Larry Craig Foot Taps Through Bali
Last week a conference on global warming was held in Bali. Al Gore, the Patron Saint of Polar Bears, was predictably present, but I was surprised to learn that Larry Craig hauled his ass over there—by means of a military jet, at taxpayer expense.I wondered why this was, since Senator Craig has always taken a narrow stance when it comes to global warming.
Is it possible he is a closet environmentalist?
After all, we know how the Senator obsessively picks up litter in public rest rooms.
Or did he just go there to take in Bali culture?
Some of those sights must have been tough on that god-fearing man.
According to Asia For Visitors, “Bali has a rich gay scene. There's lots of 'eye candy' around for those that just like to look at the male form. Whether it's surfer dudes at Legian or locals performing the Kecak Dance, Bali has plenty to see!”
So what did Larry tell his wife?
“Yes, yes, dear-- I know there is a rich gay scene in Bali, but its not like I am going over there to wrap myself in a sarong and get coconut butter oily--- you know that denying global warming is as important to me as denying I am gay... I promise to stay away from surfer dudes and avoid the wide stance in public stalls.”
But really, even if the president doesn't think much of global warming, how embarrassing to send Larry Craig as part of the delegation. Almost any of the usual morons would have been better.
I mean what kind of credibility does he have? Gay men are now lining up to challenge the Senator's non-gayness. Surely the Republicans could do better than sending a lying bathroom banger.
Although in a way it does make sense, Senator Craig is an expert at denying reality.
However, it really must have been a sacrifice for Larry, shielding his eyes from the facts about climate change , and the incessant foot tapping all-male Kecak dancing as well.
But, as they say in Minneapolis:
If you can't take the heat get out of the bathroom.
Labels: Bali, climate change, gay, global warming, global warming conference, homosexuals, larry craig, Republicans, Senators
posted by Becky C. at
9:33 PM
8 Comments:
first of all, i have to say this:
ROFL! hella funny post!
second of all, it totally would not surprise me that mr. craig took advantage of the local flavor while in bali. bali is only a small part of a region that is notorious for sex tourism, i.e., the influx of well-to-do visitors from other countries who, upon arrival, pay for a companion to keep them company during their stay there. it's a total relationship of convenience.
and i'm not saying that's a bad thing in general. if you've got the money, there's nothing wrong with paying another to be your b.f.f. on the town and in your bed. it actually works out on both sides -- if entered into consensually by both.
still, this is mr. craig we're talking about here, and there's that little problem of him being a closeted homophobic fat head who's married. that's where it does not seem so funny anymore. there's just something seriously wrong with that picture.
Hypocrite comes to mind when I think of Larry Craig.
Does he get frustrated when he taps his foot in an airplane john?
Going completely off topic for a minute -
Looking through you sidebar I see a lot of amazon links and based on the Jefferson post I thought some of your readers might be interested in this:
http://news.independent.co.uk/
world/middle_east/article3182335.ece
It is about Project Kalima which is an effort by the Abu Dhabi government to bring western literature, including the western canon, to the Arabic world.
The link is safe to click it is a newspaper I'm not link whoring and dragging you unsuspectingly to my impure site.
OK - back on topic
Sex tourism is illegal so if you have proof that is what Craig was engaged in I would be very upset, especially since he flew over on a government plane, other than that I could give a crap whether he is having sex with man woman or beast. The guys life is essentially ruined at this point the rest is just piling on for now good reason.
I forgot to add this in my previous post
The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.
* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)
* Maldives, 252%.
* Sudan, 142%.
* China, 55%.
* Luxembourg, 43%
* Iran, 39%.
* Iceland, 29%.
* Norway, 24%.
* Russia, 16%.
* Italy, 16%.
* Finland, 15%.
* Mexico, 11%.
* Japan, 11%.
* Canada, 8.8%.
also from the Canada Free Press
New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’
The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).
The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
http://canadafreepress.com/
index.php/article/908
Oh Chad, I am not going to argue global warming here in the comment section. There is no question that the planet is warming tremendously and fast. In my relatively short life I have climbed mountains on four continents. On every one I have see glaciers retreating--some as much as a mile, and even more.
Now,that does not prove that man made carbon emissions are causing it I know. But there is some evidence in that way--and it is not just leftist propanganda. The climate shift has been unprecedented as far as we can tell. The warming has been going on since the start of the industrial revolution. And ice cores have correlataed a increase in temperatures with increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
Now done of that proves it. But just assuming it is right--can we afford to ignore it? Besides, I think we can all agree that it is good to quit putting so much gunk in the atmosphere, and to reduce our use of at least oil.
I am not keen on Internaiton treaties, and I do not think it is right to dictate to developing countries that they must forego industrial development for this hypotheis. Though we could suggest the do what they could. I do not support the Kyoto treaty for this reason.
But the United States is a big contributor of these pollunants and we should reduce them, and we must, for the sake of our economy and national security reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I have written about this before. I recommend that Congress restrict imports of foreign oil and put a tax on carbon emissions. The first is a specific power in the consituion. The second is a power under the Interstate Commerece Clause, which though has been abused terribly, this is the type of thing that Ron Paul even admits os a federal concern and power.
That way money will rush into the private sector to develop alternative engergy sources. It is much better than what Congress attempoted to do with their energy bill--micormanage the energy ecnomy--they do not have the expertise to know which alternative sources are viable, and all their subsidies will do no good or are in fact counterproductive (corn ethanol).
~Becky
Gotta say I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that messing with free markets will make things better. I think this is pie in the sky and very anti-libertarian.
Becky, there is a lot of evidence that changes in temperature precede changes in CO2, with a lag of around 800 years.
There is a correlation between temperature and CO2; but not the way that the gloabal warming alarmists want us to believe. The ice core record from Dome Concordia (it was also the same with several other ice cores from different locations) was examined and found a very close correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last glacial maximum, with CO2 lagging warming by, on average, 400 years(however, the initiation of the rise in CO2 lagged the initiation of the rise in temperature by around 800 years).
They also looked at the Byrd, Taylor Dome, and Vostok cores, and reached a similar conclusion: "Atmospheric CO2 concentrations show a similar increase for all three terminations, connected to a climate-driven net transfer of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere. The time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."
Finally, in 2003 Caillon (an environemntal and climate scientist from France)sought to reduce the potential for error by using argon isotopes to measure temperature, rather than water ice (which gets around the problem of reconciling gas age and ice age). He found a good correlation between CO2 and temperature over again with CO2 lagging temperature by around 800 years.
This supports the standard explanation for the Ice Ages, which is that an initial temperature trigger (for example, changes in the earth's orbit), result in release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (for example, release of CO2 from the ocean as it warms). As the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere builds up, it results in more warming and further release of greenhouse gases (i.e. a feedback cycle).
I don't see how taxing carbon emissions will have money rush into private industry to allow them to develop alternative energy sources.
But I do agree with you that we need to find ways to stop putting so much gunk into the atmosphere. That just makes good sense. It doesn't cause global warming.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home