The Top 10 Apocalypse Movies

Here Kurt Schlichter compiles his list of the best doomsday movies in the last 50 years along with plenty of pith and snark.

I have to admit this is one of my guilty-pleasure genres - probably since I happened to catch "When Worlds Collide" late one night as an oh-so-impressionable 5 year old. And don't forget that many of the classic 1970's 'apocalypse' movies were more or less what everyone just assumed the 1990's would be like. Yep - that's how bad things were then.

But at their best, these movies show us something about ourselves and about enduring truths, challenging our intellects and asking vital questions about the nature of man. But mostly theyÂ’re just cool and fun to watch.

And sometimes they are Zardoz (1974). This is an utterly insane 70’s freakshow starring Sean Connery that can best be described as what it must be like to party with Anthony Weiner and Eric Massa in Thailand with an endless supply of bad Woodstock acid and a substantial NEA performance art grant. Gotta respect any movie that offers the straight-faced line, “The gun is good, the penis is evil.”

Now, here is my list of the Top 10. I accept that haters are gonna hate – and nit-pick about the cosmic question of “what IS an apocalypse film? – so, like it or lump it, these are mine in descending order. They aren’t all great – they are all worth a watch on some Sunday afternoon after the Democrats have yakked about their ruinous policy preferences on the Sunday morning shows and gotten you thinking about disasters

So here are his bottom 5 of the top 10 doomsday movies - you'll have to read the article to see which ones are in the top five:

10. Soylent Green (1973)
9. Escape From New York (1979)
8. The Last Man on Earth (1964)
7. 28 Days Later (2003) and 28 Weeks Later (2007)
6. LoganÂ’s Run (1976)

The facts of life may be conservative but then so are the facts of the Apocalypse:

These are intensely conservative films. In Mad Max, Max is a force for order – even when all order collapses and he takes matters into his own hands. In The Road Warrior, Max is totally burned out until he realizes that civilization is worth defending. But not all the survivors feel that way – despite their leader Papagallo’s speech about the need to defend themselves and their future from the barbarian horde, a fair chunk of the band wants to surrender, preferring the lies of the Humungous over the reality of defending themselves. It’s always astonishing how some people are so eager to submit to tyrants.

Oh and yeah you might want to buy some more ammunition. more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:03 PM | Comments (747)
Post contains 1060 words, total size 9 kb.

Al Gore declares that if any of your friend expresses any doubt about Global Warming, you should shun/shut him up/shut him down as if he were indulging in racial slurs.

The newest racial slur? "Cosmic rays' central role in cloud formation will compel global warming 'scientists' to throw out all their old 'models.'"

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

...

Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature (pdf):

“[I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

Posted by: Ace at 02:08 PM | Comments (282)
Post contains 190 words, total size 2 kb.

I have discussed this again and again. The media is biased. You knew that.

But they are specifically biased in several ways: For one thing, anyone working in the media, by definition, has a job.

So they don't personally experience this in the first place. Sure, the media is laying off people left and right, but those people don't have jobs anymore, and hence, do not write stories for the major media any longer.

I guess Kristof might have heard of such people, at least, but that doesn't seem to have impacted him.

Add to that the fact that they only cover bad economic news when a Republican is President (or Governor, etc.), and this all adds up to a colossal blind spot for them, partly circumstantial, but largely by design.

Well, Nick Kristof suddenly realizes Wow, things are hard out there as far as jobs, huh?

As my Sunday column appears, IÂ’ll be in transit to Libya, inshaÂ’allah. But this column grew out of my family vacation this summer back in Yamhill, Oregon, where I grew up. Like everyone in journalism, I had been focused on the debt ceiling debates, but what I saw in Yamhill was a different economic scourge: unemployment. It really puzzles me that 25 million Americans could be unemployed or under-employed, and yet the issue has never really gotten much traction.

The deuce you say! Hasn't gotten traction?

Could that possibly be because the media chooses to downplay a 9.1% unemployment (17% real unemployment) rate under Obama, while it cried "jobless recovery" when Bush had a 5.5% unemployment rate?

In the last month or two, it has gained more visibility and President Obama says he is pivoting to jobs — but none of the proposals on the agenda come close to matching the severity of the unemployment picture.

Notice the flight to the passive voice here. The issue "has gained more visibility."

There is an actor here; that actor is the media. It has remained silent as churchmouse about this for two years (it initially reported job losses when they could be blamed on Bush, then stopped).

And why is it now "gaining more visiblity"? Only because the President is being forced, by the public (not the media coverage), to "pivot" to joblessness for the seventh, or eleventh, time, depending on how you count.

Astonishing.

The first commenter gets it right:

It seems astonishing that journalists in the beltway can go years without comprehending just what's going on in this country. I read column and news story after column and news story about process and little about the effect of policies on people.

You are right. You are partially to bame. You've been on vacation and you've noticed what's going on. Now you're heading overseas and it's a good bet that you will not soon revisit the issues in your column.

I understand. There's a category one hurricane or maybe a snowstorm that inconveniences the beltway. We know what's really important, don't we?

Damn. Nice.

Thanks to WilliamY.

Posted by: Ace at 01:40 PM | Comments (155)
Post contains 543 words, total size 3 kb.

Holy crap.

Watch her peel back the layers of the onion to reveal the secret truth at the heart of the capitalist conspiracy: People are forced to work if they want money to pay for things which other people have produced with their own work.

It's almost hypnotic as she grapples with such philosophical conundrums as "Why do I have to keep paying rent for my apartment? I've been paying rent for years, aren't I done?" and "Why should I have to pay for anything?" more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:47 PM | Comments (463)
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

Well... if you accept the premise of protective classes for anyone who suffers adverse outcomes in life due to an innate attribute, it makes sense. Plainer people have a tougher go of it. I'm pretty certain I've never gotten a job just because of my looks.

But this tends to prove what it isn't intended to prove -- that maybe this whole protected-classes business is silly.

How could we remedy this injustice? With all the gains to being good-looking, you would think that more people would get plastic surgery or makeovers to improve their looks. Many of us do all those things, but as studies have shown, such refinements make only small differences in our beauty. All that spending may make us feel better, but it doesnÂ’t help us much in getting a better job or a more desirable mate.

A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?

I see problems in classifying the ugly, and I see problems in the ugly self-identifying to apply for protections.

Bizarrely -- I did not know this -- California, of course, is already doing something like this, at least in some cities.

We actually already do offer such protections in a few places, including in some jurisdictions in California, and in the District of Columbia, where discriminatory treatment based on looks in hiring, promotions, housing and other areas is prohibited.

Let me suggest a principle:

Laws should be serious.

When you pass a prohibition, you are threatening legal sanction against the prohibited conduct. This is not fun and games. You are threatening legal consequences, including imprisonment or fine (which is the seizing of property), for violating that law.

Now, given the inherent difficulty in enforcing this law -- how do you prove "ugliness" in court, and how do you prove someone was discriminated against for that reason? -- does anyone think this is a real, serious law, or is it more like some kind of feel-good guideline of how some soft-hearts hoped the world might be?

The legal codes should not be cluttered with feelgoodery.

Laws are serious. They are specific restrictions on our freedom on pain of imprisonment or seizure of property.

Lawmakers should start acting as if they're serious, or there are going to be... problems.

Posted by: Ace at 12:30 PM | Comments (165)
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

That's not a misprint; he thinks it's four trillion, rather than fourteen.

It's worse than that. This isn't him being tongue-tied. This is him taking a wild guess.

To not know the level of government indebtedness when this has been the national story for six months is disqualifying. It simply shows he doesn't even bother to read the newspapers.

Furthermore, even guessing, he can't even manage to ballpark it.

Democrat David Weprin (top photo), an assemblyman and former city councilman, said he is running because it is a "very exciting time fiscally, with the nation's debt situation, with the debt ceiling, with the deficit."

He touted "a unique background and something to contribute, having a 20-year private-sector career in public finance as well as being the City Council chairman of the Finance Committee for eight years."

Soon after, the following exchange took place:

Daily News: "Right now, how big is the debt?"

Weprin: (Pause) "Trillions."

News: "But how many?"

Weprin: (Deer in headlights look.) "I got caught up on this once before," referring to his inability while running unsuccessfully for city controller in 2009 to state that office's budget.

News: "This is central to what is going on in Washington."

Weprin: "About 4 trillion."

News: "Four trillion is the debt?"

Weprin: "Right."

Well, he was off only by a $10 trillion order of magnitude. As has been reported far, wide and ad nauseam, the U.S. is burdened by a debt of roughly $14 trillion.

And this man is telling voters he is ideally suited to participate in finding solutions to America's yawning annual deficits and crushing debtload? It's no wonder Weprin inhabits a fantasyland in which, he says, bringing troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq alone "will go a long way to reducing the deficit."

You can't even call him Rain Man because Rain Man would have nailed that figure.

The article goes on to knock the Republican candidate, Bob Turner, too, but just for opposing the Ground Zero Mosque (with zoning measures the reporter claims would be unconstitutional, no matter how they were written) and for being arguably stingy with benefits for Ground Zero responders.

Even if you don't like his take, that's not disqualifying as in the case of the Democrat, who, very literally, would have to sequester himself carefully from any discussion of national-level politics for at least a year to have missed the debt figure.

Either that, or he's a simpleton.

Posted by: Ace at 12:02 PM | Comments (93)
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

It really was. Although it caused fourteen deaths and millions of dollars in property damage, and lots of people without power, (particularly in the Carolinas and southern Virginia), it was not the nightmare storm we were warned of, even where and when it was a true hurricane.

It made landfall as a Category 1 hurricane, the lowest level of hurricane, a step above a tropical storm. Mike Flynn of the Big Blogs was watching the Weather Channel incessantly, and told me that channel reported that even though the storm was just a Category 1 (and weakening), people should still be in a very high state of alarm, because it was a wide storm, covering a lot of area, and could last "over twenty hours."

In other words, what it lacked in actual strength it would make up for in... volume.

Is it prudent to oversell a storm like this, even when the latest information suggests it's just a very average hurricane? The media perhaps thought they were doing a public service, because it's better to have a supply of water and not need it than to need a supply of water and not have it.

Maybe, but the obvious downside to this is that the media is going to have a harder time warning of future hurricanes.

I can think of five reasons for the oversell. Listed here in order of least relevance to greatest relevance.

1. This is the meteorologists' equivalent of the cable ACE awards, their time to shine. But that's always the case with tropical storms, and I don't remember previous ones being overhyped to nearly this extent.

2. No one wanted a repeat of Katrina. And not only did no governor want to seem as if he wasn't taking the hurricane seriously, but the media certainly didn't want anyone less than 100% prepared, because not only didn't they want a Katrina, they didn't want the political fallout from a Katrina situation to impact President Golfsalot.

3. Hurricanes hit Florida a lot, and the Gulf States, and the Eastern seaboard from the Carolinas and south. But they don't hit the Eastern seaboard north of the Carolinas very often, so maybe the media thought there were millions of North Eastern Coasters who were very ill-prepared for a hurricane, in terms of both supply and information, and thought they really had to overhype the storm to get through to these storm-ignorant people.

Maybe. But see Reason 5 for a more likely variation on this.

4. Any sort of bad weather is now an excuse for the media to make the weather into a political story -- and that story is of course Global Warming.

We heard a lot about Irene being super-charged by Global Warming. This assclown was among the most alarmed delighted.

Global WarmingÂ’s Heavy Cost

Aug 25, 2011 9:29 PM EDT

Hurricane Irene’s dangerous power can be traced to global warming says Bill McKibben—and Obama is at fault for his failed leadership on the environment.

IreneÂ’s got a middle name, and itÂ’s Global Warming.

Amazingly, he's an idiot from the first sentence. A one-word name can't have a middle name. He could have called it "Hurricane Irene," and avoided this problem, but instead, he's just a dummy from Jump Street.

As she roars up the Eastern Seaboard, everyone is doing what they should—boarding windows, preparing rescue plans, stocking up on batteries. But a lot of people are also wondering: what’s a “tropical” storm doing heading for the snow belt?

Yeah, that's unprecedented.

By the way, Hurricanes Belle, David, and Gloria wanted me to to say "hi."

Category 3 Storms have rarely hit Long Island since the 1800s; one was the great unnamed storm of 1938, which sent 15-foot storm waters surging through what are now multimillion-dollar seaside homes. Normally, says Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, it’s “difficult for a major Category 3 or stronger hurricane crossing north of North Carolina to maintain that intensity, because wind shear rapidly increases and ocean temperatures plunge below the 26°C (79°F) level that can support a hurricane.”

Normally that's what happened, and in fact what happened here was even less.

So I guess we're kind of normal at the moment?

The high-altitude wind shear may help knock the storm down a little this year, but the ocean temperatures won’t. They’re bizarrely high—only last year did we ever record hotter water.

What he's referring to is many Global Warming scientists who think that global warming will decrease, rather than increase, hurricane strength; that wind shear effect weakens them. He covers his bases and mentions that might "knock the storm down a little," and then it's right back to worst case scenarios.

“Sea surface temperatures 1° to 3°F warmer than average extend along the East Coast from North Carolina to New York. Waters of at least 26°C extend all the way to southern New Jersey, which will make it easier for Irene to maintain its strength much farther to the north than a hurricane usually can,” says Masters.

And it this didn't seem to happen, although I suppose a Warmist could claim vindication in as much as an already-weakish hurricane didn't get greatly weaker by the time it got to New Jersey.

...

Every kind of natural system is amped up, holding more power—about ¾ of a watt extra energy per square meter of the Earth’s surface, thanks to the carbon we’ve poured into the atmosphere. This is what climate change looks like in its early stages.

Seems... livable, actually.

This is listed in the Daily Beast's Science section, although, checking the writer's bio, he doesn't seem to be a scientist. He's a hippie activist and organizer.

Thus the continuing double-standard -- no non-scientist on the right can criticize global warming "science," but every douchebag with a hacky-sack and a water-bong can make dire claims about it.

The other double-standard, of course, is that global warming alarmists can make these dire predictions without it ever being noted in the media that their predictions proved untrue, yet again.

It's all upside-- if they predict disaster, and disaster strikes, they get credited and the "science" is even further settled.

If they predict disaster and there's no disaster, the media pretends no prediction was made in the first place.

It's like betting on the same three numbers in Lotto all the time. Eventually you'll hit those numbers. And if you don't have to pay for the tickets -- that is, there is no cost of playing the game at all -- it makes buying lottery tickets utterly profitable and a great investment.

So the incentives here for global warming alarmists are all positive. Make as many predictions as you like, with little or no science to back you; the media promises it will only count your occasional jackpots.

But the main reason for the oversell?

5. The hurricane was earlier forecast to hit the center of the media universe, New York City.

Can these idiots hide their provincial "homerism" a little better?

We on the right have all noticed the national media sure thinks that New York deaths are more important than any other kind of deaths, and New York inconvenience worse than other inconveniences.

They seem to have gone that one step better with this coverage-- that New York inconvenience is more important than deaths in more benighted areas of the country.

Sure the storm is projected to hit as a Category 3 in the Carolinas, if you care about that, but let's pay much more careful to this projection showing that it might hit New York City as a category 1 or even a tropical storm.

Again and again I saw the media -- even on FoxNews -- give the Carolinas a brief mention before launching into a Cassandra act about the possibility that New York City might lose power and subway service.

New Yorkers typically think about other folks as "provincial," but my oh my, do they become the worst sort of homers when their hometown is in the news. ("Homer" is some slang I've heard for a reporter (or any other sort of person, actually) who has a bad case of hometown-centricism).

I actually heard a weatherman give an update on Irene, sometime on Sunday. "The storm is now projected to miss New York," he said, with relief in his voice, "and instead turn east and hit Long Island."

Screw Long Island, huh? Apart from Brooklyn/Queens and the Hamptons, it's practically New Jersey anyhow.

This drives conservatives and non-New Yorkers crazy. It drives me, an occasional New Yorker, crazy, because not only do I see the unfairness of this media disregard for the rest of the country, and equal and opposite overconcern for the plight of New Yorkers, but as a sometime New Yorker, I also find it embarrassing.

Like when anyone from your hometown causes a scandal. It embarrasses you. And the whole country sees these "it only matters if it's in my hometown" provincial dummies every single day.

Irene's middle name was not "global warming." Irene's middle name was "affects the people who count."

Posted by: Ace at 10:26 AM | Comments (385)
Post contains 1530 words, total size 10 kb.

Rick Perry isn't a fan of Social Security, at least when it comes to the promises being made to younger workers.

“It is a Ponzi scheme for these young people. The idea that they’re working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them, is a lie,” Perry said. “It is a monstrous lie on this generation, and we can’t do that to them.”

This has really annoyed Jonathan Bernstein blogging at Greg Sargent's WaPo blog.

Perry either doesn’t understand Social Security, doesn’t understand Ponzi schemes or is simply not telling the truth. There is nothing at all about Social Security that is anything like a Ponzi scheme. As I’ve said here before, I like the definition attributed to Sen. Russell Long: “Social Security is nothing more than a promise to a group of people that their children will be taxed for that group’s benefit.”

It’s true that there’s a relatively small actuarial imbalance in Social Security going forward, but what’s important is that unlike the problems for Medicare and other health programs, the Social Security imbalance is basically stable over the long haul. That means it’s pretty easy to fix — and if it isn’t fixed, and even if future Congresses make the unlikely choice to keep taxes the same and only pay out benefits that those taxes can support, future beneficiaries will still receive most of what they’re being promised today.

Of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with a Ponzi scheme, which involves deliberate and outright fraud. It’s irresponsible to say that Social Security won’t be “there for them” when, in fact, the only way that will happen is if politicians choose to eliminate it.

In my view, saying that Social Security is a deliberate fraud — a Ponzi scheme — is about as irresponsible as truther or birther conspiracy thinking.

Shorter Bernstein, "Don't worry, Thatcher was wrong and we'll never run out of other people's money!".

Here's how Social Security works according to the Heritage Foundation

Even more important, the Social Security trust funds are "invested" only in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. These bonds cannot be sold to the public to raise money. They are only a measure of what the government owes itself. As the Congressional Research Service noted:

When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another.[5]

As a result:

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures-but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, make it easier for the government to pay benefits.[6]

In short, the Social Security trust funds are really only an accounting mechanism. They show how much the government has borrowed from Social Security but do not provide any way to finance future benefits.

So the money a person pays in to the system isn't held for them or invested in an account, it was either already spent on previous beneficiaries or used for general fund obligations. In other words, you want the money current recipients already paid in? You're going to have to go get it from new investors.

How does the Securities and Exchange Commission define a Ponzi scheme?

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity.

Bernstein says if the money runs short they can just raise taxes on people still in the work force. Aside from government compulsion, how is this different from "attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors "?

Now no one, including Perry, is talking about cutting payments to current recipients or people close to retirement. But from the perspective of someone say, 45 and younger Social Security looks exactly like a mandatory Ponzi scheme. You are being forced to pay into a system to ensure payments are made to current recipients but the only way you are going to get paid is if the people behind you are forced to pay in too.

There's an argument to be made for that kind of system (I'm not making it) but to even attempt to make that argument you need a much higher worker to recipient ratio than we have now or will in the future.

Saying you don't want to perpetuate a system that forces the young to pay for what you get when you're old doesn't make you a crazy birther, it makes you a sane and honest human being.

Are Ponzi schemes exactly the same as Social Security? Of course not, Ponzi schemes are illegal and that's a big difference. But as far as political rhetoric goes, it's far closer to the truth than liberals would like to admit. That's why someone like Bernstein wants to shut down debate not by arguing against it but simply by smearing it as crazy birther stuff.

These guys really have one play and they always go back to it. It's kind of pathetic when you think about it. Then again, so are liberals for the most part.

Politically this is dangerous stuff for Perry. Old folks love their Social Security and don't want to hear about this stuff (even if it doesn't apply to them). They vote and a lot of them live in Florida a state any GOP nominee is going to need to win.

Still, if we can't have an honest discussion about all entitlement programs when running against a weakened but still dangerous Obama (all incumbents are) when can we?

Posted by: DrewM at 10:05 AM | Comments (112)
Post contains 1120 words, total size 7 kb.

Plonked! did this. Worth a watch, even if you've grown tired of the Downfall parodies.

The central joke may or may not be SCOAMF. Better link added.

Obama's job speech will now come... next week.

Also mentioned there is Obama's nomination of Alan Krueger to his Council of Economic Advisers. On the Coffee & Markets podcast, they discuss Krueger's devotion to big government interventions in the economy, to fix an economy chiefly distressed by big government interventions.

Better and Better: He wants a big, big consumption tax to take effect two years from now, to encourage people to spend money now, when they still have a little of it.

ObamaÂ’s new chief economist, Alan Krueger
AUG 29, 2011 12:16 EDT

inShare

2012 ELECTION | OBAMA WHITE HOUSE
First, the 411 on Alan Krueger, new chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, from Reuters:

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday he has chosen Princeton University labor economist Alan Krueger to become the top White House economist. Krueger would succeed Austan Goolsbee as chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. The decision comes as Obama prepares to unveil a jobs package in a speech planned for shortly after the September 5 Labor Day holiday.

“As one of this country’s leading economists, Alan has been a key voice on a vast array of economic issues for more than two decades,” Obama said in a written statement. “Alan understands the difficult challenges our country faces, and I have confidence that he will help us meet those challenges as one of the leaders on my economic team.”

KruegerÂ’s expertise in labor-market issues is in keeping with the administrationÂ’s efforts to underscore a focus on jobs. At Treasury, Krueger was assistant secretary for economic policy and chief economist. He is also a veteran of President Bill ClintonÂ’s administration, serving as chief economist for the Department of Labor from August 1994 to August 1995. Krueger holds a Bachelor of Science degree in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University. He earned his PhD in economics at Harvard University. While at Princeton, Krueger was a regular contributor to the Economic Scene column in The New York Times. Krueger has written extensively on unemployment and the effects of education on the labor market.

Anyone still looking for a turn to the right from Obama will be mightily disappointed. Krueger is part of the center-left economic consensus that believes a) America is undertaxed, b) government must become permanently bigger as America ages, and c) climate change requires a vast new regulatory scheme to control carbon emissions. His big idea to boost the U.S. economy and bring the budget in balance is ginormous consumption tax on top of the current income tax system:

Why not pass a 5 percent consumption tax to take effect two years from now? Â… In the short run, the anticipation of a consumption tax would encourage households to spend money now, rather than after the tax is in place. Along with the rest of the economic recovery package, this would help jump-start spending in the economy and thereby increase production and employment. In the long run, a 5 percent consumption tax would raise approximately $500 billion a year, and fill a considerable hole in the budget outlook. In addition, a consumption tax would encourage more saving in the long run. Many economists consider a consumption tax an efficient way of raising tax revenue, especially in a global economy.

SCOAMF Now Has a Website. SCOAMF.com.

Posted by: Ace at 09:09 AM | Comments (230)
Post contains 605 words, total size 4 kb.

As Dell in Vermont was trying to get across to us (and me specifically), Irene wasn't quite done yet. Unfortunately, this is very typical of any landfalling tropical system- it doesn't do all of its damage on landfall, but usually waits a day to get inland, floods the living crap out of some inland state that usually doesn't have to mess with this kind of stuff, and it creates its own problems.

At this point, we leave the land of meteorology and we start moving into the land of hydrology- the study of movement, distribution, and quality of water... in other words, what happens with rivers when you dump a bunch of water into it? more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:12 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 752 words, total size 5 kb.