The link: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/27/tale-of-two-presidential-workout-fanatics/
No liberal bias here. No cult of personality around 'the one.' It should make you sick, but then, it's what we've come to expect from the American media.
No liberal bias here. Move along, please.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Article: "Violent Protests at Israeli Embassy in London"
The link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5408132.ece
"Campaign supporters, Palestinians and British Muslims stood on the pavement of High Street Kensington, west London, and chanted in unison: “Five, six, seven, eight - Israel is a terror state.” "
Let's see ... Hamas started this with rocket attacks when they broke the cease-fire about two weeks ago. Hmm...
Also, and due to political correctness, you won't be seeing this in the US - what have those "...poor, disenfranchised, Palestinians..." been doing?
WAIT! I know the answer to this!
They've been hiding rocket launchers in residential areas. Here's THAT link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/VideoPlayer&cid=1194419829128&videoId=1230456496945
And yes, in case you're wondering, that is a violation of the rules of war. You're not allowed to hide war material in residential areas. This includes putting weapons and/or ammunition in Mosques ... but then again, they've done that too.
Sounds to me as if the Israelis might actually be justified.
Now before anybody gets their hackles raised, Glenn Beck used to have in his free section of his site his "Glenn Beck Explains the Middle East" clip available. Listen to that and you'll learn a few things.
For example, those "...poor, disenfranchised, Palestinians..." actually put themselves into their "refugee camps" because they said that the Israelis weren't entitled to any of the land given to them by the United Nations in 1948 (14-MAY to be exact.)
The Palestinians actually self-imposed their 'refugee camps' upon themselves! But you don't hear that in the US media. They (the Palestinians) aren't fighting for the 'occupied territories,' they kept turning them down!! This includes when they met with President Clinton in the Rose Garden!!
"Campaign supporters, Palestinians and British Muslims stood on the pavement of High Street Kensington, west London, and chanted in unison: “Five, six, seven, eight - Israel is a terror state.” "
Let's see ... Hamas started this with rocket attacks when they broke the cease-fire about two weeks ago. Hmm...
Also, and due to political correctness, you won't be seeing this in the US - what have those "...poor, disenfranchised, Palestinians..." been doing?
WAIT! I know the answer to this!
They've been hiding rocket launchers in residential areas. Here's THAT link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/VideoPlayer&cid=1194419829128&videoId=1230456496945
And yes, in case you're wondering, that is a violation of the rules of war. You're not allowed to hide war material in residential areas. This includes putting weapons and/or ammunition in Mosques ... but then again, they've done that too.
Sounds to me as if the Israelis might actually be justified.
Now before anybody gets their hackles raised, Glenn Beck used to have in his free section of his site his "Glenn Beck Explains the Middle East" clip available. Listen to that and you'll learn a few things.
For example, those "...poor, disenfranchised, Palestinians..." actually put themselves into their "refugee camps" because they said that the Israelis weren't entitled to any of the land given to them by the United Nations in 1948 (14-MAY to be exact.)
The Palestinians actually self-imposed their 'refugee camps' upon themselves! But you don't hear that in the US media. They (the Palestinians) aren't fighting for the 'occupied territories,' they kept turning them down!! This includes when they met with President Clinton in the Rose Garden!!
Sunday, December 21, 2008
A Song That Should Never Have Been Recorded ...
... at least, not in my opinion.
Before I do name the artist or the song involved, I do want to state that I do have one of this artist's CDs ... purchased legally (are you listening, RIAA? As an aside, does anybody else remember this:
"In February 2008 it became known that the RIAA has been withholding roughly $400 million from artists for several years now. The RIAA gained the money through lawsuits claiming to defend the rights of artists, although none of the artists whose music was 'illegally' downloaded have received any of the settlement money.[49]"
Here's THAT link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing
You can find it in the "Counterclaims" section. Methinks that the RIAA has a lot of explaining to do.) (emphasis mine)
This artist was involved some years back in an accident (on 20-MAR-1990) when a speeding semi crashed into her tour bus. And yes, given that, I am speaking about Gloria Estefan.
I admire her spirit, I admire her opposition to Communism in general (and the Castro regime in particular) and I admire her hard humanitarian and philantropic works.
Having said that I do need to state that, in my opinion, her version of "Let it Snow" should never have been composed - let alone sung.
Yes, her voice is as I remember from older songs, but even her golden voice could not save this disaster of a song. Call me a reactionary, call me an old man, call me a 'purist,' call me what you will - but in my opinion, this song just doesn't work. At least, not for me.
I heard it for the first time on the radio tonight and my jaw dropped. I couldn't believe that somebody had slaughtered such a classic. Then when the DJ said it was Ms. Estefan, I was dumbfounded. I went to YouTube and found the song ... and that confirmed that the DJ hadn't made a mistake.
I was thunderstruck. Why such a luminious singer as Ms. Estefan should sing such a calamity of a song frankly escapes me.
Having said that, I'll admit that most of the comments on YouTube have been favourable. Various people have given their opinions on this particular song, and there is nothing wrong in voicing an opinion.
For me, and in my opinion, she should not have sung this song. Indeed, it should never have been composed in such a manner - again, in my opinion.
However, I'm not about to let this one blight of a song ruin my opinion of Ms. Estefan. She remains a true classic with a wonderful, golden voice. One horrible song should not a career make, and I'll be the first to admit that Ms. Estefan has earned every award she's received.
Artists (and actors) have gotten over bombs and catastrophies before - such as Gigli - which starred the wonderful and talented Ben Affleck. The movie, however, has become "...infamous as one of the worst movies ever made."* Frankly, it earned that designation.
The point, however, is that Mr Affleck's career is not defined by that misfortune of a film, nor should Ms Estefan's be defined by this one casualty of a song. They are both wonderful and talented people, neither of whom should have to suffer for one-time fiascos.
After all, we all make misteakes. (See?)
* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigli_(film)
Before I do name the artist or the song involved, I do want to state that I do have one of this artist's CDs ... purchased legally (are you listening, RIAA? As an aside, does anybody else remember this:
"In February 2008 it became known that the RIAA has been withholding roughly $400 million from artists for several years now. The RIAA gained the money through lawsuits claiming to defend the rights of artists, although none of the artists whose music was 'illegally' downloaded have received any of the settlement money.[49]"
Here's THAT link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing
You can find it in the "Counterclaims" section. Methinks that the RIAA has a lot of explaining to do.) (emphasis mine)
This artist was involved some years back in an accident (on 20-MAR-1990) when a speeding semi crashed into her tour bus. And yes, given that, I am speaking about Gloria Estefan.
I admire her spirit, I admire her opposition to Communism in general (and the Castro regime in particular) and I admire her hard humanitarian and philantropic works.
Having said that I do need to state that, in my opinion, her version of "Let it Snow" should never have been composed - let alone sung.
Yes, her voice is as I remember from older songs, but even her golden voice could not save this disaster of a song. Call me a reactionary, call me an old man, call me a 'purist,' call me what you will - but in my opinion, this song just doesn't work. At least, not for me.
I heard it for the first time on the radio tonight and my jaw dropped. I couldn't believe that somebody had slaughtered such a classic. Then when the DJ said it was Ms. Estefan, I was dumbfounded. I went to YouTube and found the song ... and that confirmed that the DJ hadn't made a mistake.
I was thunderstruck. Why such a luminious singer as Ms. Estefan should sing such a calamity of a song frankly escapes me.
Having said that, I'll admit that most of the comments on YouTube have been favourable. Various people have given their opinions on this particular song, and there is nothing wrong in voicing an opinion.
For me, and in my opinion, she should not have sung this song. Indeed, it should never have been composed in such a manner - again, in my opinion.
However, I'm not about to let this one blight of a song ruin my opinion of Ms. Estefan. She remains a true classic with a wonderful, golden voice. One horrible song should not a career make, and I'll be the first to admit that Ms. Estefan has earned every award she's received.
Artists (and actors) have gotten over bombs and catastrophies before - such as Gigli - which starred the wonderful and talented Ben Affleck. The movie, however, has become "...infamous as one of the worst movies ever made."* Frankly, it earned that designation.
The point, however, is that Mr Affleck's career is not defined by that misfortune of a film, nor should Ms Estefan's be defined by this one casualty of a song. They are both wonderful and talented people, neither of whom should have to suffer for one-time fiascos.
After all, we all make misteakes. (See?)
* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigli_(film)
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Rule of Law
All around me, I'm surrounded by people who tell me what to do, how to do it, and when to do it.
Example: The speed limit on a certain stretch of road is 35mph because it's zoned residential. Therefore, I'm supposed to drive no faster than 35mph.
PROBLEM: Not too long ago, a local cop passed me as if I were standing still. I thought he/she was on his/her way to a call until he turned into a driveway and then turned around facing the road. Since that is a local "speedtrap" I assumed that's where he/she was heading. A call to the local police department confirmed it.
RULE FOR ME: Obey the speedlimit. Rule for cops on way to speedtrap: do whatever the hell you want.
Example: The text of the $700billion bailout defines who the money is for and then clearly defines: "FINANCIAL INSTITUTION- The term ‘financial institution’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government."*
That doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Remember that according to my now ex-wife I'm none too bright so I guess I missed the words "automaker" or "Detroit" or "General Motors" or "Ford" or "UAW."
RULE FOR ME: This money is for financial institutions only. Rule for politicians: Do whatever the hell you want.
OK...now we come to insurance companies. I have a certain insurance company that tells me first with one "advocate" that the policy covers the driver, and that is done through the SSN of the driver (as an aside - remember when the SSN was 'only' to be used for retirement benefits?)
PROBLEM: Another "advocate" tells me that the policy doesn't follow the driver, it follows the vehicle and that that is done through the VIN.
RULE FOR ME: Listen to what I tell you. Rule for insurance company: We don't know what the hell's going on, so don't ask us.
So why do people take offense when I point out the problems?
OH - let's go one step further. People everywhere will tell you that they want the truth. The problem is, try to tell the truth.
Fat underworked, immoral politicians take note: If you expect me to obey your rules you'd damned well be following them yourselves. Otherwise, you can stick your objections where the sun don't shine.
Clear?
* - SOURCE: http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/12/tarp-now-a-slush-fund-for-detroit/
Example: The speed limit on a certain stretch of road is 35mph because it's zoned residential. Therefore, I'm supposed to drive no faster than 35mph.
PROBLEM: Not too long ago, a local cop passed me as if I were standing still. I thought he/she was on his/her way to a call until he turned into a driveway and then turned around facing the road. Since that is a local "speedtrap" I assumed that's where he/she was heading. A call to the local police department confirmed it.
RULE FOR ME: Obey the speedlimit. Rule for cops on way to speedtrap: do whatever the hell you want.
Example: The text of the $700billion bailout defines who the money is for and then clearly defines: "FINANCIAL INSTITUTION- The term ‘financial institution’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government."*
That doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Remember that according to my now ex-wife I'm none too bright so I guess I missed the words "automaker" or "Detroit" or "General Motors" or "Ford" or "UAW."
RULE FOR ME: This money is for financial institutions only. Rule for politicians: Do whatever the hell you want.
OK...now we come to insurance companies. I have a certain insurance company that tells me first with one "advocate" that the policy covers the driver, and that is done through the SSN of the driver (as an aside - remember when the SSN was 'only' to be used for retirement benefits?)
PROBLEM: Another "advocate" tells me that the policy doesn't follow the driver, it follows the vehicle and that that is done through the VIN.
RULE FOR ME: Listen to what I tell you. Rule for insurance company: We don't know what the hell's going on, so don't ask us.
So why do people take offense when I point out the problems?
OH - let's go one step further. People everywhere will tell you that they want the truth. The problem is, try to tell the truth.
Fat underworked, immoral politicians take note: If you expect me to obey your rules you'd damned well be following them yourselves. Otherwise, you can stick your objections where the sun don't shine.
Clear?
* - SOURCE: http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/12/tarp-now-a-slush-fund-for-detroit/
Monday, December 1, 2008
Article: "Mumbai terrorists were 'funded by cash raised in UK mosques'."
The link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090565/Mumbai-terrorists-funded-cash-raised-UK-mosques.html
(Mumbai is the new name for Bombay, India.)
"A banned Islamic terrorist group funded with cash raised in British mosques is believed to be behind the Mumbai attacks.
"Kashmiri separatists Lashkar-e-Taiba, ‘The Army of the Righteous’, which has strong links to Al Qaeda, is accused of previous terrorist outrages in India.
"And intercepted telephone and radio communications before and during the latest attacks apparently suggest a link."
A few notes on the article: First, they called them not militants or gunmen, but what they are (well, were now. All but one of them is dead.) They're called terrorists. Not militants, terrorists.
We in the United States are drowning in this political correctness which I and others believe is going to destroy us. We can't call terrorists what they are. They're militants. Bull.
I didn't read that in the US media, the article came from the Daily Mail in the United Kingdom! I didn't read that those terrorist attacks were funded by cash raised in UK mosques in the American media, I read that from the UK media!
This is going to get me into a lot more trouble, but there goes: Let's assume that the article is correct, and that the cash for the attacks was raised in UK mosques. Let's assume that to be accurate.
If it happens in the UK, it could happen here in the US.
Note that I'm not saying that all mosques are radicalized. Consider this quote:
"The power of the extremist Wahhabi form of Islam in the United States was created with generous Saudi financing of American Muslim communities over the past few decades. Over 80 percent of the mosques in the United States "have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence," Barsky said." Here's that link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475689987&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Now let's tie something else together - where does Saudi Arabia get a lot of their money from? Revenues from the sale of crude oil. You read that right. That's yet another reason we need to get off of oil. We're funding these people.
It should make you sick ... and mad. It should galvanize you to action, to kick the corrupt US politicians in their fat buttocks and force them to wake up.
(Mumbai is the new name for Bombay, India.)
"A banned Islamic terrorist group funded with cash raised in British mosques is believed to be behind the Mumbai attacks.
"Kashmiri separatists Lashkar-e-Taiba, ‘The Army of the Righteous’, which has strong links to Al Qaeda, is accused of previous terrorist outrages in India.
"And intercepted telephone and radio communications before and during the latest attacks apparently suggest a link."
A few notes on the article: First, they called them not militants or gunmen, but what they are (well, were now. All but one of them is dead.) They're called terrorists. Not militants, terrorists.
We in the United States are drowning in this political correctness which I and others believe is going to destroy us. We can't call terrorists what they are. They're militants. Bull.
I didn't read that in the US media, the article came from the Daily Mail in the United Kingdom! I didn't read that those terrorist attacks were funded by cash raised in UK mosques in the American media, I read that from the UK media!
This is going to get me into a lot more trouble, but there goes: Let's assume that the article is correct, and that the cash for the attacks was raised in UK mosques. Let's assume that to be accurate.
If it happens in the UK, it could happen here in the US.
Note that I'm not saying that all mosques are radicalized. Consider this quote:
"The power of the extremist Wahhabi form of Islam in the United States was created with generous Saudi financing of American Muslim communities over the past few decades. Over 80 percent of the mosques in the United States "have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence," Barsky said." Here's that link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475689987&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Now let's tie something else together - where does Saudi Arabia get a lot of their money from? Revenues from the sale of crude oil. You read that right. That's yet another reason we need to get off of oil. We're funding these people.
It should make you sick ... and mad. It should galvanize you to action, to kick the corrupt US politicians in their fat buttocks and force them to wake up.
Where were you born, Barack Hussein Obama / Barry Soetoro / Barry Obama?
All three of those are names we know he's used. I'd call those aliases.
But does it matter? And if so, why? I'm now going to quote from The Roth Show* dated 28-NOV-2008 (Friday.) This takes place in hour #2 at 40:31 minutes. Article I Section II of our US Constitution says that whoever wants to be the President must be a naturally born US Citizen. From here on, I'm quoting. This is Douglas Hagmann, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network**
"Well, you know what - if it doesn't matter, then what the hell does matter? For those people out there who are saying 'Well, it doesn't matter where he's born,' okay, why don't you tell me what matters? Go ahead and cherry-pick the various parts of the Constitution and you tell us what you think matters.
"What rules should we adhere to? You want to, like, keep this one rule, or do you want to toss this one out? What kind of arbitrary bull-crap arguement do you want to engage in? We either follow the rules the way they were set up, the way the Founding Fathers set them up, or we just throw the whole thing out the flippin' window and it's just anarchy and chaos.
"Because for gosh sakes we've got the flippin' messiah [Obama, the Obamessiah] now, we've got change for the sake of change, for God's sakes it's not Bush - and thank God it's not Bush; no more Bush, no more of his, you know, blundering, babbling, baloney out there, it's change.
"Now we've got the messiah [Obama, the Obamessiah], we've got a great ... uh ... just this great messiah going to save us all. We're not going to have to pay for mortgages, we're not going to have to pay for utilities. God, thank God for Obama. And these are the very same people that are saying 'Well it really doesn't matter, the Constitution - the various aspects of the Constitution.'
"Well then let's throw the whole damn document out. Alright? Let's throw it all out. Why not?
"It just makes me sick to think that we've had our men and women in Uniform die for a document that is being trampled on by these bums in Congress, by these bums in the Senate, by these bum, these politicians who are nothing more than a bunch of bums that wouldn't know how much a loaf of bread costs, or a gallon of milk costs, or a tank of gas costs; because they're so far removed from the People, they're so far removed from society, from everyday life.
"They wouldn't know how to balance a chequebook - they couldn't even balance a chequebook - and we've got these people leadin' us." (emphasis his)
... "And it just angers me because we've got people dying [our Armed Forces] every day over a document [the Constitution] that is being trampled on by these idiots in this country who don't know a good thing when they see it. We're living the good life, I mean we don't see people trying to get the hell out of the United States we see them sneaking into the United States to enjoy the freedoms that we have. The very same freedoms that are being trampled on by these Obama robots who think that this guy's gonna deliver us from everything - and yet he can't produce a freakin' peice of paper, he's gonna have to spend nearly a million [$800,000 - some of which appears to have come from the Council on American-Islamic Relations***] dollars in court costs so he doesn't have to? That's baloney, and I'm sick and tired of it."
As Dr Manning said "Produce your birth certificate, man! That's all you got to do! Hasn't done it. Know why? Doesn't have one! That's why." (emphasis his)
Mr Hagmann makes quite a few valid points. First, there is enough anecdotal information to suggest that Obama was in fact, not born in Hawaii.
Second, we do know of three names that he's used; Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, and Barack Hussein Obama. I've already written that I've heard that disqualifies him from the Illinois Bar Association. (Again, I can't prove that, but that's what I've heard.)
And finally, Mr Hagmann's right - we can't just take the parts of the Constitution that we like and agree with and throw the rest of it out. That's not the way a government should work.
This Nation, the United States of America, is a nation of laws. Our government is based on laws, and like it or not, Article I Section II of the Constitution states who is and is not eligible to be the President.
Also, if you remember, those same politicians who told us that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was ineligible to run for the office of the President are now strangely silent about Mr Obama. Is this yet another example of the double-standard?
The rules must be fairly and evenly applied or they mean nothing. Strangely, Mr Obama seems to be getting (another!) free pass.
I've written this next before but I'll write it yet again: I would have no problem with an African-American being the President. Unfortunately, General Colin Powell didn't seek the office.
I would also have no problem with a woman being the President. Unfortunately, Dr. Condoleezza Rice wasn't running either. For me, it's not about gender or colour. It is about who is qualified.
*- The Roth Show. Hosted by Dr. Laurie Roth, it can be found at http://www.therothshow.com/
** - The Northeast Intelligence Network. Directed by a licensed private investigator, Douglas Hagmann, of over two decades' experience it can be found at http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/
*** Source: The Roth Show.
But does it matter? And if so, why? I'm now going to quote from The Roth Show* dated 28-NOV-2008 (Friday.) This takes place in hour #2 at 40:31 minutes. Article I Section II of our US Constitution says that whoever wants to be the President must be a naturally born US Citizen. From here on, I'm quoting. This is Douglas Hagmann, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network**
"Well, you know what - if it doesn't matter, then what the hell does matter? For those people out there who are saying 'Well, it doesn't matter where he's born,' okay, why don't you tell me what matters? Go ahead and cherry-pick the various parts of the Constitution and you tell us what you think matters.
"What rules should we adhere to? You want to, like, keep this one rule, or do you want to toss this one out? What kind of arbitrary bull-crap arguement do you want to engage in? We either follow the rules the way they were set up, the way the Founding Fathers set them up, or we just throw the whole thing out the flippin' window and it's just anarchy and chaos.
"Because for gosh sakes we've got the flippin' messiah [Obama, the Obamessiah] now, we've got change for the sake of change, for God's sakes it's not Bush - and thank God it's not Bush; no more Bush, no more of his, you know, blundering, babbling, baloney out there, it's change.
"Now we've got the messiah [Obama, the Obamessiah], we've got a great ... uh ... just this great messiah going to save us all. We're not going to have to pay for mortgages, we're not going to have to pay for utilities. God, thank God for Obama. And these are the very same people that are saying 'Well it really doesn't matter, the Constitution - the various aspects of the Constitution.'
"Well then let's throw the whole damn document out. Alright? Let's throw it all out. Why not?
"It just makes me sick to think that we've had our men and women in Uniform die for a document that is being trampled on by these bums in Congress, by these bums in the Senate, by these bum, these politicians who are nothing more than a bunch of bums that wouldn't know how much a loaf of bread costs, or a gallon of milk costs, or a tank of gas costs; because they're so far removed from the People, they're so far removed from society, from everyday life.
"They wouldn't know how to balance a chequebook - they couldn't even balance a chequebook - and we've got these people leadin' us." (emphasis his)
... "And it just angers me because we've got people dying [our Armed Forces] every day over a document [the Constitution] that is being trampled on by these idiots in this country who don't know a good thing when they see it. We're living the good life, I mean we don't see people trying to get the hell out of the United States we see them sneaking into the United States to enjoy the freedoms that we have. The very same freedoms that are being trampled on by these Obama robots who think that this guy's gonna deliver us from everything - and yet he can't produce a freakin' peice of paper, he's gonna have to spend nearly a million [$800,000 - some of which appears to have come from the Council on American-Islamic Relations***] dollars in court costs so he doesn't have to? That's baloney, and I'm sick and tired of it."
As Dr Manning said "Produce your birth certificate, man! That's all you got to do! Hasn't done it. Know why? Doesn't have one! That's why." (emphasis his)
Mr Hagmann makes quite a few valid points. First, there is enough anecdotal information to suggest that Obama was in fact, not born in Hawaii.
Second, we do know of three names that he's used; Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, and Barack Hussein Obama. I've already written that I've heard that disqualifies him from the Illinois Bar Association. (Again, I can't prove that, but that's what I've heard.)
And finally, Mr Hagmann's right - we can't just take the parts of the Constitution that we like and agree with and throw the rest of it out. That's not the way a government should work.
This Nation, the United States of America, is a nation of laws. Our government is based on laws, and like it or not, Article I Section II of the Constitution states who is and is not eligible to be the President.
Also, if you remember, those same politicians who told us that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was ineligible to run for the office of the President are now strangely silent about Mr Obama. Is this yet another example of the double-standard?
The rules must be fairly and evenly applied or they mean nothing. Strangely, Mr Obama seems to be getting (another!) free pass.
I've written this next before but I'll write it yet again: I would have no problem with an African-American being the President. Unfortunately, General Colin Powell didn't seek the office.
I would also have no problem with a woman being the President. Unfortunately, Dr. Condoleezza Rice wasn't running either. For me, it's not about gender or colour. It is about who is qualified.
*- The Roth Show. Hosted by Dr. Laurie Roth, it can be found at http://www.therothshow.com/
** - The Northeast Intelligence Network. Directed by a licensed private investigator, Douglas Hagmann, of over two decades' experience it can be found at http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/
*** Source: The Roth Show.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
"Produce your birth certificate, man! That's all you got to do!"
Quote by Dr. James David Manning, PhD. Author: "The Oblation Hour."
He goes on: "Hasn't done it. Know why? Doesn't have one! That's why." Who's Dr. Manning talking about? Barack Hussein Obama.
He goes on again: "You oughta join with [Alan] Keyes and join with others around America who are demanding some proof! Show us!
"I'm gonna say that I don't want to see your birth certificate, maybe you don't have one. I would simply be satisfied if I could look at your admission application to Columbia University! I wanna see what name did you graduate under?
"I wanna see whose Citizenship did you respond to when you applied for admission to Columbia? Show me that, and I'll back up! But we can't see that either! Because if we saw it, it wouldn't say Barack Hussein Obama, it would say Barry Soetoro of Jakarta Indonesia! A foreign student is what it would say! That's why you can't see it, and he will not release it!"
Telling, isn't it? I don't agree with Dr. Manning on more than a few things, but I do on this. "Listen, Barack; if your birth certificate is what it is, what's the big deal?"
Quote taken verbatim from a YouTube video about Dr. Manning speaking about Barack Obama's refusal to show his birth certificate or his admission papers. Emphasis his.
He goes on: "Hasn't done it. Know why? Doesn't have one! That's why." Who's Dr. Manning talking about? Barack Hussein Obama.
He goes on again: "You oughta join with [Alan] Keyes and join with others around America who are demanding some proof! Show us!
"I'm gonna say that I don't want to see your birth certificate, maybe you don't have one. I would simply be satisfied if I could look at your admission application to Columbia University! I wanna see what name did you graduate under?
"I wanna see whose Citizenship did you respond to when you applied for admission to Columbia? Show me that, and I'll back up! But we can't see that either! Because if we saw it, it wouldn't say Barack Hussein Obama, it would say Barry Soetoro of Jakarta Indonesia! A foreign student is what it would say! That's why you can't see it, and he will not release it!"
Telling, isn't it? I don't agree with Dr. Manning on more than a few things, but I do on this. "Listen, Barack; if your birth certificate is what it is, what's the big deal?"
Quote taken verbatim from a YouTube video about Dr. Manning speaking about Barack Obama's refusal to show his birth certificate or his admission papers. Emphasis his.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
I'm Tired
...I really am. And now this latest bit is just more crap on the fryer.
I have to be careful about this next, and I know it. But somebody on a certain account in Star Wars Galaxies accused me of logging into this person's AOL account, reading email, and then replying to a certain mail. I have screenshots of the conversation, and used the "./report" feature and submitted a ticket.)
There are just several problems with the claim against me; none of it happened.
This person states I logged in as her; this is in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, as amended in 1994, 1996, and again in 2001 in reponse to the Patriot Act.
Specifically, it makes it a crime to "Knowingly and with the intent to defraud, trafficking in a password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization. " *1.
That's only part of it. For the record, I did not know this person's password, would NOT want to know this person's password, and wish only to be left alone by this person. And yes, I have told them so in person (and have screenshots of that too.) It's coming to the point where I'm considering getting my attorney involved (again.)
This person offered to send me the proof. I've yet to receive anything.
What makes it worse is that I'm fairly positive that this person has told their friends and/or their family about my "misdeeds" and that makes it liable. *2 What is that? "In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image." (Wikipedia article. Emphasis (bold) theirs.)
That's a direct quote, but let's distill that down to what we're talking about. "Libel is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual a negative image." (Again, that's distilled down.)
So if you were to hear from this person "Hey, he logged in as me and read my mail and did this," you'd think less of me, right? That would give me a "...negative image." right?
As stated, and again for the record: I have never done such a thing. I would never do such a thing.
I just want it to stop ... period. So if you (that certain person) are reading this, be forewarned, I have had enough. It stops.
In case that is not clear enough, let me state it again:
LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE.
*1 - Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
*2 - Liable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel
I have to be careful about this next, and I know it. But somebody on a certain account in Star Wars Galaxies accused me of logging into this person's AOL account, reading email, and then replying to a certain mail. I have screenshots of the conversation, and used the "./report" feature and submitted a ticket.)
There are just several problems with the claim against me; none of it happened.
This person states I logged in as her; this is in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, as amended in 1994, 1996, and again in 2001 in reponse to the Patriot Act.
Specifically, it makes it a crime to "Knowingly and with the intent to defraud, trafficking in a password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization. " *1.
That's only part of it. For the record, I did not know this person's password, would NOT want to know this person's password, and wish only to be left alone by this person. And yes, I have told them so in person (and have screenshots of that too.) It's coming to the point where I'm considering getting my attorney involved (again.)
This person offered to send me the proof. I've yet to receive anything.
What makes it worse is that I'm fairly positive that this person has told their friends and/or their family about my "misdeeds" and that makes it liable. *2 What is that? "In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image." (Wikipedia article. Emphasis (bold) theirs.)
That's a direct quote, but let's distill that down to what we're talking about. "Libel is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual a negative image." (Again, that's distilled down.)
So if you were to hear from this person "Hey, he logged in as me and read my mail and did this," you'd think less of me, right? That would give me a "...negative image." right?
As stated, and again for the record: I have never done such a thing. I would never do such a thing.
I just want it to stop ... period. So if you (that certain person) are reading this, be forewarned, I have had enough. It stops.
In case that is not clear enough, let me state it again:
LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE.
*1 - Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
*2 - Liable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Pirates Seize Ships ... World Sits on Asses
Several Words: United States Navy, Royal Navy, somebody's Navy.
If those pirates are in that much of a hurry to die, I'm sure our US Navy could be pursuaded to send them there.
Of course, those pirates are cowards and the sons of cowards and won't have the balls for a real fight. Seizing grain ships, an oil tanker, and a Danish oil ship ... what real threats they must've been for those motherless cowards.
Don't have the cojones for a real fight, do they?
Motherless cowards.
If those pirates are in that much of a hurry to die, I'm sure our US Navy could be pursuaded to send them there.
Of course, those pirates are cowards and the sons of cowards and won't have the balls for a real fight. Seizing grain ships, an oil tanker, and a Danish oil ship ... what real threats they must've been for those motherless cowards.
Don't have the cojones for a real fight, do they?
Motherless cowards.
Article: "Star Trek gets 'sexy' makeover"
The link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1086917/TRAILER-Star-Trek-gets-sexy-makeover-new-film-love-scenes-motorbikes-hunky-stars.html
From the trailer I saw, all I can say is this: "Can't wait to miss it."
The truly sad part is that they gave Dr. Randy Pausch (Yes, that Randy Pausch) a bit part in the movie (and a line!) ... but I'll be willing to bet you that Dr. Pausch's line ended up on the cutting room floor. And that is sad.
Can't wait to miss it.
From the trailer I saw, all I can say is this: "Can't wait to miss it."
The truly sad part is that they gave Dr. Randy Pausch (Yes, that Randy Pausch) a bit part in the movie (and a line!) ... but I'll be willing to bet you that Dr. Pausch's line ended up on the cutting room floor. And that is sad.
Can't wait to miss it.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Imprimis and this blog
Over the past few days, I've had email exchanges with a few of the folks at Hillsdale College. At question was whether or not I could quote verbatim and in its entirety selected printings of Imprimis.
The reason I asked what twofold. First, a blurb in each pamplet states "Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: "Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College." "
You'll note it states "Permission to reprint in whole or in part..." And that was the reason I contacted them. I've heard before that permission was granted to do this, that, or something else provided that you do something. I've also read about people getting sued. I was threatened with a lawsuit. Thankfully, it went no further.
But I contacted them and got the official 'green-light go ahead and do that' provided that the credit line is used.
So when I do begin writing from their publications I will put "From Imprimis: "Article's Name Here." " in the subject line. The first and last paragraphs will be the credit line and a link to Hillsdale College.
Now for the full disclosure thing. :) I do subscribe to Imprimis, which is a publication of Hillsdale College. In each pamplet it states something we're come to expect: "The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College." Come to think of it, I might not agree with 100% of what it states. :)
But I just wanted to make everybody aware that these writings are going to start appearing in some of my blogs. I'll also include the address for the College as well as ways to get your very own copy of Imprimis.
Now for more disclosure: They are not asking me to reprint this. In fact, I approached them about doing so. They are not paying me to do so and there is no relationship between the College and myself other than the fact that I receive their publication.
The reason I asked what twofold. First, a blurb in each pamplet states "Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: "Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College." "
You'll note it states "Permission to reprint in whole or in part..." And that was the reason I contacted them. I've heard before that permission was granted to do this, that, or something else provided that you do something. I've also read about people getting sued. I was threatened with a lawsuit. Thankfully, it went no further.
But I contacted them and got the official 'green-light go ahead and do that' provided that the credit line is used.
So when I do begin writing from their publications I will put "From Imprimis: "Article's Name Here." " in the subject line. The first and last paragraphs will be the credit line and a link to Hillsdale College.
Now for the full disclosure thing. :) I do subscribe to Imprimis, which is a publication of Hillsdale College. In each pamplet it states something we're come to expect: "The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College." Come to think of it, I might not agree with 100% of what it states. :)
But I just wanted to make everybody aware that these writings are going to start appearing in some of my blogs. I'll also include the address for the College as well as ways to get your very own copy of Imprimis.
Now for more disclosure: They are not asking me to reprint this. In fact, I approached them about doing so. They are not paying me to do so and there is no relationship between the College and myself other than the fact that I receive their publication.
Bob Brinker Nails It
Yesterday (and today) on Bob Brinker's "Money Talk" programme, he mentioned using natural gas to power all Government vehicles.
This is all Government vehicles at all levels, Federal, State, and County, and local. As stated, this is all vehicles including law enforcement, probation officers, dog catchers, the Postal Service, snow plows, State Police ... all vehicles. I'm emphasising all because I know I'm going to get a question sooner or later about "what about this type of government vehicle?" If it's a government vehicle, the answer is yes.
Mr Brinker's plan has a few good things going for it. First, if the government got off its behind and actually did this (and yes, it could be phased in over time) it would save us from having to purchase a million barrels of oil per day.
According to the best recent estimates we (the US) are importing between 12 and 13 million barrels of oil a day. Mr Brinker called some of those countries that aren't friendly to us "...oil blackmailers..."
How many times have I written on this blog about the need to get off of foreign oil? The countries that we get oil from know that they have us by the gonads. They know it. They could decide tomorrow to stop selling oil to us. Granted, from their point of view that would be akin to shooting themselves in both feet, but it sure would cripple us wouldn't it?
Crude oil prices in the US would soar, as would petrol (gas) prices. Lines could easily form at the pumps and riots could easily break out. It would make the Arab Oil Embargo seem like child's play. If Mr Brinker's estimates are correct (and assuming $50US per barrel) not importing a million barrels per day would be a savings of $50,000,000 per day.
Assuming 365 days a year, that would be 365,000,000 barrels of oil in a year. Assuming $50 per barrel and we end up with a savings of $18,250,000,000 per year. That's $18.2 BILLION dollars.
Using domestic natural gas would deprive hostile foreign governments of $18.2 BILLION of our dollars. I guarantee you that that would make them sit up and take notice. I also guarantee you that they would soften their hardline rhetoric towards us. I guarantee you.
We could use that money right here at home to improve infrastructure or pay for other programs. So that's the first good thing; it would save us from importing a million barrels of oil and day and would save us $18.2 BILLION in a year.
The next good thing about Mr Brinker's plan is that it would cut C02 emissions by half for each vehicle. While it is true that combustion of natural gas also creates carbon dioxide, it only produces half of the emissions as using petrol does. Assuming one million government vehicles, that's a noticeable impact. While that estimate is low, it should make a point. If the government could do it so could the private sector, and then the "oil blackmailers" would lose yet more of our money. I guarantee that their rhetoric towards us would soften. They would know that they don't have the oil club to beat us over the head with anymore.
The THIRD good thing about Mr Brinker's plan is that it would create jobs right here at home.
To be fair, however, there are some disadvantages to Mr Brinker's plan.
The first would the "Not in my backyard syndrome" or NIMBY. I guarantee that just as we see with wind generators or solar panels, somebody somewhere would say "WOAH! I agree we need to get off of oil, but you're not building that here! Not in my backyard!"
The second would be the fact that although C02 emissions would be cut in half per vehicle converted, there would still be emissions. We need to get off of combustion, as both natural gas and gasoline (petrol) create C02 when they burn. Granted that mankind is not the sole source for global warming, but we still make a difference. Here's the link for when I wrote about the global warming hysteria and according to some people "propaganda." http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/article-mit-scientists-baffled-by.html
And third, Mr Brinker's plan is a stop-gap ... at best. While we do have massive natural gas reserves, they will run out sooner or later. (And this is assuming that the theory of abiotic oil is bunk ... and that remains an open question.)
If we can make cold or even hot fusion work, it would end the oil problem ... for good. So would solving the nuclear waste problem. France is using quite a bit more nuclear reactors than we are and they seem to have no problems. So those who are complaining about nuclear power have only to look as far as France for a solution.
Having said that, some of their reactors are breeder reactors* and those use 20% enriched uranium. Add to that that they are more unstable than "conventional" reactors.
But we can do it. We can solve the problem and we can get off foreign oil. The question is, do we have the willpower to do it?
* - breeder reactor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_Reactor (Source: Dr. Michio Kaku on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on 15-DEC-2003.)
(H/T: Bob Brinker, Wikipedia, Dr. Michio Kaku, Coast to Coast AM)
This is all Government vehicles at all levels, Federal, State, and County, and local. As stated, this is all vehicles including law enforcement, probation officers, dog catchers, the Postal Service, snow plows, State Police ... all vehicles. I'm emphasising all because I know I'm going to get a question sooner or later about "what about this type of government vehicle?" If it's a government vehicle, the answer is yes.
Mr Brinker's plan has a few good things going for it. First, if the government got off its behind and actually did this (and yes, it could be phased in over time) it would save us from having to purchase a million barrels of oil per day.
According to the best recent estimates we (the US) are importing between 12 and 13 million barrels of oil a day. Mr Brinker called some of those countries that aren't friendly to us "...oil blackmailers..."
How many times have I written on this blog about the need to get off of foreign oil? The countries that we get oil from know that they have us by the gonads. They know it. They could decide tomorrow to stop selling oil to us. Granted, from their point of view that would be akin to shooting themselves in both feet, but it sure would cripple us wouldn't it?
Crude oil prices in the US would soar, as would petrol (gas) prices. Lines could easily form at the pumps and riots could easily break out. It would make the Arab Oil Embargo seem like child's play. If Mr Brinker's estimates are correct (and assuming $50US per barrel) not importing a million barrels per day would be a savings of $50,000,000 per day.
Assuming 365 days a year, that would be 365,000,000 barrels of oil in a year. Assuming $50 per barrel and we end up with a savings of $18,250,000,000 per year. That's $18.2 BILLION dollars.
Using domestic natural gas would deprive hostile foreign governments of $18.2 BILLION of our dollars. I guarantee you that that would make them sit up and take notice. I also guarantee you that they would soften their hardline rhetoric towards us. I guarantee you.
We could use that money right here at home to improve infrastructure or pay for other programs. So that's the first good thing; it would save us from importing a million barrels of oil and day and would save us $18.2 BILLION in a year.
The next good thing about Mr Brinker's plan is that it would cut C02 emissions by half for each vehicle. While it is true that combustion of natural gas also creates carbon dioxide, it only produces half of the emissions as using petrol does. Assuming one million government vehicles, that's a noticeable impact. While that estimate is low, it should make a point. If the government could do it so could the private sector, and then the "oil blackmailers" would lose yet more of our money. I guarantee that their rhetoric towards us would soften. They would know that they don't have the oil club to beat us over the head with anymore.
The THIRD good thing about Mr Brinker's plan is that it would create jobs right here at home.
To be fair, however, there are some disadvantages to Mr Brinker's plan.
The first would the "Not in my backyard syndrome" or NIMBY. I guarantee that just as we see with wind generators or solar panels, somebody somewhere would say "WOAH! I agree we need to get off of oil, but you're not building that here! Not in my backyard!"
The second would be the fact that although C02 emissions would be cut in half per vehicle converted, there would still be emissions. We need to get off of combustion, as both natural gas and gasoline (petrol) create C02 when they burn. Granted that mankind is not the sole source for global warming, but we still make a difference. Here's the link for when I wrote about the global warming hysteria and according to some people "propaganda." http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/article-mit-scientists-baffled-by.html
And third, Mr Brinker's plan is a stop-gap ... at best. While we do have massive natural gas reserves, they will run out sooner or later. (And this is assuming that the theory of abiotic oil is bunk ... and that remains an open question.)
If we can make cold or even hot fusion work, it would end the oil problem ... for good. So would solving the nuclear waste problem. France is using quite a bit more nuclear reactors than we are and they seem to have no problems. So those who are complaining about nuclear power have only to look as far as France for a solution.
Having said that, some of their reactors are breeder reactors* and those use 20% enriched uranium. Add to that that they are more unstable than "conventional" reactors.
But we can do it. We can solve the problem and we can get off foreign oil. The question is, do we have the willpower to do it?
* - breeder reactor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_Reactor (Source: Dr. Michio Kaku on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on 15-DEC-2003.)
(H/T: Bob Brinker, Wikipedia, Dr. Michio Kaku, Coast to Coast AM)
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Coincidence or Omen?
On 5-NOV-2008, which of course was the day after the US Presidential Election, the pick 3 numbers in Illinois were 666. I heard that and thought "no way."
The URL: http://www.illinoislottery.com/subsections/NumPanel.asp?optGame=P3&P3A=6&P3B=6&P3C=6&optSearchP3=Straight&P4A=&P4B=&P4C=&P4D=&optSearchP4=Straight&LLA=&LLB=&LLC=&LLD=&LLE=&LOA=&LOB=&LOC=&LOD=&LOE=&LOF=&MMA=&MMB=&MMC=&MMD=&MME=&MMF=&checkbox=YearLimit&Submit2=Submit
Screenshot:
The URL: http://www.illinoislottery.com/subsections/NumPanel.asp?optGame=P3&P3A=6&P3B=6&P3C=6&optSearchP3=Straight&P4A=&P4B=&P4C=&P4D=&optSearchP4=Straight&LLA=&LLB=&LLC=&LLD=&LLE=&LOA=&LOB=&LOC=&LOD=&LOE=&LOF=&MMA=&MMB=&MMC=&MMD=&MME=&MMF=&checkbox=YearLimit&Submit2=Submit
Screenshot:
Friday, November 14, 2008
Nigerian 419 Scam Strikes Again
The link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/15/internet-usa
Another link to the same story is here: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/irresistible/17981349/detail.html
But the results are the same; Janella Spears lost $400,000 to Nigerian scammers. If you want to make yourself really sick do a Google search for "Nigerian." As of this writing five of the first 10 hits involve the scam, or variations thereof. That is not a good image for the country of Nigeria.
The truly bad part is the last line in the Denver Channel's article: "As for Spears, it's still not over. A man from Texas called her as recently as Wednesday, she said, asking for another chance to “make things right.” "
Wikipedia has an excellent article on this scam, its variations, and a tale of caution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_419_scam
Here's the part of the article that worries me for Ms. Spears: "In other cases, the victim will continue to contact the scammer after being shown proof that they are being scammed or even being convicted of crimes relating to the scam, having been drawn so deeply into the web of deception that their trust in what the scammer tells them overrides everything else in their life.[53] Such victims are easy prey for future scams, digging themselves even deeper into financial and legal trouble."
It's the last sentence that worries me: "Such victims are easy prey for future scams..." The article states that sometimes the scammers contact the victims and pretend to be attorneys, private investigators, or others who are trying to help ... for a fee. I don't know it, can't prove it, but I have to wonder if that caller from Texas was another scammer.
Again, I don't know it and cannot prove it. But it really makes me wonder. This poor woman lost $400,000 which included her husband's retirement account. Hasn't she lost enough?
Another link to the same story is here: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/irresistible/17981349/detail.html
But the results are the same; Janella Spears lost $400,000 to Nigerian scammers. If you want to make yourself really sick do a Google search for "Nigerian." As of this writing five of the first 10 hits involve the scam, or variations thereof. That is not a good image for the country of Nigeria.
The truly bad part is the last line in the Denver Channel's article: "As for Spears, it's still not over. A man from Texas called her as recently as Wednesday, she said, asking for another chance to “make things right.” "
Wikipedia has an excellent article on this scam, its variations, and a tale of caution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_419_scam
Here's the part of the article that worries me for Ms. Spears: "In other cases, the victim will continue to contact the scammer after being shown proof that they are being scammed or even being convicted of crimes relating to the scam, having been drawn so deeply into the web of deception that their trust in what the scammer tells them overrides everything else in their life.[53] Such victims are easy prey for future scams, digging themselves even deeper into financial and legal trouble."
It's the last sentence that worries me: "Such victims are easy prey for future scams..." The article states that sometimes the scammers contact the victims and pretend to be attorneys, private investigators, or others who are trying to help ... for a fee. I don't know it, can't prove it, but I have to wonder if that caller from Texas was another scammer.
Again, I don't know it and cannot prove it. But it really makes me wonder. This poor woman lost $400,000 which included her husband's retirement account. Hasn't she lost enough?
Article: "Catholic bishops cut all funding to ACORN."
The link: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14309
"Baltimore, Nov 11, 2008 / 10:37 pm (CNA).- The Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) has not yet been able to determine if grants made to ACORN were used for fraudulent voter registration, but has cut off all funding to the community organizing group, Bishop Roger Morin announced on Tuesday." (Link left intact.)
It's about bloody time. I will, however, correct something the article said, and that is that ACORN is being investigated not for voter fraud, but for voter registration fraud. And that they're being investigated in not 13, but 14 states. The distinctions are important because voter fraud and voter registration fraud are two completely different animals. Saying that voter fraud and voter registration fraud are the same would be like pointing at a Bengal Tiger and then saying "Oh, isn't that snow leopard cub adorable!"
Yes, they're both of the Family "Felidae" but the Genus is different. And they are two very different animals not only in appearance but in temperment.
The article does go on to state that there is an alleged decade-long pattern of these allegations, but somehow fails to note that several ACORN employees have in fact plead guilty to various crimes. It also somehow fails to mention ACORN's connection to the worst case of voter registration fraud in Washington state history. Here's that link: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/acorn-and-worst-case-of-voter.html (it includes another link.)
In that case, ACORN handed over 1,800 new "voter registrations" to elections officials, who in spite of a lawsuit decided to check them.
Out of 1,800 new "registrations" a total of six were valid.
The question for me isn't why some of ACORN's funding was (finally!) cut off. The question for me is why is this group still around?
Doodad Pro, Mickey Mouse, Good Will, Watchem Groe, and the starting lineup of the Dallas (TX) Cowboys were unavailable for comment.
So was Freddie Johnson, although it remains unclear which of the 72 different registration forms he submitted via ACORN should be used.
"Baltimore, Nov 11, 2008 / 10:37 pm (CNA).- The Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) has not yet been able to determine if grants made to ACORN were used for fraudulent voter registration, but has cut off all funding to the community organizing group, Bishop Roger Morin announced on Tuesday." (Link left intact.)
It's about bloody time. I will, however, correct something the article said, and that is that ACORN is being investigated not for voter fraud, but for voter registration fraud. And that they're being investigated in not 13, but 14 states. The distinctions are important because voter fraud and voter registration fraud are two completely different animals. Saying that voter fraud and voter registration fraud are the same would be like pointing at a Bengal Tiger and then saying "Oh, isn't that snow leopard cub adorable!"
Yes, they're both of the Family "Felidae" but the Genus is different. And they are two very different animals not only in appearance but in temperment.
The article does go on to state that there is an alleged decade-long pattern of these allegations, but somehow fails to note that several ACORN employees have in fact plead guilty to various crimes. It also somehow fails to mention ACORN's connection to the worst case of voter registration fraud in Washington state history. Here's that link: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/acorn-and-worst-case-of-voter.html (it includes another link.)
In that case, ACORN handed over 1,800 new "voter registrations" to elections officials, who in spite of a lawsuit decided to check them.
Out of 1,800 new "registrations" a total of six were valid.
The question for me isn't why some of ACORN's funding was (finally!) cut off. The question for me is why is this group still around?
Doodad Pro, Mickey Mouse, Good Will, Watchem Groe, and the starting lineup of the Dallas (TX) Cowboys were unavailable for comment.
So was Freddie Johnson, although it remains unclear which of the 72 different registration forms he submitted via ACORN should be used.
Article: "Dunwoody becomes first female four-star General."
The link: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94ERLRO3&show_article=1
All I can say is congratulations, Gen. Dunwoody. I'm not going to tackle the fact that she's the first female four-star, but I am going to point you to her Wikipedia article where it lists her accomplishments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_E._Dunwoody And her accomplishments have been many.
For me, it's not about the fact that she's the first "anything." Somebody must, after all, be the first. For me it's about the fact that Gen. Dunwoody was not promoted due to political correctness; she was promoted because she earned it.
I'm leary about using the word "deserved" usually, but not in this instance. Gen. Dunwoody deserved her promotion and I'm proud and thrilled for her. In fact, I wouldn't mind a bit if Gen. Dunwoody became the Chief of Staff of the Army.
"Dunwoody, 55, has made it clear that she feels no need for special acclaim for her historic achievement. " (from the Breitbart article)
And that serves to confirm what I already knew about the General ... she deserved and earned it. Please accept this humble salute from a gropo, General. ::crisp salute::
(As an aside I wonder if any spirits of the liquid variety will be flowing at the General's household tonight. She's earned those, too. As long as she doesn't drink and drive.)
(H/T: Drudge Report, Wikipedia)
All I can say is congratulations, Gen. Dunwoody. I'm not going to tackle the fact that she's the first female four-star, but I am going to point you to her Wikipedia article where it lists her accomplishments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_E._Dunwoody And her accomplishments have been many.
For me, it's not about the fact that she's the first "anything." Somebody must, after all, be the first. For me it's about the fact that Gen. Dunwoody was not promoted due to political correctness; she was promoted because she earned it.
I'm leary about using the word "deserved" usually, but not in this instance. Gen. Dunwoody deserved her promotion and I'm proud and thrilled for her. In fact, I wouldn't mind a bit if Gen. Dunwoody became the Chief of Staff of the Army.
"Dunwoody, 55, has made it clear that she feels no need for special acclaim for her historic achievement. " (from the Breitbart article)
And that serves to confirm what I already knew about the General ... she deserved and earned it. Please accept this humble salute from a gropo, General. ::crisp salute::
(As an aside I wonder if any spirits of the liquid variety will be flowing at the General's household tonight. She's earned those, too. As long as she doesn't drink and drive.)
(H/T: Drudge Report, Wikipedia)
So Whom Did I Vote For?
That's probably the question I'm getting the most right now, aside from a few others of the "where the heck did you go?" variety. Yes, I took a week off. But now I'm back. Somewhat.
Yes, I did vote in the Presidential election. As an American Citizen it is my responsibility to do so. I know that a great many people don't like that particular "r" word, in fact rank it right up there with "rain," or "rubbish," but I like that word. Yes, we all have our responsibilities. One of them as American Citizens is to vote. At least, in my opinion.
Being an American brings certain rights along with it, and along with those rights come responsibilities. We have the right of Freedom of Speech, but that brings with it the responsibility not to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. (Although I'm not sure about screaming "MOVIE" in a crowded firehouse.) We have the right of Freedom of Assembly, but that brings with it the responsibility not to throw rocks through windows or burn cars as you demonstrate. Peaceful demonstrations, however, are to be protected.
You have the right to demonstrate and to make your voice heard, you do not have the right to knock me on my butt because my views might differ from yours.
But to get back to the question of whom I voted for: I've written here before, and I stand by it, that I could not have voted for President-Elect Obama if you had held a loaded firearm to my head and threatened to shoot me or somebody close to me unless I voted for him.
Having said that, he did get elected, is the President-Elect, and when he takes the Oath, he will be my President. If he calls, I will answer. Again, the answer won't be: "Go the (censored) away" it will be "Yes, Mr President." That is my duty, my responsibility as an American Citizen.
The shrub I'm beating around is this - I did indeed vote for Mr McCain. None of the other candidates except President-Elect Obama had any realistic shot at winning and for me it was the lesser of two evils.
I still disagree with most of President-Elect Obama's policies and positions. To be brutally honest, however, I was in no way impressed by Mr McCain. Granted, he was a POW for several years and I respect anybody that wears this Country's Uniform. But I disagreed with a great deal of what Mr McCain said and stood for. Had the Democratic candidate been Gen. Powell, I would have voted for him in less time than it takes to blink.
For me, I vote my conscience. It's not about who is popular, it's about who I agree with. It's also not about colour or gender, yet I still to this day hear "sexist" thrown at me for speaking out about Hillary Clinton. Had Dr. Rice been a candidate I would have voted for her.
Had General Colin Powell been the candidate I would have voted for him in less time than it takes to blink. Seriously.
But do you remember that hypothetical matchup I created in an earlier posting? If not, here it is again: Let's assume the two Presidential Candidates are Dr. Rice and Gen. Powell. This hypothetical matchup removes the race card from play, but you know as well as I do that someone somewhere would still scream "Sexist!" if you voted for Gen. Powell.
But conscience. That seems to be another politically incorrect word. I wrote in an earlier posting about Joseph Lieberman [D-CT] (except I misspelt his name as Liberman) needing a food-taster during a Democratic luncheon. This was before he stood with Mr McCain at the Convention. I don't agree with many of Mr Lieberman's positions, but he votes his conscience. Too many of our politicians don't. They vote where the money and the power is. And poor Mr Lieberman is now paying the price. His own party is ostracising him, criticising him for speaking his convictions.
Remember, the first bailout failed. When round two came around it had been sweetened with pork for individual politicians if only they'd vote for it.
Dennis Kucinich [D-OH] is another politician I don't agree with on many things, but again, he votes his conscience. I've written savage things against him in the past, but I also give credit where it's due. Mr Kucinich voted against the bailout every single time it was brought to a vote. Various pork was thrown at him, too. Unlike many others, however, his conscience won out. I don't agree with him on a great many things. I cannot and will not deny that. But I admire him for voting as his conscience and his convictions dictated. Frankly, we need more politicians like him.
We need more politicians to put their ambitions on hold and vote for the American People, not for their own pockets.
Yes, I did vote in the Presidential election. As an American Citizen it is my responsibility to do so. I know that a great many people don't like that particular "r" word, in fact rank it right up there with "rain," or "rubbish," but I like that word. Yes, we all have our responsibilities. One of them as American Citizens is to vote. At least, in my opinion.
Being an American brings certain rights along with it, and along with those rights come responsibilities. We have the right of Freedom of Speech, but that brings with it the responsibility not to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. (Although I'm not sure about screaming "MOVIE" in a crowded firehouse.) We have the right of Freedom of Assembly, but that brings with it the responsibility not to throw rocks through windows or burn cars as you demonstrate. Peaceful demonstrations, however, are to be protected.
You have the right to demonstrate and to make your voice heard, you do not have the right to knock me on my butt because my views might differ from yours.
But to get back to the question of whom I voted for: I've written here before, and I stand by it, that I could not have voted for President-Elect Obama if you had held a loaded firearm to my head and threatened to shoot me or somebody close to me unless I voted for him.
Having said that, he did get elected, is the President-Elect, and when he takes the Oath, he will be my President. If he calls, I will answer. Again, the answer won't be: "Go the (censored) away" it will be "Yes, Mr President." That is my duty, my responsibility as an American Citizen.
The shrub I'm beating around is this - I did indeed vote for Mr McCain. None of the other candidates except President-Elect Obama had any realistic shot at winning and for me it was the lesser of two evils.
I still disagree with most of President-Elect Obama's policies and positions. To be brutally honest, however, I was in no way impressed by Mr McCain. Granted, he was a POW for several years and I respect anybody that wears this Country's Uniform. But I disagreed with a great deal of what Mr McCain said and stood for. Had the Democratic candidate been Gen. Powell, I would have voted for him in less time than it takes to blink.
For me, I vote my conscience. It's not about who is popular, it's about who I agree with. It's also not about colour or gender, yet I still to this day hear "sexist" thrown at me for speaking out about Hillary Clinton. Had Dr. Rice been a candidate I would have voted for her.
Had General Colin Powell been the candidate I would have voted for him in less time than it takes to blink. Seriously.
But do you remember that hypothetical matchup I created in an earlier posting? If not, here it is again: Let's assume the two Presidential Candidates are Dr. Rice and Gen. Powell. This hypothetical matchup removes the race card from play, but you know as well as I do that someone somewhere would still scream "Sexist!" if you voted for Gen. Powell.
But conscience. That seems to be another politically incorrect word. I wrote in an earlier posting about Joseph Lieberman [D-CT] (except I misspelt his name as Liberman) needing a food-taster during a Democratic luncheon. This was before he stood with Mr McCain at the Convention. I don't agree with many of Mr Lieberman's positions, but he votes his conscience. Too many of our politicians don't. They vote where the money and the power is. And poor Mr Lieberman is now paying the price. His own party is ostracising him, criticising him for speaking his convictions.
Remember, the first bailout failed. When round two came around it had been sweetened with pork for individual politicians if only they'd vote for it.
Dennis Kucinich [D-OH] is another politician I don't agree with on many things, but again, he votes his conscience. I've written savage things against him in the past, but I also give credit where it's due. Mr Kucinich voted against the bailout every single time it was brought to a vote. Various pork was thrown at him, too. Unlike many others, however, his conscience won out. I don't agree with him on a great many things. I cannot and will not deny that. But I admire him for voting as his conscience and his convictions dictated. Frankly, we need more politicians like him.
We need more politicians to put their ambitions on hold and vote for the American People, not for their own pockets.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
California Prop 8 Passes ... trouble looms
By now, I'm sure that most of us have heard that California's Proposition 8 has passed by a 52% - 48% margin. "Eight" is the one that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. However, some of the "tolerant" Liberals have resorted to targetting churches to get their point across. There is even a website that blacklists people who supported "eight." I won't link to it, but it's antigayblacklist (dot) com.
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=4762579
http://www.wnct.com/nct/lifestyles/faith_values/article/vandals_hit_2_churches_in_california/23349/
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1382472.html
"Vandals spray-painted the words "No on Prop 8" at the church's property on Hazel Avenue sometime between late Thursday and early Friday, Sacramento County sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Tim Curran said."
But it's an oddity, that. Certainly, the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church have strong, anti-gay messages. They likewise define a marriage as being between one man and one woman. And the gay community is up in arms about it. I'll say it again since it bears repeating: Both the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church have strong anti-gay messages, but they're not the only ones. Before we get to that, however, let's take a look at some of the reactions:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220
" "Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier."
" On a blog website, "Tread" wrote, "I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives."
Another contributor to the JoeMyGod website said, "While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."
A contributor identifying himself as "Joe" said, "I swear, I'd murder people with my bare hands this morning." "
This, then, is tolerance? Remember the definition of tolerance from an earlier posting of mine? If not, here it is again: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance "1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own."
Burning churches to the ground and talking about stabbing people is tolerant?
So who else supported Prop. 8? Latinos and African-Americans. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/05/state/n111547S31.DTL
"California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, provided key support for a state ban on same-sex marriage. Christian, married and older voters also helped give the measure the winning edge, according to exit polls for The Associated Press."
According to those exit polls, 7 out of 10 (70%) of African-American voters voted for Prop. 8. Latino voters voted for it by a better than 50% margin.
Now here's a question for the oh-so-tolerant Liberals: will you dare go into those areas and vandalize their churches? If not, why not?
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=4762579
http://www.wnct.com/nct/lifestyles/faith_values/article/vandals_hit_2_churches_in_california/23349/
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1382472.html
"Vandals spray-painted the words "No on Prop 8" at the church's property on Hazel Avenue sometime between late Thursday and early Friday, Sacramento County sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Tim Curran said."
But it's an oddity, that. Certainly, the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church have strong, anti-gay messages. They likewise define a marriage as being between one man and one woman. And the gay community is up in arms about it. I'll say it again since it bears repeating: Both the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church have strong anti-gay messages, but they're not the only ones. Before we get to that, however, let's take a look at some of the reactions:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220
" "Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier."
" On a blog website, "Tread" wrote, "I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives."
Another contributor to the JoeMyGod website said, "While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."
A contributor identifying himself as "Joe" said, "I swear, I'd murder people with my bare hands this morning." "
This, then, is tolerance? Remember the definition of tolerance from an earlier posting of mine? If not, here it is again: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance "1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own."
Burning churches to the ground and talking about stabbing people is tolerant?
So who else supported Prop. 8? Latinos and African-Americans. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/05/state/n111547S31.DTL
"California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, provided key support for a state ban on same-sex marriage. Christian, married and older voters also helped give the measure the winning edge, according to exit polls for The Associated Press."
According to those exit polls, 7 out of 10 (70%) of African-American voters voted for Prop. 8. Latino voters voted for it by a better than 50% margin.
Now here's a question for the oh-so-tolerant Liberals: will you dare go into those areas and vandalize their churches? If not, why not?
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Article: "US Smoking rate is under 20% for first time."
The link: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssHealthcareNews/idUSN1335828620081113?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssHealthcareNews&rpc=22&sp=true
I have to be careful on this one because I know a great many people who smoke. They're good, decent people in my opinion. They work hard, they teach their children (those of them that have children that is) the difference between right and wrong, and they try to be good Citizens. And, they smoke.
Smoking is still viewed as a "personal preference," in that we live in a free Country and those who wish to "light-up" should be able to do so.
However, this is where we run into a problem. Cigarette smoking is dangerous to health. I think that's been pretty conclusively proven.
The problem here arises from so-called "second-hand smoke." "Smoking and secondhand smoke kill 443,000 people annually from cancer, lung disease, heart disease and other causes, the CDC said. Half of all long-term smokers, especially those who start as teens, die prematurely, many in middle age.
So the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) states that "Smoking and secondhand smoke" kill people. Indeed, when you go to http://www.cdc.gov/ (as of this writing) this is the very first image that loads: (Screenshot)
I have to be careful on this one because I know a great many people who smoke. They're good, decent people in my opinion. They work hard, they teach their children (those of them that have children that is) the difference between right and wrong, and they try to be good Citizens. And, they smoke.
Smoking is still viewed as a "personal preference," in that we live in a free Country and those who wish to "light-up" should be able to do so.
However, this is where we run into a problem. Cigarette smoking is dangerous to health. I think that's been pretty conclusively proven.
The problem here arises from so-called "second-hand smoke." "Smoking and secondhand smoke kill 443,000 people annually from cancer, lung disease, heart disease and other causes, the CDC said. Half of all long-term smokers, especially those who start as teens, die prematurely, many in middle age.
So the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) states that "Smoking and secondhand smoke" kill people. Indeed, when you go to http://www.cdc.gov/ (as of this writing) this is the very first image that loads: (Screenshot)
There it is in big bold letters: "Don't Smoke" It's not just about the personal preference. If somebody wants to smoke in the safety of their own home, I believe they should be allowed to do so. Same thing with consuming alcohol. It's when people drink and drive that I have a major problem. But the same thing could be said of smoking. If you drink in a public place, such as a bar or restaurant, and somebody else drives you home; where is the harm?
You paid your bill, you had your drink(s), and somebody else drove you home. No harm, no foul. That is a personal preference and it involves only you and the person who will drive you home.
But then we come to smoking. This time it's different because of secondhand smoke. Indeed, the term "passive smoking" (aka: secondhand smoke) was actually coined in Nazi Germany!
From Wikipedia (Hyperlinks are theirs and are left intact): "The link between lung cancer and tobacco was first proven in Nazi Germany,[16][20][21] contrary to the popular belief that American and British scientists first discovered it in the 1950s.[16] The term "passive smoking" ("Passivrauchen") was coined in Nazi Germany.[2] Research projects funded by the Nazis revealed many disastrous effects of smoking on health.[22] Nazi Germany supported epidemiological research on the harmful effects of tobacco use.[1]" (the numbers are for the references at the bottom of the page. Notice also the link to "Passive Smoking." "Second hand smoke" redirects to the "passive smoking" page.
"Werner Huttig of the Nazi Party's Rassenpolitisches Amt (Office of Racial Politics) claimed that a smoking mother's breast milk contained nicotine.[18]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany
And, as it turns out, Mr Huttig was correct. Here's an article from 4-SEPT-2007 titled "Nicotine In Breast Milk Distrupts Infants' Sleep Patterns." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904072857.htm
The point is that smoking while pregnant can harm your child. But I'm gratified to learn that smoking in the US is now on the decline.
Yes, I have my own personal reason for it. The simple truth is that I can't breathe well when or where people are smoking. I spent an hour one day fixing a neighbour's computer. Although she is a smoker, she knew I wasn't and didn't smoke while I was there. Nevertheless when I got home, everything that I had worn went into the washing machine to get rid of the smell. I retched (vomited) and then took a shower to get the smell off of me. I simply can't breathe around people who are smoking.
I took my parents to a restaurant the other day and one of the men at the bar had a pack of cigarettes out on the bar. He wasn't smoking, but had just come in from smoking. He smelled like it, too. The point, however, is that secondhand smoke is a danger to non-smokers. I do respect the rights of smokers to light-up in their homes, but not out in public would it would affect my health.
(H/T: Drudge Report, Wikipedia)
Article: "Tolerance fails T-shirt test."
The link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-13-nov13,0,2881384.column?page=1
Young Catherine Vogt, aged 14, tried an experiment in "diversity" and "tolerance" at her school. It didn't go too well. This isn't a 'duh' moment because it's the Liberals who failed.
Honestly. Yet they are the ones that preach to us about "tolerance," and "inclusion," and "diversity." They failed, and in rather spectacular fashion. Let's examine each of these three virtues that I listed.
First up is "tolerance." This is a variation of the word "tolerant," but I actually went to the dictionary for "tolerance." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance Here we go:
"1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."
That's a good definition, isn't it? I'm going to parse it down to "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude to those whose opinions ... differ from one's own." I like that. An objective attitude to those whose opinions differ from one's own. But that's not what happened at Miss Vogt's school. " "One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed," Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park."
!!!! She was told to go die?!? Does that sound "tolerant" to you? Granted, the article does describe her suburb, Oak Park, as "liberal." Yet liberals preach tolerance. It appears to me that they failed the tolerance test.
" "That's what we discussed," Cassin-Pountney said about the debate in the classroom when the experiment was revealed. "I said, here you are, promoting this person [Obama] that believes we are all equal and included, and look what you've done? The students were kind of like, 'Oh, yeah.' I think they got it." "
I don't think so Ms. Cassin-Pountney. Maybe they got it that day, but unfortunately some lessons must be learned many times. In my opinion, they'll forget it because schools no longer teach it. They teach political correctness and that anybody who isn't politically correct is a bigot.
Next up is "inclusion." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inclusion The first definition is "The act of including."
"Other entries in her notebook involved suggestions by classmates that she be "burned with her shirt on" for "being a filthy-rich Republican."
Some said that because she supported McCain, by extension she supported a plan by deranged skinheads to kill Obama before the election.
And I thought such politicized logic was confined to American newsrooms. Yet Catherine refused to argue with her peers.
She didn't want to jeopardize her experiment."
That's inclusion? How about this? "One girl pulled her aside in a corner, out of earshot of other students, and whispered, "I really like your shirt." " That's inclusion? It seems to me that our oh-so-"tolerant" Liberals failed this one as well.
Now we come to "diversity." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diversity I'm going to give all of the dictionary's definitions:
"1. the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
2. variety; multiformity.
3. a point of difference."
You'll notice those words "difference," "multiformity," and "unlikeness." Remember also the definition for "tolerance" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance "2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own."
"a fair ... and permissive attitude towards opinions and practices that differ from one's own."
Yet it seems to me that they weren't very "diverse," either. They told her she should die, that she should be "crucifixed" (meaning, of course, "crucified.") Crucified for wearing a tee-shirt that holds a view different from your own? That's "diversity" and "tolerant?"
Not in this universe.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Young Catherine Vogt, aged 14, tried an experiment in "diversity" and "tolerance" at her school. It didn't go too well. This isn't a 'duh' moment because it's the Liberals who failed.
Honestly. Yet they are the ones that preach to us about "tolerance," and "inclusion," and "diversity." They failed, and in rather spectacular fashion. Let's examine each of these three virtues that I listed.
First up is "tolerance." This is a variation of the word "tolerant," but I actually went to the dictionary for "tolerance." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance Here we go:
"1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."
That's a good definition, isn't it? I'm going to parse it down to "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude to those whose opinions ... differ from one's own." I like that. An objective attitude to those whose opinions differ from one's own. But that's not what happened at Miss Vogt's school. " "One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed," Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park."
!!!! She was told to go die?!? Does that sound "tolerant" to you? Granted, the article does describe her suburb, Oak Park, as "liberal." Yet liberals preach tolerance. It appears to me that they failed the tolerance test.
" "That's what we discussed," Cassin-Pountney said about the debate in the classroom when the experiment was revealed. "I said, here you are, promoting this person [Obama] that believes we are all equal and included, and look what you've done? The students were kind of like, 'Oh, yeah.' I think they got it." "
I don't think so Ms. Cassin-Pountney. Maybe they got it that day, but unfortunately some lessons must be learned many times. In my opinion, they'll forget it because schools no longer teach it. They teach political correctness and that anybody who isn't politically correct is a bigot.
Next up is "inclusion." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inclusion The first definition is "The act of including."
"Other entries in her notebook involved suggestions by classmates that she be "burned with her shirt on" for "being a filthy-rich Republican."
Some said that because she supported McCain, by extension she supported a plan by deranged skinheads to kill Obama before the election.
And I thought such politicized logic was confined to American newsrooms. Yet Catherine refused to argue with her peers.
She didn't want to jeopardize her experiment."
That's inclusion? How about this? "One girl pulled her aside in a corner, out of earshot of other students, and whispered, "I really like your shirt." " That's inclusion? It seems to me that our oh-so-"tolerant" Liberals failed this one as well.
Now we come to "diversity." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diversity I'm going to give all of the dictionary's definitions:
"1. the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
2. variety; multiformity.
3. a point of difference."
You'll notice those words "difference," "multiformity," and "unlikeness." Remember also the definition for "tolerance" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance "2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own."
"a fair ... and permissive attitude towards opinions and practices that differ from one's own."
Yet it seems to me that they weren't very "diverse," either. They told her she should die, that she should be "crucifixed" (meaning, of course, "crucified.") Crucified for wearing a tee-shirt that holds a view different from your own? That's "diversity" and "tolerant?"
Not in this universe.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
"Yes, Virginia..."
...I have been away for a week. And I have nobody to blame but myself.
I knew that "the one" or "the Obamessiah" would win the election. Too many people bought into his line about how a vote for McCain was a vote for Bush "by proxy." I'll be blunt in that if McCain had been running against Joe Lieberman (and at least I spelled his name correctly this time!) I would have voted for Mr Lieberman. Had Mr McCain been running against Gen. Powell, I would've voted for Gen. Powell in less time than it takes to blink. Seriously.
But Mr McCain wasn't running against Gen. Powell because the General wasn't running. He was running against Obama. And I could not have voted for Obama if you had been holding a firearm to my head and told me you were going to kill me or somebody close to me. For me, it wasn't about colour or gender. Sadly, too many people still believe otherwise. The facts, of course, speak differently, yet apparently facts do not matter to some people. That is their loss.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I regret having voted for Bush the second time. But I did, and I cannot change the past.
I voted against Bill Clinton as well. Nevertheless, when he was elected he became my President. As it is now with Mr Obama. When Obama takes the Oath of Office, he will be my President. I am an American Citizen - and that is not open for debate.
Yes, I have rights as an American Citizen, but unlike far too many others I am also aware that those rights come with responsibilities. I know that that is a politically incorrect word, but there you go. Another politically incorrect word is "consequences. As in "for every action, there is a consequence."
Sometimes you get "unintended consequences," which are called 'side effects' when talking about medicines. How many times have we read the pill bottle only to read that this particular medication might make you drowsy and not to drive or operate machinery? I like Benadryl because it really does help me breathe easier. Unfortunately, I've also learned that I go out like a light after only two tablets. Yes, it helps me breathe. It also puts me to sleep for about ten hours and makes me really groggy for an additional six hours. That is but one example of an "unintended consequence."
I believe the United States will be in for several of these "unintended consequences." I also believe that it won't be pretty.
We've all heard by now about how most people believe we are in a de facto recession. Some are even using the "d" word ... "d" as in depression. Many economists are viewing the troubles as "market corrections," however a small but growing number are viewing the stock market tumble not as a "correction" but rather as a "crash."
Yes, I've been gone for a while, but now I'm back. I didn't vote for Barack Hussein Obama, but when he takes the Oath, he will be my President.
I am an American Citizen and it is my duty. If he calls, I will answer. The answer won't be "Go the (censored) away," it will be "Yes, Mr. President."
Having said that I feel the need to make one thing perfectly clear: I reserve the right to speak out against the President and his actions if I believe them in error. Indeed, while I was in the military I had the obligation to do so provided that I follow the Chain of Command and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Obviously, I'm not in the military any longer so those do not apply. That still does not give me the right to go off half-cocked. I have the responsibility to conduct myself according to the privilege of being an American Citizen.
If I believe him or his policies to be wrong I will say so. That doesn't make me disloyal, it means I have an opinion.
Didn't this Nation's Founding Fathers also have their opinions?
I knew that "the one" or "the Obamessiah" would win the election. Too many people bought into his line about how a vote for McCain was a vote for Bush "by proxy." I'll be blunt in that if McCain had been running against Joe Lieberman (and at least I spelled his name correctly this time!) I would have voted for Mr Lieberman. Had Mr McCain been running against Gen. Powell, I would've voted for Gen. Powell in less time than it takes to blink. Seriously.
But Mr McCain wasn't running against Gen. Powell because the General wasn't running. He was running against Obama. And I could not have voted for Obama if you had been holding a firearm to my head and told me you were going to kill me or somebody close to me. For me, it wasn't about colour or gender. Sadly, too many people still believe otherwise. The facts, of course, speak differently, yet apparently facts do not matter to some people. That is their loss.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I regret having voted for Bush the second time. But I did, and I cannot change the past.
I voted against Bill Clinton as well. Nevertheless, when he was elected he became my President. As it is now with Mr Obama. When Obama takes the Oath of Office, he will be my President. I am an American Citizen - and that is not open for debate.
Yes, I have rights as an American Citizen, but unlike far too many others I am also aware that those rights come with responsibilities. I know that that is a politically incorrect word, but there you go. Another politically incorrect word is "consequences. As in "for every action, there is a consequence."
Sometimes you get "unintended consequences," which are called 'side effects' when talking about medicines. How many times have we read the pill bottle only to read that this particular medication might make you drowsy and not to drive or operate machinery? I like Benadryl because it really does help me breathe easier. Unfortunately, I've also learned that I go out like a light after only two tablets. Yes, it helps me breathe. It also puts me to sleep for about ten hours and makes me really groggy for an additional six hours. That is but one example of an "unintended consequence."
I believe the United States will be in for several of these "unintended consequences." I also believe that it won't be pretty.
We've all heard by now about how most people believe we are in a de facto recession. Some are even using the "d" word ... "d" as in depression. Many economists are viewing the troubles as "market corrections," however a small but growing number are viewing the stock market tumble not as a "correction" but rather as a "crash."
Yes, I've been gone for a while, but now I'm back. I didn't vote for Barack Hussein Obama, but when he takes the Oath, he will be my President.
I am an American Citizen and it is my duty. If he calls, I will answer. The answer won't be "Go the (censored) away," it will be "Yes, Mr. President."
Having said that I feel the need to make one thing perfectly clear: I reserve the right to speak out against the President and his actions if I believe them in error. Indeed, while I was in the military I had the obligation to do so provided that I follow the Chain of Command and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Obviously, I'm not in the military any longer so those do not apply. That still does not give me the right to go off half-cocked. I have the responsibility to conduct myself according to the privilege of being an American Citizen.
If I believe him or his policies to be wrong I will say so. That doesn't make me disloyal, it means I have an opinion.
Didn't this Nation's Founding Fathers also have their opinions?
GoDaddy.Com has REALLY Left the Building
Or ... the lights are on, but nobody's at home. Or as Steve Gibson said "The lights are on, but nobody's @home."
Why do I say this? Simple. I just got yet another mail claiming I'd won an all expense paid trip to Disney/Orlando. The "signer" was our old friend, Sue Madden. The address that I apparently registered from was a business ... a business I've never lived at.
The domain this time was flconnect1.com which resolves to ... GoDaddy.com. Seriously.
This time, however, the registrant did give a valid address. The city, Altamonte Springs, FL actually exists. So does the street address given. The telephone number given in their registration is a valid one and returns to the street address given.
But the domain flconnect1.com is not one that Disney World uses. If they did, it wouldn't resolve to GoDaddy.com
GoDaddy?
I have to ask this again: You do verify these, correct? How long will it be before I get another one that isn't a valid address or phone number? Say an ACORNIFIED address which is a park bench or a vacant lot?
It took me two minutes of searching Google.com, USPS.com and WHOIS.net to verify the registrant. Do you do that?
Hello?
I've sent the standard "abuse" report to GoDaddy, which I am beginning to suspect is an unmonitored emailbox. As soon as it gets full it gets purged and the garbage collects anew.
GoDaddy, this is your chance to make a good impression. Comment?
Why do I say this? Simple. I just got yet another mail claiming I'd won an all expense paid trip to Disney/Orlando. The "signer" was our old friend, Sue Madden. The address that I apparently registered from was a business ... a business I've never lived at.
The domain this time was flconnect1.com which resolves to ... GoDaddy.com. Seriously.
This time, however, the registrant did give a valid address. The city, Altamonte Springs, FL actually exists. So does the street address given. The telephone number given in their registration is a valid one and returns to the street address given.
But the domain flconnect1.com is not one that Disney World uses. If they did, it wouldn't resolve to GoDaddy.com
GoDaddy?
I have to ask this again: You do verify these, correct? How long will it be before I get another one that isn't a valid address or phone number? Say an ACORNIFIED address which is a park bench or a vacant lot?
It took me two minutes of searching Google.com, USPS.com and WHOIS.net to verify the registrant. Do you do that?
Hello?
I've sent the standard "abuse" report to GoDaddy, which I am beginning to suspect is an unmonitored emailbox. As soon as it gets full it gets purged and the garbage collects anew.
GoDaddy, this is your chance to make a good impression. Comment?
Monday, November 3, 2008
Seen (Scene?) in StarWars Galaxies
I play SWG, Star Wars Galaxies. And in the game on a certain planet (in a certain "galaxy" or server) I saw this:
(The screenshot has been heavily redacted to remove character name, planet, toolbar, and other items that could be used to identify me.)
It says "Barack Obama wants to spread the wealth around. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." - Karl Marx. And then, we come to this:
It says "They tried that in Zimbabwe and got hyperinflation. It took 100BILLION of their dollars to buy two loaves of bread."
I think somebody else has been reading this blog.
(H/T: Unknown)
More Obama Voter FRAUD - What a Surprise
My my my...what does that first paragraph say? " ObamaTravel.org is a platform volunteers can use to appeal to their broader community of family, friends or anyone else to help them travel to a swing state."And do what? Vote illegally?
www.obamatravel.org (Dunno if it's still up when you read this.) Ms. Appleton travelled to Florida, voted (http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/11/02/hey-florida-is-this-ok-with-you/ has the PICTURE OF HER HOLDING HER FRAUDULENT BALLOT) and then saying she'll travel back.
Gotta love the Obama people. Apparently, they believe their votes count more than those of us who vote legally (and only once.) Something I'm not sure that ACORN would understand. Remember, they pressured Freddie Johnson from Ohio into registering an astonishing 72 times.
Article: "Chavez offers talks with "black man" in W. House"
The quotes mean that I'm quoting the article's title. Link: http://africa.reuters.com/energyandoil/news/usnN02487792.html
"CARACAS, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Anti-U.S. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez predicted on Sunday the "black man" will win the U.S. presidential race and offered to hold talks with him to improve ties between the superpower and one its biggest oil suppliers."
Hugo Chavez, whom the article itselfs describes as a "socialist."
But read the last paragraph. What beholds us, again, to these regions? Oil. Black gold. Ever read (or hear of) the book "Black Gold Stranglehold" by Dr. Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith? You should.
Just imagine what we could do with the money we're paying these miscreants for their oil. If we could wean ourselves off of oil (which, for the record we can do. But it will take the will of all Americans to do so) we could tell these countries that we didn't need it any more.
Then they wouldn't have the United States by the testicles any longer. The only way it will happen is if all Americans demand it. And then make the politicians get their hands out of the lobbyist's arses and listen.
"CARACAS, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Anti-U.S. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez predicted on Sunday the "black man" will win the U.S. presidential race and offered to hold talks with him to improve ties between the superpower and one its biggest oil suppliers."
Hugo Chavez, whom the article itselfs describes as a "socialist."
But read the last paragraph. What beholds us, again, to these regions? Oil. Black gold. Ever read (or hear of) the book "Black Gold Stranglehold" by Dr. Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith? You should.
Just imagine what we could do with the money we're paying these miscreants for their oil. If we could wean ourselves off of oil (which, for the record we can do. But it will take the will of all Americans to do so) we could tell these countries that we didn't need it any more.
Then they wouldn't have the United States by the testicles any longer. The only way it will happen is if all Americans demand it. And then make the politicians get their hands out of the lobbyist's arses and listen.
Tomorrow
Tomorrow. Everything boils down to tomorrow. Michelle Malkin linked to Zombie's site where they have this little gem: http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=70
I'm just going to quote a little part of it. First, the Weather Underground terrorists wanted "organizers" in each "Community" to use "audacity" to bring about "socialism." Zombie gave the entire quotes, to make sure that people couldn't say that he/she was taking people out of context. Read it. Then weep, because unless things change, Barack Obama will be President and we will be the Socialist States of America.
It's the last paragraph I'm interested in, and it says "Theory and ideology are important tools, and we should make study of Marxism-Leninism an important part of our work." (emphasis added)
Barack wants to redistribute the wealth, he himself has said this. But what was it that Karl Marx said? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Sounds to me like he learned it well.
And what's that about William Ayer's new book? "Race Course Against White Supremacy," which will be published in June of 2009. He doesn't sound reformed to me.
And what did Paul Harvey have to say today during his midday broadcast? He quoted from the latest Pew Research Centre poll. Here's exactly what Mr. Harvey said:
"Shop talk. Is it a biased media? Has the media already made up your mind? Pew Research says most Americans, 70%, think journalists want to see Barack Obama win tomorrow's election. 70% [of journalists] want to see Barack Obama win, and only 9% believe that reporters are rooting for John McCain."
(H/T: Michelle Malkin, Zombie, Paul Harvey)
I'm just going to quote a little part of it. First, the Weather Underground terrorists wanted "organizers" in each "Community" to use "audacity" to bring about "socialism." Zombie gave the entire quotes, to make sure that people couldn't say that he/she was taking people out of context. Read it. Then weep, because unless things change, Barack Obama will be President and we will be the Socialist States of America.
It's the last paragraph I'm interested in, and it says "Theory and ideology are important tools, and we should make study of Marxism-Leninism an important part of our work." (emphasis added)
Barack wants to redistribute the wealth, he himself has said this. But what was it that Karl Marx said? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Sounds to me like he learned it well.
And what's that about William Ayer's new book? "Race Course Against White Supremacy," which will be published in June of 2009. He doesn't sound reformed to me.
And what did Paul Harvey have to say today during his midday broadcast? He quoted from the latest Pew Research Centre poll. Here's exactly what Mr. Harvey said:
"Shop talk. Is it a biased media? Has the media already made up your mind? Pew Research says most Americans, 70%, think journalists want to see Barack Obama win tomorrow's election. 70% [of journalists] want to see Barack Obama win, and only 9% believe that reporters are rooting for John McCain."
(H/T: Michelle Malkin, Zombie, Paul Harvey)
Friday, October 31, 2008
I PRAY It's True
I pray it's true. I cannot vote for Obama, due to numerous factors. First, we still don't know that he's even eligible. (For the record, I don't agree with McCain, either, and would be hard-pressed to vote for him.)Second: simply look at his voting record in the Senate.
THIRD: How many radical Muslim clerics want him to be President? How many dictators around the world?
FOURTH: Redistribution of wealth. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Karl Marx.
FIFTH: William Ayers, the unrepentant 1970s Weather Underground terrorist.
SIXTH: Rev. Wright.
SEVENTH: Rev. Plfeger.
Is that enough reasons?
Wait....
3...2...1... "RAAAAACIST!"
'Nuff said.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Article: "MIT Scientists Baffled by Global Warming Theory, Contradicts Scientific Data."
(And now, for the second posting of it. This bloody "service" has just eatten another of my postings, and I'm seriously sick and tired of it. The one good thing about AOL's blogs is I never once had this problem. Now with Blogspit (yes, I meant to type that) this is now number eight. EIGHT. Blogspit take note: That's seven times too many. If you are, perchance, attempting to persuade me to move elsewhere, it's working.)
The link: http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113-text.html
If you're been reading this blog for a while (and I know what some have and I thank you warmly for that,) you'll know that before it became a mostly political blog it also covered the Global Warming situation.
There can be no doubt that we are in the midst of climate change. Of that, this is no doubt whatsoever. The governing consensus is that the Earth is in a period of global warming, although there is a theory that says we're in a period leading up to a new ice age. I'll be the first to admit right now that any theory arrived at logically and scientifically possesses its own validity, however, there are a number of people who are now viewing global warming as a de facto religion. It most certainly is nothing of the sort. Global Warming is a theory ... at best. It predicts wild swings of temperature. Some years it will be colder and in others it will be hotter. The overall trend, however, will be warming. To be frank, it is a theory that also has a great deal of contradictory evidence. Some of this evidence in fact refutes global warming entirely.
So what is going on? Well, let's go with the governing consensus, that the Earth is in a period of global warming. The overwhelming bulk of evidence supports this reading of the facts, although as stated there is contradictory evidence about this, too.
So, let's say that the Earth is in a period of global warming. If we were to accept this as a fact, the next logical question would be why exactly is the Earth warming? This, however, is where the consensus breaks down completely.
There are a great many people out there on both sides of this debate that consider themselves to be "scientists." However, for one to be a scientist, one must follow the scientific principle*, which is also called the scientific method*.
One of these tenets is that you do not go into a reading of the data with a preconceived notion of where it will lead. In other words, you follow the data and the evidence where it leads you. You do not attempt to 'fudge' the data to make things come out in your favour. You do not emphasis certain data and de-emphasis other contradictory data. To be a real or serious scientist is to follow the data, not attempt to lead it.
Far too many people on both sides of the global warming debate are forgetting this point, however. They read the data with the goal of proving or disproving their already established conclusion. A serious scientist won't even have a conclusion at this point.
FACT: The Earth is warming.
CONCLUSION: Mankind is solely culpable (at fault.)
Now that is a leap of illogic. The fact is that we are in a time of global climate change. If we were to accept as fact that the Earth is in a period of global warming, we can accept the "fact" as a bona fide fact. Therefore; the Earth is warming. The conclusion, however, is in no way supported by the facts.
PROBLEM #1: Mercury is warming. This can be proven (again, read my older postings or Google this and you will find it.) However, since Mercury is so close to the Sun, I'm not sure this is valid. The Sun could burp and poor little Mercury would get fried. ::burp:: ::WHOOSH!:: "Sorry. I didn't mean to fricassee you again." (Just imagine what would happen if the Sun were to sneeze.)
PROBLEM #2: Venus is warming. Again, this can be proven by NASA and the folks at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
PROBLEM #3: Mars is warming. Again, this too can be proven by NASA and the folks at JPL.
PROBLEM #4: Jupiter is warming at the equator. Same sources.
PROBLEM #5: Europa is warming. Same sources. Although, to be brutally honest, some of this probably is due to the gravitiational and tidal forces being exerted on this moon.
There are no cars on any of these bodies. No coal-fired power plants, either. Yet the people that view global warming as a type of religion ignore this. This really is an 'inconvenient truth,' isn't it, Mr Gore? No farming, therefore no cattle.
"Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions." (emphasis mine)
I've been pointing this out for years. So has George Noory (yes, of Coast to Coast AM). So has Dr. Peter Ward and many many others. And yet, we've all be called ... well. Never mind what we've been called. But it ain't pretty.
Here's what Mr Noory and Dr Ward say, and to follow the evidence where it leads, I also believe: The Earth follows natural cycles. Yet this article as well will be ignored by those with an agenda.
The Sun also follows its own natural cycles. In fact, every one of those five problems I highlighted earlier can be solved by increasing the output from the Sun. This would warm all of these bodies and on Earth would increase the amount of methane and sulfur dioxide in the air.
How? By melting permafrost from rising temperatures and from releasing methane and sulfur dioxide trapped on the ocean floor by a similar method. In fact, there is evidence in the fossil record that supports an impending mass extinction**.
But for those that view global warming as a de facto religion, this really is an 'inconvenient truth,' and will, in sad fact, be discarded. However, that is not what a serious scientist does. A serious scientist would look at this contradictory evidence and would be forced to consider it on its own merits, not by how it fits in with an already established conclusion.
One of the few concrete facts we have is that we are in the midst of global climate change. However, based on the fact that five other bodies in this solar system (four planets and one moon) are also warming, can we really believe that mankind is solely to blame?
Not if we are scientists and follow the evidence where it leads us.
* - Scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method
** - link for impending mass extinction: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024083644.htm
The link: http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-39973-113-text.html
If you're been reading this blog for a while (and I know what some have and I thank you warmly for that,) you'll know that before it became a mostly political blog it also covered the Global Warming situation.
There can be no doubt that we are in the midst of climate change. Of that, this is no doubt whatsoever. The governing consensus is that the Earth is in a period of global warming, although there is a theory that says we're in a period leading up to a new ice age. I'll be the first to admit right now that any theory arrived at logically and scientifically possesses its own validity, however, there are a number of people who are now viewing global warming as a de facto religion. It most certainly is nothing of the sort. Global Warming is a theory ... at best. It predicts wild swings of temperature. Some years it will be colder and in others it will be hotter. The overall trend, however, will be warming. To be frank, it is a theory that also has a great deal of contradictory evidence. Some of this evidence in fact refutes global warming entirely.
So what is going on? Well, let's go with the governing consensus, that the Earth is in a period of global warming. The overwhelming bulk of evidence supports this reading of the facts, although as stated there is contradictory evidence about this, too.
So, let's say that the Earth is in a period of global warming. If we were to accept this as a fact, the next logical question would be why exactly is the Earth warming? This, however, is where the consensus breaks down completely.
There are a great many people out there on both sides of this debate that consider themselves to be "scientists." However, for one to be a scientist, one must follow the scientific principle*, which is also called the scientific method*.
One of these tenets is that you do not go into a reading of the data with a preconceived notion of where it will lead. In other words, you follow the data and the evidence where it leads you. You do not attempt to 'fudge' the data to make things come out in your favour. You do not emphasis certain data and de-emphasis other contradictory data. To be a real or serious scientist is to follow the data, not attempt to lead it.
Far too many people on both sides of the global warming debate are forgetting this point, however. They read the data with the goal of proving or disproving their already established conclusion. A serious scientist won't even have a conclusion at this point.
FACT: The Earth is warming.
CONCLUSION: Mankind is solely culpable (at fault.)
Now that is a leap of illogic. The fact is that we are in a time of global climate change. If we were to accept as fact that the Earth is in a period of global warming, we can accept the "fact" as a bona fide fact. Therefore; the Earth is warming. The conclusion, however, is in no way supported by the facts.
PROBLEM #1: Mercury is warming. This can be proven (again, read my older postings or Google this and you will find it.) However, since Mercury is so close to the Sun, I'm not sure this is valid. The Sun could burp and poor little Mercury would get fried. ::burp:: ::WHOOSH!:: "Sorry. I didn't mean to fricassee you again." (Just imagine what would happen if the Sun were to sneeze.)
PROBLEM #2: Venus is warming. Again, this can be proven by NASA and the folks at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
PROBLEM #3: Mars is warming. Again, this too can be proven by NASA and the folks at JPL.
PROBLEM #4: Jupiter is warming at the equator. Same sources.
PROBLEM #5: Europa is warming. Same sources. Although, to be brutally honest, some of this probably is due to the gravitiational and tidal forces being exerted on this moon.
There are no cars on any of these bodies. No coal-fired power plants, either. Yet the people that view global warming as a type of religion ignore this. This really is an 'inconvenient truth,' isn't it, Mr Gore? No farming, therefore no cattle.
"Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions." (emphasis mine)
I've been pointing this out for years. So has George Noory (yes, of Coast to Coast AM). So has Dr. Peter Ward and many many others. And yet, we've all be called ... well. Never mind what we've been called. But it ain't pretty.
Here's what Mr Noory and Dr Ward say, and to follow the evidence where it leads, I also believe: The Earth follows natural cycles. Yet this article as well will be ignored by those with an agenda.
The Sun also follows its own natural cycles. In fact, every one of those five problems I highlighted earlier can be solved by increasing the output from the Sun. This would warm all of these bodies and on Earth would increase the amount of methane and sulfur dioxide in the air.
How? By melting permafrost from rising temperatures and from releasing methane and sulfur dioxide trapped on the ocean floor by a similar method. In fact, there is evidence in the fossil record that supports an impending mass extinction**.
But for those that view global warming as a de facto religion, this really is an 'inconvenient truth,' and will, in sad fact, be discarded. However, that is not what a serious scientist does. A serious scientist would look at this contradictory evidence and would be forced to consider it on its own merits, not by how it fits in with an already established conclusion.
One of the few concrete facts we have is that we are in the midst of global climate change. However, based on the fact that five other bodies in this solar system (four planets and one moon) are also warming, can we really believe that mankind is solely to blame?
Not if we are scientists and follow the evidence where it leads us.
* - Scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method
** - link for impending mass extinction: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024083644.htm
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
"Play Hooky on Election Day" - Obamessiah
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/27/obama-campaign-to-worshipers-ditch-work-and-school-on-election-day-for-the-one/
Grabbing headline, isn't it? But Obama's Campaign did indeed send out the mail asking people to skip work and school. But for the rest of us? He'll redistribute our wealth. Just as what happened in Zimbabwe.
But let me, as others have, ask this: How many times was 'the one' late?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah9W24oMIRc
But what happened in Zimbabwe?!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe HYPERINFLATION!
"Critics of president Robert Mugabe blame his land reform policies focused on taking land from white farmers and redistributing it to blacks;" (Links left intact, but are not mine. (emphasis added))
Just as I'd written before. (And in the interests of full disclosure, I had nothing whatsoever to do with this Wikipedia article.)
"The Cato Institute's Senior Fellow Steve Hanke released a document estimating Zimbabwe's annualized inflation rate to be 10.2 Quadrillion percent as of October 24, 2008.[1]" (Links left intact, but are not mine.)
So what is a "quadrillion?" It's one thousand million million, or 1,000,000,000,000,000. So if inflation were running at 10.2 quadrillion per cent (per year) that would be annual inflation rate of (stand back) 10,200,000,000,000,000%
::BLINK:: But believe it or not, that's not the record. The record for hyperinflation actually belongs to Hungary, which in 1945-46 saw an annualized percentage rate of 4.19 quintillion per cent. What's a quintillion? It's 10^(18) power. Or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. So 4.19 quintillion per cent would be 4,190,000,000,000,000,000%.
"In 2008, Zimbabwe was forced to print a 100 billion Zimbabwean dollar note, which at the time of printing was only worth about the cost of two loaves of bread.[13]" link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintillion#Usage_of_names_of_large_numbers
That's right, hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was so bad, prices were so high - and the value of each individual dollar was so low, that it took 100 billion Zimbabwean dollars to buy two loaves of bread. Or, $100,000,000,000 ZBD (Zimbabwean Dollar.)
And that could be coming here if America elects Barack Obama. Remember, hyperinflation is usually caused by social and/or political upheaval. We'll get Socialism under Barack as he redistributes the wealth, and that is both a political and social upheaval.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin, Wikipedia)
Grabbing headline, isn't it? But Obama's Campaign did indeed send out the mail asking people to skip work and school. But for the rest of us? He'll redistribute our wealth. Just as what happened in Zimbabwe.
But let me, as others have, ask this: How many times was 'the one' late?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah9W24oMIRc
But what happened in Zimbabwe?!? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe HYPERINFLATION!
"Critics of president Robert Mugabe blame his land reform policies focused on taking land from white farmers and redistributing it to blacks;" (Links left intact, but are not mine. (emphasis added))
Just as I'd written before. (And in the interests of full disclosure, I had nothing whatsoever to do with this Wikipedia article.)
"The Cato Institute's Senior Fellow Steve Hanke released a document estimating Zimbabwe's annualized inflation rate to be 10.2 Quadrillion percent as of October 24, 2008.[1]" (Links left intact, but are not mine.)
So what is a "quadrillion?" It's one thousand million million, or 1,000,000,000,000,000. So if inflation were running at 10.2 quadrillion per cent (per year) that would be annual inflation rate of (stand back) 10,200,000,000,000,000%
::BLINK:: But believe it or not, that's not the record. The record for hyperinflation actually belongs to Hungary, which in 1945-46 saw an annualized percentage rate of 4.19 quintillion per cent. What's a quintillion? It's 10^(18) power. Or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. So 4.19 quintillion per cent would be 4,190,000,000,000,000,000%.
"In 2008, Zimbabwe was forced to print a 100 billion Zimbabwean dollar note, which at the time of printing was only worth about the cost of two loaves of bread.[13]" link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintillion#Usage_of_names_of_large_numbers
That's right, hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was so bad, prices were so high - and the value of each individual dollar was so low, that it took 100 billion Zimbabwean dollars to buy two loaves of bread. Or, $100,000,000,000 ZBD (Zimbabwean Dollar.)
And that could be coming here if America elects Barack Obama. Remember, hyperinflation is usually caused by social and/or political upheaval. We'll get Socialism under Barack as he redistributes the wealth, and that is both a political and social upheaval.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin, Wikipedia)
CNN's Wolf Blitzer to Sit Down with Obama
Yes, you read that right. The same network, CNN, that Michael S. Malone recently wrote "...CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism." (Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=2) So, Mr Malone writes that he'd "...learned to approach [CNN] with skepticism."
But, CNN is going to sit down with Obama on Friday! Here's that link: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/29/send-wolf-blitzer-your-questions-for-obama/
You'll notice Ms Malkin's title for the article: "Send Wolf Blitzer your questions for Obama." I happen to agree with that.
Why?
There are a few reasons. First, I think we're all aware by now that Linda Bloodworth-Thomason has said that MSNBC was "completely out of control." She was speaking about the blatant bias in MSNBC's election propagandizing (er...coverage.) But as recently as a few days ago, Mr Malone was writing that he'd learned to approach CNN "...with skepticism."
A few other polls and reports have placed CNN firmly "...in the mid 70's..." on the scale of 1 (far far right wing) to 100 (far far left wing.) 50 is neutral. CNN was "...in the mid 70's..." overall.
But Ms Malkin isn't alone in asking that you write CNN's Mr Blitzer to include questions to ask. If we don't, given that this is CNN, we'll probably get these types of questions:
"Mr Obama, we know that you've measured for the curtains in the Oval Office. But have you given any thought of pastels as a colour?"
"Mr Obama, we know that your daughter likes to watch the Disney Channel as well as Nickelodeon. Will she have a TV in her room?"
"Getting back to pastels, they'd look wonderful on a new dress for your wife."
IF and I do mean IF Mr Blitzer dared to ask a hard question, he'd probably spin it thusly:
"There are those that say that your policies amount to Socialism. How do you respond to these outrageous and completely unfactual, and - dare I say - racist, statements?"
I'm now quoting from Ms Malkin's article:
"Viewers can submit questions for Obama online at www.iReport.com/Obama.
Or contact Blitzer here.
Will he dare to ask about the Khalidi Jew-bash? Ohio’s raid on Joe The Plumber’s records? The Obama campaign’s credit card fraud racket?"
Unless you demand that Mr Blitzer will, he won't. And even then, he might spin it.
I did write Mr Blitzer and signed my name. If CNN is competent in the least, it'll lead them right back here. And my writing hasn't been very friendly towards the press or Mr Obama.
I wonder how long it'll be before somebody pulls my records?
3...2...1...
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
But, CNN is going to sit down with Obama on Friday! Here's that link: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/29/send-wolf-blitzer-your-questions-for-obama/
You'll notice Ms Malkin's title for the article: "Send Wolf Blitzer your questions for Obama." I happen to agree with that.
Why?
There are a few reasons. First, I think we're all aware by now that Linda Bloodworth-Thomason has said that MSNBC was "completely out of control." She was speaking about the blatant bias in MSNBC's election propagandizing (er...coverage.) But as recently as a few days ago, Mr Malone was writing that he'd learned to approach CNN "...with skepticism."
A few other polls and reports have placed CNN firmly "...in the mid 70's..." on the scale of 1 (far far right wing) to 100 (far far left wing.) 50 is neutral. CNN was "...in the mid 70's..." overall.
But Ms Malkin isn't alone in asking that you write CNN's Mr Blitzer to include questions to ask. If we don't, given that this is CNN, we'll probably get these types of questions:
"Mr Obama, we know that you've measured for the curtains in the Oval Office. But have you given any thought of pastels as a colour?"
"Mr Obama, we know that your daughter likes to watch the Disney Channel as well as Nickelodeon. Will she have a TV in her room?"
"Getting back to pastels, they'd look wonderful on a new dress for your wife."
IF and I do mean IF Mr Blitzer dared to ask a hard question, he'd probably spin it thusly:
"There are those that say that your policies amount to Socialism. How do you respond to these outrageous and completely unfactual, and - dare I say - racist, statements?"
I'm now quoting from Ms Malkin's article:
"Viewers can submit questions for Obama online at www.iReport.com/Obama.
Or contact Blitzer here.
Will he dare to ask about the Khalidi Jew-bash? Ohio’s raid on Joe The Plumber’s records? The Obama campaign’s credit card fraud racket?"
Unless you demand that Mr Blitzer will, he won't. And even then, he might spin it.
I did write Mr Blitzer and signed my name. If CNN is competent in the least, it'll lead them right back here. And my writing hasn't been very friendly towards the press or Mr Obama.
I wonder how long it'll be before somebody pulls my records?
3...2...1...
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Photo-ID Required for Obama's Would-be Victory Party, but not to Vote.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin, Ace of Spades)
Link: http://minx.cc/?post=276796
I don't get it. Well, I do get it. If you ask me, Obama wants to steal the election by stuffing the ballot box with unregistered or illegally registered 'voters.' Remember Freddie Johnson, who ACORN pressured into registering 72 times in Ohio? How about "Doodad Pro," or the starting lineup of the Dallas (TX) Cowboys? But they 'registered' in Las Vegas.
You don't need a valid photo-ID to vote, and now an idiot (er...judge) has said that the homeless can 'register' and give their address as a park bench. You get three guesses as to how most of them would vote, and the first two don't count.
If we try to point that out .... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... "RAAAAAAAAAACIST!"
But how about now? ::Listening to silence::
It's not racist for Barack to request photo-ID for his party, but it is when you are asked to have one to vote?
Link: http://minx.cc/?post=276796
I don't get it. Well, I do get it. If you ask me, Obama wants to steal the election by stuffing the ballot box with unregistered or illegally registered 'voters.' Remember Freddie Johnson, who ACORN pressured into registering 72 times in Ohio? How about "Doodad Pro," or the starting lineup of the Dallas (TX) Cowboys? But they 'registered' in Las Vegas.
You don't need a valid photo-ID to vote, and now an idiot (er...judge) has said that the homeless can 'register' and give their address as a park bench. You get three guesses as to how most of them would vote, and the first two don't count.
If we try to point that out .... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... "RAAAAAAAAAACIST!"
But how about now? ::Listening to silence::
It's not racist for Barack to request photo-ID for his party, but it is when you are asked to have one to vote?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The link: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i28df3fc9f6707d1478700b7bc78273ae
"In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.
The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat."
It would've been nice had you been mentioning it before the press and ACORN stole the election for Obama. But the damage is done, so what the hell, right?
Obama will be beholden to his lapdogs in the press and he'll throw one hell of an inaguration party. He'll also have ACORN and their fraudulent voters to thank.
He'll invite unrepentant terrorist William Ayers to his inaguration (after ensuring that he and his wife don't smuggle in explosives to blow the place up.)
He'll also invite Rashid Khalidi. Who's he? He served as the mouthpeice for Yasser Arafat! You do remember the video that the LA Times is sitting on right? The one with Khalidi, Bill Ayers, and "the one?" You know, the one the LA Times is refusing to release? What do you want to bet that that particular party (gathering, whatever) didn't turn into a Jew and Israel bash fest?
If any of you liberals had any common courtesy, any sense of ethics, any sense of morality AND if you slanted stories or broke the law ... you'd all commit seppuku. (Japanese ritual suicide, usually by disembowlment.) If that's too gruesome for you liberals who broke laws or turned your heads and allowed others to do so, try harakiri.
But I forget. Anything to screw over the other side and win, right?
"In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.
The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat."
It would've been nice had you been mentioning it before the press and ACORN stole the election for Obama. But the damage is done, so what the hell, right?
Obama will be beholden to his lapdogs in the press and he'll throw one hell of an inaguration party. He'll also have ACORN and their fraudulent voters to thank.
He'll invite unrepentant terrorist William Ayers to his inaguration (after ensuring that he and his wife don't smuggle in explosives to blow the place up.)
He'll also invite Rashid Khalidi. Who's he? He served as the mouthpeice for Yasser Arafat! You do remember the video that the LA Times is sitting on right? The one with Khalidi, Bill Ayers, and "the one?" You know, the one the LA Times is refusing to release? What do you want to bet that that particular party (gathering, whatever) didn't turn into a Jew and Israel bash fest?
If any of you liberals had any common courtesy, any sense of ethics, any sense of morality AND if you slanted stories or broke the law ... you'd all commit seppuku. (Japanese ritual suicide, usually by disembowlment.) If that's too gruesome for you liberals who broke laws or turned your heads and allowed others to do so, try harakiri.
But I forget. Anything to screw over the other side and win, right?
Just HOW Stupid is Judge Edmund Sargus?
THIS Stupid:
"COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren't buildings as their addresses."
http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/28/ajudgerule.html?sid=101
Why? So they're not "disenfranchised" of course! Meanwhile, if you remember, I wrote to Ms Brunner demanding the same right to register (and vote) multiple times without prosecution. Hey, it's what ACORN favours, right?
Not a word in reply. Guess you gotta be a Democrat, right?
So much for real democracy. Guess you do gotta be a Democrat.
"COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren't buildings as their addresses."
http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/28/ajudgerule.html?sid=101
Why? So they're not "disenfranchised" of course! Meanwhile, if you remember, I wrote to Ms Brunner demanding the same right to register (and vote) multiple times without prosecution. Hey, it's what ACORN favours, right?
Not a word in reply. Guess you gotta be a Democrat, right?
So much for real democracy. Guess you do gotta be a Democrat.
Article: "Cost of Crash: $2,800,000,000,000"
That's 2.8 TRILLION. Here's the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/28/economics-credit-crunch-bank-england
Now it's time for some math, and we're gonna follow the example I gave before, about the $700bn for the US Bailout, how 10 per cent of that went to bonuses.
2,800,000,000,000 x 10% = a hell of a lot of money.
$280,000,000,000 or $280 BILLION for bonuses, using the 10 per cent example.
That figure, however, is worldwide
B.O.H.I.C.A.
YOU! ASSUME THE POSITION!
Now it's time for some math, and we're gonna follow the example I gave before, about the $700bn for the US Bailout, how 10 per cent of that went to bonuses.
2,800,000,000,000 x 10% = a hell of a lot of money.
$280,000,000,000 or $280 BILLION for bonuses, using the 10 per cent example.
That figure, however, is worldwide
B.O.H.I.C.A.
YOU! ASSUME THE POSITION!
Americans Need a SECOND "Bill of Rights?"
::sigh:: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRkZjNkNWZlMmUzZDEzZjMxY2Q4NTBjYjJmZDJjMzM=
"U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers."
SOCIALISM. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081014/NEWS09/810140299
I want to spit.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
"U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D. Toledo) whipped the crowd up before Mr. Obama took the stage yesterday telling them that America needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers."
SOCIALISM. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081014/NEWS09/810140299
I want to spit.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Article: "Ten Percent of $700 Billion Rescue Package May go to Bonuses."
Remember when I said to call your congressperson and have them oppose the "bailout?" It worked the first time, but then came round two.
They larded the bailout up with ... well ... lard and shoved it down our throats. I was afraid something like this would happen:
The link: http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/19/ten-percent-of-700-rescue-package-may-go-to-bonuses/
"Wall Street walked into the path of its own oncoming stupidity. Of the $700 billion in Treasury rescue money, as much as $70 billion could go to bank and brokerage bonuses."
BUT WAIT! It gets better, believe it or not:
"AIG sent salespeople on a lavish luxury retreat at the same time it was getting billions in government aid. The retreat at the St. Regis resort in Monarch Beach, Calif., cost AIG $440,000 and came right after it received a $85 billion line of credit. Even worse, it planned another lavish retreat soon after. But when the press caught wind of that one, it was soon cancelled." (emphasis added)
Gotta love it. This is what our tax dollars are going for. Mad enough to stop paying your taxes & filing your tax form? If so, you're not alone.
B.O.H.I.C.A.
They larded the bailout up with ... well ... lard and shoved it down our throats. I was afraid something like this would happen:
The link: http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/10/19/ten-percent-of-700-rescue-package-may-go-to-bonuses/
"Wall Street walked into the path of its own oncoming stupidity. Of the $700 billion in Treasury rescue money, as much as $70 billion could go to bank and brokerage bonuses."
BUT WAIT! It gets better, believe it or not:
"AIG sent salespeople on a lavish luxury retreat at the same time it was getting billions in government aid. The retreat at the St. Regis resort in Monarch Beach, Calif., cost AIG $440,000 and came right after it received a $85 billion line of credit. Even worse, it planned another lavish retreat soon after. But when the press caught wind of that one, it was soon cancelled." (emphasis added)
Gotta love it. This is what our tax dollars are going for. Mad enough to stop paying your taxes & filing your tax form? If so, you're not alone.
B.O.H.I.C.A.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Mailbag - Part Deux
As an aside, I might need to start doing a "mailbag" blog every now and again. This is what I get for reading my AOL mail at the same time I'm blogging.
One other aside - Yes, I know that AOL is called the "training wheels for the Internet." And I can hear some people asking "Why on Earth does he have an AOL address?!?" The reasons are twofold. First, I've had the AOL account since mid 1995. That's just over 13 years. A great many people know that they can reach me at the AOL address. Yes, I do have several non-AOL addresses, but I almost never give those out. The other reason is because it's now free. I don't have to pay them a penny to keep the account.
And now for the question (thank you!) The question is that I'd written that Mr Obama's mother couldn't fly back since she was in the late stages of pregnancy. Why couldn't she?
It was a good question! There are a few reasons for being unable to fly during the late stages of pregnancy, and the first has to do with liability. Even during the best of deliveries, delivering a healthy baby is not an easy task. Frankly, I wouldn't want to do it! But things can easily go wrong during the best of times. And I don't think the airline's insurance carrier would want to cover that risk. Because it is a risk. If an attendant were to attempt to deliver a child mid-flight and there was a problem that caused the child or mother to die, both the airline and that attendant would be sued. Possibly the Captain and First Officer as well.
But the second reason is also tied into the first one. The second one would be that the airline simply wouldn't want to take the risk of the mother giving birth at 35,000 feet.
As another aside, can you imagine how that would be written on a birth certificate?
Place of Birth: Seat 29a on United Flight 27 at 35,217 feet over Muncie, Indiana.
How about over the Atlantic Ocean? :) I don't wanna think about that one!
One other aside - Yes, I know that AOL is called the "training wheels for the Internet." And I can hear some people asking "Why on Earth does he have an AOL address?!?" The reasons are twofold. First, I've had the AOL account since mid 1995. That's just over 13 years. A great many people know that they can reach me at the AOL address. Yes, I do have several non-AOL addresses, but I almost never give those out. The other reason is because it's now free. I don't have to pay them a penny to keep the account.
And now for the question (thank you!) The question is that I'd written that Mr Obama's mother couldn't fly back since she was in the late stages of pregnancy. Why couldn't she?
It was a good question! There are a few reasons for being unable to fly during the late stages of pregnancy, and the first has to do with liability. Even during the best of deliveries, delivering a healthy baby is not an easy task. Frankly, I wouldn't want to do it! But things can easily go wrong during the best of times. And I don't think the airline's insurance carrier would want to cover that risk. Because it is a risk. If an attendant were to attempt to deliver a child mid-flight and there was a problem that caused the child or mother to die, both the airline and that attendant would be sued. Possibly the Captain and First Officer as well.
But the second reason is also tied into the first one. The second one would be that the airline simply wouldn't want to take the risk of the mother giving birth at 35,000 feet.
As another aside, can you imagine how that would be written on a birth certificate?
Place of Birth: Seat 29a on United Flight 27 at 35,217 feet over Muncie, Indiana.
How about over the Atlantic Ocean? :) I don't wanna think about that one!
Wikipedia? Why So Often?
I've just read my AOL mail ... and got an email that I wanted to reply to. Before I do, however, thank you for writing. :)
I've gotten a tonne of spam, but I sometimes get comments about this blog, and I love knowing that this blog is being read.
This time, I had the question (to paraphrase) of why I frequently quote from Wikipedia. And, I do quote from them frequently. I've written before that I am Wikipedian, and an editor. (There's that full disclosure thing.)
That, however, isn't why I frequently quote from Wikipedia articles. The reason I do is because most of their articles are written in the neutral Point of View (PoV.) Granted, I could easily name a few articles that I believe to be slanted, ridiculously so in my opinion, but that's not the point. The point is that the bulk of Wikipedia articles reflect the Neutral PoV. It is one of their three core content policies. And yes, another Wikipedia link. :) But since this one deals with Wikipedia... :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
But thank you for the question. :) Hopefully, that answers it. And thank you for reading!
I've gotten a tonne of spam, but I sometimes get comments about this blog, and I love knowing that this blog is being read.
This time, I had the question (to paraphrase) of why I frequently quote from Wikipedia. And, I do quote from them frequently. I've written before that I am Wikipedian, and an editor. (There's that full disclosure thing.)
That, however, isn't why I frequently quote from Wikipedia articles. The reason I do is because most of their articles are written in the neutral Point of View (PoV.) Granted, I could easily name a few articles that I believe to be slanted, ridiculously so in my opinion, but that's not the point. The point is that the bulk of Wikipedia articles reflect the Neutral PoV. It is one of their three core content policies. And yes, another Wikipedia link. :) But since this one deals with Wikipedia... :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
But thank you for the question. :) Hopefully, that answers it. And thank you for reading!
Op-Ed Article: "Media's Presidential Bias and Decline."
The link: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1
(Before I go further ... I know that IE7 has tabs under the address bar and that I could simply open another tab in the browser instead of opening another browser. And that's true. I am in fact using IE 7, it's just simpler for me to open another browser and to move between them that way. But I've had a few emails asking why I don't do this. Now you know. :) But thank you for the emails. I've written this before, but it bears saying again - knowing that people are reading this blog is humbling. Truly. Thank you again.)
Ok...where was I? :)
OH! This Opinion-Editorial article is both telling and damning, in my opinion. It's also long. But the article's author, Michael S. Malone, states his argument clearly and concisely. I'm going to quote only a bit of it ... since I don't have the right to quote more of it, and it's a juicy read. But I fear that rabid people on the far-left are going to be very very upset at Mr Malone. His article is, in my opinion, that damning.
"The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling."
I've written about liberal bias in the media, as have many others. There have been numerous polls about the bias. But now Mr Malone calls it "...appalling." And, he's right, at least in my opinion. How many times have I and numerous others written about the "Obamedia," and the Cult of Personality being created by that same media? How many times have we complained that the media treats Obama/Biden with kiddie gloves and slams McCain/Palin? Now Mr Malone actually says it. And, in my opinion, the people on the far-left are going to ensure that he "pays" for it, too.
"Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page." Mr Malone even goes on to specifically name two newspapers, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
As Rush Limbaugh would say "STOP THE PRESSES!!!" But many others have written about that, too. We've pointed out, rightly I believe, that there indeed is a place in a newspaper for opinions - that being the Op-Ed section. But read Mr Malone's section carefully, he said it was creeping "...into the news section, and from there onto the front page." And, again in my opinion, he's right on the money. Opinion, either for or against a certain subject, has no place in a truly unbiased media other than the Opinion-Editorial section. Personal blogs (yes, that emphasis on personal) are also good places for opinions.
And then, Mr Malone says the following. And this, again in my opinion, is where Mr Malone will be vilified by the far-left.
"But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.
I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story … but it never happened."
(CNNi is not a typo, it is CNN International.) That's a long quote, and I only have one word to say in response: Pallywood. (True, his article goes on for three more pages (again, it is a juicy read) but I'm done quoting from it. Please do read it in its entirety, however. It is an excellently written article and my hat is off to Mr Malone for daring to write it.) Ok, two words. Pallywood and Hezbollywood.
Pallywood. The word is a portmanteau of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood." And Hezbollywood?
Two links: The first one is the Pallywood entry at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood
This one is Professor Richard Landes' documentary "Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood:_According_to_Palestinian_Sources
You'll note that both articles are flagged in that their neutrality is disputed. In my opinion, they are neutral. But again, that is my opinion. The other thing is that you can write anything you want to be completely neutral, but somebody, somewhere, would dispute it. That goes right back to my hypothetical match up I referenced earlier.
Let's assume that Dr. Rice and Gen. Powell were both running for President. Well, they're both African-American, so that would remove the race card from play. But you know as well as I do that if you were to vote for Gen. Powell that somebody somewhere would scream "sexist" because of the way you voted. It's not quite the same as neutrality, but the point is the same. Somebody, somewhere is always going to object to something you do.
And Hezbollywood? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollywood
You can also do a Google search for those three words. Just stand back. There's a lot there. :)
(H/T: Drudge Report, Wikipedia)
(Before I go further ... I know that IE7 has tabs under the address bar and that I could simply open another tab in the browser instead of opening another browser. And that's true. I am in fact using IE 7, it's just simpler for me to open another browser and to move between them that way. But I've had a few emails asking why I don't do this. Now you know. :) But thank you for the emails. I've written this before, but it bears saying again - knowing that people are reading this blog is humbling. Truly. Thank you again.)
Ok...where was I? :)
OH! This Opinion-Editorial article is both telling and damning, in my opinion. It's also long. But the article's author, Michael S. Malone, states his argument clearly and concisely. I'm going to quote only a bit of it ... since I don't have the right to quote more of it, and it's a juicy read. But I fear that rabid people on the far-left are going to be very very upset at Mr Malone. His article is, in my opinion, that damning.
"The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling."
I've written about liberal bias in the media, as have many others. There have been numerous polls about the bias. But now Mr Malone calls it "...appalling." And, he's right, at least in my opinion. How many times have I and numerous others written about the "Obamedia," and the Cult of Personality being created by that same media? How many times have we complained that the media treats Obama/Biden with kiddie gloves and slams McCain/Palin? Now Mr Malone actually says it. And, in my opinion, the people on the far-left are going to ensure that he "pays" for it, too.
"Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page." Mr Malone even goes on to specifically name two newspapers, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
As Rush Limbaugh would say "STOP THE PRESSES!!!" But many others have written about that, too. We've pointed out, rightly I believe, that there indeed is a place in a newspaper for opinions - that being the Op-Ed section. But read Mr Malone's section carefully, he said it was creeping "...into the news section, and from there onto the front page." And, again in my opinion, he's right on the money. Opinion, either for or against a certain subject, has no place in a truly unbiased media other than the Opinion-Editorial section. Personal blogs (yes, that emphasis on personal) are also good places for opinions.
And then, Mr Malone says the following. And this, again in my opinion, is where Mr Malone will be vilified by the far-left.
"But what really shattered my faith -- and I know the day and place where it happened -- was the war in Lebanon three summers ago. The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.
I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story … but it never happened."
(CNNi is not a typo, it is CNN International.) That's a long quote, and I only have one word to say in response: Pallywood. (True, his article goes on for three more pages (again, it is a juicy read) but I'm done quoting from it. Please do read it in its entirety, however. It is an excellently written article and my hat is off to Mr Malone for daring to write it.) Ok, two words. Pallywood and Hezbollywood.
Pallywood. The word is a portmanteau of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood." And Hezbollywood?
Two links: The first one is the Pallywood entry at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood
This one is Professor Richard Landes' documentary "Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood:_According_to_Palestinian_Sources
You'll note that both articles are flagged in that their neutrality is disputed. In my opinion, they are neutral. But again, that is my opinion. The other thing is that you can write anything you want to be completely neutral, but somebody, somewhere, would dispute it. That goes right back to my hypothetical match up I referenced earlier.
Let's assume that Dr. Rice and Gen. Powell were both running for President. Well, they're both African-American, so that would remove the race card from play. But you know as well as I do that if you were to vote for Gen. Powell that somebody somewhere would scream "sexist" because of the way you voted. It's not quite the same as neutrality, but the point is the same. Somebody, somewhere is always going to object to something you do.
And Hezbollywood? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollywood
You can also do a Google search for those three words. Just stand back. There's a lot there. :)
(H/T: Drudge Report, Wikipedia)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
