Climate Change Conference: All About Spreading the Wealth
In the “Confirming-What-We-Already-Know” Department comes an entry from German economist and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) official Ottmar Edenhofer. (Over at the American Thinker, Marc Shepard reminds us Edenhofer is the IPCC “Co-chair of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change“.)
Given that the only solutions put forward to the supposed problem of global warming have been schemes which increase the power of governments, decrease the control individuals and private enterprises have over their own affairs and operations while promoting policies in line with the statist dreams of past utopian movements, we’ve thought their repetition of the dogma of climate change had more to do with economics than the environment.
And Mr. Edenhofer spells it out in terms so simple a child could understand it:
Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. . . .
First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Nothing to do with environmental policy? Hmm. . . . To borrow an express, it’s all about spreading the wealth.
UPDATE: Commenting on Edendorfer’s remarks, James Delingpole calls the unelected bureaucrat and his environmental ilk, “Watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. This is the theme of my forthcoming book on the controlling, poisonously misanthropic and aggressively socialistic instincts of the modern environmental movement.” (H/t: Instapundit.)
47 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Do you think this is some kind of insight? Of course environmental policy is connected to economic policy. Has anyone ever claimed that it wasn’t?
Comment by Levi — November 19, 2010 @ 8:56 am - November 19, 2010
As with all things progressive, it’s not really even about “spreading the wealth,” but about putting progressive leftists in charge of the wealth.
Comment by V the K — November 19, 2010 @ 9:27 am - November 19, 2010
What strikes me about Edenhofer’s rhetoric is how stale it is. It might have been saucy in, say, 1988.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 19, 2010 @ 9:30 am - November 19, 2010
YES! Been following climate change since 1990. They have never been this open about it in all this time.
Comment by Sonicfrog — November 19, 2010 @ 10:04 am - November 19, 2010
Well since more and more data is proved to be fraudulent, why not take off the mask?
Comment by The_Livewire — November 19, 2010 @ 10:07 am - November 19, 2010
Like soc con issues, the next Congress and GOPers in general, need to stick the whole climate change issue on the shelf and let it rest next to a whole bunch of soc con issues.
Even Obama’s Admin has signaled that cap & trade is dead… that little will be accomplished on climate change.
We can keep beating the issue ’til our fists bleed, but I say it’s time to set the entire issue aside, let the World go on with whatever it wants to do on the matter and let’s get back to the days when we could hunt polar bears and whales. There’s nothing synthetic that’s as warm and cozy as a polar bear fur wrapped about you… and nothing as tasty as deep fried whale meat on whole wheat.
We ignored all this BS when Kyoto reared it’s ugly head… we can do it again. The environmentalists lost in 2010 and they’ll lose again in 2012 if we don’t make beating up climate change a major focus.
Every winter there are more sightings of wolverines in the lower 48 –supposedly a long held marker of climate heat-up wasn’t listening anymore to the scientists and enviro-nannies. If the wolverines aren’t concerned, we shouldn’t be.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 19, 2010 @ 10:17 am - November 19, 2010
Wrong… and wrong.
Obama will still seek to impose Cap and Trade via Draconian EPA regulations. The Die is cast. Carole Browner will see to that. And the only way to prevent it will be congressional action.
Comment by V the K — November 19, 2010 @ 10:43 am - November 19, 2010
BUT WHAT ABOUT MIND BEAMS FROM SPACE???
They’re so potentially destructive, that unless every Socialist on the planet turns over all their money to us immediately, THE PLANET IS DOOOOOOOMED!
(I made a chart in the shape of a tennis racket that proves THE THREAT IS REAL!)
.
Comment by gastorgrab — November 19, 2010 @ 11:56 am - November 19, 2010
Spreading the wealth, doesn´t foreign aid fall under that heading? The TEA Party, God bless them, seemed to seemed to be obsessed with the domestic agenda of Obama, that they ignored a very important item that contributes to the debt, FOREIGN AID. A moratorium on this item if not an outright end to this waste should be proposed. A good portion goes out to oil rich countries who give us nothing in return. We can´t even count on their good will to support us in the U.N.
Comment by Roberto — November 19, 2010 @ 12:05 pm - November 19, 2010
The power of the purse -and the threat to bring about a strong alliance between the House GOP and Sen Dems to stop the proposed EPA regs– as well as the recent attestation by EPA lead regulators that it is for Congress to act on carbon tax/allowance auctions etc– means that the issue is now devolved into nothing more than a boogieman issue from the climate change deniers.
EPA doesn’t want to move on it and have clearly, repeatedly said in Congressional hearings on the agency’s budget –as well as in regional, natl and internl conferences for the last 2 yrs– that this is an issue best resolved by broad consensus and Congressional action.
It’s a boogieman issue and we have far greater issues to actually be concerned about in the 112th… and not waste time fretting about whether or not EPA goons can pull some midnight fast one as Obama heads out of town at the end of his only term.
Sorry, it’s a boogieman issue. It generates lots of heat; but the 112th needs to be focused on getting a huge set of tasks completed and that should not –needs not– concern the pet fears of climate change deniers.
Nor does the 112th have to pass a resolution saying evolution is only a theory. Gheesh, let’s stay focused on the important issues on our plate.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 19, 2010 @ 2:28 pm - November 19, 2010
Roberto, good point on foreign aid –some of us have been arguing that it needs to be redlined and seriously retrenched. America first; our allies can get along without crop subsidies for grains that aren’t producing… as well as running GM ads in internl venues for cars they can’t afford.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 19, 2010 @ 2:30 pm - November 19, 2010
Obama is all about spreading the wealth; nevermind, this has proven not to work, ever. The Obama Democrats’ arrogance believes they can somehow make it successful.
Comment by Sebastian Shaw — November 19, 2010 @ 3:16 pm - November 19, 2010
V, seems possible. In fact, they may have beaten you to it. From yesterday’s Daily Caller:
By the way, does it seem a bit gassy in here? I don’t care to pin it down but I think a straw man was raised about “climate change deniers” or something. I’ve never met one. AGW deniers yes; but that would be different, as AGW is just a theory put forward (by Gaiaists) to account for recorded climate change, and at that, a theory which has been debunked.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 19, 2010 @ 5:35 pm - November 19, 2010
But, ILC, I thought we were comfortable assured that CO2 Regulation by the EPA was an implausible “booger man” issue?
Comment by V the K — November 19, 2010 @ 7:09 pm - November 19, 2010
Did you even bother to read what Dan posted? This Edenhofer jack wad just said that it wasn’t.
Not many seem to make the connection that the Global Warmism cultists never seem to have any idea what needs to be done, but they sure as hell know that taking ass loads of money is required. Just like poverty. The Great Society has done nothing but piss away billions of dollars. Not a damn one of the liberals give a crap, it’s always got to be OPM.
There ain’t a whole hell of a lot of difference between liberals and Rev. Jim Baker.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 20, 2010 @ 1:53 am - November 20, 2010
A thought occurs: How come the liberals argue against tax cuts stating that people will save the money rather than save it, yet they demand more unemployment welfare so the people will spend the money and “stimulate” the economy?
How the hell does that work?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 20, 2010 @ 7:53 am - November 20, 2010
EDIT: save the money rather than spend
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 20, 2010 @ 7:54 am - November 20, 2010
Unemployed people have to buy necessities like groceries and gasoline and clothing – saving simply isn’t an option. People who are already employed and are getting by have more flexibility. They have the option of spending their money on luxuries or on paying down their debts. Lots of people paying down their debt doesn’t have the kind of immediate effect on the economy that we need. I put 100% of my tax return towards my debt last year and plan on doing the same this year, so the tax cuts I’m receiving haven’t been going back into the economy. If the point is to try to get people to buy things, unemployment benefits are a much better bang for your buck because most if not all of that money is put back into the economy right away. Sure, some people out there getting tax cuts are remodeling their house or putting it towards a new car, but lots of them are doing what I did. It’s simply not as efficient.
Comment by Levi — November 20, 2010 @ 10:27 am - November 20, 2010
V – Yeah. And you know what else? To find that Daily Caller article from the 18th, all I did was Google “Obama will still seek to impose Cap and Trade via EPA regulations.” Your words, nearly. It took 20 seconds. Could not have been easier. I.e., it’s not like the news on this subject is being hidden in OBL’s secret cave-base.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 20, 2010 @ 11:03 am - November 20, 2010
Oh my god, the Levi stupid just reached China Syndrome level.
And employed people DON’T? Indeed, employed people spend MORE on all of these things.
What this is about is pure control, period. “Progressives” like Levi hate tax cuts because they are not redistributive; they reward productivity, not laziness. Levi is driven insane by the fact that people who actually work and earn money might be able to keep it instead of having it forcibly taken from them and given to him. Hence that’s why he develops these delusions like his Pelosi that having people on welfare is better for the economy than having people employed.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 20, 2010 @ 1:09 pm - November 20, 2010
So that means you’re “rich”, right?
BTW, isn’t it better to have people working instead of giving them an incentive to stay home and watch Oprah?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 20, 2010 @ 2:14 pm - November 20, 2010
How has the theory been debunked? If you’re agreeing that the climate is changing, how are you able to rule out humans as a cause or accelerant? What data are you aware of that allows you to make such a complete conclusion?
The only scientific conclusion is that there is no conclusion. Climate change certainly could be the result of normal changes in the planet’s weather cycle over thousands of years, but I’m aware of no singular finding that proves beyond a doubt that humans have no effect. We might need a few hundred more years of data collection to make that determination – although it certainly isn’t trending towards being demonstrated as debunked. Humans are pretty clearly having an impact and the effect is almost certainly going to intensify as global population continues to increase.
The most you could reasonably say is that there isn’t enough information to disprove the theory that humans are responsible for climate change. Though I’m sure that when you’re as mindlessly partisan and reflexively pro-corporate as the modern conservative is, being scientifically precise really isn’t that high on your list of priorities.
Comment by Levi — November 21, 2010 @ 9:47 am - November 21, 2010
No – it means the tax cut that was designed to help stimulate the economy did absolutely nothing towards that goal in my case. That’s true of many of my friends and family as well.
BTW, isn’t it better to have people working instead of giving them an incentive to stay home and watch Oprah?
Just because some tiny fraction of people abuse social programs doesn’t mean that entire programs are useless. A lot of people have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and can’t find new work – providing temporary assistance for people in those situations is the reason we have government in the first place.
Comment by Levi — November 21, 2010 @ 9:55 am - November 21, 2010
Levi,
Given that even you now admit there’s no conclusive proof of man made global warming, might I suggest you take your own advice and stop ‘making public environmental policy decisions based on fairy tales’ about cow flatulence, incandescentlight bulbs and overwhelmed rain forrests? A moron like you would have been better off living in the <a href=11th century.
In other words, hush Levi, adults are talking here.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 21, 2010 @ 10:01 am - November 21, 2010
bother, 11th century.
It’s much more fun to use Levi’s stupidity against him when I get the links right.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 21, 2010 @ 10:02 am - November 21, 2010
Given that extending unemplyoment benefits does give them the incentive to ‘stay home and watch Oprah’, Levi fails economics, once again.
And fails government again
From the link:
James Madison is the acknowledged father of the constitution. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia. James Madison wrote disapprovingly, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” Today, at least two-thirds of a $2.5 trillion federal budget is spent on the “objects of benevolence.” That includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, aid to higher education, farm and business subsidies, welfare, ad nauseam.
A few years later, James Madison’s vision was expressed by Representative William Giles of Virginia, who condemned a relief measure for fire victims. Giles insisted that it was neither the purpose nor a right of Congress to “attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require.”
In 1827, Davy Crockett was elected to the House of Representatives. During his term of office a $10,000 relief measure was proposed to assist the widow of a naval officer. Davy Crockett eloquently opposed the measure saying, “Mr. Speaker: I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”
In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a popular measure to help the mentally ill saying, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” To approve the measure “would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.” During President Grover Cleveland’s two terms in office, he vetoed many congressional appropriations, often saying there was no constitutional authority for such an appropriation. Vetoing a bill for relief charity, President Cleveland said, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”
Who knew you could spell fail L-E-V-I
Comment by The_Livewire — November 21, 2010 @ 12:47 pm - November 21, 2010
With logic, facts and evidence. It’s called, the scientific method. Do look into it.
Straw man alert! First, I never said humans have *no* effect. Second, the scientific method puts the burden of proof on those advancing a theory to show that their theory is the best explanation of the universe of available evidence. It rarely if ever relies on “singular findings”, and even more important, it does not put the burden of proof on a theories’ listeners to disprove it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 21, 2010 @ 12:50 pm - November 21, 2010
In conclusion: It is interesting to see that Michigan-Matt and Levi are both (whether implicitly or explicitly) AGW believers. Perhaps they could form an alliance, like on one of those “reality” shows.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 21, 2010 @ 12:52 pm - November 21, 2010
TL, great link! Thanks.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 21, 2010 @ 12:56 pm - November 21, 2010
Amusingly, Levi also forgot that for the scientific method, you don’t prove/disprove a negative.
Clearly Levi must believe in G_d with the same devotion he believes in Global Warming since “I’m aware of no singular finding that proves beyond a doubt” there is no Divine.
So we now know that Levi’s pro-life, (He’s against ‘making profits off of dead kids‘, he’s for the Patriot act. (agreeing to limit freedoms ever so slightly for the social contract) If it wasn’t for the typical leftist racism and totalitarianism, he’d almost be a conservative.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 21, 2010 @ 2:32 pm - November 21, 2010
Why do we still say developed nations should distribute wealth to poor ones?
What do you think we’ve been doing? America has encouraged a wealth-outflow since world war 2–national leaders wanted to prevent future Hitlers from arising in impoverished European nations, and the tradition stuck.
When we import more then we export, our wealth flows abroad. The dollar becomes overvalued, subsidizing manufacturing in other countries (it’s not as simple as labor costs). This also sucks in illegal immigrants, who play an arbitrage game; since U.S. dollars are overvalued, they can amp their real income by sending dollars back to their home country.
This was, again, voluntary on our part–and to be honest, I like our modern world too much to criticize that policy (besides, spreading democracy was worth it).
But we can’t afford to continue this sort of thing any longer.
Comment by joeedh — November 21, 2010 @ 10:35 pm - November 21, 2010
The Watermelons used to be BFF with Enron until they discovered they could use it as a cudgel against Bush. Then there’s GE, DuPont, BP, Cinergy (Duke Energy) etc. So you’re “pro-corporate” is another stinking turd you’ve dropped on the board.
A lot of people have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and can’t get unemployment. What about them? Why are they SOL?
If by “stimulate the economy” you mean the POTUS walks around massaging his prostate while running up trillion dollar deficits, I suppose it wouldn’t.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 22, 2010 @ 2:40 am - November 22, 2010
Well then, where is the evidence that your theory is the best explanation? You don’t get to say that I’m wrong and then fail to apply your standards to yourself. What evidence makes your argument better than mine?
Comment by Levi — November 22, 2010 @ 9:38 am - November 22, 2010
*yawn* Is Levi holding everyone else to a standard he himself doesn’t hold? I’m shocked, shocked!
Shush Levi, adults are talking.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 22, 2010 @ 10:36 am - November 22, 2010
Climate change is a recorded fact. There has always been climate change (even within the last 6000 years, if you are a Creationist). And there will always be climate change. The question is what causes it.
Human beings affect local climate. If they build a city or drain a lake, they will affect the *local* heat balance and thus local climate.
*Global* climate is a different matter. Global climate is driven by the total amount of energy raining down on the Earth. There is this gigantic nuclear fusion reactor in the sky, called The Sun. You can see it most days. Small variations in its energy output, and in the Earth’s precise distance from it, affect global climate. This is all Meteorology 101. Take a class in it.
Human beings generate power and thus heat, but it mostly radiates off into space. The question is whether enough of it is trapped on the Earth to affect global climate, and whether certain common industrial gases worsen that effect (if any). AGW religious believers say “yes” and “yes”. It is up to them, again, to prove their case. They have not.
First, the current state of the Earth’s climate is nothing unusual. We still have not warmed up as much the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period, much less exceeded them. If the Earth’s current climate change is nothing unusual (and it is nothing unusual), no new theory (AGW) is needed to account for anything.
Second, AGW theory is crap. It is illogical. The Earth does have a natural greenhouse effect, and it is primarily driven by the presence of water vapor in the atmosphere. The effect of water vapor dwarfs the effect of CO2 or other gases. It makes no sense that increasing CO2 by a few hundred parts per million would create a greenhouse effect. It’s collosally dumb.
Algore though he had a neato chart where higher CO2 coincided with warm periods in the Earth’s history. He was wrong. Algore didn’t have a neato chart, he had a crap chart. He got the causality backward. The increase in CO2 always *lagged* the temperature increases. Higher temperatures meant warmer oceans which caused the oceans to expel their CO2. Lower temperatures meant cooler oceans which caused the oceans to re-absorb their CO2. Thus, higher temperatures – again from that giant natural fusion reactor, the energy of the Sun – caused higher CO2, not the other way.
Third, AGW theory has repeatedly made predictions which have failed. Part of how you meet your burden to prove a theory is: make predictions with it, then see if those predictions come true. The climate models of AGW scienticians are crap and don’t predict climate. The atmospheric dynamic models are crap, as the “greenhouse signature” is missing (the pattern of atmospheric temperature layers that should be in play if CO2 were in fact causing a greenhouse effect, has been shown to be missing). The Arctic ice is actually thickening on average. The climate data itself, that AGW scienticians rely on, has been shown to be profoundly flawed.
So: AGW theory isn’t needed to explain anything, makes no sense, is based on crap data and makes crap predictions. Meanwhile, the theory of natural climate changes based on the Sun is sufficient to explain all of the *global* climate change we’ve observed so far.
You’re welcome.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 22, 2010 @ 1:25 pm - November 22, 2010
P.S. I mean no offense to religious believers, when I say AGW is a religion.
The whole point of religion is that it is a *faith*. You haven’t proven it. You can’t prove it, in this life. If you could prove it (in this life), then it would no longer be faith; it would be knowledge/science. Mature religious believers understand that, and talk about the importance of their faith. When you are talking about a real religion and a mature religious believer, it is a *compliment* to note the believer’s faith. When you are talking about a fake religion like AGW – a religion trying to pass itself off as science – then, and only then, it becomes an insult (and quite properly) to note the believer’s faith in it. Two different contexts. Context is important.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 22, 2010 @ 1:48 pm - November 22, 2010
Good points all around ILC.
And yes, I find it amusing that Levi’s level of contempt for those of us of faith pales in his blind devotion to the cult of AGW.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 22, 2010 @ 2:24 pm - November 22, 2010
Al Gore accidentally admitted he pushed ethanol for political rather than policy reasons:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=554576&p=1
“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa >>>>because I was about to run for president,” the former vice president said.
Comment by Nan G — November 22, 2010 @ 8:26 pm - November 22, 2010
Has Levi been stunned into silence? LOL
Nan G, interesting!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 22, 2010 @ 10:53 pm - November 22, 2010
I’ll get back to you. Of your three points, the first and third are irrelevant, and the second is simply incongruent with the vast majority of climate scientists. Are you an expert in that field? Is there some reason you’d like to give for stating that it is dumb and counterintuitive to think that more carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is increasing the greenhouse effect?
Comment by Levi — November 23, 2010 @ 9:12 am - November 23, 2010
The vast majority.
Ah yes, the ‘I have more people who agree with me’ argument.
Reality of course is different
Earth is handling Co2 just fine
And more proof AGW is bogus.
Of course Levi will ignore this, since facts are anethma to him.
Hush Levi, adults are talking.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 23, 2010 @ 10:20 am - November 23, 2010
I stated it. Clearly. Either you read too fast or, more likely, you just don’t want to hear it or think about it.
Spoken like a Gaiaist, a “true believer”.
- The fact that a theory has no explanatory power because it is not actually needed to explain anything: Irrelevant!
- The fact that a theory has no predictive power even though making predictions is the point of having theories and the strongest proof of a theory’s accuracy (if it has any): Irrelevant!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2010 @ 10:41 am - November 23, 2010
Oh look, Levi’s losing, so it’s time to shift the goalposts!
This is a political blog. I didn’t ask if you had any credentials, when you were busy opining. And, reasonably, you didn’t care what mine were. Until… ummm…
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2010 @ 10:44 am - November 23, 2010
I’m slightly still musing on this. What do you call a theory that has -little or no explanatory power- and -no predictive power-?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2010 @ 10:49 am - November 23, 2010
Simple ILC, he calls it ‘a theory he can’t refute’
Comment by The_Livewire — November 23, 2010 @ 10:54 am - November 23, 2010
Now, SGW theory has predictive power. (‘S’ for Solar.) It says that global climate change is driven by changes in energy received from the Sun. Those changes can happen in at least 3 ways:
1) Asteroid impacts / volcanic eruptions that shield the Earth from the Sun. Can have immediate effect.
2) Slight changes in the Sun’s energy output. May be effective/measurable on small-ish time scales, like 30 years, 100 years, 1000 years.
3) Slight changes in the Earth’s orbit. May be effective/measurable on aeonic time scales.
SGW fits the historical climate record. And possibility (2) is interesting because, if it is operating, we may see a bit of climate change similar to ours, on other planets. Do we? Why, yes we do. Here it is on Mars: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
It is not a conclusive proof, because it’s theoretically possible that Martian climate change could be driven by some process that is internal to Mars, i.e. coincidence. BUT,
- Then you’d also have to explain the similar climate changes being seen on Pluto. Jupiter. etc. “What a remarkable series of coincidences.”
- And in any event… whether the coincidences are really due to SGW or not… AGW can’t explain them at all.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2010 @ 11:17 am - November 23, 2010
Three Days and Levi’s not ‘gotten back to us’?
Well Verizon must be busy with all the Black Friday stuff
Comment by The_Livewire — November 26, 2010 @ 10:26 am - November 26, 2010