October 12, 2012 | 0 comments
October 5, 2012 | 6 comments
October 3, 2012 | 2 comments
March 1, 2012 | 4 comments
January 24, 2012 | 9 comments
News from Copenhagen’s climate talks.
In those overnight talks, the American delegation apparently objected to a proposed text it felt might bind the United States prematurely to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, before the U.S. Congress acts on the required legislation. U.S. envoys insisted, for example, on replacing the word “shall” with the conditional “should.” (emphasis mine)
Further evidence of the pointlessness of these talks (as if we need more).
(1) that the American delegation would only “apparently” and not “vehemently” object to language that could bind us to an international legislation is curious. I hope that “vehemently” was lost in translation from Copenhagen to the Associated Press. There is no permissive legislation that would ever empower “the [unelected] American delegation” (whoever they are) to act on behalf of the United States. Therefore, I vehemently object to even the implication that such an agreement is or was in consideration, absent U.S. Congressional say so. Certainly, the Senate and arguably, the American people might have a little something to say about this.
(2) What shall we do with “should”? This delegation could should itself into another ice age and it wouldn’t mean anything. Non-binding, to say the least, “should” makes all the time, effort, and travel associated with creating this vapid conglomerate of delegates nothing more than a carbon footprint to nowhere.
And I’m fine with that under these conditions. It’s much ado about nothing but a little more plane, train, and automobile traffic.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?