Relieved.. and Enjoying It

I’m so excited for another season of Dancing with the Stars!

How many of you watched last night? It doesn’t air until 7 o’clock here, which is 11 o’clock on the east coast.

I think they all did great! Even science guy Bill Nye and “the redneck comedian” Bill Engvall were fun!

My favorite couple is Sasha Farber and Nicole Polizzi — I love them both.

I’m also excited to see Elizabeth from Saved by the Bell! I met her at a Candies function years ago, and she was really sweet.  Amber Riley from Glee, is amazing, too.

Last night, as I sat on my couch, I was so happy.  It’s so fun to watch, and it brings back so many memories!

What do you think of this year’s cast?  I think they are going to do a great job…

Not to mention, I’m relieved I’m not out there!

Read more on the (new and improved) Patheos Faith and Family Channel!

Also,  fan me on Facebook and follow this blog on Twitter!

See Iraq War Veteran’s Dancing With the Stars Performance That Left Many in Tears
Candace Cameron Bure Cha Cha Chas on Dancing With the Stars
Check Out Sadie Robertson's New Modest Line of "Daddy Approved" Prom Dresses!
Danica McKellar Breaks Rib During Dancing With the Stars Rehearsal; "Could Use Your Prayers!"
  • Richard Smit

    I cant waith either! you are a perfect dancer!

  • Sue B

    I watched it this morning online. My favorite was the gal from Glee – I thought she was amazing. I thought about you as I watched it and wondered if you had watched it. I always thought Mark was sweet on you – he sure liked to cuddle up with you! I think it’s a great cast. Valerie Harper is inspirational.

    • otlset

      Yeah isn’t that amazing? Last I heard Valerie Harper had an inoperable tumor and only a short time to live. I thought she’d slowly be going downhill by now since I hadn’t heard much since that announcement. And now I find she’s competing on Dancing with the Stars! Go Rhoda go!

  • c4pfan

    I watched their dances on the abc site and they did an awesome job.

    I have to say that it’s more fun when you don’t care who goes, because I was a nervous wreck when you were on! LOL

  • Alberta Brett

    No, I didn’t watch, for the first time since the show started. It’s lost something for me.. but Bristol, I’ll live it through you and your updates!

  • Joseph Ritter

    Great cast! My favorites this season are Valerie Harper, Leah Remini, and Nicole Polizzi; I thought they all did great!

  • Renny

    With the comment that Bill Nye has about religion I’d just as well he not ‘evolve’ into a better dancer and begone!

    • Guest

      Benghazi?

    • Rosie

      He seems like a good guy. There are as many ways to view the world as there are people in it.

      • Renny

        Not when he calls people’s belief system an ‘enemy of science’ and he calls himself the science guy. I guess I’m the enemy then? Oh, and Jesus etc.

        • otlset

          He’s a true believer in anthropogenic global warming.

          Therefore he’s an idiot who follows pop-science orthodoxy rather than the facts staring him in the face. Those facts are that global warming ceased about 15 years ago, and is now on the decline EVEN THOUGH the minute concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have continued to rise during the same time.

          • Renny

            Excellent.

          • Jeff

            Bill Nye studied Mechanical Engineering at Cornell and one of his professors was Carl Sagan. He engineered instruments for the recent Mars exploration rover. He holds numerous patents. Yes he is quite the idiot.

          • otlset

            If he blindly follows the pop-science orthodoxy of AGW ( as atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise, the earth will heat up — no way around it folks — it’s ‘science’! And those scientists know *everything*.) despite the evidence to the contrary, I don’t give a rat’s patootie how many fancy degrees he has — he’s an idiot.

          • Itarion

            AGW is about a two century trend relating the start of significant human CO2 contributions – the Industrial Revolution – with rising global temperatures, compared with thousands of years of records gleaned from tree growth, air pockets in ice caps, and a variety of other sources. Fifteen years doesn’t countermand the fact that temperatures are rising. The question is not “Are they rising?” The question is “How far are they going to rise?” And as I said elsewhere, it is better to research something before you get into trouble with it, than to hope you don’t get in trouble with it.

            And there’s a touch of hate from you: “I don’t give a rat’s patootie how many fancy degrees he has — he’s an idiot.” That’s disrespectful to him and the effort he has made to become educated. One does not get into the public eye for science by being an idiot.

          • otlset

            A “touch of hate”? Because I called the self-righteous and dogmatic Bill Nye an idiot? I don’t hate him, geez, but I certainly don’t care for him browbeating and putting down others who don’t believe in AGW as if they’re stupid. I’ve seen him do this, it’s aggravating to watch, especially if you know he’s wrong.

            All speculation, reflecting ignorance of nature’s own ‘carbon cycle’, where carbon is sequestered in plants as a nutrient, and then released in decomposition or rapidly by burning. But the CO2 is cycled back into plants mostly (the greater the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, the more plant growth and mass is stimulated). It’s all in flux, as the earth and it’s elements strive for balance and equilibrium as a never-ending process.

            The globe is not warming. And by the way, what exactly IS the ideal global temperature we should shoot for in crafting carbon-restricting legislation?

          • Itarion

            Insulting the intelligence of another person, without any authorization to make formal judgements of intellect are not any sort of helpful. Nor do I see him as a person who browbeats and steamrolls. He’s really rather soft-spoken. “Knowing” someone is wrong, based on what? Have you made a study of global climate systems?

            The carbon cycle is a natural, cyclic process, I agree. And we are now adding to it carbon that has been removed from the system for many millions of years. It isn’t possible to add multiple billions of tons of CO2 to a system and expect that there won’t be a change to the carbon cycle and equilibrium in the system. It’ll go to equilibrium, yes, when we stop adding more CO2. Will that equilibrium be one that we, as humans, or many other inhabitants of this planet can survive?

            The globe is warming, as a very long term trend, on an order of magnitude beyond a fifteen year period. The globe is warming, and even “global warming skeptics” agree to that. The ideal temperature we should shoot for is where it was before we started fiddling with the thermostat. If we, as a species, were to remove 80-90% of the CO2 we’ve put into the atmosphere, there wouldn’t be a problem with global temperatures rising.

          • otlset

            Yes, not only have I done my own research as best I can over the past decade or so into the controversy of man-made global warming and climate change, but my bachelor’s degree is in Earth Science (geography, geology, geophysics, environmental science, etc.) giving me a basis from which to learn more in detail.

            The estimates I’ve been hearing are that the global temperature rise since the late 1800s amounts to about .6 degrees Celsius on average. And now taking into account the last 15 years it is likely staying there or declining to 5% yearly contribution to the naturally produced CO2 content of the atmosphere, which apparently has little to do with any warming of the environment as evidenced by the past decade and a half of static to declining averages. There are other, greater factors at work that drive our weather (and climate — as an accumulation of data over time) systems than CO2, a trace gas in the atmosphere. But of course man can’t affect those factors (whatever they may be) and start irrationally taxing and restricting industry as if that could control the weather.

            Increased atmospheric carbon (CO2) is a stimulant for increase of plant growth, which absorbs CO2 as a nutrient. Greenhouse operators know that increasing the CO2 content of their greenhouses causes increased plant growth, mass and improved propagation. Plants absorb and take CO2 out of the atmosphere, and are stimulated to grow larger and more abundantly when concentrations are richer. They die and decompose, or are burned and the carbon is released again into the air to be recycled again. There’s is always balancing going on in nature, compensation for surpluses or deficits of any dynamic system.

            Measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii (volcano, by the way, CO2?), the CO2 percentage there in 2009 was 387 ppm CO2, and in 2013 it is now around 400 ppm.

            In prehistoric times it has been as high as over 6000 ppm.
            34 million years ago when the Antarctic Ice Sheet started to take its current form, the CO2 estimate was around 760 ppm.

            In any average house today, the CO2 concentrations are usually in the 400 to 500 ppm range, some as high as 600 ppm.

            I submit there are larger factors here than atmospheric CO2 that affect the weather, and thus climate long term. Some speculate the sun itself is the cause, with a reduction in it’s activity/output in recent years that dovetails the stasis and decline of temperatures seen in the past decade and a half. Others say even that an increase in certain cosmic radiations from space have an effect. I myself lean to the variability in the sun’s output as the chief factor in our own earth’s weather and temperature characteristics.

          • Itarion

            If man contributes even one percent of the existing CO2 concentration extant in the atmosphere every year, from fossil sources which have been locked out of the carbon cycle, then within 70 years the concentration of CO2 will have doubled. CO2 has been shown to have a non-negligible warming effect dependent upon atmospheric concentration, so doubling the concentration of CO2 will double whatever non-negligible effect that CO2 has.

            Solar output variance follows an eleven year cycle matching up to the sunspot/magnetic fluctuation cycle. The variations are approximately 1ppt from minimum to maximum, which is non-negligible. I will accept that solar variations can affect the earth’s weather, but until you can show that there is a longer cycle, which would have generated these prehistoric warm periods, CO2 is the best explanation for them. Unless you can point to a specific influential factor that matches the data better than the concentration of CO2, then CO2 is the best explanation we have for a geological scale short term change in temperature which has been seen happening across the past 200 years, and happening as a departure from trends in the geological long term, on the order of several thousand.

            Yes, there were prehistoric times when the [CO2] was higher than it is now. During these times, the entire world was different. Warmer, one might say. Is this because there was more CO2? Who knows? Maybe. Unless warmer temperatures cause CO2.

          • otlset

            Yes, it has been noted that atmospheric CO2 concentration actually lags the rising temperature trend (that is temps start warming first, then CO2 rises), something that contradicts the premise of CO2 as the driver of global warming (atmospheric warming).

            Please comment on the finding (derived no doubt from ice core samples or other tenuous methods of ‘inference’ for determining ancient climate conditions — at least in that sample’s proximity) that suggests the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere 34 million years ago was 760 ppm as the Antarctic Ice Sheet started to take it’s present form. With concentrations that high (far greater than now), shouldn’t such ice sheets be disappearing rather than growing?

          • Jeff

            I think I will trust the thousands of scientists all over the globe who have came to the same conclusion after decades of studies than someone who spends most of their time posting on Bristol Palin’s blog.

          • otlset

            Can you name any of them, besides the ones in the public eye (recently caught “massaging the data” and urging fellows to “hide the decline”)?

          • Jeff

            These organizations represent literally thousands of scientists.

            NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York
            American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
            National Research Council
            American Institute of Physics
            European Academy of Sciences and Arts
            European Science Foundation
            The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC)
            American Geophysical Union
            US National Academy of Science
            American Meteorological Association
            American Medical Association
            American Astronomical Society
            Joint Science Academies
            American Meteorological Society
            Network of African Science Academies
            International Union for Quaternary Research
            Australian Coral Reef Society
            American Physical Society
            National Academy of Science
            European Geophysical Union
            Royal Society of London
            IUGG
            European Federation of Geologists
            Geological Society of America
            Geological Society of London

            Climate change skepticism is strongest among geologists closely linked to the mining and fossil fuel industries.

            Where do you work otlset?

          • otlset

            I’m an audiologist by trade. But a bachelor’s degree in earth science. I know I know, but it’s a long story, and what a long strange trip it’s been.

            But I made it!

          • Jeff

            Great then my comment still stands. I will trust thousands of scientists and climate experts all over the globe more than an audiologist who spends most of his time posting on Bristol Palin’s blog :)

            OR I could use your logic and rather than listen to several oncologists who all state that smoking causes lung cancer decide to forgo any treatment because after all they haven’t proven 100 percent that cigarettes cause lung cancer. So light em up.

          • otlset

            Okay then, be willfully ignorant by ignoring the facts as they are, and blindly follow the pop-science propaganda pushers.

            I never take things at face value anymore, especially since I realized what a despicable pack of propaganda outfits the lamestream media has become in selectively slicing and dicing and processing ( and WORSE — omitting or not covering) the news for us peasants. And even scientific organizations in position to benefit from government grant money are not given a free-pass in what they tell me as well. They don’t intimidate me in the least, even though many of them think they are above criticism and venerated beyond reproach. I am suspicious of ALL information given out from this lying (in general) mainstream media news complex.

          • Jeff

            Oh then please share where you get all of your “facts” about climate change. Now remember Fox News is part of the “lame-stream” media. And surely you won’t mention the Blaze or any other outfit which has an agenda. I

  • Belinda Duras

    a wholesome American girl liking a sleeze snook? you have faults after all my dear

  • Bree Merr

    I thot the staging looked chaotic and too imformal for ballroom dancing. Hope they improve that..

  • Stoneyjack

    Bristol is the best contestant on DWTS EVER!

    • Guest

      That is false stevie

  • Kristy Patullo

    You must be super relieved, Bristol. As much fun as you had competing in seasons 11 & 15, it must be a lot more fun to just sit and watch. Congrats on all your success re: DWTS. Now on to the next chapter.

  • conservativemama

    Amber Riley was fantastic!

  • the_original_tom

    I was most impressed with Snooki. Unlike you, cupcake:
    1. she realized and admitted that her life was “a hot mess” and she has worked hard to change that
    2. she can actually dance
    3. she is succeeding in spite of her reputation as opposed to you who has done nothing more than ride the coattails of your vapid mother’s notoriety

    • Renny

      One wonders, butter bean, why you’re posting here on Bristol’s blog if you dislike her so much? Oh, wait…you’re a liberal. Stupid is as stupid does.

      • Itarion

        Rawr, liberalism BAD.

        Alternatively, some of us are here because we want to see and understand what it is other people think. Rather than disregarding any competing viewpoint because it is different, some of us try to see what’s different, why, and whether it is worthwhile as a potential alternative.

        • otlset

          And you glean “…what’s different, why, and whether it is worthwhile…” from the plethora of nasty and intentionally insulting crap from fools who drift in to this open site to express their hate?

          • Itarion

            Hate is such a strong word. But I agree that there are also some real jackasses who say some stupid shit. But you get that from both sides.

            I glean “what’s different and why it might be useful from my intentions in coming here, and com enters like Rosie, with “He seems like a good guy. There are as many ways to view the world as there are people in it.” On the other hand, “He’s an idiot who follows popular science orthodoxy rather than the facts” is a touch hateful against an actually intelligent man with whom you happen to disagree. Hate comes from both sides, and it’s useful to neither.

          • otlset

            Nye is apparently willfully ignorant. I stand by my opinion, especially since he has the ability to get on various TV shows and browbeat those who disagree in a condescending manner, while encouraging governmental action based on an obviously incomplete freaking ‘theory’ for heaven’s sake.

          • Itarion

            Do you understand what the word “theory” means as a technical term used in scientific circles? I’ll tell you this: it’s not just a scientific wild ass guess. Nor is global warming the only “theory.” It’s a complex issue that needs study. Ignoring what might not be a problem is more risky than studying what might not be an issue.

            As for Mr. Nye being an asshole on TV, I don’t know. I’ve not seen him in on TV shows, at least not in this sort of arena. It would suck if he was, because he has done so much for education and scientific literacy, but not-an-asshole would do a whole lot more. His educational videos are a pervasive aspect of being a nineties child, as a whole slew of schools showed them. But a lot of celebrities are assholes, and so – IF he is one – this would not be a surprise by any stretch of the imagination.

            Finally, you are welcome to your opinions. Feel free to share them, but expect that people will ask you to back it up, that people will disagree, and that people will dislike you for it, and say so.

          • otlset

            Yes it’s a complex issue the myriad of dynamic and constantly changing atmospheric conditions that contribute to the day to day weather in any locale. Prognosticating how the weather will turn out even on a day to day basis, not to mention months and years ahead, like the fools at the UN IPCC have attempted to do (in order to place environmental restrictions and regulations on the world in the here and now) is shortsighted exactly because all of the dynamic components and influences that produce our weather (and ‘climate’ — what to expect weatherwise for any geographic location or “climate zone” more specifically, at any time of year — data gathered over time. The earth has thousands of climate zones, known as Koeppen climate zones, each with different characteristics due to geographic location and elevation and other localized characteristics) are not known and/or not taken into consideration. I speculate that many are not even discovered yet. How else to appraise the efficacy of the theory that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (CO2) will lead to a warming planet, in the face of 15 years of weather data that show there HAS BEEN NO WARMING in that time, despite a gradual modest increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

            Something is missing from their theory (likely many things are missing) that would explain why the globe has not been warming according to all the dire fear-mongering predictions the IPCC, Michael Mann, Al Gore, et al, and true-believer/followers like Bill Nye the science guy over the past two decades. Yet they plunge ahead anyway and try to yoke worldwide restrictions on industries — based only on what looks like now a more and more incomplete theory.

  • LMA

    Who cloned Saul Alinsky?!!

    • LMA

      And can he also clone the dozens of overseas personnel killed on GWB’s watch?!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X