Monday, November 3, 2014
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that unrestricted use of fossil fuels must be phased out by 2100 to save planet.
The unrestricted use of fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100, if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, a UN-backed expert panel says.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in a stark report that most of the world's electricity can - and must - be produced from low-carbon sources by 2050.
If not, the world faces "severe, pervasive and irreversible" damage.
The UN said inaction would cost "much more" than taking the necessary action.
"Science has spoken," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said. "There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.
I can see the conservative response now: "Oh, well that gives us a free pass for at least three more decades."
I feel that the only way that we as Americans will have any hope of meeting this timetable is to never elect another Republican again. Of course that seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Source
Maryland man, who previously served time for manslaughter, arrested for threatening to decapitate the President. Wait, so the Secret Service really can do their jobs?
A42-year-old Maryland man accused of threatening to kill President Barack Obama and first lady Michele Obama in an explicit email strewn with racist remarks was in custody on Sunday, the United States Secret Service said.
Christopher Perkins O’Brien, of Annapolis, was arrested on Thursday and charged with making a violent threat against the president and threatening bodily harm against the presidential family in an email sent to the White House website on Oct. 16, according to court documents.
O’Brien was also charged with using interstate communications to make the threats, the documents said.
In the email, Obama is called “stupid” and a racial slur for his handling of ISIS, beheadings in the United States and of the Ebola outbreak before he is threatened with physical violence.
“I … hope to reach out to slash Michele’s throat… You?? I will make a point to behead you, then throw your head into the nearest body of water, as I drive off into Maryland,” O’Brien is accused of writing, according to charging documents first reported by The Baltimore Sun.
O’Brien was convicted in 2007 of manslaughter in the strangulation death of a 32-year-old female friend, the paper has reported. He served part of a 10-year sentence for the crime, which was later reduced to involuntary manslaughter.
Secret Service arrested O’Brien on suspicion of the recent death threats after tracing the email to his Annapolis home, the agency said.
Yeah okay I think when a person living in Maryland, who once served time for killing somebody, claims that he is going to cut the President's head off and assassinate the First Lady, THAT seems to me a credible threat.
I was also beginning to wonder if the Secret Service even knew how to do their jobs anymore.
It dawned on that perhaps we ought to fire the whole lot of them and try to hire that magnificent Canadian Sergeant at Arms who stopped that gunman at Parliament last week.
By the way I for one am getting damn sick and tired of hearing about all of these threats against the President. Don't they realize that if they were ever successful that he would rise up like Obi Wan Kenobi and be more powerful than ever?
If they think Ronald Reagan was deified, this would make the Reagan adulation look comparable to receiving the employee of the month designation at Burger King.
There would be Obama Day, Obama Lane, the Obama Towers, stuffed Obamas, Obama pins, Obama PJs, and a flood of Obama love that would sweep the nation.
The man is MUCH more beloved than these trigger happy lunatics realize, and rather than end his agenda, they would send it into hyper drive.
But even still we need the President alive and in one piece, and continuing to prove to Democrats that even if it seems that EVERYBODY is out to get you that you can still do your damn job, and make them eat shit every time you out maneuver them.
THAT is this President's legacy.
Source
President Obama makes perfectly reasonable statement about the problems working parents have in finding quality childcare, which gets cherry picked by conservatives as being an attack on stay-at-home moms. Well you know who HAS to weigh in on this!
"Too often parents have no
choice but to put their kids in cheaper daycare, that maybe doesn't have the
kinds of programming that makes a big difference in a child's development.
And sometime there may just not be any slots, or the best programs may be
too far away. And sometimes someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to
stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the
rest of her life as a result. And that's not a choice want Americans to
make."
Clearly the President was talking about the problems facing two income families who are faced with problems finding quality childcare. It was NOT directed at families where the male earns an income which allows his wife to be a stay-at-home mother.
However THAT is exactly how it is being purposefully misinterpreted by the Right Wing professional outrage machine. And right now the conservatives smell blood in the water and the sharks are beginning to circle.
And if there is any hint of weakness on the President's part, you know who will soon come sniffing around for a taste.
And gee the headline of her Facebook post starts off so reasonably:
Obama Declares Stay-at-Home Moms Aren't Worth a Hill of Beans; Says It's a Choice 'We Don't Want Americans to Make’
I will spare you the entire thing as I think you can already imagine how ugly and fact free it will be.
However here are a few moosenuggets for your perusal:
On behalf of former and current stay-at-homers, including my girlfriends who still get together to bake cookies for the bake sale (see photos in my kitchen above), and volunteer to coach kids ball teams, and man the church's food bank, and entertain latchkey kids, and all that other obnoxiously "housewifey" stuff, the President needs to be spanked.
Number one I think most of her "girlfriends" are on the SarahPAC payroll, and number two waht kind of person suggests that the President of the United States should be "spanked?"
It seems you'd shackle us by your snobbish shunning of one traditional lifestyle choice while taking advantage of power to manifest your liberal view by manipulating public opinion and resources to diminish moms who put career on hold to raise a family. You are really messed up. And you're so 1960's.
Now she is talking about "shackles?"
You really are stuck in a contorted kind of '60s feminism where you obviously don't trust women to make their own decisions, so you're frustrated.
And now she is suggesting that the President is "frustrated?" Anybody else picking up on a theme here?
Now, I'm sure your star struck female minions in the media will writhe and wiggle in defense of you on this, they always do, even though you just marginalized a most valuable sector of American society while having the gall to admit that, for you, it's only all about the money.
"Female minions" will "writhe and wiggle?" Well so much more subtlety.
And then Palin goes for the jugular.
Perhaps you never witnessed the benefits a "full-time mom" provides a family, a community, our schools, our nation, but you're a big boy now so figure it out yourself without me lecturing you on the beauty of a homemaker. Suffice it to say "stay-at-home moms" make the world go 'round.
- Sarah Palin
Okay now that was just uncalled for. Suggesting that the President does not appreciate stay-at-home mothers because his worked out of the home is a low blow even for Palin.
I understand that it undermines Sarah Palin, and the conservatives, sense of outrage to recognize that the President was NOT suggesting that he did not want mothers to stay at home with their children, but the fact is that what he was saying is that he did not want either parent to be forced out of work due to poor childcare choices.
The President was making his speech at the Rhode Island College in Providence, and the topic was "Women and the Economy." I think THAT audience had little difficulty understanding that the President was discussing ways in which the government could assist parents and help them to compete financially with their counterparts at work who do not have to worry about also meeting the needs of their children.
Sadly that is a sophisticated message which rings hollow in the ears of the ignorant.
Source
Clearly the President was talking about the problems facing two income families who are faced with problems finding quality childcare. It was NOT directed at families where the male earns an income which allows his wife to be a stay-at-home mother.
However THAT is exactly how it is being purposefully misinterpreted by the Right Wing professional outrage machine. And right now the conservatives smell blood in the water and the sharks are beginning to circle.
And if there is any hint of weakness on the President's part, you know who will soon come sniffing around for a taste.
And gee the headline of her Facebook post starts off so reasonably:
Obama Declares Stay-at-Home Moms Aren't Worth a Hill of Beans; Says It's a Choice 'We Don't Want Americans to Make’
I will spare you the entire thing as I think you can already imagine how ugly and fact free it will be.
However here are a few moosenuggets for your perusal:
On behalf of former and current stay-at-homers, including my girlfriends who still get together to bake cookies for the bake sale (see photos in my kitchen above), and volunteer to coach kids ball teams, and man the church's food bank, and entertain latchkey kids, and all that other obnoxiously "housewifey" stuff, the President needs to be spanked.
Number one I think most of her "girlfriends" are on the SarahPAC payroll, and number two waht kind of person suggests that the President of the United States should be "spanked?"
It seems you'd shackle us by your snobbish shunning of one traditional lifestyle choice while taking advantage of power to manifest your liberal view by manipulating public opinion and resources to diminish moms who put career on hold to raise a family. You are really messed up. And you're so 1960's.
Now she is talking about "shackles?"
You really are stuck in a contorted kind of '60s feminism where you obviously don't trust women to make their own decisions, so you're frustrated.
And now she is suggesting that the President is "frustrated?" Anybody else picking up on a theme here?
Now, I'm sure your star struck female minions in the media will writhe and wiggle in defense of you on this, they always do, even though you just marginalized a most valuable sector of American society while having the gall to admit that, for you, it's only all about the money.
"Female minions" will "writhe and wiggle?" Well so much more subtlety.
And then Palin goes for the jugular.
Perhaps you never witnessed the benefits a "full-time mom" provides a family, a community, our schools, our nation, but you're a big boy now so figure it out yourself without me lecturing you on the beauty of a homemaker. Suffice it to say "stay-at-home moms" make the world go 'round.
- Sarah Palin
Okay now that was just uncalled for. Suggesting that the President does not appreciate stay-at-home mothers because his worked out of the home is a low blow even for Palin.
I understand that it undermines Sarah Palin, and the conservatives, sense of outrage to recognize that the President was NOT suggesting that he did not want mothers to stay at home with their children, but the fact is that what he was saying is that he did not want either parent to be forced out of work due to poor childcare choices.
The President was making his speech at the Rhode Island College in Providence, and the topic was "Women and the Economy." I think THAT audience had little difficulty understanding that the President was discussing ways in which the government could assist parents and help them to compete financially with their counterparts at work who do not have to worry about also meeting the needs of their children.
Sadly that is a sophisticated message which rings hollow in the ears of the ignorant.
Source
