Climate challenges. The term for today. A Limerick.

From The Austrailian:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/climate-change-long-drought/story-e6frg6nf-1225984667890

THE term “climate change” could be replaced by “climate challenges” if a federal commissioned marketing study is taken onboard. The study of attitudes to climate change among farmers, commissioned by the Agriculture Department, found only 27 per cent of those surveyed believed human activity was causing climate change, compared with 58 per cent of urban dwellers. As well, primary producers are “very resistant to carbon trading”. “It fills them with dread, and there were strong negative reactions towards it,” the report says. Handed to the department late last year, the report warns that terminology that fails to take into account the attitude of primary producers towards human-induced climate change risks failure. The term “climate change” sets up negative reactions among primary producers for a number of reasons, from skepticism through to perceptions that they are being held solely responsible for causing climate change, it says. “Preferred terms such as ‘climate challenges’, ‘prolonged drought’ and ‘risk management’ are accepted, better understood and more likely to motivate change.” The report, prepared by Sydney-based marketer Instinct and Reason, was aimed at developing a communication strategy as the government seeks to sell its climate change message. It says many primary producers feel climate change and mitigation efforts are no more important compared with other significant challenges such as low prices, increasing costs, labour shortages and declining profitability. “Many primary producers expressed the view that human-induced climate change is yet to be proven and dismiss the idea that it is behind the climatic situations they currently face. Instead, they prefer to see it as yet another period of drought or change in conditions that will eventually pass.”

Is the climate a challenge? That is what they say.

Hot from the presses, the term for today.

The reason is muddy.

A marketing study

coined it. The weather will probably wash it away.

Arizona Tragic shootings. Blame Sarah Palin First. A Limerick. (and more)

Arizona Tragic shootings. Blame Sarah First. Proverbs 30:15-16 (King James Version) The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give. There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough: The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire that saith not, It is enough.

Hang Sarah in effigy: freedom of speech,  (1)

When Dem’s paint a bullseye, it is but to teach. (2)

The Lib’s are horseleeches,

Cry “Give” in their speeches.

When tragedy strikes – Times first Sarah besmeech. (3)

(1) Sarah Palin effigy.

(2) DCCC map

(3)  During the fall campaign, Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice-presidential candidate, posted a controversial map on her Facebook page depicting spots where Democrats were running for re-election; those Democrats were noted by crosshairs symbols like those seen through the scope of a gun. Ms. Giffords was among those on Ms. Palin’s map. NYT Jan 8 2011.

In June 2008 The Daily Kos had this bullseye target on Gabrielle Gifford:

And one more blog entry at Daily Kos posted the day before the shooting. It has now been scrubbed. One more entry: This one deals with Candidate Barack Obama. Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight? That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Jun 13, 2008. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

And one more: Attacks on Lt.Colonel Larkin supporters in his eligibility challenge. (The American Patriot Foundation). And we must not forget the famous CNN program:

Hard times for Paul Krugman. A Limerick.

Paul Krugman Jan 2, 2011, NYT: The figure at right illustrates Okun’s Law — the relationship between growth and unemployment. (Gah — I’ve tried to remove the connecting lines, to no avail.) The horizontal axis shows annual growth rates of real GDP; the vertical axis shows the year-to-year change in the unemployment rate. Two things are clear. First, the economy has to grow around 2 1/2 percent per year just to keep unemployment from rising. Second, growth above that level leads to a less than one-for-one fall in unemployment (because hours per worker rise, more people enter the work force, etc.). Roughly, it takes two point-years of extra growth to reduce the unemployment rate by one point. So, suppose that US growth is accelerating. Even so, it will take years of high growth to get us back to anything resembling full employment. Put it this way: suppose that from here on out we average 4.5 percent growth, which is way above any forecast I’ve seen. Even at that rate, unemployment would be close to 8 percent at the end of 2012, and wouldn’t get below 6 percent until midway through Sarah Palin’s first term.

Update: This would make unemployment go below 6 % Jan 2019.

Paul Krugman once wrote: “Sarah Palin’s first term”

and all of his readers started to squirm.

You cannot be serious

You must be delirious

 Next thing you tell us: “She is a bookworm”.

Never let a tragedy go to waste! A Limerick.

101 ways to politicize a tragedy?

Received this email Jan 26.

Yesterday, my close friend and fellow Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords resigned from Congress to continue her recovery.
I went with her to the floor of the House to serve as her voice — and to thank her for her service to this country.
Join me in thanking her by adding your name to a note.  I’ll make sure she gets it.
Gabby made one thing very clear with these words:
“I will recover and will return, and we will work together again, for Arizona, and for all Americans.”
I know she is going to be back. Until then, let’s show her we’re all behind her:

Thank you,
Debbie
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz Chair Democratic National Committee

In itself somewhat benign but then I realized your are directed to the DMC change that matters web site to sign the note.  Donate, add your name to their propaganda list etc.   NEVER,  NEVER LET A TRAGEDY GO TO WASTE!

The original response to the tragedy in Arizona was, as we all know, much worse.  At that time the calculation was that Sarah Palin would be the Republican nomine, so she was called personally responsible for the tragedy since she had targeted Gabrielle Gifford for defeat. The memorial service in Tuscon Arizona turned into a pep rally? This picture shows you why.

Do not let a tragedy slow down your pace.

“Together we thrive” we must now all embrace.

What happened to tact?

To mourn is a fact,

 It must have its time, – then we enter the race.

We must not forget the applause: