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.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
