From the LNC Quote Shop

Bill O’Reilly on Obama's new slogan "Winning the future" (or WTF, as pointed out by Sarah Palin) -

Didn’t the Soviet Union want to win the future? The pinheads in Moscow spent gazillions of dollars trying to dominate the world. And exactly how did that giant central government-run operation turn out? I believe it evaporated, did it not?

Huge bureaucracies are not set up for winning the future. They exist to tell folks what to do and to take their money.

And didn't Nehru intend to win the future over 60 years ago? And we ended up with one of the most criminal and corrupt bureaucracies in the world. Thank you, Chacha*!




*The colorful Indian language translator-
              Chacha -  Uncle, here referring to the appellation commonly used for Nehru, as in Chacha Nehru.
    

Tunisian style revolution from Paypal users?

The relationship between the State and the citizen is one between a helpless, bound and gagged damsel and her rapist captors. And everyday the captor devises a new way to violate his victim. Thus while I was jolted, but not really surprised when a mail arrived from Paypal announcing new RBI 'guidelines' (Disclosure -this blog manages to make some nickels via Paypal). Notice the Orwellian use of the word 'guidelines' -as if the RBI is cajoling you to do something nice when in fact it is simply asking you prepare yourself for more screwing:

Here is the impact of amendment:

PayPal will not allow users in India to receive more than US$500.
Starting 1 March, 2011, PayPal customers in India will not be allowed to receive payments for any export-related goods or services for an amount exceeding US$500 per transaction. This change is to ensure that we continue to comply with the RBI Guidelines.


PayPal will not allow Indian users to keep money in PayPal balance.

Starting 1 March, 2011, PayPal customers in India will not be able to keep money in their PayPal account balance. Instead, all money received into a PayPal account must be transferred to a customer’s India bank account within 7 days from the receipt of confirmation from the buyer in respect of the good or services. This change is to ensure that we continue to comply with the RBI Guidelines.

Customers in India will NOT be able to complete their checkout with their PayPal account balance.

“We’re glad that you offer PayPal to your customers. Unfortunately, we will not allow customers in India to send money from their PayPal account balance starting 1 March, 2011. This means that your customers will need to link a credit card to their account in before sending you money with PayPal. This change is to ensure that we continue to comply with the RBI Guidelines.

Overseas customers will not able to complete purchase or pay via PayPal for amounts above $500.

Starting 1 March, 2011, PayPal customers in India will not be allowed to receive payments for any export-related goods or services for an amount exceeding US$500 per transaction. If you are listing products greater than US$500 per transaction then you may need to seek alternative methods of payment. This change is to ensure that we continue to comply with the RBI Guidelines.

Is Indira Gandhi the prime minister again? Is Nehru still frolicking at the Teen Murti Bhavan with Edwina? Is Soviet style planning back in fashion?


The prospect of getting screwed in such creative ways has evoked some colorful comments(from the same link)(screenshots)-?

 

In particular, from Debasish-

RBI governer, PM, FM, President ki maa ki aakh.

 Indians may be oppressed but we are expressive!
Does anybody smell a Tunisian style revolution welling up from the Paypal users?

Even if all the CONgressis and other gangs politicians fled by planeloads with tonnes of gold(a la Tunisian President's wife), we would have got by cheaply. Free of the scum, we can then at least build a truly free India. Who prefers to live under Manmohan Singh's boot and Sonia Gandhi's jooti*? Not me.




Original Paypal announcement here.


* The colorful Indian language translator-
                Jooti or Jutti- a traditional Indian shoe.
 

Progress -

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged in Marathi

Yet another Global Warming celebrity hypocrite

What is it about Global Warming that makes even greater hypocrites out of the rich and the famous more than usual?

I want to save the planet, insists Wozniacki after easing through to fourth round in Melbourne

‘Mark cars that don’t use so much gas, make them electric. Use the buses, the trains instead of taking the car.
When you take a shower don’t stay there for half an hour. Two minutes is enough, even for girls,’ she ventured.

 Caroline Wozniacki - saving the planet one tournament at a time

So, I suppose after that 2 minute planet saving shower she hops onto to an emission free  jetliner running on batteries on her way to the next tournament.

George Lucas in grip of paranoia and psychosis over 2012?

If this story is true-

Funnyman Seth Rogen was left stunned by a recent encounter with his moviemaking hero George Lucas - because the Star Wars director spent 20 minutes telling him the world would end in 2012.

Rogen was left speechless when Lucas and Steven Spielberg joined a movie meeting he was a part of - but the encounter has left him worried his life will be over next year.

He recalls, “George Lucas sits down and seriously proceeds to talk for around 25 minutes about how he thinks the world is gonna end in the year 2012, like, for real. He thinks it.

“He’s going on about the tectonic plates and all the time Spielberg is, like, rolling his eyes, like, ’My nerdy friend won’t shut up, I’m sorry...’

then Lucas has lost it. Given all the nutcases in Hollywood, I wouldn't feel surprised.  Pity, yes; surprise, no.

Aren't you just rotten sick of these moral primitives forever performing the voodoo of 'Global Warming' -

Global Warming: Dire Prediction for the Year 3000

Even if humans stop producing excess carbon dioxide in 2100, the lingering effects of global warming could span the next millennia. The results? By the year 3000, global warming would be more than a hot topic - the West Antarctic ice sheet could collapse, and global sea levels would rise by about 13 feet (4 meters), according to a new study.

Time to put off my Alps vacation for 3100, then?

A commentator (called S) at this article furnishes an appropriate riposte to these barbarians posing as scientists-

After burning gas in my SUV all day, I came home and cranked up my thermostat to 80 degrees. Soon, I will blow some farts. Next, I will read the Constitution by an incandescent light bulb. Any questions?

Bloody marvelous!

From the LNC Quote Shop

Rick Moran-

As I have said before, Julian Assange is as interested in "transparency" as my pet cat Aramas. What he wants is to see the world burn.

Prequel to the Great Global Warming Swindle

A very interesting bit of climate skepticism on Television. Hard to believe, I know, given that there is so little of it but this is from 1990 and so even more amazing. Greenhouse Conspiracy, video in 6 parts:





Part 1-

Part 2-

Part 3-

Part 4-

part 5-

Part 6-

Via Bishop Hill who calls it a "sort of an early version of the Great Global Warming Swindle" and also-

I was struck firstly by how shifty-eyed Tom Wigley and John Mitchell come across, particularly when Wigley is asked about funding at around 46 mins. If you don't want to invest the time in the full video, this is the excerpt to watch.

Then there is the clear statement by the late Reginald Newell that he had his funding cut because of he had published a paper that undermined the greenhouse theory.

Postmodern science is for the believers, not skeptics.

(emphasis mine)

Note-
The Great Global Warming Swindle is here.

Postmodern,yes. Sane,no

We spoke about the postmodern nature of at least some of the contemporary science. New York Times (via Eureferendum) provides a working sample-

Hurricanes could become more prevalent with climate change, but the economic pain they deliver might not be recognized as man-made for 260 years.

That means smashed homes and ruined roads may not be attributable to greenhouse gases for centuries, according to new research that suggests climate policies like adaptation should be designed without financial evidence of climate-enhanced windstorms.


The researchers also warn environmentalists and policymakers against making claims that damage from Hurricane Katrina and other storms are rising from carbon dioxide emissions. Insurance companies that promote climate change as a reason for rising prices could also lose credibility.

That won't please Pachauri. IPCC's 2007 report warned that " that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters" and that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".

Nevertheless, as the Times continues, absence of proof is no stumbling block for postmodern scientists. They march on regardless:

................ a landmark study published in Science last January finding that the number of strongest hurricanes, categories 4 and 5, could double in 100 years because of climate change.

The researchers begin by assuming that's true. Then they apply hurricane damage data from the past century to those future hazards, adjusting for growth in population, inflation and wealth. 

What's the point of science? Let's assume whatever suits our narrative anyway. With our convenient assumptions, our "research" can show anything:

The results indicate that future hurricane damages won't produce a tangible "climate signal" for at least 120 years, and perhaps not for 550 years. The average time before a signal might be seen is 260 years, according to the combined findings of an 18-model ensemble used by the researchers. In that year, 2271, climate change is expected to increase damage by 106 percent, more than double. 

As Eureferendum says wryly-

So, let me get this straight. We have absolutely no evidence that man-made climate change is causing or will cause more hurricanes, and are unlikely to have that evidence for an impossibly long time – after everyone currently living is long dead – if ever. Therefore, we should proceed on the basis that it is proven.

And these people want us to believe they are sane?

Sane? No. Postmodern? Yes.




 (all emphasis mine)