"Because what I said to you that morning and what I did every day since is to share the best information that we had at the time."
"But the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false. And I think that's been amply demonstrated."
"The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment. It could change. I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning, was provided to me and my colleagues and, indeed, to Congress, by the intelligence community. And that's been well validated in many different ways since."
"We will get the perpetrators. We will stay on it till it gets done.
The American Journal of Epidemiology published a study that tracks the amount of fatal car chrashes and their causes. Fatal car crashes with drivers under the influence of pot have tripled in the United States between 1999 and 2010.
Of course contradicts the argument for those who believe pot should be legalized because it is “less harmful” than alcohol.
“Currently, one of nine drivers involved in fatal crashes would test positive for marijuana,” said Dr. Guohua Li, director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia, co-author of the study. “If a driver is under the influence of alcohol, their risk of a fatal crash is 13 times higher than the risk of the driver who is not under the influence of alcohol,” Li said. “But if the driver is under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, their risk increased to 24 times that of a sober person.”
The researchers found that drugs played an increasing role in fatal traffic accidents. Drugged driving accounted for more than 28 percent of traffic deaths in 2010, which is 16 percent more than it was in 1999.The researchers also found that marijuana was the main drug involved in the increase. It contributed to 12 percent of fatal crashes, compared to only 4 percent in 1999.
Most of us have enjoyed the Sochi Winter Olympics despite The Netherlands ridiculously high medal count. Ice Dancing, Snowboarding, Curling are just a few of the events that tickle our fancy - some of these sports are ridiculous, some are extreme but so many are inspiring as you get to know the athletes and their individual journey to the medal platform.
NBC has blown the coverage, beginning with an annoying Matt Lauer moralizing and burbling, demonstrating his lack of knowledge of sports. Bob Costas appeared in glasses, magnifying one of the worst cases of double conjunctivitis most non-medical personnel have even seen – it was impossible to watch Costas without your own eyes watering in sympathetic pain. NBC’s annoying habit of skipping from event to event just when you seem to settle into to one sport is the stuff of legendary complaints on Twitter.
But the most egregious “reporting” I have seen was the Bode Miller interview last night after he won the Bronze Medal in the Super G Ski Race. Bode Miller is the “elder statesmen” of the who’s who in skiing. Miller has had a long year marked by change – some positive (he got married) and some negative – he lost his kid brother after a massive head injury. Some crazy bitch named Christin Cooper interviewed Miller and repeatedly brought up the recent death of Miller’s brother. And I mean repeatedly. She would not stop. It was unreal. Cooper should be fired and Miller should receive a public apology.
See video of the most insensitive, uncomfortable interviews ever below:
Garth Paltridge, Chief Research Scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, is a skeptical man. He believes that the overselling of the unproved dire consequences of climate change devolved from science to politics.
Paltridge points out that we really can’t forecast adequately – the existence of clouds, the data that does not support global warming and the issue of planetary alignment and weather in general make forecasting impossible. Meanwhile climate scientists, funded by the government who has a vested interest to tax businesses based on their environmental footprints, remain defensive and must continually flip-flop in order to explain true data. Some have caved into the temptation to manufacture data.
Paltridge warns of a “day of reckoning”for climatologists: “…the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.”
“A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of.”
“The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences in the USA and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC [the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct. Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster.”
“In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.”
Flip-flop much? Wendy Davis should have a a new bumper sticker printed that says:
"Wendy Davis, Candidate for Governor & Lying Sack of Shit"
Check out her new positions on the issues this week.
WENDY DAVIS FLIP FLOPS ON ABORTION BAN – NOW SUPPORTS 20 WEEK BAN
“I would line up with most people in Texas who would prefer that that’s not something that happens outside of those two arenas. My concern, even in the way the 20-week ban was written in this particular bill, was that it didn’t give enough deference between a woman and her doctor making this difficult decision, and instead tried to legislatively define what it was.”
“The Supreme Court sets that viability and it probably will be revisited. It’s one that deserves that kind of reflection to determine whether that kind of constitutional protection should exist at a time period less than what it is right now. It was the least objectionable. I would have and could have voted to allow that to go through, if I felt like we had tightly defined the ability for a woman and a doctor to be making this decision together and not have the Legislature get too deep in the weeds of how we would describe when that was appropriate.”
WENDY DAVIS AGREES WITH GOVERNOR RICK PERRY
“I do believe that Governor Perry’s approach is a reasonable approach, that we as a state need to think about the cost of that incarceration and, obviously, the cost to the taxpayers as a consequence of it, and whether we’re really solving any problem for the state by virtue of incarcerations for small amounts of marijuana possession. I don’t know where the state is on that, as a population. Certainly as governor I think it’s important to be deferential to whether the state of Texas feels that it’s ready for that.”
WENDY DAVIS IS PRO-OPEN CARRY
“Obviously in Texas we have a culture that respects the Second Amendment right and privilege of owning and carrying guns — but we also, of course, have respect and understand a the rights and privileges of property owners to make decisions about what’s right for them. My position on open carry reflects my respect for both of those principles, and I believe that municipalities, school districts, hospitals, private property owners should be the ones that ultimately have a say as to whether this is right for them and their facilities.”
BREAKING: Wendy Davis' ex-husband announces he will take custody of the abortion position she no longer wants.
Recent Comments