Some global warmists seem to have goals other than "saving" the "planet," as suggested by this Reuters report:

"To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country. Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.As it stands now, under the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, rich countries shoulder most of the burden for cutting the emissions that spur global warming, while developing countries--including fast-growing economies China and India--are not required to curb greenhouse pollution.Rich countries, notably the United States, have said this gives developing countries an unfair economic advantage; China, India and other developing countries argue that developed countries have historically spewed more climate-warming gases, and developing countries need time to catch up."

If carbon is really destroying the planet, why in the world would it be desirable for developing countries to "catch up"? "Climate change" here appears a convenient pretext for reviving socialist ideas that have been economically discredited--although somehow we have a feeling Al Gore would somehow manage to stay rich even under a regime of class warmfare.

Marion Barry Has Bizarre Story As Usual


Gawker

By Hamilton Nolan, 10:06 AM on Tue Jul 7 2009, 936 views (Edit post, Set to draft, Slurp)

Marion Barry—master politician, crack aficionado, crazy man, national treasure for reporters (and still married, btw!)—says he didn't really stalk his girlfriend last weekend, as much as he had a "spat" with her, but she's unstable. Or...something.
So Marion Barry is still technically married but he and his wife have been separated for years, and he has an ex-girlfriend named Donna Watts-Brighthaupt, and she and Barry decided to take a drive up to Rehoboth Beach, but somewhere around Annapolis they got in a spat and decided to turn around and go home, and then a few hours later Marion Barry was arrested by the god damn US Park Police, who are always on his ass about something. What happened, there? All we know for sure is that Marion Barry and those he associates with have a very loose definition of an "ex."

There is no disagreement that the couple returned to Watts-Brighthaupt's home in Southeast Washington, where her ex-husband, Delonta Brighthaupt, was staying to watch her West Highland terrier. After some time, Barry left in one car, and Watts-Brighthaupt and Brighthaupt left in another. Both cars ended up in Anacostia Park.

So Barry happened on his ex-girlfriend with her ex-husband. Who the hell knows where his wife was, at the time. Hundreds of miles away, if she's lucky. So somewhere in there his ex-girlfriend told cops Marion Barry was "bothering her," and boom, right into the clink he goes! Fucking Park Police, again!

In 2002, Park Police said they found traces of marijuana and crack cocaine in his car. Barry said the drugs were planted. No charges were filed. In 2006, Park Police pulled Barry over for driving too slowly and cited him for driving on a suspended license; he accused the agency of unfairly targeting him.

God damn park cops, they're worse than mall cops! Marion Barry is currently on the DC City Council so he has to play his cards very carefully. He had his attorney lay it on the line:
Cooke, who would not let Barry speak, accused Watts-Brighthaupt of "instability."
Uh. Of course she is. Who else would take a trip to the shore with her "ex," Marion Barry?[WP. Pic via]

Al Sharpton Won't Stop Til He Gets Enough The Reverend Al Sharpton dances with an anonymous woman at the Apollo Theater's tribute to Michael Jackson last night in Harlem. [Pic via Stan Honda/Getty]

Honduras and Democracy

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_156_26/ai_82533205/

EXCLUSIVE: President Obama Defends Right to Choose Best Care
In ABC News Health Care Forum, President Answers Questions About Reform

By JAKE TAPPER and KAREN TRAVERS
June 24, 2009—

President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people -- like the president himself -- wouldn't face.
The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News' special on health care reform, "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.
Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance.
Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care."

>>
Of course.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090622_iranian_election_and_revolution_test

This sucks