Holiday Meal Comas And Climate Change Are Apparently A Big Thing

This is actually an interesting article. How does climate change fit in?

Holiday Meals, the Food Coma and Climate Change

You know that warm, cozy, sleepy feeling you get after an over-sized meal shared with too many friends and family to fit around a single table? It’s some gossip to share in the kitchen, but I will never know the truth of it. My compulsion is to doze off on the couch between two over-stuffed uncles watching the game, where I’m lulled into the safety of sleep by vague murmurs and laughter from the kitchen and the drone of the TV. The post-holiday dinner coma is a comforting part of a familiar holiday tradition. What could possibly be wrong?

Humans need air that contains at least 20 percent oxygen. Lucky for us, nature has provided us with 21 percent. The main ingredient in air (78 percent) is nitrogen, and the remaining 1 percent is spice in the soup. Mess with the spice, and you ruin the entire meal! The mechanism for removing excess nitrogen from our bodies is through urine, but there is no such efficient biological mechanism for removing most airborne poisons that may be contained in that surprisingly important 1 percent. When CO2 concentration in the air we inhale reaches about 0.12 percent, many of us will start to feel sleepy and maybe head-achy. Not a health risk, but you won’t be functioning at your best. I’ve measured CO2 levels in meeting rooms and school classrooms in excess of .3 percent, eight times higher than normal! Ever wonder why some meetings put you to sleep? Or why your kids are wet noodles when they come home from school? It might not be the presenter’s fault, open a window and let in some fresh air!

This can cause that food coma where we all get sleepy, so opening up some windows can reduce the CO2 content.

The air we breathe is a delicate mix that is easily thrown off balance. Very small changes in its composition can dramatically affect our health, how we think, feel, and behave. Global warming aside, atmospheric CO2 is a pollutant, levels are rising, and our bodies are reacting along with the planet. We are like lobsters that have been thrown into a pot of cold water on the stove top. The heat is on, and we can feel something slowly changing. How long before we start clamoring to get out of the pot?

Good grief. Climarettes strikes again. Warmists just can’t help themselves when it comes to including their pet cult in everything. What should be a good article explaining how the buildup of CO2 within our homes and workplaces turns into a whiny screed on “climate change”.

Read: Holiday Meal Comas And Climate Change Are Apparently A Big Thing »

Employees At British Government Agency Advised To Avoid Saying “Merry Christmas”

Is it just a coincidence that this is occurring at the Department of Energy and Climate Change?

(UK Telegraph) Staff at a Government department have been urged to avoid writing the words “Merry Christmas” in seasonal email greetings to avoid upsetting anyone.

Instead, employees at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) have reportedly been advised to stick to the more neutral term “Seasons Greetings”.

In a memo circulated around the department, recipients were also warned that images on their e-cards should not feature skin, according to The Sun.

The message, destined to bring accusations of cancelling Christmas raining down on the department, read: “As an organisation of multiple faiths and agnostics serving a community of the same and in the interest of inclusion, I’d avoid images with skin.” (snip)

The memo comes after it emerged that the equality and diversity team at Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust had issued its staff with a set of guidelines intended to avoid legal action by any employees claiming they had been discriminated against because of the choice of timing, venue or catering for their Christmas events this year.

Elsewhere, the Westford, Mass, Department Of Public Works was ordered to remove a sign reading “Merry Christmas” several workers had erected. A Canadian woman claims she was kicked out of a mall for saying “Merry Christmas”. The mall disputes the assertion.

AthiestTV (had no idea there was such a thing) will broadcast lots of anti-Christmas/religious programs on the 24th and 25th. Bet those who are off and able to watch won’t mind getting holiday pay.

Read: Employees At British Government Agency Advised To Avoid Saying “Merry Christmas” »

On Obama’s Cuba Gamble

Obviously, the big news from Wednesday was the swap of American Alan Gross, imprisoned in Cuba for 5 years, along with a bunch of spies and criminals. Along with that comes a somewhat normalizing relations with the dictatorial “Communist” government of the Castros. Is this a good idea or bad idea? Jazz Shaw makes an interesting point

Much of what I’ve picked up on this over recent years has come not only from discussions with my colleagues here, but from Fausta Wertz of Fausta’s Blog, and she’s been writing up a storm on the subject today. Criticism of the Cuban government is wide ranging and entirely justified, as she has described to me many times. The Castro family is beyond awful… evil being a far better word. The power structure they have established mimics many of the worst dictatorships in modern history. Their communist party keeps their people in ignorant oppression, depriving them not only of necessary freedoms, but of information and even basic human needs in terms of food, shelter and medical care. They jail, torture and kill those who so much as speak out against them, and many citizens simply disappear, never to be seen again. What good living there is to be had in Cuba is reserved for the party members who keep the Castro family in power.

But one of several arguments which supporters of the President’s actions have pointed out repeatedly today cannot be ignored. I could take the above paragraph and substitute the word China for Cuba and it would remain precisely as true. The major differences between the two are that China is vastly more powerful, more dangerous and more influential. Their human rights record is, if anything, worse than Cuba’s. They can threaten the entire globe with a single move, where the Castros are generally limited to smaller evils and mischief in South America. And yet somehow we have established relations with China. This doesn’t excuse either country for their evil, but only serves to point out some of the harsh realities of foreign policy in the modern era.

On one side, what can “charting a new course” hurt? Obama is correct that the current policy has done nothing to increase liberty, freedom, democracy, economic prosperity, etc. Virtually no other nations have any sort of embargos and restrictions on Cuba. Canadians stream to Cuba for vacations in droves. Other nations have trade with Cuba. Here are the things Obama intends to do

  • Re-establish diplomatic relations
  • More effectively empower the Cuban people by adjusting regulations
  • Facilitate an expansion of travel to Cuba (but, this does not include straight vacations to Cuba)
  • Authorize expanded sales and exports of certain goods and services from the U.S. to Cuba
  • Authorize American citizens to import additional goods from Cuba
  • Initiate new efforts to increase Cubans’ access to communications and their ability to communicate freely

On the flip side, what, exactly, is America getting out of this? As Fuasta notes “I was wondering, is Cuba easing Cuba’s embargo on American products and American travel? Will they not continue to shelter FARC & other known terrorists? Nothing on that in O’s speech. ” What are the Cuban people getting out of this? Because Obama has demanded nothing from Cuba. And therein lies the problem with this policy of Obama’s. In fact, it can hurt

But if we are to lift trade, travel, and diplomatic pressures, it should never be done in what appears to be a quid pro quo response to the release of American hostages. The signal sent to the irresponsible nations of the world is that, so long as there is a political constituency that supports rapprochement, America may give in to your demands if you only try to ransom American citizens.

Charles Krauthammer wonders if there is a dictator that Obama won’t appease. Well, North Korea is the only, in honesty. He’s done a good job with the North Korean’s, mostly blowing of their demands when NK gets frisky. Elliot Abrams calls this a gift to the Castro’s. The editors of the National Review are likewise unimpressed. Many Republicans, and some Democrats, are livid. Marco Rubio is apoplectic

Calling President Obama “willfully ignorant” and “the worst negotiator” the U.S. has had in decades, Sen. Marco Rubio on Wednesday slammed the administration’s agreement with Cuba to open normal diplomatic relations for the first time in more than 50 years,vowing that the incoming Republican majority in the Senate will try to undo the deal with whatever tools they have at their disposal.

On the action itself, Mr. Rubio said normalizing relations with Cuba will only allow Cuban President Raul Castro to shore up his power base and continue oppressing his own people, adding that the president’s belief that the move will help the Cuban people is naive.

“This entire policy shift announced today is based on an illusion, on a lie — the lie and illusion that more commerce, more access to money and goods will translate to political for the Cuban people,” Mr. Rubio, Florida Republican and a potential 2016 presidential candidate, told reporters. “All this is going to do is give the Castro regime, which controls every aspect of Cuban life, the opportunity to manipulate these changes to perpetuate itself in power.”

But, don’t think it is only Republicans. Here’s the Editorial Board of the Washington Post

IN RECENT months, the outlook for the Castro regime in Cuba was growing steadily darker. The modest reforms it adopted in recent years to improve abysmal economic conditions had stalled, due to the regime’s refusal to allow Cubans greater freedoms. Worse, the accelerating economic collapse of Venezuela meant that the huge subsidies that have kept the Castros afloat for the past decade were in peril. A growing number of Cubans were demanding basic human rights, such as freedom of speech and assembly.

On Wednesday, the Castros suddenly obtained a comprehensive bailout — from the Obama administration. President Obama granted the regime everything on its wish list that was within his power to grant; a full lifting of the trade embargo requires congressional action. Full diplomatic relations will be established, Cuba’s place on the list of terrorism sponsors reviewed and restrictions lifted on U.S. investment and most travel to Cuba. That liberalization will provide Havana with a fresh source of desperately needed hard currency and eliminate U.S. leverage for political reforms.

Personally, I do not have a problem expanding our dealings with Cuba, normalizing them a bit. We have dealings with Russia, China, and other nations which are “enemies”, have poor human rights records, etc. Might something good come of it? It’s possible. But, to do this in such a one sided way is a mistake. To provide all the things without any quid pro quo is a mistake. To provide those things while doing a people swap is a big mistake.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: On Obama’s Cuba Gamble »

Squirrels And Beavers Are Bad For Hotcoldwetdry

We need to kill all the squirrels and beavers by 2030 if we have any chance of limiting the world’s temperature to a rise of 2.0C! Divest from squirrels and beavers! We need a beaver and squirrel tax!

(UK Independent) Rapid industrialisation, population growth and air travel expansion have all been blamed for contributing to global warming and climate change.

But now it appears we have something else to hold responsible.

Squirrels. Yup, squirrels. (snip)

They found that when squirrels made their burrows in the permafrost they mixed soil layers, increased aeration, moisture and temperature, as well as redistributing soil nutrients – all of which could contribute to an increased thawing of the permafrost and release of organic carbon.

And

(IB Times) Beavers are contributing to climate change, adding an estimated 800 million kg of methane to the atmosphere every year, scientists have found.

After trapping was limited and the creatures were reintroduced to their natural ranges, their numbers grew significantly, with scientists now estimating their population to have reached over 10 million worldwide.

However, the consequence of this has led to beavers building more ponds, creating conditions for climate changing methane gas to be generated in the shallow standing water. Beavers build dams in rivers to create standing ponds, with dams normally reaching no higher than 1.5m.

In their work published in the Springer journal AMBIO, experts note that carbon builds up in oxygen-poor pond bottoms like those created by beavers, and methane is generated. The gas cannot be dissolved and is released into the atmosphere.

We’re dooooooooomed!

Read: Squirrels And Beavers Are Bad For Hotcoldwetdry »

If All You See…

…is horrid fossil fuels created warm snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is House of Eratosthenes, with a post on brevity.

Read: If All You See… »

Delaying Exams Totally Means Millenials Aren’t Coddled Or Something

What’s more fun than this missive by a Harvard Law School 3rd year are the comments trashing the writer, William Desmond

Delaying Exams Is Not a Request from ‘Coddled Millennials’

….

In response, opponents of exam extensions have declared that to grant these requests would be a disservice to the students. Law students, they argue, must learn how to engage critically with the law in the face of intense adversity. Drawing comparisons to events surrounding the Civil Rights Movement and other times of intense turmoil, these opponents portray today’s law students as coddled millennials using traumatic events as an excuse for their inability to focus on a three-hour exam. In essence, law students are being told to grow up and learn how to focus amidst stress and anxiety—like “real” lawyers must do.

Speaking as one of those law students, I can say that this response is misguided: Our request for exam extensions is not being made from a position of weakness, but rather from one of strength and critical awareness.

So, not weakness. Of course

Although over the last few weeks many law students have experienced moments of total despair, minutes of inconsolable tears and hours of utter confusion, many of these same students have also spent days in action—days of protesting, of organizing meetings, of drafting emails and letters, and of starting conversations long overdue. We have been synthesizing decades of police interactions, dissecting problems centuries old, and exposing the hypocrisy of silence.

If you’re weepy eyed, confused, experiencing total despair over a far away event involving people you do not know in a place you’ve never been, yeah, that’s weakness. God help you in real life. No one is going to be sympathetic, especially the judge, your legal opponent, and your clients. Much less your employer. Nor will any of them be sympathetic if you want to blow off your duties to protest, organize meetings, and start conversations.

Interestingly, Desmond and his fellows who want the exams delayed because of a supposed miscarriage of justice, a bias in the system, want to be treated in a biased manner themselves. What of all the people who studied and take the exams at the correct time?

BTW, instead of writing this op-ed, Desmond could have, you know, studied.

Read: Delaying Exams Totally Means Millenials Aren’t Coddled Or Something »

For 2016, Romney And Clinton Lead The Pack

It’s apparently never too early to think of the 2016 presidential election (poll results here)

(Fox News) Former Massachusetts Gov. and 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney leads the growing pack for the GOP presidential nomination, while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remains far ahead among Democrats.

Romney dominates the field for the 2016 Republican nomination. He comes in at 19 percent among self-identified Republicans, followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 10 percent. No other candidates garner double-digit backing.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul each receive eight percent. Next, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker captures seven percent, followed by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan each at six percent and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at five percent.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (four percent), Ohio Gov. John Kasich (two percent), Texas Gov. Rick Perry (two percent), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (one percent) and former Penn. Sen. Rick Santorum (one percent) each receive the backing of less than five percent of Republicans.

I’d say to watch out for Scott Walker and Rick Perry when the time gets closer. Mitt can be formidable. If he runs. I think Jeb Bush will flame out, ala Jon Huntsman, since he has no interest in running but anything other than a Democrat Lite. He does have popularity with the GOP squishy establishment and big money interests, though. According to the poll, he can beat Hillary. Of course, if Jeb gets the nomination, the reality is that Conservatives will stay home in droves.

On the Democratic side, Clinton is still 50 points ahead of her nearest rival — even though support for her is down somewhat from previous polls. Clinton receives the backing of 62 percent of self-identified Democrats. That’s down from 64 percent in July and a high of 69 percent in April.

The support Clinton has lost since April appears to be going to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who captures 12 percent. That’s up from 9 percent in July — and double the 6 percent she received in April. Vice President Joe Biden comes in close behind at 10 percent. All other possible Democratic candidates tested garner three percent or less.

Warren has said uncategorically that she isn’t running. Of course, Obama also promised that he would finish his first term as a Senator before he would run.

Read: For 2016, Romney And Clinton Lead The Pack »

Bummer: Almost Double Believe In Jesus’ Virgin Birth Than Human Caused Climate Change

People believe in a lot of things, some of which are real, some of which aren’t. More people believe Satan causes real world problems, ghosts exist, and in UFOs than “climate change”. More Americans believe in angels than “climate change”. This makes Warmists very upset, because they have invested countless hours over the past 20+ years “spreading awareness” about their little cult of man-caused Hotcoldwetdry

(Time) More Americans believe the Christmas story is historically accurate than believe in climate change.

According to a new Pew Survey of over 1,500 U.S. adults, 73% say they believe Jesus was born to a virgin, and 74% say they believe Jesus’s birth was announced to the shepherds by an angel (among Protestant respondents, that rate is 91% and 90%, respectively). 78% of women say they believe in the virgin birth, 65% of the respondents said they believe all elements of the Christmas story are factually true.

By contrast, a Pew study of from January found that only 61% of Americans think that climate change is happening, and only 40% believe it’s caused by human behavior. Which means that almost twice as many Americans believe in the virgin birth as believe in human-induced global warming.

Well, that’ll leave a mark. An event from over 2,000 years ago that cannot be proven or disproven beats out a modern issue that cannot actually be proven but has been pushed non-stop in countless ways.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Bummer: Almost Double Believe In Jesus’ Virgin Birth Than Human Caused Climate Change »

Federal Court: Yeah, Obama’s Immigration Plan Is Rather Unconsitutional

The hell you say!

(Washington Post) Earlier Tuesday, a federal court in Pennsylvania declared aspects of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional.

According to the opinion by Judge Arthur Schwab, the president’s policy goes “beyond prosecutorial discretion” in that it provides a relatively rigid framework for considering applications for deferred action, thus obviating any meaningful case-by-case determination as prosecutorial discretion requires, and provides substantive rights to applicable individuals.  As a consequence,  Schwab concluded, the action exceeds the scope of executive authority.

The opinion is posted here.

One of the interesting things about the decision is noted by Noah Rothman, in which Judge Schwab compares this to a president deferring tax collection. As he writes, if a president decides that the capital gains rate should be 15%, and Congress refuses to take action to lower it from 20%, would it be Constitutional for said POTUS to tell people to only pay 15%, and to defer prosecution for those who do not pay the 20%? All while demanding that Congress pass legislation to make the rate 15%?

Read: Federal Court: Yeah, Obama’s Immigration Plan Is Rather Unconsitutional »

If All You See…

…is a holiday brought to us be religious people who also don’t believe in climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post on more liberal tolerance.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove