The World's Hottest Women?

The World's Hottest Women?

Moonbattery.com makes an excellent point in its comment on First Lady Michelle Obama placing 93rd–ahead of Marisa Tomei and only 11 and 12 spots behind Emma Watson and Heidi Montag, respectively–on Maxim’s 2009 “100 Hottest Women” list.

Moonbattery.com asks rhetorically if Michelle made the list ”for the same reason her husband was granted a Nobel Prize?” and offers this picture as verification that it was:

Now I’m fully aware that Maxim’s “Table of Hotness” is over a year old and that it’s considered mean-spirited in the extreme to comment negatively on a woman’s looks so I won’t do it, but, c’mon! The 93rd hottest woman in the world? Out of maybe three or four billion eligible females? On the same list as Tomei, Watson, and Montag? On the same list as Taylor Swift and Jessica Biel and Angelina Jolie?

As the late Gary Coleman would definitely have said, “Gimme a break!”

Just as it’s crude to demean a lady’s looks, isn’t it rude to insult the intelligence of women and men alike . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1847)

THE NOBEL POLITICAL PRIZE

THE NOBEL POLITICAL PRIZE

Does the Nobel Peace Prize Selection Committee ever rescind one of its priceless awards and demand return of its money? If not, it should.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), divvied up the Nobel Peace Prize (Nobelpriset, in Swedish) cash with Al Gore in 2007, splitting the approximate $1.6 million award. Both should cough up their shares since neither has advanced the cause of world peace even an iota.

Gore should have rejected it on the spot, given the fraudulent nature of An Inconvenient Truth, the “documentary” which won him an Academy Award in Hollywood and which must have convinced the Swedes that he knew what he was babbling about. He didn’t, as shown by, among many other sources, this Canadian analysis which described the award as a “travesty:” http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/261.

Now the IPCC has been outed for what it truly is, a group of intergovernmental blowhards pretending to be climatologists committed to saving the planet from itself–and from Americans dirtying up the atmosphere. In actuality, the IPCC now concedes its dire predictions as to the effects and even the existence of global warming aren’t even predictions. Rather, they are “projections:” http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7116.

The IPCC began its word play in 2001 when it altered its nomenclature: “Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning e.g. future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.”

Huh? Simplified, that means the IPCC admitted it guesses the future and may very well be totally wrong. Expressed another way, it assumes the climate’s future is predicated on what could happen, and we all know what happens when we assume.

I’m guessing those climatologists looked out a window, sniffed the air, and decided to hedge their language though not their cataclysmic “projections,” which are dependent on which direction the political winds are blowing. In the case of the IPCC, its prevailing winds are always blowing from the Left of the political spectrum.

It’s sad really what has happened to the Nobel Peace Prize. It is now conferred...

(Read the rest of this article at http://genelalor.com/.)