 7-foot long suits at the NBA Draft', and 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

25 comments:

hillary said...

Oh yes. Let us have no exaggerated rhetoric ever. Everyone must speak in the simplest of terms. You are always accountable for exactly what you say at all times.

Dante said...

You want to help her pack? As long as folks like Hillary are chiming in to the lady's defense when she spouts off with her "exaggerated rhotoric," I'd like to keep her around as long as possible. And while we're at it, are there any more cameras we can put on her? Remember, the enemey of your enemy is your friend and whether she knows it or not, Sheehan has certainly become an enemy of the left.

dadvocate said...

More often than not "exaggerated rhetoric" (hyperbole) in the public arena does more harm than good. Cindy Sheehan is certainly doing more harm than good. I believe in "say what you mean and mean what you say."

If Cindy wants to live in a country run by a tyrant who will confiscate your land, etc. on a whimsy, I'll be glad to help her pack also.

hillary said...

I believe in "say what you mean and mean what you say."

Thank you, Horton.

Flipping out over everything people say is a fine way to make everyone angrier and more tense. It tightens the possibilities for communication. People should attempt to be precise in their language, but we don't have to hold them to it like complete jerkwads.

petallic said...

Pat, please explain your comment about "An Inconvenient Truth." I just saw it, and I'm curious as to your meaning.

As to Cindy Sheehan, bah.

petallic said...

Sorry, I meant SAWB, not Pat.

S.A.W.B. said...

I shall illustrate my comment on the 'comedy gold' of 'An Inconvenient Truth' in the brilliance that is d00dsp33k, because that's all it's really worth:

dood, teh earf is getting teh hotzorz. tehebil oildoods is getting rich and makeing teh earf dead. lololoLOLOLolol111!!1!1oneone

OHNOS! TEH SCIENCE BEHIND TEH MOVIE IS TEH SUXORZ!!!! LOLOLOLOZZZEEEONON!!ONEONE!!ELEVEN

NOWAI! SRSLY!

DOOD! teh science is teh haxz, but it are teh leetsauce! people = teh dum LOLOLOLOLOLOLZZZZZZZZZ.

And now, I shall translate my thoughts into normal english, for some yet unknown reason:

The science behind 'An Inconvenient Truth' is about as solid as pudding. Al Gore himself has admitted that the theories are in fact, a stretch at best, and an outright lie at worst, but that 'it's ok to distort the facts, because this is important'.

What the Global Warming/Environut crowd seem to gloss over, over and over again, is that the sun is in one of it's cyclical hot periods, and has been more active in the last 20+ years than in the last 100 or so. They also fail to mention things like the hole(s) in the ozone layer above the arctic/antarctic circle are in fact shrinking. this generally coincides with whichever pole being tilted away from the more direct impact of the sun for 6 months of the year.

The ice shelves aren't melting, they're shifting and realigning. look at a map of the arctic/antarctic. as the ice melts on the east, it grows new ice on the west.

we aren't all going to get flooded out even if the polar caps were to inexplicably melt. That's simple physics. It works on the same principle of if you float an ice cube in a full glass of water. as the ice melts, it doesn't overflow the glass, as the existing water is being displaced by the ice, and will balance out as the ice melts.

Basically, I find it hilarious, in a cynical, I can't believe people are buying this crap sort of way, that Al Gore has gotten an audience for this movie, but then, very little surprises me anymore with regard to how fast and loose the Environuts play with factual science.

S.A.W.B. said...

Oh, and, Hillary, if you can tell when Cindy Sheehan is spouting 'exaggerated rhetoric' in contrast to 'speaking what she actually believes', lemme know. So far, she's carried out just about every loony promise she's made.

hillary said...

Fella, I could care less whether she carries through on her "promises" or not. You're the one attacking her (and others) for not doing so. So do you think she will? Or do you think she won't? Whichever is easiest to mount an attack on?

Should I bother trying to argue with someone who doesn't believe in global warming as a problem? Did you read Elizabeth Kolbert's articles?

petallic said...

No use of hyperbole or rhetoric allowed ever, and the earth is doing just fine.

That doesn't sound quite right, SAWB.

S.A.W.B. said...

When Cindy Sheehan swears she'll camp out in front of GWB's ranch in Crawford for Christmas, and then does so, is it 'exaggerated rhetoric'?

When Cindy goes down to Venezuela and has a huggy-time photo op with Hugo Chavez, is it 'exaggerated rhetoric' to think that she might actually go live down there?

When Cindy accuses the Irish Government of war crimes because they allow military planes to land and refuel at Shannon Airport, is it 'exaggerated rhetoric'?

It would be one thing if she was saying outlandish things, and then following that up with, 'i was just kidding' or the like. However, since I can not recall, or find record, of her ever retracting a statement, or claiming something was in jest, I assume that she is dead serious about everything that comes out of her mouth.

Regarding the earth, Petallic, yeah, it's fine. This planet has an amazing ability to heal and rebuild itself, no matter the damage we do to it. Does that mean I'm in favor of gutting the planet for saleable resources? No. Do I think the Environuts have been hyperventilating for the last 30 or so years? Oh yeah.

I wouldn't have quite the problem with Gore's movie, if he didn't present it as the one and only truth.

Patrick Armstrong said...

(Raises hand from back of room)

Uhh. Y'all, I care a whole lot if the icecaps melt. I care a whole lot if the sea levels change rapidly. I guess that comes from living by the sea lo, these many years.

As far as the science of environmentalism, it only became 'solid as pudding' once the MSM became more interested in 'balance' than 'truth.' Yeah, we have our nutter-butter bars, those sky-is-falling folks who think living in a tree is a good way to convince people you know what you're talking about. But most of us want simple things like more efficient cars, less mercury in our water, and industries who pollute to clean up their own messes.

And pardon me for taking anything the right says about science with a grain of salt. In my lifetime, 'Evolution' didn't used to be up for serious debate, either.

patsbrother said...

SAWB: it's cute you equate a glass of melting ice water to the earth. Because the difference may be small on that level (imperceptible to you, even), and yet have what we current and former Islanders would consider "important real world consequences": because the Island's 12' above sea level is less than that milimeter you see in the glass.

Popular science suggests during the last ice age, when there was more ice at the poles, the seas were at lower levels than they are now. See every theory on why there were people in the New World before Columbus got there that does not involve the phrase "God did it".

Assumption: when there was more ice, there were lower sea levels. Assumption 2: now that there is less ice, the sea levels are where we are used to them being.

If you accept these assumptions, it is laughably naive to assume that with even less ice that sea levels will stay the same.

patsbrother said...

Plus, your bizarre glass of water analogy does not hold water (huzzah!). You assume that the ice sits entirely at or below the top of water, whereas, in my glass of ice water, ice has a tendency to kind of stick out the top.

hillary said...

So then why make an Alec Baldwin comparison? I thought you were making a point about hypocrisy or something. Anyhoo... we're obviously on to different things.

S.A.W.B. said...

paT and PB, my science is sound. go try it. fill a glass overfull with ice, then fill it with water til the water reaches the top of the glass. Then go watch it melt. you can even go outside where it's hot so it'll go faster. As the ice melts, the level of water in the glass will NEVER cascade over the rim of the glass. It really is simple physics.

Hillary, I didn't realize your original comment was regarding Alec Baldwin, since he was mentioned in passing, as a frame of reference sort of thing.

paT, exactly where have I ever used 'Jeebus did it' as an explanation for why something happened?

Dante said...

SAWB is indeed correct about ice floating in water. Here's a link explaining it better than I could. However, it's my understanding that much of the polar ice isn't floating but instead is piled up on some sort of land mass. Much like runoff from snow, this could potentially lead to higher seas levels. Melting glaciers on the other hand are a non-issue.

"But most of us want simple things like more efficient cars, less mercury in our water, and industries who pollute to clean up their own messes."

Pat, you're leaving out some rather big issues where there are big rifts in environmental beliefs. Domestic oil drilling is a good example. From what I understand, I gather that you're against it, SAWB is for it, and I think it should be up to the folks who have to live near it. Wetland conservation is another issue where folks don't tend to agree. I think wetlands are frickin swamps. Drain them and build me a Disney World. I know others have differing opinions. There's no "most of us" when it comes to the envirnment as a whole.

Patrick Armstrong said...

"paT and PB, my science is sound. go try it. fill a glass overfull with ice, then fill it with water til the water reaches the top of the glass."

I wasn't talking about the glass of water. I used to watch Mr. Wizard, too. I'm sure your science is fine with the glass of water.

However, I've never bodyboarded on waves generated in a glass of water. I've never seen a house inundated by a glass of water. And I've never watched a glass of water radically alter 8 miles of geography in a single night.

I'm pretty willing to think that the physics of a glass of water are somewhat different than the physics of the ocean. Even if you are right, PB is also right (for once) when he says that last milimeter in the glass of water can translate into well more than 12 feet on a global scale.

S.A.W.B. said...

paT, where do you think all that water comes from? Oddly enough, this too isn't a place for 'god did it'. Ice breaks off of the polar caps, melts into the oceans, storms pick it out of the atmosphere, dump it on the land, where it evaporates back into the air, and reforms into ice at the polar caps.

If 'global warming' is so dire as the Environuts want us to think, Antarctica would be a tropical paradise, and the rest of us would either be swimming, or roasted where we stand.

Don't believe the 'Waterworld' hype.

Dante said...

"However, I've never bodyboarded on waves generated in a glass of water. I've never seen a house inundated by a glass of water. And I've never watched a glass of water radically alter 8 miles of geography in a single night."

And I've never enjoyed a nice summer day inside a global warming computer simulation. What's your point? At least the glass of ice is actually demonstrating a physical property in a verifiable manner.

"I'm pretty willing to think that the physics of a glass of water are somewhat different than the physics of the ocean. Even if you are right, PB is also right (for once) when he says that last milimeter in the glass of water can translate into well more than 12 feet on a global scale."

The laws of physics do not change with the sample size. A glacier melting in the ocean is no different than an ice cube melting in a glass of water.

Since some folks (looking at you here, Pat) can't be bothered to follow a link for an explanation, I'll do my best to put it into words here:

Ice expands when it freezes.

While the mass of the ice is no different from the water that created it (same number of molecules), the volume is different (It's larger from the expansion.). You can verify this by filling a bottle and freezing it. Your bottle will either bulge or burst in the freezer.

When that ice sits in the water, it can only displace as much VOLUME as the water around it based on it's mass. In other words, if the mass of an object is equal to one ounce of water, it is less dense than the water, and it is placed in that water, the volume displaced in the water will be equal to one ounce of water. That's why things float.

That means that if the ice were melted, it's new decreased volume (result of the opposite of freezing) would fit entirely (and exactly for that matter) in the space it is currently occupying below the water line. It wouldn't raise or lower the water level a centimeter, a millimeter, or even a nanometer. That would be physically impossible. And that's taking into account very real and verifiable laws of physics.

It doesn't matter if this ice is a cube or a glacier. It only matters that the ice is floating in its entirety in the water. It's also interesting to note that it doesn't matter what impurities are in the water when it freezes since good old mother nature will factor this into the floatation equation for us.

So in short, no Pat, the physics of a glass of water are no different than the physics of the ocean.

Patrick Armstrong said...

"It only matters that the ice is floating in its entirety in the water."

Since there is a whole lot of ice sitting outside the water, currently, it doesn't take a great logical leap of faith to see past this analogy.

"the physics of a glass of water are no different than the physics of the ocean."

Well, the physics of water are no different, whether it be in a glass or in an ocean. However, the physical forces acting on ice melting in a glass of water are a whole seperate ballgame from the physical forces acting on the ocean.

Maybe that ain't physics, but that's what I'm talking about.

hillary said...

Indeed. Many glaciers are based on land, displacing no water currently. If they melt, sea levels will rise. The analogy you should be using is if you have an ice cube sitting on the counter next to the glass of water, and you place the water from it melting into the glass.

petallic said...

So, quick question, am I the only one here who has seen the movie? 'Cause no one else has mentioned that Gore used the exact same ice cube example to state the exact opposite of SAWB.

SAWB, maybe you should see the movie before you attack it.

S.A.W.B. said...

I'll be sure to download it Petallic, so as not to use any of Al Gore's precious oil for his Gulfstream V...

petallic said...

Whatever. Just watch it, you big doof. Then report back, guns blaring and all if you like.