Perhaps you heard yesterday of a story reported by The Independent regarding an interview former US President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton (D- Impeached) gave in Africa. Billy Boy was there to chit-chat and speechify about AIDS and the particular problem African nations have combating it. In an interview with the BBC he pointed out that a key element in stopping the spread of AIDS was, well, let's just go to the article for the details:
Bill Clinton made a plea yesterday for a new emphasis on monogamy as a key element in the battle against Aids. The former US president, not noted for his ability to keep his own marriage vows, said it was very important to change people's attitudes to sex. In an interview with the BBC recorded in Africa, Mr Clinton said that increasing support for monogamy was not just a problem for the continent worst hit by Aids but for the world. "To pretend we can ever get hold of this without dealing with that – the idea of unprotected sexual relations with unlimited numbers of partners – I think would be naïve," he said.
In every corner of the globe (How can a globe have corners?-Ed.) this news was met with guffaws, snorts and general head shaking. But after the laughter fades what is there to make of such a spectacle? First, when I hear the term "increasing support for______" my first reaction is "what will this one cost the taxpayers?" But in this case the support is for "monogamy" according to The Indy. What on Earth can that even mean. Do we need to publicly fund support groups for that? They're already there-- they're called churches, temples, and synagogues. And how exactly does a former President of the US swanning around the world in a Gulfstream dubbed Air F--- One by his closest running buddies (see that Vanity Fair article that enraged Bubba so much a few months back) move the fight against AIDS in Africa ahead one inch? Somewhere in Africa there's a guy thinking, "Oh! I should like to have unprotected sexual activities with multiple attractive partners of both sexes but The Great Clinton just said not to. Oh well, such is life." Really? I doubt it. Not even The Barack of Obama has that kind of worldly power. But then again what all of it is really about is exposure for Willy so he can continue to seem relevant which keeps the speaking fee income rolling in. Part of this scam, er business plan is attaching oneself to various charitable causes. No, not the soup kitchen operating out of the church pantry, not the Boys and Girls Clubs, only something of worldwide interest will move the needle higher on the Visibility Meter. (By the way, I'll start taking BXO's call for taxing "windfall profits" seriously when it starts with speaking fees and book royalties for politicians.)
But what of the above picture of the houseboat you ask. Well, that is apparently Al Gore's houseboat over in Tennessee. Yep, the Pope of the Church of Warmism has a nice, big, houseboat. Now we live in the land of near year-round house boating here at Monkeydarts Plantation so we can appreciate a good party barge. How you want to use your carbon credit scam millions is none of my concern. Just don't tell me how to live.
But, when Al's minions were asked about the boat they quickly defended it because it uses bio diesel and solar power. The implication being, when taken with Gore's speech back in July, that a houseboat running on gasoline should be outlawed in the next ten years, but one using Warmist's preferred energy sources are A-OK.
Interesting worldview, Comrade.
Over at Michelle Malkin's site there's a contest to name the boat. But as a commenter pointed out, Gore named it perfectly: "Bio-Solar 1" or BS1 for short. Perfect.
