Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 7:38 AM
Thu Dec 3
48 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/02/09
12/02/09
Yes We Can (Hallucinate)!
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12:42 AM
*an aborted ceramics project- couldn't figure out how to sneak it into the kiln.
01:15 AM
02:14 AM
12/02/09
The comedown takes a while.
12/02/09
12/02/09
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN MY ASS.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12:06 AM
02:09 AM
02:10 AM
The DEA Northeast Laboratory received two off-white tablets (see Photo 9)
depicting Barack Obama on a contoured tablet. Analysis of the tablets (total
net mass 0.60 gram) by GC/MS, GC/FID and color test indicated
N-benzylpiperazine (BZP), 1,3-trifloromethylphenylpiperazine (TFMPP),
3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), procaine, and caffeine.
This is the first known submission of the Obama logo tablets containing BZP
to the laboratory.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
Maybe I'm not lurking the right conspiracy sites, but the only thing I've been able to determine, based on a passing Alex Jones quote, is that environmentalism (as a whole?) is an attempt to steal your land. And then... I don't know.
Can anyone explain to me why anyone could be so angrily against curbing pollution?
That's what it really boils down to, as far as I can tell. Even if you don't believe that global warming/climate change is real, why would you choose to be against efforts to slow down/half pollution?
12/02/09
The #1 backers for Cap and Trade originally were Goldman Sachs and Enron.
It creates a whole new derivatives market in Carbon trading.
12/02/09
"$94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely."
That is from a WSJ article.
It's always money and control.
12/02/09
12/02/09
"Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s.
Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?"
12/02/09
If these energy companies are so scared of lost profits, maybe they should invest in "green" technologies too. It's not anyone else's problem but their own that they put all their eggs into a non-renewable resource.
12/02/09
You seem to think it is more noble for "green" companies to make money based off of bad research than oil companies.
"Green" technology will be embraced when it can produce cheaper and better energy. Technology still needs to catch up to that.
12/02/09
Furthermore, it seemed to me that you, or whoever your friends are that are concerned over "money and control," are not acknowledging that energy companies already have substantial "money and control" yet you (or they) defend them in spite of this new technology. Sure, it may be expensive/inefficient now, but the price of oil will only go up, and once it reaches $100, will I hear you bitching about windfall profits from Exxon Mobil?
12/02/09
If oil goes up again Americans will respond as we did before and stop using as much. There are vast amounts of untapped oil and gas we would need to use up before this becomes a real worry.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
I do have problems with made up fairy tale criticisms. That is the difference here.
People are/will be trying to find affordable alternate energy sources because there is a ton of money in it.
Currently wind/solar/geothermal etc.. just isn't up to snuff yet and this country has an uncommon fear of anything nuclear so that's out.
Once again my only real problem here is that this science (or lack thereof) has been flawed but policy has been made and legislation written based off of these flawed conclusions.
12/02/09
02:19 AM
They are arguing this legislation based on climate change. That is the fairy tale.
04:39 AM
12/02/09
12/02/09
Christ, I am having cabbage for dinner.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
[women.timesonline.co.uk]
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
Since that flag symbolizes the United States' theoretically equanimous stance toward war and peace, displaying it a certain way is very symbolic. Note how the olive branches are herewith displayed higher than the arrows; furthermore, in the televised tight closeup of Obama, only the olive branches are visible. Despite the proposed surge in troops, the mise en scène subliminally reinforces a message of peace.
12/02/09
12/01/09
I'm so glad the Republicans aren't in power anymore.
Oh well, at least in a few more years I can add: "Younguns, I remember a time when we weren't at war in the Middle East" to my "I'm So Old That ..." list.
12/01/09