Posted on: March 13, 2009 10:22 am
 

Things to do in the dark...take it to the goal!

 

A little research to share with you folks.

I am going to use my home state for this example - West Virginia. How 'bout them Mountaineers dusting off arch rival Pitt! Back to my research, I could have just as easily used Ohio or Pennsylvania or any number of mid-Atlantic or slightly midwestern states, by the way.

Tiny little West Virginia has approximately 1.7 million residents. But it has five of the top 50 power stations in terms of pollution. Of course this is because they burn coal there, lots of it. Millions of tons of it annually. Makes sense, that is where a large percentage of the nation's coal is and it does cost a lot of money to ship it by rail all around the country. So they burn it there. These five massive power stations:

Fort Martin Power Station, Monongalia Count,y owned by Allegheny Energy

Harrison Power Station, Harrison County, owned by Allegheny Energy

John E Amos, Putnam County, American Electric Power

Mitchell, Marshall County, American Electric Power

Mount Storm, Grant County, Dominion

produce power for West Virginia. But why does little old West Virginia have so many power stations for so few people? Don't they try to conserve power there? Should we conclude these are wasteful people? Don't they know they will be punished for their terrible pollution by the clean states? Surely the West Virginians are not so stupid as to think they can continue to be so wasteful and produce so much pollution. And get this, West Virginia is dumping that pollution all over Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and Pennsylvania (oh and the District of Columbia). That is criminal! What an outrage! The good folks that live downwind of West Virginia should demand a change. Tax those stupid polluting hillbillies. Tax them big so they will stop wasting electricity. That will show them. I can't stand hillbillies but stupid hillbillies are far worse I'm sure you all agree. Let's get even!

Some of you are reading this thinking Smorgie has lost her mind. But a little look-see at the Obama Administration's proposed Cap and Trade System and you find it is just such a vehicle to teach those stupid hillbillies a lesson they will not soon forget. You see C&T puts limits on the carbon PER CAPITA a state can produce. States with large populations have the lowest output of carbon per capita. Therefore, they are allowed to sell their credits back to the government who can sell them for a profit to polluting states like West Virginia. Small population states have higher pollution per capita, sort of a duh calculation there. So the best ten include the coastal states of California, Oregon, Washington and Florida, and the New England states. The worst are Wyoming (least populous state), West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, et al. Small population states who mine and burn coal, refine oil, or are big manufacturing states. These states will be crushed by the Cap and Trade TAX. Let's be honest - that is what it is - a tax. They have two choices, reduce their pollution or raise their costs which they will pass on to the consumer. That is you by the way. Cap and Trade represents a revenue enhancement to the Federal government of a minimum of $100 billion per year or 4.2% of the federal income. Some say it is far higher, maybe $500B a year (21%). Either way that is a hefty tax.

What would you say if the President walked to the podium and told you he was going to raise your taxes by 4.2%? That is across the board mind you, 15% goes to 19.2%, 25% goes to 29.2% and so on. That is what Cap and Trade represents folks. A massive tax on your income.

Now I have to go back and correct an omission earlier in the article. I know West Virginians are not wasteful, at least not any more wasteful than other Americans. West Virginia sells it's surplus power to Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Delaware. And even those fools in Washington DC get their power from West Virginia power stations. It was planned that way 50 years ago.

I suggest West Virginia might just want to shut off its power plants and leave these using states in the dark in order to conform to the Cap and Trade system. Maybe then they will get the attention of those stupid flatlanders.

Will Syracuse have fresh enough legs to be able to play West Virginia tonight? We shall see. Go Huggins!

Posted on: March 6, 2009 8:56 am
 

Why use Yucca when you can waste more money.....

From the AP

WASHINGTON - Driving a last nail into a $13.5 billion coffin, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Thursday that the nearly completed Yucca Mountain site in Nevada is no longer an option for storing highly radioactive nuclear waste.

Instead, Chu said, the Obama administration believes the nearly 60,000 tons of waste in the form of used reactor fuel can remain at nuclear power plants while a new, comprehensive plan for waste disposal is developed.

Chu's remarks touched off a sometimes testy exchange with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., President Barack Obama's rival for the White House last year, and provided the most definitive signal yet that the government's attempt to address the commercial nuclear waste problem is veering in a dramatically new direction.

At a hearing, McCain and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the decision not to pursue the Yucca Mountain project threatens the expansion of nuclear energy because the government can give no assurance on waste disposal.

For 22 years, a ridgeline of volcanic rock 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas has been the focus of the government's plans to build an underground repository for high-level reactor waste. To date about $13.5 billion has been spent on the project and last year the Bush administration submitted an application for a construction and operating license to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

'New strategy' promised

But Obama's first budget a week ago proposes scrapping all spending on Yucca Mountain except for what is needed to answer questions from the NRC on the license application "while the administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal."

"What's wrong with Yucca Mountain, Mr. Chu," McCain asked at an Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on support for scientific research.

"I think we can do a better job," replied the Nobel Prize-wining physicist.

McCain asked whether it was true that Obama — as well as Chu — view Yucca Mountain as no longer an option.

"That's true," replied Chu.

"Now we're going to have spent fuel sitting around in pools all over America," shot back McCain, who characterized the Obama position on nuclear waste — and its rejection of waste reprocessing — as a reflection of the administration's opposition to nuclear energy.

Chu said there were short-term answers other than Yucca, while a long-term solution to dealing with nuclear waste is developed.

"The interim storage of waste (at reactors), the solidification of waste, is something we can do today. The NRC has said we can do it safely," said Chu.

2,000 more tons each year

The federal government is obligated by law to accept the used reactor fuel from 104 commercial power reactors, but as yet it has no place to put it. The spent fuel, growing at the rate of 2,000 tons a year, now is being held in pools and above-ground concrete containers at reactor sites.

There appear to be no immediate plans by the Energy Department to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application before the NRC because to do so could trigger lawsuits from the nuclear industry. The NRC has up to four years to consider the application.

In 1987, Congress directed that only Yucca Mountain be evaluated as a future central government repository for the waste.

A report to Congress in December by the Bush administration — which strongly supported the Yucca Mountain project — dismissed suggestions that reactor waste be kept at temporary storage sites by the government. That would require Congress to change the 1982 law, the report said.

 

 

Amazing.  Storing nuclear waste at 104 sites or consolidating it into 1 controlled site in a geologically stable desert.  Which makes sense to you?  If you fear the tranfer of nuclear waste through your precious state remember this.  It is encapsulated in vitrified glass and is impervious to fire and collision.  They tested the impact resistance of these containers by hitting them broadside with a rocket powered locomotive (a fast train) and the case did not even scratch.  Don't believe me? Tune in to an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullsh!t on Showtime.  The episode of interest is called Lesbians, Hybrids and Nukes.  Besides being hilarious they show the footage.  They talk specifically about Yucca Mtn as well.  Very interesting.  Make up your own mind.

Let's waste some more money Barrack!! Let's stop nuclear power afterall it is the only power source capable of mass production that does not impact global warming.  That doesn't make sense.  You really are as stupid as I thinik you are.  Or wait, are you just pandering to your left wing enviro wacko buds?  Ahhh....there it is.  IC HowUR.

Posted on: March 5, 2009 5:08 pm
Edited on: March 5, 2009 5:11 pm
 

From where do women come?

For those that don't know about history ... Here is a condensed version:

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals, and

2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by th e largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in??and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots, golfers and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history:

It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be sent immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to tick them off. Me? I think it was a sophomoric attempt at humor. In other words, I laughed!

 

 

And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self....

Category: NCAAB
Posted on: March 4, 2009 10:51 am
 

It is my fault.....say it with me.

A little girl lost her lunch money at school and had to call her mother for more. "It wasn't my fault, mommy." She failed a test but "it wasn't my fault mommy." She wrecked her bike, it wasn't her fault. She spilled her milk but it wasn't her fault. She bent the fender - no blame there. She got pregnant, how can you blame a pregnant woman! She lost her job, certainly was not her fault. Someone is out to get her and has been stalking her her whole life. The stalker is her government. They mean well, but they enable the blame. Nothing is her fault, you see. And why should it when you can blame someone else. The American way is to refuse to take responsibility for your actions.

Obama's Administration has presided over the stock market loss of 25% of its value since he was sworn it. All the while he has blamed Bush for everything. But these are his policies that are making it go down, this is his budget that is cooly received by the financial markets. His budget proposes to spend $3.6 trillion this fiscal year against an income of $2.4 trillion. This is a $1.2 trillion deficit. So much for changing the way Washington works. Everytime Geithner (the tax dodger) speaks the market pukes. Will someone shut him up please.

And he has lowered his promise of no tax increase from $250,000 to $208,000. So what, right? those folks can afford it. If only I made that much money. Tax 'em! The problem is there are thousands upon thousands of small businesses that will pay higher taxes. These small businesses are the ones who will create the 3-5 million jobs Obama has promised.

By the way, the Administration has come clean with the 'need' to hire 100,000 people to execute Obama's policy. Some conservative groups estimate the need is higher (250,000). Whichever is correct, this is a huge growth of the government and represents a tremendous increase in the annual costs. Let's see, 100k jobs multiplied by $75,000 average (total compensation package including benefits) for a total of $7.5 billion in annual payroll or $25 from each American every year assuming 300 million of us. But the true number is about 3 times higher since you only charge the one's who have a job. Is it worth it?

And then there is all that negativity. The dire predictions, the sour looks, the desperate speeches, the incessant blaming....where is the hope this guy was peddling all last year? You gotta be kidding me. Does he not know that perception drives the market either bullish or bearish. If you make people believe it is going to be all right it will trend in that direction. And if you throw the proverbial wet blanket on it we have March 4, 2009. Endless downward pressure. You might want to hire a cheer squad in those 100,000 new government employees Mr. President.

All this and his approval rating improves to 68%. The chink in his armor is only 54% approve of his policy. When will gravity take over and plunge Mr. Obama back to earth? When will people hold him accountable? The great Democratic President Harry Truman said the buck stopped with him. I don't recall Bush blaming others for his decisions. Lincoln was pretty good about taking responsibility. Perhaps the American way even relieves this president of the blame.

Will Obama actually show us true change? Will he take responsibility for this mess or will he continue to shirk his responsibility? I know the answer to that question and so do you. But I just want you to remember we the voter can hold him responsible for his policies and reckless budgets.

I said I would not post until I had a trivial avatar, but you know, it is just too damned important that someone calls it the way it is than to sit idly by.

 

Category: NCAAB
Posted on: March 1, 2009 1:41 pm
 

Faaaaah Q CBS

Now the Avatar police have booted my pic of me wearing a swimming suit.  It was a simple two piece, black in color.  Full coverage, my breasts don't need a whole lotta material to acomplish that feat.  I was sitting out of the sun in an alcove next to a pool in the south of France.  My legs were bent, crossed at the ankle with my arms pulled up across my knees.  No vulgarity.  Not any where near the Spin section of this board or any of the half naked girls on Maxim.   I don't see the need.  I had more clothes on than the Venus de Milo.

But then I submitted a map of the USA.  That was denied for being too political.  Huh? Too political?  A map?  You gotta be kidding me.

Then I submitted a homely couple riding a tractor, still denied.

Then a skeleton sleeping on her keyboard, still nothing.

At least give me a female profile headshot in shadow in stead of a man.

Otherwise, you can Faaah Que Offe!

Category: NCAAB
Tags: cbs sports
 
Posted on: February 25, 2009 2:23 pm
Edited on: February 25, 2009 5:57 pm
 

Condoming Condons

Jane and Arlene are outside their nursing home, having a drink and a smoke, when it starts to rain. Jane pulls out a condom, cuts off the end, puts it over her cigarette, and continues smoking.

Arlene: What in the hell is that?

Jane: A condom. This way my cigarette doesn't get wet.

Arlene: Where did you get it?

Jane: You can get them at any pharmacy.

The next day, Arlene hobbles herself into the local pharmacy and announces to the pharmacist that she wants a box of condoms.

The pharmacist, obviously embarrassed, looks at her kind of strangely (she is after all, over 80 years of age), but very delicately asks what brand of condom she prefers.

'Doesn't matter Sonny, as long as it fits on a Camel.'

The pharmacist fainted.

 

 

 

 


Of course the Democrats want to give condoms to everyone so why not just include them in Medicare.

Category: NCAAB
Tags: Hoyas, Panthers
 
Posted on: February 23, 2009 10:07 am
Edited on: February 23, 2009 10:11 am
 

Expensive round of drinking...

I did not write this but thought I would share it with you all. Great reading if you are heading to the toilet. I know men like to read in there.

12. Titanic -

The sinking of the Titanic is possibly the most famous accident in the world. But it barely makes our list of top 10 most expensive. On April 15, 1912, the Titanic sank on its maiden voyage and was considered to be the most luxurious ocean liner ever built. Over 1,500 people lost their lives when the ship ran into an iceberg and sunk in frigid waters. The ship cost $7 million to build ($150 million in today ' s dollars).

 $150 Million

11. Tanker Truck vs Bridge -

$358 Million

On August 26, 2004, a car collided with a tanker truck containing 32,000 liters of fuel on the Wiehltal Bridge in Germany . The tanker crashed through the guardrail and fell 90 feet off the A4 Autobahn resulting in a huge explosion and fire which destroyed the load-bearing ability of the bridge. Temporary repairs cost $40 million and the cost to replace the bridge is estimated at $318 Million.

10. MetroLink Crash -

$500 Million

On September 12, 2008, in what was one of the worst train crashes in California history, 25 people were killed when a Metrolink commuter train crashed head-on into a Union Pacific freight train in Los Angeles . It is thought that the Metrolink train may have run through a red signal while the conductor was busy text messaging.. Wrongful death lawsuits are expected to cause $500 million in losses for Metrolink.

9. B-2 Bomber Crash -

$1.4 Billion

Here we have our first billion dollar accident (and we ' re only #7 on the list). This B-2 stealth bomber crashed shortly after taking off from an air base in Guam on February 23, 2008. Investigators blamed distorted data in the flight control computers caused by moisture in the system. This resulted in the aircraft making a sudden nose-up move which made the B-2 stall and crash. This was 1 of only 21 ever built and was the most expensive aviation accident in history. Both pilots were able to eject to safety.

8. Exxon Valdez -

$2.5 Billion

The Exxon Valdez oil spill was not a large one in relation to the world ' s biggest oil spills, but it was a costly one due to the remote location of Prince William Sound (accessible only by helicopter and boat). On March 24, 1989, 10.8 million gallons of oil was spilled when the ship ' s master, Joseph Hazelwood, left the controls and the ship crashed into a Reef. The cleanup cost Exxon $2.5 billion.

 

7. Piper Alpha Oil Rig -

$3.4 Billion

The worst off-shore oil disaster. At one time, it was the world ' s single largest oil producer, spewing out 317,000 barrels of oil per day. On July 6, 1988, as part of routine maintenance, technicians removed and checked safety valves which were essential in preventing dangerous build-up of liquid gas. There were 100 identical safety valves which were checked. Unfortunately, the technicians made a mistake and forgot to replace one of them. At 10 PM that same night, a technician pressed a start button for the liquid gas pumps and the world ' s most expensive oil rig accident was set in motion.

Within 2 hours, the 300 foot platform was engulfed in flames. It eventually collapsed, killing 167 workers and resulting in $3.4 Billion in damages.

6. Challenger Explosion -$5.5 Billion The Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed 73 seconds after takeoff due on January 28, 1986 due to a faulty O-ring. It failed to seal one of the joints, allowing pressurized gas to reach the outside. This in turn caused the external tank to dump its payload of liquid hydrogen causing a massive explosion. The cost of replacing the Space Shuttle was $2 billion in 1986 ($4.5 billion in today ' s dollars). The cost of investigation, problem correction, and replacement of lost equipment cost $450 million from 1986-1987 ($1 Billion in today ' s dollars).

5. Prestige Oil Spill -$12 Billion

On November 13, 2002, the Prestige oil tanker was carrying 77,000 tons of heavy fuel oil when one of its twelve tanks burst during a storm off Galicia , Spain . Fearing that the ship would sink, the captain called for help from Spanish rescue workers, expecting them to take the ship into harbour. However, pressure from local authorities forced the captain to steer the ship away from the coast. The captain tried to get help from the French and Portuguese authorities, but they too ordered the ship away from their shores. The storm eventually took its toll on the ship resulting in the tanker splitting in half and releasing 20 million gallons oil into the sea.

4. Space Shuttle Columbia -

According to a report by the Pontevedra Economist Board, the total cleanup cost $12 billion.

$13 Billion

 

In the end, the total cost of the accident (not including replacement of the shuttle) came out to $13 Billion according to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics..

 

The Space Shuttle Columbia was the first space worthy shuttle in NASA ' s orbital fleet. It was destroyed during re-entry over Texas on February 1, 2003 after a hole was punctured in one of the wings during launch 16 days earlier. The original cost of the shuttle was $2 Billion in 1978. That comes out to $6.3 Billion in today ' s dollars. $500 million was spent on the investigation, making it the costliest aircraft accident investigation in history. The search and recovery of debris cost $300 million.

3. Chernobyl -

 

$200 Billion
On April 26, 1986, the world witnessed the costliest accident in history. The Chernobyl disaster has been called the biggest socio-economic catastrophe in peacetime history. 50% of the area of Ukraine is in some way contaminated. Over 200,000 people had to be evacuated and resettled while 1.7 million people were directly affected by the disaster. The death toll attributed to Chernobyl , including people who died from cancer years later, is estimated at 125,000. The total costs including cleanup, resettlement, and compensation to victims has been estimated to be roughly $200 Billion. The cost of a new steel shelter for the Chernobyl nuclear plant will cost $2 billion alone. The accident was officially attributed to power plant operators who violated plant procedures and were ignorant of the safety requirements needed.

2. 2008 TARP- $750 Billion

- for little to no gain...

1. 2009 Congress/President-

$800 Billion in the first month...

Posted on: February 18, 2009 8:02 am
 

Banging like a screen door in a wind storm...

"The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher. Maybe our Tin President should contact the Iron Lady for some manning up.


A Republican Governor in the Deep South was overheard saying about the Stimulus Package, "...of course we are going to get the funds we are entitled to." I checked the Constitution and it does not say anything about States Rights to Entitlement other than a common defence (spelled as it written in the document).


We raised the axe (again) this week at my company. It will fall soon. We are not entitled to any money from the bailouts, nor do we want any. More good people around the world will be hurt. It depresses me.


"The problem with Healthcare in America is there are simply too many people." - Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps we should put term limits on common people. What say you, commoners? The max age a person can live to be is 65? Welcome to retirement and the afterlife. Looking at some of our Senators and Justices this is not that bad of an idea. Kidding....


A-Rod understands. That's good. Does anyone have a problem with a scenario where a person volunteers to a drug test with the stipulation that the results will be kept confidential and then it leaks out and is used against the person? I imagine that Mr. Rodriguez has been tested plenty since 2003 and has not resurfaced on the list since the steroid rules were implemented. MLB in 2003 - "Let's see how many people are using. Answer= 104 in 2003. We now understand the scope of the problem. Let's institute some clear rules." Should he have taken them in the first place? Of course not and he should not need a rule to know that. That is his mistake to bear the burden for. But violating confidentiality is wrong on every level.


Make love to someone, it's almost free if you wrap it.Kiss

 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com