Thanks to Robert for the feed. I have confirmed these sources. Just a little something for those who love the Goracle.
House 1:
The four-bedroom home was planned so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place." The resulting single-story house is a paragon of environmental planning.
The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence.
Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground. These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool in summer. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home, (which) uses indigenous grasses, shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior treatment of the home. In addition to its minimal environmental impact, the look and layout of the house reflect one of the paramount priorities: relaxation. A spacious 10-foot porch wraps completely around the residence and beckons the family outdoors. With few hallways to speak of, family and guests make their way from room to room either directly or by way of the porch. "The house doesn't hold you in. Where the porch ends there is grass. There is no step-up at all." This house consumes 25% of the energy of an average American home.
(Source: Cowboys and Indians Magazine, Oct. 2002 and Chicago Tribune April 2001.)
House 2:
This 20-room, 8-bathroom house consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, this house devoured nearly 221,000 kWh, more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, the house burned through 22,619 kWh, guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of this energy consumption, the average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Also, natural gas bills for this house and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, this house had nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for 2006.
(Source: just about anywhere in the news last month online and on talk radio, but barely on TV.)
House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush, and is in Crawford , Texas .
House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore, and is in Nashville , Tennessee
Keep drinking the Kool-aid all you Gor-bots.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The Democrats have submitted their budget proposal and, surprise surprise, it includes the largest tax increase in American history and reaches well into the middle class of America – so much for “we’re just gonna raise taxes on the wealthiest 1%”. This tax hike is larger than Clinton’s tax increase of the early 90s. Anyone wanting to rethink their 2006 vote? Before you answer that, consider some statistics below. I’ve used stats like this in the past to show that the economy prospers and government revenues increase with lower taxes. When taxes go up, the economy goes down. How many statistics does it take for Democracts and their socialist supporters to get that? Consider:
Since the adoption of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts –
Job Growth. A total of 7.6 million new jobs have been created – an average of
168,500 per month. In the prior 27 months, the economy lost 2.7 million jobs –
an average of 100,000 jobs lost per month (evidence that Clinton indeed handed Bush a stagnant economy).
Unemployment Declines. The unemployment rate has fallen from 6.1 percent to
4.5 percent.
Economic Growth. In the past 15 quarters (nearly 4 years), real gross domestic product [GDP] has grown an average of 3.5 percent per year. In the nine prior quarters, average GDP
growth was an anemic 1.1 percent.
Investment Growth. Business investment has increased for 15 straight quarters,
reversing a previous nine-quarter decline.
Stock Market Gains. Despite recent market corrections, the Dow Jones Industrial
Average remains 41 percent above its 2003 level.
Overall Revenue Growth. Total Federal revenue has increased from 16.5 percent
of GDP in 2003 to 18.5 percent this year – exceeding the average percentage of
the past four decades (yes, believe it or not, tax cuts INCREASE federal revenue)
Annual Revenue Surges. Revenue grew by 14.6 percent in 2005, 11.5 percent in
2006, and 9.3 percent in the first five months of fiscal year 2007.
Deficit Reduction. This revenue growth has the principal factor in reducing the
budget deficit from $412.7 billion in 2004 to an estimated $214 billion this year,
according to the Congressional Budget Office (the deficit has been cut in half in only 3 years – which is two years ahead of schedule – it’s a safe assumption that unless Congress does something to halt economic growth then the deficit will be virtually eliminated within the next 5 years).
These are the facts. Tax cuts are a major factor in economic growth. There is no other way to explain these numbers, and remember this is happening despite rising oil prices, two major foreign wars and the economic shock that occurred after 9/11. Tax cuts WORK! And now the Democrats want to completely reverse this progress in favor of the largest tax increase in American history, most likely so they can fund their huge entitlement programs. This is the wrong way to go. This is NOT what America voted for in 2006.
Since the adoption of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts –
Job Growth. A total of 7.6 million new jobs have been created – an average of
168,500 per month. In the prior 27 months, the economy lost 2.7 million jobs –
an average of 100,000 jobs lost per month (evidence that Clinton indeed handed Bush a stagnant economy).
Unemployment Declines. The unemployment rate has fallen from 6.1 percent to
4.5 percent.
Economic Growth. In the past 15 quarters (nearly 4 years), real gross domestic product [GDP] has grown an average of 3.5 percent per year. In the nine prior quarters, average GDP
growth was an anemic 1.1 percent.
Investment Growth. Business investment has increased for 15 straight quarters,
reversing a previous nine-quarter decline.
Stock Market Gains. Despite recent market corrections, the Dow Jones Industrial
Average remains 41 percent above its 2003 level.
Overall Revenue Growth. Total Federal revenue has increased from 16.5 percent
of GDP in 2003 to 18.5 percent this year – exceeding the average percentage of
the past four decades (yes, believe it or not, tax cuts INCREASE federal revenue)
Annual Revenue Surges. Revenue grew by 14.6 percent in 2005, 11.5 percent in
2006, and 9.3 percent in the first five months of fiscal year 2007.
Deficit Reduction. This revenue growth has the principal factor in reducing the
budget deficit from $412.7 billion in 2004 to an estimated $214 billion this year,
according to the Congressional Budget Office (the deficit has been cut in half in only 3 years – which is two years ahead of schedule – it’s a safe assumption that unless Congress does something to halt economic growth then the deficit will be virtually eliminated within the next 5 years).
These are the facts. Tax cuts are a major factor in economic growth. There is no other way to explain these numbers, and remember this is happening despite rising oil prices, two major foreign wars and the economic shock that occurred after 9/11. Tax cuts WORK! And now the Democrats want to completely reverse this progress in favor of the largest tax increase in American history, most likely so they can fund their huge entitlement programs. This is the wrong way to go. This is NOT what America voted for in 2006.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Hagel says impeachment an option
Senator Chuck Hagel alluded to the possibility of impeachment hearings the other day, saying that Bush is at fault for not listening to the will of the people in his “go-it-alone” approach to the Iraq War, and ignoring the will of the Congress. Yes, folks, this is actually what Hagel – a Republican – believes. To be blunt, Hagel is a complete and utter buffoon.
I can understand why the Dems would desperately want to impeach Bush. The Clinton presidency is a black mark on their party because of his short comings. He is the only modern day president to be impeached and they don’t like that. So, doing the same to the Republicans would even the score. They seek revenge and are clearly still very bitter about Clinton’s impeachment – never mind that Clinton was guilty of a “high crime” when he perjured himself and the Democrats stood by him regardless – that’s beside the point. What matters is that a GOP president must be impeached now, and Bush is an easy target with his unpopular war.
But why would Hagel want something like this? After all, he is (supposedly) a Republican. The best guess I have is that he wants to distance himself from Bush (who suffers from low approval ratings) and perhaps supporting impeachment would do that. In short, it’s the best way to save his own political neck, damn the consequences. I don’t have to remind people of what this country went through with Clinton’s impeachment. It was embarrassing to say the least, at best it was a disgrace upon our country and the Office he served. But who cares about that now? The Dems want to even the score, and there may be some Republican Rats who feel the need to jump ship as well.
In case there is doubt, let’s review the facts: Congress voted approval for the war, they voted to give Bush the authority to go to war and it was a pretty lopsided vote. So Bush DID have Congressional approval. And every time more money is needed, then Congress votes to approve that money and thus continue the war that they feel is illegal. So Bush had initial authority AND that authority is renewed every time Congress approves more money for the war. The war in Iraq continues with Congressional approval – so if it’s an illegal war then why doesn’t the Democrat majority STOP FUNDING THE WAR???? If it’s illegal, and they continue funding it, wouldn’t all those who vote for this be vulnerable to prosecution?
Second, the legality of the war can be found in the cease fire agreement of the first gulf war. The US has a RIGHT to enforce these agreements and the UN doesn’t have to endorse it. That treaty wasn’t signed with the UN, it was signed with the US and the British. Not only that, but this was not a “go it alone” strategy. That would imply that the US acted without any international approval or support, which would simply ignore the participation of nations like the UK, Poland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Australia and many others. There were actually many nations involved, are we to seek criminal charges against these leaders as well?
Again, Hagel is a buffoon. There is NO evidence of illegal activity by the Bush administration, and implying such is irresponsible and foolish, not to mention disgraceful. And this man is running for president? Anyone considering voting for him should seriously reconsider. We don’t need someone this irresponsible in the White House at a time when responsibility is vital in our leadership. Hagel needs to go back to the corn fields and unless someone has substantial PROOF of illegal activity then all this impeachment talk should stop right now.
Senator Chuck Hagel alluded to the possibility of impeachment hearings the other day, saying that Bush is at fault for not listening to the will of the people in his “go-it-alone” approach to the Iraq War, and ignoring the will of the Congress. Yes, folks, this is actually what Hagel – a Republican – believes. To be blunt, Hagel is a complete and utter buffoon.
I can understand why the Dems would desperately want to impeach Bush. The Clinton presidency is a black mark on their party because of his short comings. He is the only modern day president to be impeached and they don’t like that. So, doing the same to the Republicans would even the score. They seek revenge and are clearly still very bitter about Clinton’s impeachment – never mind that Clinton was guilty of a “high crime” when he perjured himself and the Democrats stood by him regardless – that’s beside the point. What matters is that a GOP president must be impeached now, and Bush is an easy target with his unpopular war.
But why would Hagel want something like this? After all, he is (supposedly) a Republican. The best guess I have is that he wants to distance himself from Bush (who suffers from low approval ratings) and perhaps supporting impeachment would do that. In short, it’s the best way to save his own political neck, damn the consequences. I don’t have to remind people of what this country went through with Clinton’s impeachment. It was embarrassing to say the least, at best it was a disgrace upon our country and the Office he served. But who cares about that now? The Dems want to even the score, and there may be some Republican Rats who feel the need to jump ship as well.
In case there is doubt, let’s review the facts: Congress voted approval for the war, they voted to give Bush the authority to go to war and it was a pretty lopsided vote. So Bush DID have Congressional approval. And every time more money is needed, then Congress votes to approve that money and thus continue the war that they feel is illegal. So Bush had initial authority AND that authority is renewed every time Congress approves more money for the war. The war in Iraq continues with Congressional approval – so if it’s an illegal war then why doesn’t the Democrat majority STOP FUNDING THE WAR???? If it’s illegal, and they continue funding it, wouldn’t all those who vote for this be vulnerable to prosecution?
Second, the legality of the war can be found in the cease fire agreement of the first gulf war. The US has a RIGHT to enforce these agreements and the UN doesn’t have to endorse it. That treaty wasn’t signed with the UN, it was signed with the US and the British. Not only that, but this was not a “go it alone” strategy. That would imply that the US acted without any international approval or support, which would simply ignore the participation of nations like the UK, Poland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Australia and many others. There were actually many nations involved, are we to seek criminal charges against these leaders as well?
Again, Hagel is a buffoon. There is NO evidence of illegal activity by the Bush administration, and implying such is irresponsible and foolish, not to mention disgraceful. And this man is running for president? Anyone considering voting for him should seriously reconsider. We don’t need someone this irresponsible in the White House at a time when responsibility is vital in our leadership. Hagel needs to go back to the corn fields and unless someone has substantial PROOF of illegal activity then all this impeachment talk should stop right now.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
So the House has at last passed a measure that sets a deadline for US troop withdrawal from Iraq, and Al Qaeda couldn't be happier. Finally, the enemy has what they've always wanted - a definite date when the Americans will vacate. They have their target. They know how long to hold out. In fact, they could just take the year off, build up their arms and manpower and prepare for their coup that will certainly happen the moment the US is out of the picture. I've never seen a move so undermining as what the House as done. Which brings up the question...how did Pelosi finally get the votes for this measure?
Well, here's the answer. The spending bill includes spending for the war, but also includes a whole lot more (other than the one year deadline). The Democrats, in an effort to boost support for the bill and "buy more votes" added approximately $20 Billion of domestic spending to the bill. Some would call this pork. Take a look.
- $25 Million for spinach farmers (appealing for Calif. representatives)
- $120 Million for the shrimp industry (very nice if you're from the Gulf area, esp. Florida)
- $74 Million for peanut storage
- $5 Million for shellfish, oyster and clam producers
- $20 + million for dairy farmers
Remember, this is a bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and somehow we're giving billions of dollars to spinach and peanut farmers, neither of whom are armed on the front lines of these wars. So either our troops should be expecting some fancy shrimp and cheese in their mess halls, or the Dems have just done something completely unethical...all the while accusing Bush and Gonzalez of being unethical for firing a few attorneys. This is bribery, which is common in Washington, but what makes this especially disgusting is that the bribery is meant to prematurely end the war in Iraq, regardless of how the military leaders feel about. The Generals and Colonels no longer have a say in how much longer this conflict will last. Instead, the brilliant military mind of Nancy Pelosi will make that call. Sounds great! I'm sure our troops feel better already.
It's interesting how the deadline falls right in the middle of Primary season, and just a few months before the '08 election. But I'm sure that's purely coincidental.......
Well, here's the answer. The spending bill includes spending for the war, but also includes a whole lot more (other than the one year deadline). The Democrats, in an effort to boost support for the bill and "buy more votes" added approximately $20 Billion of domestic spending to the bill. Some would call this pork. Take a look.
- $25 Million for spinach farmers (appealing for Calif. representatives)
- $120 Million for the shrimp industry (very nice if you're from the Gulf area, esp. Florida)
- $74 Million for peanut storage
- $5 Million for shellfish, oyster and clam producers
- $20 + million for dairy farmers
Remember, this is a bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and somehow we're giving billions of dollars to spinach and peanut farmers, neither of whom are armed on the front lines of these wars. So either our troops should be expecting some fancy shrimp and cheese in their mess halls, or the Dems have just done something completely unethical...all the while accusing Bush and Gonzalez of being unethical for firing a few attorneys. This is bribery, which is common in Washington, but what makes this especially disgusting is that the bribery is meant to prematurely end the war in Iraq, regardless of how the military leaders feel about. The Generals and Colonels no longer have a say in how much longer this conflict will last. Instead, the brilliant military mind of Nancy Pelosi will make that call. Sounds great! I'm sure our troops feel better already.
It's interesting how the deadline falls right in the middle of Primary season, and just a few months before the '08 election. But I'm sure that's purely coincidental.......
Friday, March 23, 2007
After listening to the political bickering for over a week, I feel it’s about time I posted on the firing of the US Attorneys. For those who don’t know, several US prosecutors were fired by the Justice Department on the orders of Attorney General Gonzalez. There were no reasons given at the time, but word spread that there was something dirty going on and that these attorneys were in the process of investigating political corruption and that’s why they were dismissed. The Justice Dept has responded by saying that they were fired because of lack of action against criminals, namely illegal immigrants.
The firings were legal. The Justice Dept can do this anytime it wants and it doesn’t have to give a reason. It has happened before and will certainly happen again. The Attorney General has a responsibility to ensure that US laws are enforced and that those who break the law are prosecuted. These attorneys were obviously failing in that responsibility and so they were fired, as well they should have been. While I’m not a huge fan of Gonzalez - my perception to this point has been that he was soft on illegal immigrants - but this has changed that. I’m glad to see Gonzalez taking action. It’s about time someone did.
So there was nothing illegal here. The White House and the Justice Department did what every other modern day administration has done. Whenever there are employees not doing their job, the expectation should be that they lose that job and get replaced by someone more competent. Even Senator Feinstein at one time called for action against Southern California prosecutor Lam for her failure to prosecute : “Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., now one of Lam's strongest supporters, questioned Lam's immigration prosecution rates, although Feinstein said she was satisfied with the answer that Lam was focusing on big cases.”
Lam was one of the Attorneys fired by Gonzalez. Yet, Feinstein has mysteriously changed her tune and she is one of the Senators leading the attacks on Gonzalez and Bush. And so the Democrats are demanding an investigation and are threatening to subpoena several of Bush’s advisors, especially Karl Rove, which really begs the question: Why the deep obsession with this guy? The Dems have been after him for a decade and they just can’t seem to get over it. Bush has offered to allow Rove to be questioned privately, but not under oath. This isn’t acceptable to Congress. The Dems at least want his questioning on the record and they really want him to be under oath. Basically, they want to opportunity to “catch” him saying something inaccurate, a la Scooter Libby, so they can file perjury and obstruction of Justice charges and get rid of him once and for all. This is a violation of Presidential privilege and Bush is adamantly opposed to it. His reason: if his advisors are in danger of being subpoenaed every time they offer advice, then it poses a risk of hindering future advice…not a good policy for the Commander-in-Chief. Bush is right. He needs to protect his advisors and Congress should respect that. Yet, the obsession with “getting” Rove continues.
Let’s call this what it is, yet another witch hunt, if you’re keeping track of them as they go by. If it’s not Valeria Plame, it’s the suspicious firing of attorneys. No matter what Bush does, he will be scrutinized to extremes in a constant game of gotcha and it’s threatening our democratic political process. The Dems are clearly intent on creating scandal and portraying the Bush administration as corrupt when they have no basis for these claims. It’s disgusting politics and yet they continue to get away with it. The House is on the verge of complete gridlock. The Senate is getting nastier every day. There’s more bickering and arguing than on a kindergarten playground and nothing is getting accomplished. Pelosi has failed to control things. Biden hasn’t done much better. Meanwhile, we’re at war, oil prices are going up, eight thousand people enter this country illegally every day and Iran is detaining British sailors in the Persian Gulf. Doesn’t Congress have better things to do? Apparently not. Apparently, their priority is the need to drum up scandal and investigate suspected wrong-doing. In short, they are failing miserably to meet their responsibility to the American people. Every time some intellectually shallow Congressman uses the word “impeachment” it only adds to that persona. Our politicians have become nothing more than a bunch of 4 year old children…except most 4 year olds tend to be more mature that these idiots we’ve chosen to lead our nation.
They are deeply obsessed with Karl Rove, in a word it’s kinda creepy, and they are so pathetically enthralled with winning in ’08 that they lack the ability to focus on ANY major issue that needs urgent attention. To use the word incompetent is an understatement and maybe even inappropriate. I think incapable would be better. It’s like asking a carpenter to fly an airplane. He’s not incompetent, he’s simply incapable. That accurately describes Pelosi, Feinstein, Biden and the rest of these people that the voters felt were fit to tackle our toughest problems. Anyone else for an immediate recall?
I am not one to immediately jump in Bush’s corner on every issue. I have some frustrations with him. But this cheap politics is getting really old really fast and it MUST STOP NOW. In case no one noticed, there are some serious problems facing this country and putting Karl Rove in jail won’t solve ANY OF THEM. The Democrats need to show that they are capable of leading this country, and they need to do it fast. Hillary and Obama need to take a break from their campaign and restore some semblance of order in Washington. If the Dems can’t do this, then they need to step down and let someone step in who can. It’s that simple.
The firings were legal. The Justice Dept can do this anytime it wants and it doesn’t have to give a reason. It has happened before and will certainly happen again. The Attorney General has a responsibility to ensure that US laws are enforced and that those who break the law are prosecuted. These attorneys were obviously failing in that responsibility and so they were fired, as well they should have been. While I’m not a huge fan of Gonzalez - my perception to this point has been that he was soft on illegal immigrants - but this has changed that. I’m glad to see Gonzalez taking action. It’s about time someone did.
So there was nothing illegal here. The White House and the Justice Department did what every other modern day administration has done. Whenever there are employees not doing their job, the expectation should be that they lose that job and get replaced by someone more competent. Even Senator Feinstein at one time called for action against Southern California prosecutor Lam for her failure to prosecute : “Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., now one of Lam's strongest supporters, questioned Lam's immigration prosecution rates, although Feinstein said she was satisfied with the answer that Lam was focusing on big cases.”
Lam was one of the Attorneys fired by Gonzalez. Yet, Feinstein has mysteriously changed her tune and she is one of the Senators leading the attacks on Gonzalez and Bush. And so the Democrats are demanding an investigation and are threatening to subpoena several of Bush’s advisors, especially Karl Rove, which really begs the question: Why the deep obsession with this guy? The Dems have been after him for a decade and they just can’t seem to get over it. Bush has offered to allow Rove to be questioned privately, but not under oath. This isn’t acceptable to Congress. The Dems at least want his questioning on the record and they really want him to be under oath. Basically, they want to opportunity to “catch” him saying something inaccurate, a la Scooter Libby, so they can file perjury and obstruction of Justice charges and get rid of him once and for all. This is a violation of Presidential privilege and Bush is adamantly opposed to it. His reason: if his advisors are in danger of being subpoenaed every time they offer advice, then it poses a risk of hindering future advice…not a good policy for the Commander-in-Chief. Bush is right. He needs to protect his advisors and Congress should respect that. Yet, the obsession with “getting” Rove continues.
Let’s call this what it is, yet another witch hunt, if you’re keeping track of them as they go by. If it’s not Valeria Plame, it’s the suspicious firing of attorneys. No matter what Bush does, he will be scrutinized to extremes in a constant game of gotcha and it’s threatening our democratic political process. The Dems are clearly intent on creating scandal and portraying the Bush administration as corrupt when they have no basis for these claims. It’s disgusting politics and yet they continue to get away with it. The House is on the verge of complete gridlock. The Senate is getting nastier every day. There’s more bickering and arguing than on a kindergarten playground and nothing is getting accomplished. Pelosi has failed to control things. Biden hasn’t done much better. Meanwhile, we’re at war, oil prices are going up, eight thousand people enter this country illegally every day and Iran is detaining British sailors in the Persian Gulf. Doesn’t Congress have better things to do? Apparently not. Apparently, their priority is the need to drum up scandal and investigate suspected wrong-doing. In short, they are failing miserably to meet their responsibility to the American people. Every time some intellectually shallow Congressman uses the word “impeachment” it only adds to that persona. Our politicians have become nothing more than a bunch of 4 year old children…except most 4 year olds tend to be more mature that these idiots we’ve chosen to lead our nation.
They are deeply obsessed with Karl Rove, in a word it’s kinda creepy, and they are so pathetically enthralled with winning in ’08 that they lack the ability to focus on ANY major issue that needs urgent attention. To use the word incompetent is an understatement and maybe even inappropriate. I think incapable would be better. It’s like asking a carpenter to fly an airplane. He’s not incompetent, he’s simply incapable. That accurately describes Pelosi, Feinstein, Biden and the rest of these people that the voters felt were fit to tackle our toughest problems. Anyone else for an immediate recall?
I am not one to immediately jump in Bush’s corner on every issue. I have some frustrations with him. But this cheap politics is getting really old really fast and it MUST STOP NOW. In case no one noticed, there are some serious problems facing this country and putting Karl Rove in jail won’t solve ANY OF THEM. The Democrats need to show that they are capable of leading this country, and they need to do it fast. Hillary and Obama need to take a break from their campaign and restore some semblance of order in Washington. If the Dems can’t do this, then they need to step down and let someone step in who can. It’s that simple.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Hollywood at rock bottom
Hollywood at rock bottom
I have ranted many times about the cultural demise of this country and today is no different. I linked an article about an upcoming movie called “Captivity”. In this movie, a young, attractive woman is abducted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered. Apparently, that is the premise of the film. Not only that, but the marketing campaign features numerous posters pasted across the city showing this woman in various stages of the abduction, imprisonment, torture and murder. This is Hollywood’s idea of quality entertainment.
I would challenge anyone to dispute the notion that our culture is on a downslope, that we are devolving into something not good for society. You can see it every day and it truly is concerning; and Hollywood holds a good deal of the responsibility for this. Things in America are not okay when people pay money to see a movie about the brutal torture and murder of a woman. To many people, that’s a good Friday night out. If that doesn’t portray serious problems in this country then I don’t know what does.
Yes, I’m aware that it is fiction. It’s only a movie. That’s what Hollywood says. And, true, most people are capable of viewing such things without having those things affect their own actions. But there are many people, namely teenagers and young adults, who simply lack the intellectual and emotional maturity to properly process these images and know that it’s wrong. Many people have grown up with little, if any, parental influence. Many people don’t understand the brutality and outright wrongness in doing these kinds of things to another human being and it’s precisely those people who enjoy this kind of entertainment – that’s the audience for these films, the ones who happen to be a few bricks shy of a load. In short, many people are capable of such things and we have to ask the question of whether or not these films are enough to push them over that line that divides bad thoughts from bad actions. I think films like this certainly hold such potential and because of that Hollywood should show some restraint.
Yes, I know Hollywood will claim their “right” to make these movies. No one disputes that right. They have the right to free expression. The question isn’t “can” they make these movies, the question is “should” they make these movies. In a culture where anything goes and personal gratification and moral relativism is now the norm, the “should” really doesn’t matter. This is just another example of freedom being abused and mistreated, dare I say tortured, by those who don’t care about the consequences of their actions. So they make movies, video games, rap albums and other things and market them to children and adolescents – clearly in hopes of perpetuating an entire generation of moral relativists who are willing to tread on others for personal gratification, damn the consequences.
The Baby Boomer mentality of free love and bra burning has exploded on our culture and we see it all over the place. There are no boundaries anymore. There is nothing inappropriate. There is nothing too violent, too sexual, too profane and our society is paying a dear price for it. This won’t stop until we use our consumer power to stop it. If no one buys a ticket for these things, or pays money for the rap album, then they’ll stop producing them. It’s that simple. But I doubt that will happen.
It will take people on BOTH sides of American society to reject this kind of stuff. That includes progressives, and we all know that progressives will not condemn anything deemed “art” (unless, of course, that art depicts the imprisonment, torture and murder of Jesus Christ). And, by the way, I won’t let my child watch “The Passion” either, it’s simply too violent.
So, this post is likely just a vain attempt at appealing to the reason in all of us. Reason says that nothing good comes from movies like this, or from gangster rap. Reason says that this reflects poorly upon us as a society and a culture. Reason says that these things threaten to corrupt our children and destroy their innocence. Reason says that these things actually put people in danger. So will we listen to reason, or take the “freedom of expression” cop out and continue to allow Hollywood the freedom to erode our moral fabric. Remember, freedom is good, but too much freedom in the wrong hands and too much freedom without any moral boundaries (imposed by religion or simple self-restraint) can be bad for ALL of us. How much longer can we tolerate this? How much longer can we SURVIVE this?
I have ranted many times about the cultural demise of this country and today is no different. I linked an article about an upcoming movie called “Captivity”. In this movie, a young, attractive woman is abducted, imprisoned, tortured and murdered. Apparently, that is the premise of the film. Not only that, but the marketing campaign features numerous posters pasted across the city showing this woman in various stages of the abduction, imprisonment, torture and murder. This is Hollywood’s idea of quality entertainment.
I would challenge anyone to dispute the notion that our culture is on a downslope, that we are devolving into something not good for society. You can see it every day and it truly is concerning; and Hollywood holds a good deal of the responsibility for this. Things in America are not okay when people pay money to see a movie about the brutal torture and murder of a woman. To many people, that’s a good Friday night out. If that doesn’t portray serious problems in this country then I don’t know what does.
Yes, I’m aware that it is fiction. It’s only a movie. That’s what Hollywood says. And, true, most people are capable of viewing such things without having those things affect their own actions. But there are many people, namely teenagers and young adults, who simply lack the intellectual and emotional maturity to properly process these images and know that it’s wrong. Many people have grown up with little, if any, parental influence. Many people don’t understand the brutality and outright wrongness in doing these kinds of things to another human being and it’s precisely those people who enjoy this kind of entertainment – that’s the audience for these films, the ones who happen to be a few bricks shy of a load. In short, many people are capable of such things and we have to ask the question of whether or not these films are enough to push them over that line that divides bad thoughts from bad actions. I think films like this certainly hold such potential and because of that Hollywood should show some restraint.
Yes, I know Hollywood will claim their “right” to make these movies. No one disputes that right. They have the right to free expression. The question isn’t “can” they make these movies, the question is “should” they make these movies. In a culture where anything goes and personal gratification and moral relativism is now the norm, the “should” really doesn’t matter. This is just another example of freedom being abused and mistreated, dare I say tortured, by those who don’t care about the consequences of their actions. So they make movies, video games, rap albums and other things and market them to children and adolescents – clearly in hopes of perpetuating an entire generation of moral relativists who are willing to tread on others for personal gratification, damn the consequences.
The Baby Boomer mentality of free love and bra burning has exploded on our culture and we see it all over the place. There are no boundaries anymore. There is nothing inappropriate. There is nothing too violent, too sexual, too profane and our society is paying a dear price for it. This won’t stop until we use our consumer power to stop it. If no one buys a ticket for these things, or pays money for the rap album, then they’ll stop producing them. It’s that simple. But I doubt that will happen.
It will take people on BOTH sides of American society to reject this kind of stuff. That includes progressives, and we all know that progressives will not condemn anything deemed “art” (unless, of course, that art depicts the imprisonment, torture and murder of Jesus Christ). And, by the way, I won’t let my child watch “The Passion” either, it’s simply too violent.
So, this post is likely just a vain attempt at appealing to the reason in all of us. Reason says that nothing good comes from movies like this, or from gangster rap. Reason says that this reflects poorly upon us as a society and a culture. Reason says that these things threaten to corrupt our children and destroy their innocence. Reason says that these things actually put people in danger. So will we listen to reason, or take the “freedom of expression” cop out and continue to allow Hollywood the freedom to erode our moral fabric. Remember, freedom is good, but too much freedom in the wrong hands and too much freedom without any moral boundaries (imposed by religion or simple self-restraint) can be bad for ALL of us. How much longer can we tolerate this? How much longer can we SURVIVE this?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Congessman’s office vandalized
This is an example of what many in the “anti-war” crowd feel is appropriate behavior. Michigan Congressman Mike Rogers has become the victim of cheap criminal activity. His office was attacked recently and vandalized. Obviously, this was done because of his support for the Iraqi War and support for the US troops fighting that war. Red paint was splashed on signs and the interior of the office was heavily damaged. I don’t have to say how ridiculous this is. So much for “peaceful assembly.”
I’ve pretty much had it with these far Left extremists who 1) can’t engage in civilized debate without becoming hysterical, overly emotional or resorting to cheap name-calling (like homophobe, racist, sexist, etc) and 2) find it appropriate to resort to illegal behavior like this in a vain and self-destructive attempt to get their point across. This is bullying, nothing more. The fact is that there are many on the Left who won’t tolerate an opposing opinion and will do pretty much whatever it takes to silent those who disagree with them – including shouting them down in debate (remember what happened to the Minute Men in New England) or flat out intimidation. Do these people have any respect for Democracy?
This is an example of what many in the “anti-war” crowd feel is appropriate behavior. Michigan Congressman Mike Rogers has become the victim of cheap criminal activity. His office was attacked recently and vandalized. Obviously, this was done because of his support for the Iraqi War and support for the US troops fighting that war. Red paint was splashed on signs and the interior of the office was heavily damaged. I don’t have to say how ridiculous this is. So much for “peaceful assembly.”
I’ve pretty much had it with these far Left extremists who 1) can’t engage in civilized debate without becoming hysterical, overly emotional or resorting to cheap name-calling (like homophobe, racist, sexist, etc) and 2) find it appropriate to resort to illegal behavior like this in a vain and self-destructive attempt to get their point across. This is bullying, nothing more. The fact is that there are many on the Left who won’t tolerate an opposing opinion and will do pretty much whatever it takes to silent those who disagree with them – including shouting them down in debate (remember what happened to the Minute Men in New England) or flat out intimidation. Do these people have any respect for Democracy?
Sunday, March 18, 2007
"When Evil Prospers" named Best All Around Christian Fiction Novel of 2007
by Christianstoryteller.com
Thanks to Christian Storyteller for the award. If you'd like to purchase my book you can click here for the Amazon order page. As always, I welcome feedback on everything I write.
Here is the latest review (also on Amazon) from the Military Writers Society of America (written by R. Ballister): 5 STARS!
John Washburn has crafted a truly amazing tale about what could happen if America gives up her role as world superpower. Set shortly after the conclusion of the Second Gulf War, the book finds an America led by a very liberal president, put in office by the backlash generated by her predecessor's Middle East conflict. When terrorists strike in Texas even worse than 9/11, the President takes diplomacy over military action and bows to the UN. The Texas Governor, along with some patriotic Texans, realize that America cannot bow down and must strike back. Tangles with the Cuban military and a standoff at the Mexican border are just two of the results. The events are fictitious, of course, but Washburn's writing style makes them all too believable. He does an especially good job of expressing the emotional turmoil that his characters are feeling as they make very difficult choices. Further, I enjoyed the way he weaved his personal faith and values into his characters, adding even more depth and realism to them and their struggles. This book is an outstanding read, and will be thouroughly enjoyed by anyone who likes military or political fiction, as well as those who enjoy Christian fiction. It has my highest recommendation.
I am humbled by all the kind words. I appreciate the support of all my readers. God Bless America and God Bless Texas!
by Christianstoryteller.com
Thanks to Christian Storyteller for the award. If you'd like to purchase my book you can click here for the Amazon order page. As always, I welcome feedback on everything I write.
Here is the latest review (also on Amazon) from the Military Writers Society of America (written by R. Ballister): 5 STARS!
John Washburn has crafted a truly amazing tale about what could happen if America gives up her role as world superpower. Set shortly after the conclusion of the Second Gulf War, the book finds an America led by a very liberal president, put in office by the backlash generated by her predecessor's Middle East conflict. When terrorists strike in Texas even worse than 9/11, the President takes diplomacy over military action and bows to the UN. The Texas Governor, along with some patriotic Texans, realize that America cannot bow down and must strike back. Tangles with the Cuban military and a standoff at the Mexican border are just two of the results. The events are fictitious, of course, but Washburn's writing style makes them all too believable. He does an especially good job of expressing the emotional turmoil that his characters are feeling as they make very difficult choices. Further, I enjoyed the way he weaved his personal faith and values into his characters, adding even more depth and realism to them and their struggles. This book is an outstanding read, and will be thouroughly enjoyed by anyone who likes military or political fiction, as well as those who enjoy Christian fiction. It has my highest recommendation.
I am humbled by all the kind words. I appreciate the support of all my readers. God Bless America and God Bless Texas!
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Again, politics and war obviously don’t mix. After failing to cut funds from the war they so desperately hate, the Dems tried today to pass a resolution calling on troop withdrawal to begin in 120 days. Seems to me if they really wanted this then they would simply put forth a resolution to stop funding the war. But, no, that’s way too logical and it would make the Democrats look like they don’t support the troops. So what’s the next best thing? A resolution to being troop withdrawals now.
This is another example politicizing the war in Iraq. Both parties are guilty of it, make no mistake, but the Democrats seemed to have turned it into an art form. They can’t even get the votes for a non-binding resolution against the war. Everyone is too afraid of looking like the bad guy. So they try this. I’ll call it what it is…cowardice.
In short, if you want to end the war now then STOP FUNDING IT!!!! Don’t try this backdoor under the table crap that means nothing just so you can say “I supported the war while I was opposing it”. That just belittles our legislative process and makes America look ridiculous.
Needless to say, the measure was defeated, but the Dems got what they wanted…a chance to say they opposed the war on record. Now, since they continue to fund the war they oppose, they have the luxury of basking in whatever outcome occurs. They have their fence-riding legislation. They can do no wrong. And so we have, on record, 48 Senators officially saying that they are against a war that they have voted to fund. THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is politicizing the war. It is ridiculous.
I’ve included a vote tally on the measure. John Edwards and John McCain didn’t vote. That should tell you something about both men.
This is another example politicizing the war in Iraq. Both parties are guilty of it, make no mistake, but the Democrats seemed to have turned it into an art form. They can’t even get the votes for a non-binding resolution against the war. Everyone is too afraid of looking like the bad guy. So they try this. I’ll call it what it is…cowardice.
In short, if you want to end the war now then STOP FUNDING IT!!!! Don’t try this backdoor under the table crap that means nothing just so you can say “I supported the war while I was opposing it”. That just belittles our legislative process and makes America look ridiculous.
Needless to say, the measure was defeated, but the Dems got what they wanted…a chance to say they opposed the war on record. Now, since they continue to fund the war they oppose, they have the luxury of basking in whatever outcome occurs. They have their fence-riding legislation. They can do no wrong. And so we have, on record, 48 Senators officially saying that they are against a war that they have voted to fund. THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is politicizing the war. It is ridiculous.
I’ve included a vote tally on the measure. John Edwards and John McCain didn’t vote. That should tell you something about both men.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
From the New York Times March 13, 2007.
"Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”
Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind... read more here
This is great, even the scientists know Gore is a quack. This guy just needs to fade away into oblivion and spare the rest of us his intolerably boring lectures about why we're all killing the environment. What's even more surprising is that this story appeared in the New York Times! Well, as we used to say in Mississippi, 'even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then'. Congrats to the New York Times for the objectivity.
"Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”
Although Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind... read more here
This is great, even the scientists know Gore is a quack. This guy just needs to fade away into oblivion and spare the rest of us his intolerably boring lectures about why we're all killing the environment. What's even more surprising is that this story appeared in the New York Times! Well, as we used to say in Mississippi, 'even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then'. Congrats to the New York Times for the objectivity.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Edwards refuses to participate in debate b/c of Fox News
An upcoming Presidential debate will be held in Nevada in partnership with Fox News. There will be a national Fox reporter as well as a local affiliate reporter and a representative from Air America has been invited as well. Bill Richardson has indicated his willingness to participate, Obama and Clinton haven’t decided, and Edwards has declined in large part because of Fox’s presence and the perception that they are too far right.
I won’t deny that Fox is too far right in the eyes of some. Mainly, these are the people of Moveon.org who want only one side (their side, the Left side) of any issue reported and only want progressive commentary on the airwaves. Obviously, they feel that giving a voice, any voice, to the Right should not be allowed – this is confirmed with their 250,000 signature petition. Basically, they want censorship. And THIS is the party of free speech?
As a viewer of Fox, I can say that the network is 100% fair and balanced. For every conservative opinion rendered, there is always a balancing left opinion (or at least there is an offer to have that opinion – many on the Left refuse to come on the network, which is strange when they complain that there isn’t enough Left representation). So, when looked at in isolation, Fox is fair and balanced. But, compared with CNN, MSNBC, NBC and CBS, then Fox is very much Right. Why? Because those networks are so Left that they’re losing viewers by the handful every day. Have you seen Couric’s latest ratings? How about Larry King? So put a Center network next to a Left network and the Center network will certainly look “too” conservative. That’s why Liberals hate Fox News, especially the crazed Liberofascists who hate traditional opinion being voiced in any media.
What’s funny about Edwards is that Fox News has the largest cable news audience in America. Week after week Fox dominates the ratings. Why wouldn’t a Presidential candidate want to get some exposure with that audience? The fact is, Edwards’ voting base is far, far Left and he knows he doesn’t stand a chance with the folks in the middle. And the idea of facing a Center-type moderator scares him because he knows he may be asked some tough questions, unlike the softball lobs that a Leftie may ask. In short, Edwards is simply a coward. But what else would you expect from a personal injury attorney?
Note: Since this post was originally written (last week, yes I'm a little behind) the debate in question was cancelled mainly due to lack of interest from the Democrat candidates. This is surprising to me, mainly because while I expect Hillary and Edwards to duck things like this, I held Obama and Richardson to a higher level of esteem. Personally, I think they both would have been willing to do this debate, but probably gave in to the party - still equally disappointing. This is also extremely concerning in that it shows just how much pull Moveon.org has in the Democrat Party. This is an extremely radical group that is dangerous for America and should not be a major influence in one of the 2 main parties. I think this is a HUGE mistake by the Dems and they risk alienating a lot of "purple" voters who enjoy and respect Fox News.
An upcoming Presidential debate will be held in Nevada in partnership with Fox News. There will be a national Fox reporter as well as a local affiliate reporter and a representative from Air America has been invited as well. Bill Richardson has indicated his willingness to participate, Obama and Clinton haven’t decided, and Edwards has declined in large part because of Fox’s presence and the perception that they are too far right.
I won’t deny that Fox is too far right in the eyes of some. Mainly, these are the people of Moveon.org who want only one side (their side, the Left side) of any issue reported and only want progressive commentary on the airwaves. Obviously, they feel that giving a voice, any voice, to the Right should not be allowed – this is confirmed with their 250,000 signature petition. Basically, they want censorship. And THIS is the party of free speech?
As a viewer of Fox, I can say that the network is 100% fair and balanced. For every conservative opinion rendered, there is always a balancing left opinion (or at least there is an offer to have that opinion – many on the Left refuse to come on the network, which is strange when they complain that there isn’t enough Left representation). So, when looked at in isolation, Fox is fair and balanced. But, compared with CNN, MSNBC, NBC and CBS, then Fox is very much Right. Why? Because those networks are so Left that they’re losing viewers by the handful every day. Have you seen Couric’s latest ratings? How about Larry King? So put a Center network next to a Left network and the Center network will certainly look “too” conservative. That’s why Liberals hate Fox News, especially the crazed Liberofascists who hate traditional opinion being voiced in any media.
What’s funny about Edwards is that Fox News has the largest cable news audience in America. Week after week Fox dominates the ratings. Why wouldn’t a Presidential candidate want to get some exposure with that audience? The fact is, Edwards’ voting base is far, far Left and he knows he doesn’t stand a chance with the folks in the middle. And the idea of facing a Center-type moderator scares him because he knows he may be asked some tough questions, unlike the softball lobs that a Leftie may ask. In short, Edwards is simply a coward. But what else would you expect from a personal injury attorney?
Note: Since this post was originally written (last week, yes I'm a little behind) the debate in question was cancelled mainly due to lack of interest from the Democrat candidates. This is surprising to me, mainly because while I expect Hillary and Edwards to duck things like this, I held Obama and Richardson to a higher level of esteem. Personally, I think they both would have been willing to do this debate, but probably gave in to the party - still equally disappointing. This is also extremely concerning in that it shows just how much pull Moveon.org has in the Democrat Party. This is an extremely radical group that is dangerous for America and should not be a major influence in one of the 2 main parties. I think this is a HUGE mistake by the Dems and they risk alienating a lot of "purple" voters who enjoy and respect Fox News.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Finally it ends
You know, I’ve just about had it with this Scooter Libby-Valerie Plame issue. This is one of the most ridiculous and overblown “scandals” in American history, basically created for the sole purpose of getting Karl Rove out of Washington. Not that I care about Rove, but I think that every phony scandal like this does nothing but weaken our country.
Let’s recap. Valerie Plame is tasked with investigating Nigeria and whether Saddam attempted to purchase yellow cake from them. Plame works at the CIA, but is hardly an “operative” as many people make her out to be. She’s not an undercover agent behind enemy lines and in constant danger. She is a desk jockey. She is in no more everyday danger than you or I. She decides to send her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, to Nigeria. She convinces her supervisor to agree to it, knowing that Wilson is substantially anti-war and opposed to any action Bush may take in Iraq. Wilson is, in so many words, a bumbling fool. He has no real intelligence gathering background. He is not a spy. Nothing he has done in his political past comes even close to resembling the competence this mission required.
So in his vast investigation he concludes that Saddam did not try to purchase yellow cake. Yet, many major intelligence organizations found that he did, and that Joe Wilson was simply wrong in his discovery – among these were the British intelligence. Afterward, a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report would find that Wilson was wrong and Wilson's own notes suggest the same even though he disagrees with his VERY OWN findings and said so in a New York Times editorial. So the US decided to go with what the British and other intelligence agencies said instead of what former ambassador Joe Wilson said. Wilson and Plame reacted by basically attacking the administration for ignoring their intelligence report and going to war without evidence that it was necessary. Basically, it was politics as usual.
So somewhere along the line some administration official said that Plame worked at the CIA. Not that this was a surprise. Apparently, just about every journalist in Washington knew that. But, nonetheless, the administration had “outed” a CIA desk jockey, thereby putting her life in danger – supposedly as revenge for her criticism of the administration. Politics as usual.
Now, Scooter Libby faces jail for denying he acted surprised or not telling someone about an interview or what he said that she said when they said it and what they said and whether or not he was surprised by what they said…or something like that. Who cares? Basically, Libby is guilty of gossip or, more accurately, not paying proper attention to the gossip. Never mind that the prosecutor was appointed to investigate the possible illegal outing of a CIA agent. Never mind that he couldn't find ANY evidence of this in the Administration. Apparently, the best he could do is get the Vice President's Chief of Staff for gossiping and failing to have an adequate memory of the gossip. Again, this is about as ridiculous as it gets. And, somehow, the jury considers Tim Russert to be a credible witness, in other words non-partisan, and they’re sympathetic with Libby because he was a fall guy and others should be facing the music. For what?
Scooter Libby committed perjury, I guess, which is the same thing Bill Clinton did. He obstructed justice similarly to Sandy Berger - who removed classified documents from the national archives. Clinton was disbarred, Berger got community service (or some other slap on the wrist) and Libby faces PRISON? Are you kidding me? And now Clinton makes millions on the lecture circuit. And they want to say that justice was done? Gimme a break. Ann Coulter makes a good point when she says that it is clearly against the law to be a Republican (I love this article) in the eyes of the Dems, the Justice system and the mainstream media.
This whole thing was nothing but an overblown witch hunt that was used to help oust the GOP in the 2006 elections and will no doubt be used for the same purpose in 08. I’m just glad it’s over…at least I hope it’s over. America is better than this and I’m tired of our politicians reducing this country to a two-bit circus act.
You know, I’ve just about had it with this Scooter Libby-Valerie Plame issue. This is one of the most ridiculous and overblown “scandals” in American history, basically created for the sole purpose of getting Karl Rove out of Washington. Not that I care about Rove, but I think that every phony scandal like this does nothing but weaken our country.
Let’s recap. Valerie Plame is tasked with investigating Nigeria and whether Saddam attempted to purchase yellow cake from them. Plame works at the CIA, but is hardly an “operative” as many people make her out to be. She’s not an undercover agent behind enemy lines and in constant danger. She is a desk jockey. She is in no more everyday danger than you or I. She decides to send her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, to Nigeria. She convinces her supervisor to agree to it, knowing that Wilson is substantially anti-war and opposed to any action Bush may take in Iraq. Wilson is, in so many words, a bumbling fool. He has no real intelligence gathering background. He is not a spy. Nothing he has done in his political past comes even close to resembling the competence this mission required.
So in his vast investigation he concludes that Saddam did not try to purchase yellow cake. Yet, many major intelligence organizations found that he did, and that Joe Wilson was simply wrong in his discovery – among these were the British intelligence. Afterward, a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report would find that Wilson was wrong and Wilson's own notes suggest the same even though he disagrees with his VERY OWN findings and said so in a New York Times editorial. So the US decided to go with what the British and other intelligence agencies said instead of what former ambassador Joe Wilson said. Wilson and Plame reacted by basically attacking the administration for ignoring their intelligence report and going to war without evidence that it was necessary. Basically, it was politics as usual.
So somewhere along the line some administration official said that Plame worked at the CIA. Not that this was a surprise. Apparently, just about every journalist in Washington knew that. But, nonetheless, the administration had “outed” a CIA desk jockey, thereby putting her life in danger – supposedly as revenge for her criticism of the administration. Politics as usual.
Now, Scooter Libby faces jail for denying he acted surprised or not telling someone about an interview or what he said that she said when they said it and what they said and whether or not he was surprised by what they said…or something like that. Who cares? Basically, Libby is guilty of gossip or, more accurately, not paying proper attention to the gossip. Never mind that the prosecutor was appointed to investigate the possible illegal outing of a CIA agent. Never mind that he couldn't find ANY evidence of this in the Administration. Apparently, the best he could do is get the Vice President's Chief of Staff for gossiping and failing to have an adequate memory of the gossip. Again, this is about as ridiculous as it gets. And, somehow, the jury considers Tim Russert to be a credible witness, in other words non-partisan, and they’re sympathetic with Libby because he was a fall guy and others should be facing the music. For what?
Scooter Libby committed perjury, I guess, which is the same thing Bill Clinton did. He obstructed justice similarly to Sandy Berger - who removed classified documents from the national archives. Clinton was disbarred, Berger got community service (or some other slap on the wrist) and Libby faces PRISON? Are you kidding me? And now Clinton makes millions on the lecture circuit. And they want to say that justice was done? Gimme a break. Ann Coulter makes a good point when she says that it is clearly against the law to be a Republican (I love this article) in the eyes of the Dems, the Justice system and the mainstream media.
This whole thing was nothing but an overblown witch hunt that was used to help oust the GOP in the 2006 elections and will no doubt be used for the same purpose in 08. I’m just glad it’s over…at least I hope it’s over. America is better than this and I’m tired of our politicians reducing this country to a two-bit circus act.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Woman sues Planned Parenthood and two physicians for failing to adequately abort her pregnancy.
Here’s the basic story: This woman asked for an abortion and went through planned parenthood for it. The first trimester abortion failed, why I don’t know. After all, it’s not that hard to abort a fetus. You basically insert a tool or a vacuum into the uterus and remove the contents. Somehow this fetus survived that. Then, at 20 weeks gestation, she saw another doctor for pelvic pain. Somehow the pregnancy didn’t show and was not detected. She went on to subsequently give birth to a healthy child who is now 2 years old. Some people would call this a miracle, especially the thousands and thousands who struggle with fertility problems their entire lives, but this woman sees her child as a nuisance and feels she shouldn’t have to carry the financial “burden” of paying for the rearing of the child. How obscene. In a just world, a judge would remove the child from this inappreciative woman’s custody and give her to a couple who would raise the child with the love and care that she deserves. Instead, the woman wants financial compensation for her “burden”. One wonders what kind of childhood this little girl will have? Will any amount of money make it a good one? It seems to me that this poor girl is doomed because her mother views her as an unwanted burden. This mother shames women all over the world. What happens if she wins a lot of money and her daughter one day asks "Mom, how did we get all this money?" Hmmm.
However, the fact that Planned Parenthood is being sued brings me a little joy. It’s about time they answered for the things they do, however distorted this case may be. Talk about mixed emotions. There are many, many couples who are waiting to adopt. These are good people who can’t have children of their own and Planned Parenthood has played a substantial role in denying them that privilege through indirect means. I wonder if there is a possible class action suit here? I’m certain there are lawyers who would take that case. Not that class action suits are good, but I couldn’t think of a better target for such litigation.
As for this poor girl, I hope somehow she finds her way. The chips are certainly stacked against her. Her existence is miraculous. If she doesn’t end up on drugs, alcohol or pregnant before she’s 15 via crappy parenting it will truly be another miracle.
Here’s the basic story: This woman asked for an abortion and went through planned parenthood for it. The first trimester abortion failed, why I don’t know. After all, it’s not that hard to abort a fetus. You basically insert a tool or a vacuum into the uterus and remove the contents. Somehow this fetus survived that. Then, at 20 weeks gestation, she saw another doctor for pelvic pain. Somehow the pregnancy didn’t show and was not detected. She went on to subsequently give birth to a healthy child who is now 2 years old. Some people would call this a miracle, especially the thousands and thousands who struggle with fertility problems their entire lives, but this woman sees her child as a nuisance and feels she shouldn’t have to carry the financial “burden” of paying for the rearing of the child. How obscene. In a just world, a judge would remove the child from this inappreciative woman’s custody and give her to a couple who would raise the child with the love and care that she deserves. Instead, the woman wants financial compensation for her “burden”. One wonders what kind of childhood this little girl will have? Will any amount of money make it a good one? It seems to me that this poor girl is doomed because her mother views her as an unwanted burden. This mother shames women all over the world. What happens if she wins a lot of money and her daughter one day asks "Mom, how did we get all this money?" Hmmm.
However, the fact that Planned Parenthood is being sued brings me a little joy. It’s about time they answered for the things they do, however distorted this case may be. Talk about mixed emotions. There are many, many couples who are waiting to adopt. These are good people who can’t have children of their own and Planned Parenthood has played a substantial role in denying them that privilege through indirect means. I wonder if there is a possible class action suit here? I’m certain there are lawyers who would take that case. Not that class action suits are good, but I couldn’t think of a better target for such litigation.
As for this poor girl, I hope somehow she finds her way. The chips are certainly stacked against her. Her existence is miraculous. If she doesn’t end up on drugs, alcohol or pregnant before she’s 15 via crappy parenting it will truly be another miracle.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Edwards: Jesus would be appalled at our selfishness.
It always amazes me how Democratic presidential candidates suddenly find religion while on the campaign trail and sometimes, in the case of Hillary Clinton, discover a fake urban southern accent. John Edwards has been talking about Jesus recently and I can’t help but chuckle about it. Apparently, according to Edwards, Jesus would not approve of our selfishness and our willingness to wage unnecessary wars. So says the prophet Edwards. Which brings up a few questions in my mind.
First, if Jesus would not approve of the Iraq War, then why did Edwards vote for it. In fact, during his 2004 campaign he stood by that vote and basically said we were doing the right thing in Iraq. Of course, once he was selected as Kerry’s running mate his tone changed. Would Jesus have changed his mind like that?
And remember, Edwards is one of the wealthiest politicians in this country, next to Al Gore of course. Edwards made that money by suing doctors, mainly obstetricians, for failing to perform C-sections and thus, according to him, caused many children to be born with cerebral palsy. Edwards made a lot of money doing this and it turns out he was wrong. Science has proven that delaying a C-section does NOT cause cerebral palsy. Meanwhile, many a physician’s career has been ruined by Edward’s efforts, and many a dollar paid to undeserving individuals, including Edwards himself, based on this false accusation. Not to mention the “hidden” costs of increased malpractice insurance and loss of healthcare access for people when their doctors close up shop. Has Edwards made amends? Has he given back any of this money? Has he even so much as apologized for being wrong? Would Jesus approve of this?
Is selfish worse than government imposed taxes that harm families in order to provide for bureaucrat-infested entitlement programs that have proven to be ineffective? It amazes me how the Left trusts the government to care for poor and is perfectly willing to raise YOUR taxes to do it. Perhaps if Edwards did just a smidge of research on this, he would discover that the VAST majority of individual charitable contributions come from conservatives, specifically conservative Christians, and NOT from the "champions of the poor" on the Left. Oh yeah, I don't see Edwards volunteering any information on his past charity work either.
Hopefully, no one will buy this garbage. Edwards is a phony in every sense of the word. He’s an ambulance chaser, a greasy used car salesman who will do anything and say anything to get your vote. Don’t be fooled. Don’t cheapen your vote. Don’t fall for this guy’s pandering.
It always amazes me how Democratic presidential candidates suddenly find religion while on the campaign trail and sometimes, in the case of Hillary Clinton, discover a fake urban southern accent. John Edwards has been talking about Jesus recently and I can’t help but chuckle about it. Apparently, according to Edwards, Jesus would not approve of our selfishness and our willingness to wage unnecessary wars. So says the prophet Edwards. Which brings up a few questions in my mind.
First, if Jesus would not approve of the Iraq War, then why did Edwards vote for it. In fact, during his 2004 campaign he stood by that vote and basically said we were doing the right thing in Iraq. Of course, once he was selected as Kerry’s running mate his tone changed. Would Jesus have changed his mind like that?
And remember, Edwards is one of the wealthiest politicians in this country, next to Al Gore of course. Edwards made that money by suing doctors, mainly obstetricians, for failing to perform C-sections and thus, according to him, caused many children to be born with cerebral palsy. Edwards made a lot of money doing this and it turns out he was wrong. Science has proven that delaying a C-section does NOT cause cerebral palsy. Meanwhile, many a physician’s career has been ruined by Edward’s efforts, and many a dollar paid to undeserving individuals, including Edwards himself, based on this false accusation. Not to mention the “hidden” costs of increased malpractice insurance and loss of healthcare access for people when their doctors close up shop. Has Edwards made amends? Has he given back any of this money? Has he even so much as apologized for being wrong? Would Jesus approve of this?
Is selfish worse than government imposed taxes that harm families in order to provide for bureaucrat-infested entitlement programs that have proven to be ineffective? It amazes me how the Left trusts the government to care for poor and is perfectly willing to raise YOUR taxes to do it. Perhaps if Edwards did just a smidge of research on this, he would discover that the VAST majority of individual charitable contributions come from conservatives, specifically conservative Christians, and NOT from the "champions of the poor" on the Left. Oh yeah, I don't see Edwards volunteering any information on his past charity work either.
Hopefully, no one will buy this garbage. Edwards is a phony in every sense of the word. He’s an ambulance chaser, a greasy used car salesman who will do anything and say anything to get your vote. Don’t be fooled. Don’t cheapen your vote. Don’t fall for this guy’s pandering.
Monday, March 05, 2007
For those who don't know, in addition to my blogging I am also an avid reader and recently started posting reviews of the books I read on Amazon. Here is the review for Newt Gingrich's latest:
Newt Gingrich takes the reader on a walking tour through Washington for one purpose: to remind us that God played a significant role in the founding, building, and survival of America. Our capital city is teeming with not-so-subtle references to a divine being, a creator, to whom we owe so much.
Honest, objective historians and most educated Americans already know this. In fact, Gingrich's target audience won't get much from the premise of the book. But what you will get is an appreciation for what the Founding Fathers intended this country to become and an understanding that what we have become has, in many ways, contradicted that intent. Even Jefferson, the left's favorite deist and Mr. Wall of Separation himself, attended Christian church services in the capitol building. It's hard to imagine that coinciding with a complete "separation of church and state".
I appreciate this book, and so will many others. Judeo-Christian principles were paramount in America's 200+ year history and that should never be forgotten if this country is going to survive another 200 years. This is a truly inspiring walk through time and through the
thoughts and hopes of those who built the greatest nation known to man.
A fellow reader (also named John) saw this review and, after rating it favorably (I appreciate the objectivism), asked an intriguing question:
How does religion help us 'survive' ? Look at the place where Christianity, Islam, and Judaism started. Is that a region of the world that we should emulate ? Is it at peace ? Or is it pretty screwed up. The truth is, the Founders were Enlightenment thinkers, not Theocrats. The founding norm of the country is and was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", not something religious like "lead a good life so God will like you and not burn you forever in fire". I reject the notion that "God" played a big role. We are a secular country with many Christians, not a Christian nation.
I include this because I really like what John had to say. To me, it personifies the gross misunderstanding that many people have about modern day Christians. I don't think it's intentional. I feel these people are truly concerned about the intent of Christians in America and they believe Christians seek to transform America into a theocratic nation - that's really what they think of us. So allow me to respond to John's question in an attempt to clear the air.
First, since John cited Jefferson's words, I'll allow Jefferson to answer. He asks how religion helps us survive. Jefferson said it best when he said that all men are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This phrase is so paramount in America's foundation that what I say just doesn't do them justice. Jefferson believed, as well as the other founding fathers, that human and civil rights came from God. Not from government, not from King, not from courts or judges, not from the state or the military or the priests. These rights came from God, which means that ALL men are endowed with them - not just whites or males, not just the rich or the smart, not just Christians or Americans - All men. And notice that he didn't say entitled, which would imply that at some point this entitlement would have to be granted. No, we are ENDOWED, which means that any denial (outside of willfull surrender) of these rights is a violation of God's law and God's creation. We fought many wars to defend this truth, and suffered many hardships because of it, because we are unique in that belief. Man can't grant rights, and man can't take them away when they are endowed by God. That's how religion has helped us survive. This belief in rights from God has kept us honest and prevented us from becoming over-governing, and it was the basis of thought that gave birth to this country.
Yes, our founding fathers were enlightenment thinkers, but that doesn't mean they weren't religious. This country was founded for the sole purpose of freedom of religion because they wanted the right to practice their religion freely - not as the King suggested they do. Suggesting the nation was founded as a secular one is just plain inaccurate. Our laws are based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. Any law professor worth his weight will tell you that. Does that mean we are a theocratic nation?
The truth is that a true Christian will attest to the importance of free will. Christians understand that God created man with free will - the right and the ability to choose for himself - so that man can CHOOSE whether or not to serve Him. God does not want puppets, and God does not approve of forcing others into unwelcome worship. Any Christian worth his weight will agree to that. So Christians absolutely do NOT want America to be a Christian theocracy for that very reason. Forcing others into your religion against their will is ungodly - the Bible is absolutely clear on this. Such a government would actually be anti-Christian to its core. I would be the first to stand against it.
What Christians want is adherence to the founding principles of this nation which are laws based on Judeo Christian philosophy and the presence of religion in the public square. We want to acknowledge that America exists through God's grace and exists to ensure that ALL men realize the rights that they have been endowed with, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We want this because we understand that freedom is both splendid and dangerous. Freedom requires restraint otherwise we become a society without barriers, without limitations. I couldn't imagine anything more dangerous. The government can't achieve that kind of restraint. We can't legislate morality. But religion does provide that restraint, through principles that we adhere to on an individual basis. That's the only way to achieve a peaceful society - when every citizen is self-disciplined. The Left seems to think that peace can only come without religion. What a horrible, horrible world that would be. Freedom without religion is self-destructive because unlimited freedom eventually leads to lawlessness and an "anything goes" culture. Such a culture can't survive. Such a culture would collapse from within due to lack of order. The Romans learned this lesson themselves. We must have some moral basis to keep our freedom from consuming us. In short, we must have restraint. Religion grants such restraint.
Yes, religion has been the basis for much violence and hatred throughout history, but this has been propagated by men who seem intent on reducing God to their own size (as Bono once said) and probably for more selfish reasons that go beyond converting others. The fact is that despite these misguided extremists, the vast majority of religious people in the world are indeed peaceful and respectful of others. It's those who don't acknowledge a higher power or someone/something greater than themselves that we must look out for.
We don't want a theocracy. We want a traditional America. We want God to have a role in America as has always been the case. Denying this history is simple ignorance, denying this in the future is suicidal, which is why we are so passionate about it to the point of seeming "extremist". We are not extremists. We want true religious freedom, but not at the cost of eliminating religion.
Newt Gingrich takes the reader on a walking tour through Washington for one purpose: to remind us that God played a significant role in the founding, building, and survival of America. Our capital city is teeming with not-so-subtle references to a divine being, a creator, to whom we owe so much.
Honest, objective historians and most educated Americans already know this. In fact, Gingrich's target audience won't get much from the premise of the book. But what you will get is an appreciation for what the Founding Fathers intended this country to become and an understanding that what we have become has, in many ways, contradicted that intent. Even Jefferson, the left's favorite deist and Mr. Wall of Separation himself, attended Christian church services in the capitol building. It's hard to imagine that coinciding with a complete "separation of church and state".
I appreciate this book, and so will many others. Judeo-Christian principles were paramount in America's 200+ year history and that should never be forgotten if this country is going to survive another 200 years. This is a truly inspiring walk through time and through the
thoughts and hopes of those who built the greatest nation known to man.
A fellow reader (also named John) saw this review and, after rating it favorably (I appreciate the objectivism), asked an intriguing question:
How does religion help us 'survive' ? Look at the place where Christianity, Islam, and Judaism started. Is that a region of the world that we should emulate ? Is it at peace ? Or is it pretty screwed up. The truth is, the Founders were Enlightenment thinkers, not Theocrats. The founding norm of the country is and was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", not something religious like "lead a good life so God will like you and not burn you forever in fire". I reject the notion that "God" played a big role. We are a secular country with many Christians, not a Christian nation.
I include this because I really like what John had to say. To me, it personifies the gross misunderstanding that many people have about modern day Christians. I don't think it's intentional. I feel these people are truly concerned about the intent of Christians in America and they believe Christians seek to transform America into a theocratic nation - that's really what they think of us. So allow me to respond to John's question in an attempt to clear the air.
First, since John cited Jefferson's words, I'll allow Jefferson to answer. He asks how religion helps us survive. Jefferson said it best when he said that all men are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This phrase is so paramount in America's foundation that what I say just doesn't do them justice. Jefferson believed, as well as the other founding fathers, that human and civil rights came from God. Not from government, not from King, not from courts or judges, not from the state or the military or the priests. These rights came from God, which means that ALL men are endowed with them - not just whites or males, not just the rich or the smart, not just Christians or Americans - All men. And notice that he didn't say entitled, which would imply that at some point this entitlement would have to be granted. No, we are ENDOWED, which means that any denial (outside of willfull surrender) of these rights is a violation of God's law and God's creation. We fought many wars to defend this truth, and suffered many hardships because of it, because we are unique in that belief. Man can't grant rights, and man can't take them away when they are endowed by God. That's how religion has helped us survive. This belief in rights from God has kept us honest and prevented us from becoming over-governing, and it was the basis of thought that gave birth to this country.
Yes, our founding fathers were enlightenment thinkers, but that doesn't mean they weren't religious. This country was founded for the sole purpose of freedom of religion because they wanted the right to practice their religion freely - not as the King suggested they do. Suggesting the nation was founded as a secular one is just plain inaccurate. Our laws are based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. Any law professor worth his weight will tell you that. Does that mean we are a theocratic nation?
The truth is that a true Christian will attest to the importance of free will. Christians understand that God created man with free will - the right and the ability to choose for himself - so that man can CHOOSE whether or not to serve Him. God does not want puppets, and God does not approve of forcing others into unwelcome worship. Any Christian worth his weight will agree to that. So Christians absolutely do NOT want America to be a Christian theocracy for that very reason. Forcing others into your religion against their will is ungodly - the Bible is absolutely clear on this. Such a government would actually be anti-Christian to its core. I would be the first to stand against it.
What Christians want is adherence to the founding principles of this nation which are laws based on Judeo Christian philosophy and the presence of religion in the public square. We want to acknowledge that America exists through God's grace and exists to ensure that ALL men realize the rights that they have been endowed with, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We want this because we understand that freedom is both splendid and dangerous. Freedom requires restraint otherwise we become a society without barriers, without limitations. I couldn't imagine anything more dangerous. The government can't achieve that kind of restraint. We can't legislate morality. But religion does provide that restraint, through principles that we adhere to on an individual basis. That's the only way to achieve a peaceful society - when every citizen is self-disciplined. The Left seems to think that peace can only come without religion. What a horrible, horrible world that would be. Freedom without religion is self-destructive because unlimited freedom eventually leads to lawlessness and an "anything goes" culture. Such a culture can't survive. Such a culture would collapse from within due to lack of order. The Romans learned this lesson themselves. We must have some moral basis to keep our freedom from consuming us. In short, we must have restraint. Religion grants such restraint.
Yes, religion has been the basis for much violence and hatred throughout history, but this has been propagated by men who seem intent on reducing God to their own size (as Bono once said) and probably for more selfish reasons that go beyond converting others. The fact is that despite these misguided extremists, the vast majority of religious people in the world are indeed peaceful and respectful of others. It's those who don't acknowledge a higher power or someone/something greater than themselves that we must look out for.
We don't want a theocracy. We want a traditional America. We want God to have a role in America as has always been the case. Denying this history is simple ignorance, denying this in the future is suicidal, which is why we are so passionate about it to the point of seeming "extremist". We are not extremists. We want true religious freedom, but not at the cost of eliminating religion.
Gore spinning the media’s reporting of global warming
Al Gore is one individual who needs to be watched closely and I can’t pass up the opportunity to call him on his latest criticism of the media. This from the attached link:
“A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.”
Gore uses this study as the basis of his argument that the mainstream media is misleading the public and therefore has a lot to do with many people not accepting the “inconvenient truth”. Hold it just one second, big Al. This is spin like never before and I for one will not let Al get away with it.
Yes it’s true that zero percent of scientific papers disagree that global warming exists. And, most educated objective people will also agree that global warming exists. I am one of them. Global warming is real. Data shows that earth’s temperatures are increasing slightly. That is not disputed.
The debate rests in what is causing that rise. Skeptics like myself say that there isn’t sufficient data showing human activity to be the cause and that many studies show the rising temperature to be nothing more than a typical cyclic trend that the earth has gone through many times in the past. “Believers” say that the rise in temperature is do to burning fossil fuels and therefore is human induced. That’s the disagreement. Most newspapers, for the sake of time and paper, will not detail that debate with every story. So it’s a common understanding that when a media outlet uses the general term “global warming” they are referring to human induced climate change. Most logically capable people understand this and know what they mean. Apparently, Al Gore doesn’t. So he feels the need to attack the press for inaccurate reporting when, in fact, they are actually reporting things correctly, it’s just his method of spin that generates his objection. This is typical of Gore and I think typical for the whole global warming crowd. And this is considered one of his “strongest” arguments? Which brings up a familiar question…If human induced climate change is real, then why the need for spin?
Gore has no credibility with me or with anyone else who possesses even a remotely open mind. The guy has long since gone off the deep end and until he finds his way back to reality his antics should be limited to the comics page of the newspapers.
And speaking of off the deep end. A former Canadian defense minister seems to think that the answer to global warming rests in UFO technology that many governments, including the US, are hiding from the world. He cites the Roswell crash as an example. No joke, this is an actual news story. Aliens would have very sophisticated propulsion systems that don’t involve fossil fuels and if we would just go public with it then our problems would be solved. Anyone want to bet that Al Gore is on his way to Canada right now for the obligatory photo op with UFO-guy?
"I would like to see what (alien) technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation ... that could be a way to save our planet," Paul Hellyer, 83, told the Ottawa Citizen. "We need to persuade governments to come clean on what they know. Some of us suspect they know quite a lot, and it might be enough to save our planet if applied quickly enough," he said.
Is this the typical global warming believer? More nuclear power isn’t an option. No, that won’t solve our energy problems. Instead, all we need to do is what the aliens do. Maybe we should even negotiate a Mars Free Trade Agreement. Surely that would help our economy. And since we’re going to use their technology, shouldn’t we allow them a seat in the UN? What about immigration? I’m sure there are martians who seek to come to America for a better life. Shouldn’t we develop a path to citizenship for our Mars neighbors? And some of you have said that teaching abstinence to high school kids is unrealistic. Oh, okay then.
Geez. If I were a global warming believer I’d be quite embarrassed right about now.
Al Gore is one individual who needs to be watched closely and I can’t pass up the opportunity to call him on his latest criticism of the media. This from the attached link:
“A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.”
Gore uses this study as the basis of his argument that the mainstream media is misleading the public and therefore has a lot to do with many people not accepting the “inconvenient truth”. Hold it just one second, big Al. This is spin like never before and I for one will not let Al get away with it.
Yes it’s true that zero percent of scientific papers disagree that global warming exists. And, most educated objective people will also agree that global warming exists. I am one of them. Global warming is real. Data shows that earth’s temperatures are increasing slightly. That is not disputed.
The debate rests in what is causing that rise. Skeptics like myself say that there isn’t sufficient data showing human activity to be the cause and that many studies show the rising temperature to be nothing more than a typical cyclic trend that the earth has gone through many times in the past. “Believers” say that the rise in temperature is do to burning fossil fuels and therefore is human induced. That’s the disagreement. Most newspapers, for the sake of time and paper, will not detail that debate with every story. So it’s a common understanding that when a media outlet uses the general term “global warming” they are referring to human induced climate change. Most logically capable people understand this and know what they mean. Apparently, Al Gore doesn’t. So he feels the need to attack the press for inaccurate reporting when, in fact, they are actually reporting things correctly, it’s just his method of spin that generates his objection. This is typical of Gore and I think typical for the whole global warming crowd. And this is considered one of his “strongest” arguments? Which brings up a familiar question…If human induced climate change is real, then why the need for spin?
Gore has no credibility with me or with anyone else who possesses even a remotely open mind. The guy has long since gone off the deep end and until he finds his way back to reality his antics should be limited to the comics page of the newspapers.
And speaking of off the deep end. A former Canadian defense minister seems to think that the answer to global warming rests in UFO technology that many governments, including the US, are hiding from the world. He cites the Roswell crash as an example. No joke, this is an actual news story. Aliens would have very sophisticated propulsion systems that don’t involve fossil fuels and if we would just go public with it then our problems would be solved. Anyone want to bet that Al Gore is on his way to Canada right now for the obligatory photo op with UFO-guy?
"I would like to see what (alien) technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation ... that could be a way to save our planet," Paul Hellyer, 83, told the Ottawa Citizen. "We need to persuade governments to come clean on what they know. Some of us suspect they know quite a lot, and it might be enough to save our planet if applied quickly enough," he said.
Is this the typical global warming believer? More nuclear power isn’t an option. No, that won’t solve our energy problems. Instead, all we need to do is what the aliens do. Maybe we should even negotiate a Mars Free Trade Agreement. Surely that would help our economy. And since we’re going to use their technology, shouldn’t we allow them a seat in the UN? What about immigration? I’m sure there are martians who seek to come to America for a better life. Shouldn’t we develop a path to citizenship for our Mars neighbors? And some of you have said that teaching abstinence to high school kids is unrealistic. Oh, okay then.
Geez. If I were a global warming believer I’d be quite embarrassed right about now.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Parents swap baby for down payment on a car
Brother and sister fighting incest laws
Here are just two stories that can be seen in today’s headlines. I think they illustrate the obvious, something we all know but only a few are willing to admit. Humans, as a species, are declining morally. Time and again I’ve mentioned on this blog that we’ve become gluttons of freedom. Take a look around, starting with these headlines, and you’ll see what I mean. Freedom is good, but freedom without God leads to utter chaos. Have we reached that point yet?
Babies have become bartering tools. Siblings are fighting for the right to have sex with each other. Child molestation is being called a disease, not a crime. Human fetuses are valued more for their scientific “potential” than their humanity. Children are being neglected by their parents, and we see the results every day – school shootings, rising pregnancy rates, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse. We’ve simply become too selfish and self-involved to raise kids with the love and attention needed for healthy development. I could go on, but you get the point.
Liberals would say this is a problem that the government should fix. We should make laws, we should increase government funding, blah blah blah. I’ve said before, you can’t legislate morality and America – indeed the entire world – is facing a severe morality problem. The fact that we have to make more laws is a symptom of such a problem. But what would you expect from a society that teaches Darwinism – a theory that removes the sacred divinity from man? Or a society that advocates abortion on demand so women can basically have sex with men they don’t want to have children with? Or a society that advocates scientific research on human life in order to better “more important” human life? Is it any surprise that we’ve reached a point where human life is cheap and anything goes when it comes to our behavior? We’re just a bunch of animals, right? That’s what Darwin says. So why not act like animals?
Ever since we began diminishing God’s role in the public square, our moral decline has followed suite. One can say there is a direct relationship. Less God means less morals. That sounds obvious, but mention it in debate and the Left has a conniption. They make up other reasons like: we don’t spend enough to help the poor, or the rich white man is responsible by manipulating others, or our prison system doesn’t do enough to rehabilitate, or child molesters need treatment not punishment, or it’s all because of global warming, or (my favorite) it’s our war-making tendency that drives our moral fiber down. They’ll use any reason under the stars, including the stars themselves, to explain why we’ve fallen. What they won’t admit is that maybe it’s because we’ve pushed God out to make room for our humanist pursuits.
As much as I’m concerned about the threat of Islamofascism, I don’t think that will bring down America. The threat is real and must be dealt with, but we could do it. We’ve done it before. No, the death of America will be from within, as a result of our own selfish pursuits and failure to acknowledge our duty to God, family and country. If we continue down the path we’re on, continue pushing God out and letting immoral behavior in, this country won’t survive.
Brother and sister fighting incest laws
Here are just two stories that can be seen in today’s headlines. I think they illustrate the obvious, something we all know but only a few are willing to admit. Humans, as a species, are declining morally. Time and again I’ve mentioned on this blog that we’ve become gluttons of freedom. Take a look around, starting with these headlines, and you’ll see what I mean. Freedom is good, but freedom without God leads to utter chaos. Have we reached that point yet?
Babies have become bartering tools. Siblings are fighting for the right to have sex with each other. Child molestation is being called a disease, not a crime. Human fetuses are valued more for their scientific “potential” than their humanity. Children are being neglected by their parents, and we see the results every day – school shootings, rising pregnancy rates, suicide, alcohol and drug abuse. We’ve simply become too selfish and self-involved to raise kids with the love and attention needed for healthy development. I could go on, but you get the point.
Liberals would say this is a problem that the government should fix. We should make laws, we should increase government funding, blah blah blah. I’ve said before, you can’t legislate morality and America – indeed the entire world – is facing a severe morality problem. The fact that we have to make more laws is a symptom of such a problem. But what would you expect from a society that teaches Darwinism – a theory that removes the sacred divinity from man? Or a society that advocates abortion on demand so women can basically have sex with men they don’t want to have children with? Or a society that advocates scientific research on human life in order to better “more important” human life? Is it any surprise that we’ve reached a point where human life is cheap and anything goes when it comes to our behavior? We’re just a bunch of animals, right? That’s what Darwin says. So why not act like animals?
Ever since we began diminishing God’s role in the public square, our moral decline has followed suite. One can say there is a direct relationship. Less God means less morals. That sounds obvious, but mention it in debate and the Left has a conniption. They make up other reasons like: we don’t spend enough to help the poor, or the rich white man is responsible by manipulating others, or our prison system doesn’t do enough to rehabilitate, or child molesters need treatment not punishment, or it’s all because of global warming, or (my favorite) it’s our war-making tendency that drives our moral fiber down. They’ll use any reason under the stars, including the stars themselves, to explain why we’ve fallen. What they won’t admit is that maybe it’s because we’ve pushed God out to make room for our humanist pursuits.
As much as I’m concerned about the threat of Islamofascism, I don’t think that will bring down America. The threat is real and must be dealt with, but we could do it. We’ve done it before. No, the death of America will be from within, as a result of our own selfish pursuits and failure to acknowledge our duty to God, family and country. If we continue down the path we’re on, continue pushing God out and letting immoral behavior in, this country won’t survive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)