Wednesday, December 2, 2009



President Obama's plans for seeking an international agreement at a U.N. climate change conference next week sound precariously similar to his plans for pitching Chicago as the host city for the 2016 Summer Olympics two months ago.

At both meetings, the president scheduled very brief appearances, planning to arrive early and be long gone before any decision was reached. And, coincidentally, the destination in both cases was Copenhagen, Denmark.

Obama's first visit ended in decisive failure, with Rio de Janeiro winning the bid. So is the president setting himself up for a repeat? Or is he facing down his Denmark demons and looking to get his mojo back?

Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and environmental fellow at the Cato Institute, said he has his doubts.

"The president is carrying nothing credible in his pocket, so how can he compel people to do something credible?" he said, referring to the fact that Congress has not passed its cap-and-trade bill.

Obama has traveled abroad extensively -- to summits and conferences and high-level meetings -- since taking office. Those trips have produced a slew of agreements and announcements, but little concrete action. And on some of the biggest issues of the world stage -- the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Iranian nuclear program among them -- the president's approach has yielded little progress.

Analysts say that while Obama might help strike a broadly worded deal in Copenhagen, a legally binding replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol may be just as unlikely after his visit as before.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., reminded the president of his limits in a letter he sent to the White House last week after Obama announced he would travel to Copenhagen and lay out America's goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.

"I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon (in Denmark). ... The phrase 'politically binding' has been used," Webb wrote. "As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country."

Michaels said that letter alone hurts Obama's efforts in Copenhagen, since it could confirm delegates' suspicions that the president may not be prepared to hold up the United States' end of any grand bargain.

Heather Conley, senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Obama's travel schedule could also dim his chances of success.

The president plans to stop by on Dec. 9, before heading to Oslo to collect the Nobel Peace Prize the next day. But the climate conference lasts two weeks, from Dec. 7-18.

"The timing is off," Conley said. "He's going to be there the second or third day of the beginning of the negotiations. Political leaders are a bit flummoxed because they don't know how to incorporate President Obama's visit to Copenhagen, which they applaud, but it's not quite in the right sequence to make a concrete agreement possible."

She said any agreement would come at the "very end" of the conference, not the beginning.

The White House said the timing of the president's visit is immaterial.

"I think the president believes that that visit happening at the beginning is just as important as it would be at any point to getting that deal going quicker," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.

Many officials at home and abroad have praised Obama effusively for his decision to attend the climate change summit and lay out U.S. targets.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said in a statement that Obama's pitch "could be one hell of a global game changer."
"The fact that the president will attend the Copenhagen talks underscores that the administration is putting its money where its mouth is, putting the president's prestige on the line," Kerry said.

That's a dangerous place for the president's prestige to be, given what happened last time in Copenhagen. The president's other international trips have yielded mixed results.

Obama's eight-day trip through Asia last month didn't result in any concrete victories for the United States, though the president said his talks with Asian leaders could spur economic growth.

In a positive sign, China and Russia -- two nations Obama has reached out to -- later joined the United States and other Western nations in condemning Iran's nuclear activities. But Iran then turned around to declare defiantly that it would develop 10 more nuclear sites.

With Russia, Obama's travels yielded a number of agreements, including a pledge to cooperate more fully on bringing security to Afghanistan and a transit agreement allowing U.S. military equipment and supplies to travel through Russia on their way to Afghanistan.

The two countries also put out a statement setting out target limits for warheads and delivery systems, guiding negotiations for a new treaty to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

But that effort has slowed, with administration aides now admitting that both countries will probably need a "bridge" agreement because a new deal won't be hammered out before the current treaty expires Dec. 5.

Elsewhere, the April G-20 summit in London resulted in a pledge for more than $1 trillion in financing to the International Monetary Fund and other institutions. And during the summertime G-8 meeting in Italy, industrialized nations pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

But a Kyoto successor is what the international community is focusing on when it comes to climate change. And the split is wide between developed countries like the United States and developing countries like India and China, which are hesitant to commit to binding targets.

The fact that the Senate has not yet followed the House's lead in passing a U.S. climate change bill puts Obama in a potentially weakened position in Copenhagen.

Michaels predicted "a lot of comprehensive hot air" in otherwise chilly Denmark.

"A breakthrough will be claimed when in fact none will exist," he said. source

Well, bet you're happy; I'm political again!

See, the prob with Obama is he's charming but full of confetti. There is nothing to his word. It's like promising you I'll tell you my real name and phone number. Heck no!

He thinks he's so swauve all the time. "I'm a-gonna charm you." He reminds me of a peacock at times. Just flauting his socalist feathers, which he'd deny of course. But, eh.

This is so stupid, seriously, a climate change confrence? Seriously? While we're at it, why don't we have a chocolate chip cookie confrence. Hey, they both matter about the same amount, in my 'pinion, at least.

Like the Olympic bid, I disagree w/ this idea. Hey, what do I agree with Obama about?

Oh, well...

Leave the poor man alone already!

You probably heard about Tiger (i always wanna type Tigger) Woods' affair. I should probably rant about the fact that there are barely any sane athletes left, that he's probably gonna lose fans and sponsers, and that he made a bad choice. But I'm not going to.

I'm just going to say one thing: leave him alone. He made a mistake, so let's not meddle in his personal life. Sure, it's interesting, but how does it impact your life?

Just some food for thought...
P.S. I have a feeling the global warming is approaching, considering I'm in jeans, long-sleeves, hoodie, socks, and wishing I had on a coat. Wow, great goin', Al.

Ugh, not again

Oh, no! No, no, no, no, no, no, no!!!!
Wonder what all the fuss is about? Read on...

Adam Lambert wants to get close to Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Kristen Stewart and the rest of the "Twilight Saga: Eclipse" cast. The singer tells MTV his song "Suburban Decay" would work for the vampire-werewolf-human romantic drama, though "Decay" didn't find a spot on his first album.

"It's a great song and I hope to perform it someday, and I think it will find a home, on a soundtrack or something ... maybe 'Twilight,'" Lambert said. "It just didn't quite fit [on the album 'For Your Entertainment']. It's very theatrical... It's very campy, and it was just a bit too campy for the album as a big picture."
If you're keeping score at home, that means the "Twilight" series higher on the camp scale than Lambert and his infamous American Music Awards performance.
"Twilight: Eclipse" comes to theaters June 30, 2010. source

Yeah, great timing, dude. You try and jump on the Twilight bandwagon right after you behave like a perverted little boy onstage. Yeah, gee, I wonder if they'll let you.
These are teenagers who like the Twilight series (for the most part) and I don't wanna see him on the soundtrack. Someone I do wanna see? RPattz, and The Mitch Hansen Band.

Everybody wants a piece of the Twilight saga. Haven't you noticed? (Kelly Clarkson, Kings of Leon, Jonas Brothers, etc.) And I didn't want any of them, thank you very much!

People, we like the unknown artists, actors, etc. I don't want already popular people who already have a great career (or a really sucky one and they think getting on this franchise will boost it).

I say big VETO to Adam.

Sorry...or not :)

As well, big head much? "I think it'd be a great song, cuz I'm gay and I wrote it. So, you know it's pretty awesome. And if you don't like it you're a homophobe. Hehehe."

P.S. Oh, btw, it's not cuz you're gay, dude.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Stephanie Pratt has little chicken legs

Hey again:
Heh, aren't you lucky, two posts in one day!

Tonight, it's reason #568 (or close to it) why I hate Hollywood.

The case: Stephanie Pratt. Besides the fact that her brother is a total ding-dong, have you seen how skinny she is now?

Need evidence?

The pic on the top was in July and the one on the bottom was taken in November.
Her thighs are as big as my sister's, and she's 10!
I get so sick of Hollywood trying to make us feel bad about ourselves if we have meat on our bones. I'm careful what I eat, I exercise, and I'm not stick thin. Pardon me for not wanting to starve myself or purge.
What is with this need to have little stick thin legs? I have this marvelous thing called muscle on my arms. $10 says Stephanie Pratt can't even lift five pounds. If you're that  skinny, that's sad. There is no need to be so skinny, unless you have a really awesome metabolism. Then you're off the hook. :)

I really hate these so-called "role models." How about people who A) have contributed something worthwhile to soceity and B) don't dediate their lives to weighing less than 110 pounds.

Ah, just my 'pinion.

I need to rant bahaha

You know what really bugs me, (besides O'l Obama ducking out of questions with no criticism) judgment.

People judge things without really looking into it. Need some examples, oh, baby, I got 'em.

1. Sarah Palin.

Libs judge the heck out of this poor woman for no reason. Actually, wait, they judge her because she's perfect!! They can't try and judge Hilary Clinton, that lady's so messed up, it's just not even worth it. I have a lot of hope for Sarah, and I think she's going places. Sure, they attack her but I secretly think they like her. Yep.

2. Harry Potter. People judge this one without looking into this one either. Everyone's all "Oh, it's magic! Oh, no! Save me! Aaaah!" People: calm down! Sure, it's magic, ooh scary. The fact that they're wizards is almost just a side part. It's more about the characters growing up. It's not like they're worshiping the devil. Please, it's good vs. evil and good wins. I'm not talking about Philip Pullman, here, okay? It's also the maturity of the kid in question. If you think they're going to start mimicking the books, like doing spells and getting into witchcraft, all right, fine, don't let 'em read them. But don't force your opinion on me. I've already read all the books, and seen the movies, and I love them. JK Rowling is a great author, and I hope she writes some other series too.

3. Twilight. Ooh, babe! People, legalistic people especially, like to name this, "a cult" or label it as the devil's books. I hardly see it that way. These are NOT the stereotypical vampires you've heard of it. They live among people, don't drink their blood, and have a loving family atmosphere. Sounds cheesy? Well, it's not. The way Stephenie Meyer develops it makes it almost believable, and that takes a talented author to do that. Yeah, sure it's a romance, but it's not pornographic. Some people call it "emotional porn," and I laugh. Hardly. Yeah, some girls go gaga over Edward and get a little obsessive, but that's not everyone. There are more calm fans, like me, who love the series, think Edward's a fly guy, but know he's fake. And I can comprehend there's no guy as perfect as Edward. But a girl can dream, can't she? :) People need to stop making judgments about it and read the books. Yeah, it's a vampire book, but it's not disgusting, it's not weird, and it's enjoyable. If people would give it a chance, without a tainted opinion, it might not get such a bad rep. It's a good series, so STOP JUDGING it, a'right? good. :)

I know this barely relates to politics, but I've read a few articles of people discussing the Twilight series, making it out to be a devil's cult. I don't see it that way, and maybe it's just me, I don't think so though. :)
A break from politics is always nice, oui? I thought so...

Well, enjoy this cold weather and laugh at Al Gore's global warming theories...